Recently, Jon Stewart did his piece “I give up” on the fact that while the conservative political machine has been painting the public workers (like teachers and firemen) as the greedy ones who are bleeding the nation dry, in reality it is corporations like GE who are the problem because despite a $9B profit, GE paid $0 federal income tax and got a $3.2B tax benefit. Now, it is considered common or ‘folk’ knowledge that corporations exploit all kinds of tax loopholes and lobby heavily to ensure that tax laws leave open several such loopholes to be exploited by these corporations. So why are Stewart and other so-called pundits (including news organizations) ‘noticing’ this only now and then pretending to be salient critics of such incongruities while at the same time depending on, and profiting from, the very same incongruities.  This is a real conflict of interest! One that hasn’t been adequately explained. My discussion on Facebook yielded the following.

Acting as an apologist for Stewart and co, it may be argued that while they do not contribute anything for affecting a change or reform, at least they enlighten us on how we are being screwed over. Many times we already know of it, and at other times it is news. But through it all, at least we are laughing. Then again, isn’t it a little bit like Elle Driver reading to Budd “Sidewinder” about the effects of the venom of a Black Mamba, in Kill Bill Vol. 2, after the Black Mamba has bitten him?

Consider the following hypothesis: This country has been and continues to be run by corporations. The political parties and the politicians are simply the means by which the corporations accomplish this task. There is little by means of democracy or “the system” that can be done to change this fact. So the only way out is perhaps a revolution. And the existing power brokers want to ensure that it never happens. They do this by drugging the entire population, intellectually speaking, of course.

The population in question can be broadly classified as the “vulgar” (and by vulgar I mean “Of or associated with the great masses of people”) or the “intelligentsia“. The vulgar have the numbers and the ability to affect such a revolution, but they lack the knowledge and understanding to accomplish this; the intelligentsia, on the other hand, have the knowledge and the intellect to use the abilities of the vulgar to affect the revolution. So together, the population can make the change. But they will not, by design. And here’s why.

Glenn Beck, Bill O’Reilly, and others serve as the ”opiate of the vulgar” in ensuring that the masses focus their frustrations, anger, and action against all the wrong issues and attribute the problems to all the wrong reasons. Simultaneously, Stewart, Colbert, and others serve as the “opiate of the intelligentsia” by convincing their audience to simply resign to the status quo and not advocate for any change. Between the two, the existing power structures ensure perpetuation.

• Know the organization you are donating to: It is very important that you understand where your money is going. If you are particular about your money going to Haiti and Haiti alone, then consider donating to a Haiti-based organization (like Yele). However, realize that the odds are that the sum total of the money that is going to be donated will probably exceed what is necessary urgently, and so although your intention was for the money to go to Haiti, if you are ok with the funds being diverted to another humanitarian effort, then consider donating to globally operating organizations like the ones listed in Charity Navigator. Regardless of the type of charity you choose, ensure that they are in a position to make good use of your donations, ensure that they understand what the situation on the ground demands and that they are up to those demands.
• Do not donate to Haitian government: To the best of my knowledge, the government is no longer functioning, and even if it is, it is one of the most corrupt organizations you can donate to.
• Can you pay half now, half later?: Like I mentioned earlier, the knee jerk reaction of people is to donate to help in disaster relief. In fact, various countries and corporations are pouring vast sums of money into the disaster relief. But disaster relief is only half the battle for the people from Haiti. After relief has come in, and the earthquake and its immediate aftermath has passed, Haitians have to start the long painful process of rebuilding their lives and their nation. Where is the money for that going to come from? Not from the other countries, and definitely not from the corporations, its going to be from you, through your donations! So keep some money aside to donate for the rebuilding efforts. Haiti will need the money in a few months from now and lots of it. Let the big corporations and rich countries bear a large portion of the burden of disaster relief because they are willing and able to do so. You will have to bear the burden of rebuilding the nation because the rich countries and corporations are unwilling to.
• Avoid donating in kind (prefer donations in cash): It is tempting to donate in kind because cash can be misused and swindled, but food and clothing less so and is more likely to reach the victims. However, realize that the food you get at your local super market and/or grocery store is not necessarily what can be consumed by the victims of the disaster. Our food relies on a fairly robust infrastructure to survive transportation and storage. Remember that Haiti currently has no such infrastructure to speak of. Also, the cuisine we eat at home is not necessarily what is eaten by Haitians. As far as clothing goes: again, the clothing that you get locally is suitable for the weather, climate, and surroundings in your area, not necessarily useful in Haiti. So when donating, please avoid donating in kind, consider donating in cash.
• Do not donate with ‘strings attached’: In a situation as volatile as the Haiti earthquake, it is very difficult to determine what each component of disaster relief is going to cost, so it is very important for the volunteers/relief specialists on the ground to have the discretion to spend as the need arises. Please keep that in mind while donating. Please don’t donate for your money to be spent on (say) orphanages alone, or hospitals alone. This severely constrains the effectiveness of your donated funds.
• Do not donate too little to too many: This is donation for a disaster, its not your investment portfolio. For your donation to be effective choose a few organizations and donate the largest amount you can to those charities. This will ensure that your funds have a greater impact on both the ground, and the longevity of the organizations themselves.
• Donate now and donate often: Do this for two primary reasons: (a) Victims will need a lot of help in the years to come, please be there for them then, like you are there for them now, and (b) the organizations that are providing relief right now need to stay solvent and functioning to be an effective aid group, and the only way they can be that is through your support and donations.

There are just some of things you need to take care of when donating to disaster relief. For more info, go to Saundra Schimmelpfennig’s blog.

If you cannot donate large sums, then consider donating via text message: [Source: Haiti earthquake: How to help - Rachel Maddow Show, via Patrix]

Donating via text message:

• Text HAITI to 90999
  American
  Donates $10
• Text HAITI to 25383
  International Rescue Committee
  Donates $5
• Text HAITI to 52000
  Salvation Army
  Donates $10
• Text YELE to 501501
  Yéle
  Donates $5
• Text HAITI to 864833
  The United Way
  Donates $5
• Text CERF to 90999
  The United Nations Foundation
  Donates $5
• Text DISASTER to 90999
  Compassion International
• Text HAITI to 20222
  The Clinton Foundation
  Donates $10

The donated amount will be charged to your cell phone bill.

No, I am not going to make the same pedestrian arguments against such a ban that you have read/heard all over the place; ranging from ‘if they want to keep people from smoking, then they should ban cigarettes’, to ‘my nicotine habit is my business’. In fact, I think those arguments do not hold water, and I will demonstrate why.

Ban cigarettes… uh, no.

Consider the ‘ban the cigarettes instead’ argument. There have been widespread calls for banning alcohol since it is a social evil, and a similar argument is made for cigarettes as well. Cigarette cause severe health problems. Unhealthy youth put a strain on the society’s (rickety) health care system, and their unproductivity make them a liability to the rest of the society. Hence they should be banned. Well, actually no. because banning them will only drive them underground, and the society (and the government) will lose all regulatory control over them. Consequence is that now there is no way to regulate the processing of tobacco (since they are going to be processing it in some dingy backyard, there is a good chance they may be contaminated with some lethal chemical, like illegal arrack sometimes is); there is no way to control the sale to tobacco (one the most addictive substances known to man) to minors; there is no way to control the supply of tobacco, and hence no way to control people’s addiction to it.

It’s a victimless crime… uh, no.

Another argument is ‘it’s my body, and I can do what I want with it’. Well, while that argument may apply to drug abuse, it does not apply to smoking. Why? Because there is such a thing called second-hand smoke. Even if you are a smoker in a den of smokers, you have no right to damage the health of another smoker through your second-hand smoke. Every smoker’s lung cancer is her/her own business, and no one else has the right to expedite that.

Smoking increases health care costs… uh, no.

Third argument is ‘smoking increases the health cost, and puts strain on the health care system’.  If you look at this study in the New England Journal of Medicine, it’s conclusion is:

Conclusions If people stopped smoking, there would be a savings in health care costs, but only in the short term. Eventually, smoking cessation would lead to increased health care costs.

So there you have it! The whole lower health care costs argument is dubious as well. Then what does this mean? It simply means that banning cigarettes is not the smartest idea.

Now coming to the actual smoking ban going into effect from October 2nd: it wont help either. Why? Because of many reasons:

1. Air Quality: If people are forced to smoke outside, it will affect the air quality around all work places. So not only are the smokers at risk, so are all employees, visitors, and bystanders.
2. Ascetics: Smoking outside means more cigarette butts outside, which affects the ascetics of the common places like roads (assuming they were clean to begin with) and sidewalks (assuming they exist). Now you have the increased costs to keeping them clean, and not to mention the stink of burnt cigarette butts.
3. Accountability and responsibility: Requiring the employers to provide facilities for smoking, and have mechanism to ensure that they do NOT affect the air quality (with special filters on ventilators to absorb cigarette smoke), will induce a sense of responsibility and accountability to the employers, thus incentivize them to encourage non-smoking. On the other hand, with the new smoking ban, employers no longer have to bear the burden of having smokers in their staff, all the burden now shifts to the state because all the employer has to do is say smoking is banned indoors, but you can go outside to smoke. If you want to keep people from smoking you need to include as many stakeholders as possible, and this ban just lost the employers as stakeholders!
4. Accessibility: One way to disincentivize smokers is make cigarettes less accessible (by controlling the price and distribution). With this ban, I can see more office buildings sporting cigarette hawkers outside offering cigarettes to smokers, who have little choice but to come out to smoke. Now this only serve to enable the smokers some more, rather than curb the practice.

Besides, if you want to control the amount of smoking people do, the only way you can do it is to control the supply and distribution of cigarettes and invest more on education, prevention, and rehabilitation program. Introducing a ban on indoor smoking simply wont do any of that, and fails to address the root cause of the issue to begin with.

Fact: India is fast becoming the global epicenter for AIDS. Fact: HIV is sexually transmitted. Fact: India has a population exceeding 1 Billion. Fact: The rise is India’s population is due to lack to awareness about sex and family planning.

This simply means that an effective sex education component is essential to any solution that attempts to address the issue of population and the AIDS epidemic. But this component has now been rendered ineffective due to the dilution of the content in the proposed sex education manual.
For instance, they “deleted all images and learning modules that states had found too explicit and too graphic”, use of the phrase “sexual intercourse” has been drastically reduced, the flip charts used to explain about HIV/AIDS has been omitted because it was found to be culturally insensitive, and so on.

What surprises me is that no one bothered to ask the question: “What will this manual achieve?” One of biggest reasons for spread of HIV/AIDS is unprotected sex. If there is no focus on sex itself, then what good is this manual? Of course, lets not even talk about homosexuality. The manual cannot contain anything about homosexuality because Indians can never be gay. So much for trying to combat the spread of HIV/AIDS! Whether you like it or not, there is an increasing trend of younger people experimenting with sex, and even being promiscuous. This is trend is not going to change by simply wishing it. The effort has to be to educate the younger crowd about it. Bring the issue out in the open, and teach them to be responsible about it. But, of course, it is culturally insensitive to talk about sex. And so, what we have is a ticking time bomb in our hands.

There are many reasons why India needs an effective sex education programme. Yes, it will mean breaking tradition, it will mean forcing people out of their comfort zone, it will mean confronting some less than desirable truths about your children and your society. But if we do not do it now, we may never be able to! It has taken a lot of lobbying and effort to get the green signal for an sex ed. program. We now have a great opportunity at getting it right the first time. Making amendments later will be very difficult. I am afraid, that by the time the society realizes its folly, it may be too late.

Morality vs. Legality

The corner stone of Narayanan’s argument is the following: “The point is that drug consumption is NOT right”, and hence has to be illegal. My understanding of the argument is that recreational drugs are immoral, and hence have to be illegal, regardless of unfavorable economics. While that line of reasoning sound, its application for this case, in my opinion, is not. I question the premise that recreational drugs is immoral. I do not base this on the victimless crime argument, nor on the personal freedom argument. It is based on something entirely different.

During world war II, American farmers were encouraged to grow hemp for the war, and after world-war hemp was banned because it has the same psychoactive ingredient as marijuana (a fact which was known for a long time). So growing hemp was legal (and moral) before the end of world war II, and after it was made illegal, it has suddenly become immoral. This is just one example of how (im)morality of drugs actually follows its (il)legality, and is not the other way ’round.

Going back Narayanan’s post, it can be argued that drugs are considered ‘NOT right’ simply because they have been made illegal. That also explains why Hindu have been sadhus using marijuana for hundreds of years now, and that hasn’t been considered immoral (until now). In fact, the same argument holds for practices like sati. Up until the time sati was banned, only a minority considered it immoral. After it was banned, the immorality of sati was a universal opinion. So this opens up the possibility that legalizing drugs might make its use moral after all.

All drugs are not the same

Another argument Narayanan makes is that drugs are more injurious (than cigarette and alcohol), and hence should be illegal. The critical failure in this argument is that all recreation drugs are assumes to be equally harmful, and hence should be made illegal. Unfortunately, its far from the truth. Recreational drugs can be loosely categorized as hard drugs, and soft drugs. In general terms (at the risk of oversimplification), hard drugs are more harmful than soft drugs. In fact, soft drugs like Marijuana, Hashish, and opiates were found to be less harmful than cigarettes and alcohol. Even surprising that coffee was found to be more addictive than marijuana, hashish, and psychoactive mushrooms! So the argument that drugs all bad just doesn’t hold water. If we talking about hard drugs, then its a different debate altogether (so lets not go there, not in this post).

Economic Viability

Narayanan makes an argument that the economic viability of drug laws cannot be a reason for legalizing it. A legitimate statement, but a misapplied argument. This argument was supposed to be a rebuttal of Jug Suraiya’s argument that drugs are not a moral issue, but an economic issue. But Jug Suraiya’s point was that recreational drugs are illegal (despite its widespread use) is that the large demand for drugs has driven the trade into the hands of underworld mafia. The nexus among law enforcement personnel, politicians, and mafia makes it profitable for law enforcement and law making officials to maintain the status quo of criminalizing drugs. Note the subtlety in the argument. The argument does NOT say that drugs should be legalized because it is too expensive to enforce existing laws and that there is money to be paid. The argument is that the reason why drugs are still illegal is that law enforcement agencies and law makers have a lot to gain (economically) by keeping drugs illegal. An entirely different argument which hasn’t been rebutted at all!

So from what I can make of it, Narayanan’s arguments are more an attempt at justifying one’s prejudice against drugs, and not than an exercise in interrogating Jug Suraiya’s arguments.

For starts, the case itself was resolved in a somewhat shady manner. The judge required that the jury merely conclude whether or not the music files were made available for sharing. There was no requirement to prove that the files were actually copied illegally. This is like having to pay a hefty sum for leaving your CD out in public for anyone to copy. How can I be held responsible for what someone else does with my CD? I have no control over that! I am not saying Jaimme Thomas is innocent, but I am arguing that she has not been proven guilty. That in my opinion makes all the difference.

Secondly, there is no way for the recording industry to put any figure on how much money they are losing due to illegal file sharing. So I cannot understand what the basis of the figure $220K which was arrived at. Typically such fines serve two purposes: (a) they serve as a deterrent for against the crime, and (b) compensate the aggrieved party adequately. This fine does neither.

Jaimme Thomas makes $36,000 a year. It will take her over 8 years to pay that sum if she subsists on food stamps, sells her kidney, puts her kids up for adoption and lives under the bridge. Practically speaking, if she is forced to pay the fine, she will have to declare bankruptcy. Hardly fitting punishment for the crime! If over-reaction works, then why not send everyone to the gallows?

Secondly, when the RIAA has no idea how much money it loses to illegal file sharing, and does not know if the the files in question in this case were shared or not, then on what basis can anyone state that the RIAA has been adequately compensated? Especially if the files were never illegally downloaded at all!

If RIAA continues this war path, it will only serve to make people more militant, and serve to detract artists from the recording labels. The internet is serving to be a great equalizer. Artists can now sell their music independently on the internet through sites like Myspace.

So where is RIAA going with this? I suspect to their own demise, or at the least to a self inflicted embarrassment.

Given that they are so old, our beloved George W. Bush seems to have decided that the First Amendment is too antiquated to be relevant anymore, and so has gone about with alacrity to dismantle it. The most infamous effort being what is called as the Patriot Act.

The Patriot Act, essentially suspended individual’s Habeas Corpus, and allowed the government unrestricted access to any and all records (including private ones) without a warrant. The government could now arrest people without charges and detain them indefinitely. This effectively dismantled the freedom guaranteed by the constitution to the individual.

We have all seen the pictures from Gitmo and other secret prison that caused outrage among the people who still cared about freedom and liberty. But it never quite touched home, in the sense that it was something that happened to suspected terrorists, the Arabs, the Muslims, the people who were not like the average white, Christian male.

That barrier has now been broken. Best seen in what happened on Sept 16th at the University of Florida.

Looks like the law enforcement is now cracking down on anyone who dares to speak their mind. Think twice the next time you ask an unusual question; you might just get tased.