Chris Anderson Interviews Julian Assange
25 July, 2010
Ted.com
WikiLeaks collects and posts highly classified documents and video. Founder Julian Assange, who's reportedly being sought for questioning by US authorities, talks to TED's Chris Anderson about how the site operates, what it has accomplished -- and what drives him. The interview includes graphic footage of a recent US airstrike in Baghdad.
Internet activist Julian Assange serves as spokesperson for WikiLeaks, a controversial, volunteer-driven website that publishes and comments on leaked documents alleging government and corporate misconduct.
Why you should listen to him:
You could say Australian-born Julian Assange has swapped his long-time interest in network security flaws for the far-more-suspect flaws of even bigger targets: governments and corporations. Since his early 20s, he has been using network technology to prod and probe the vulnerable edges of administrative systems, but though he was a computing hobbyist first (in 1991 he was the target of hacking charges after he accessed the computers of an Australian telecom), he's now taken off his "white hat" and launched a career as one of the world's most visible human-rights activists.
He calls himself "editor in chief." He travels the globe as its spokesperson. Yet Assange's part in WikiLeaks is clearly dicier than that: he's become the face of creature that, simply, many powerful organizations would rather see the world rid of. His Wikipedia entry says he is "constantly on the move," and some speculate that his role in publishing decrypted US military video has put him in personal danger. A controversial figure, pundits debate whether his work is reckless and does more harm than good. Amnesty International recognized him with an International Media Award in 2009.
Assange studied physics and mathematics at the University of Melbourne. He wrote Strobe, the first free and open-source port scanner, and contributed to the book Underground: Tales of Hacking, Madness and Obsession on the Electronic Frontier.
Transcript
Chris Anderson: Julian, welcome. It's been reported that WikiLeaks, your baby, has ... in the last few years has released more classified documents than the rest of the world's media combined. Can that possibly be true?
Julian Assange: Yeah, can it possibly be true? It's a worry -- isn't it? -- that the rest of the world's media is doing such a bad job that a little group of activists is able to release more of that type of information than the rest of the world press combined.
CA: How does it work? How do people release the documents? And how do you secure their privacy?
JA: So these are -- as far as we can tell -- classical whistleblowers. And we have a number of ways for them to get information to us. So we use just state-of-the-art encryption to bounce stuff around the Internet, to hide trails, pass it through legal jurisdictions like Sweden and Belgium to enact those legal protections. We get information in the mail, the regular postal mail, encrypted or not, vet it like a regular news organization, format it -- which is sometimes something that's quite hard to do, when you're talking about giant databases of information -- release it to the public and then defend ourselves against the inevitable legal and political attacks.
CA: So you make an effort to ensure the documents are legitimate. But you actually almost never know who the identity of the source is.
JA: That's right, yeah. Very rarely do we ever know. And if we find out at some stage then we destroy that information as soon as possible. (Phone ring) God damn it.
(Laughter)
CA: I think that's the CIA asking what the code is for a TED membership.
(Laughter)
So let's take the example, actually. This is something you leaked a few years ago. If we can have this document up ... So this was a story in Kenya a few years ago. Can you tell us what you leaked and what happened?
JA: So this is the Kroll Report. This was a secret intelligence report commissioned by the Kenyan government after its election in 2004. Prior to 2004, Kenya was ruled by Daniel arap Moi for about 18 years. He was a soft dictator of Kenya. And when Kibaki got into power -- through a coalition of forces that were trying to clean up corruption in Kenya -- they commissioned this report, spent about two million pounds on this and an associated report. And then the government sat on it and used it for political leverage on Moi, who was the richest man -- still is the richest man -- in Kenya. It's the Holy Grail of Kenyan journalism. So I went there in 2007, and we managed to get hold of this just prior to the election -- the national election, December 28. When we released that report, we did so three days after the new president, Kibaki, had decided to pal up with the man that he was going to clean out, Daniel arap Moi. So this report then became a dead albatross around president Kibaki's neck.
CA: And -- I mean, to cut a long story short -- word of the report leaked into Kenya, not from the official media, but indirectly. And in your opinion, it actually shifted the election. JA: Yeah. So this became front page of the Guardian and was then printed in all the surrounding countries of Kenya, in Tanzanian and South African press. And so it came in from the outside. And that, after a couple of days, made the Kenyan press feel safe to talk about it. And it ran for 20 nights straight on Kenyan TV, shifted the vote by 10 percent, according to a Kenyan intelligence report, which changed the result of the election.
CA: Wow, so your leak really substantially changed the world?
JA: Yep.
(Applause)
CA: Here's -- We're going to just show a short clip from this Baghdad airstrike video. The video itself is longer. But here's a short clip. This is -- this is intense material, I should warn you.
Radio: ... just fuckin', once you get on 'em just open 'em up. I see your element, uh, got about four Humvees, uh, out along ... You're clear. All right. Firing. Let me know when you've got them. Let's shoot. Light 'em all up. C'mon, fire! (Machine gun fire) Keep shoot 'n. Keep shoot 'n. (Machine gun fire) Keep shoot 'n. Hotel ... Bushmaster Two-Six, Bushmaster Two-Six, we need to move, time now! All right, we just engaged all eight individuals. Yeah, we see two birds, and we're still firing. Roger. I got 'em. Two-Six, this is Two-Six, we're mobile. Oops, I'm sorry. What was going on? God damn it, Kyle. All right, hahaha. I hit 'em.
CA: So, what was the impact of that?
JA: The impact on the people who worked on it was severe. We ended up sending two people to Baghdad to further research that story. So this is just the first of three attacks that occurred in that scene.
CA: So, I mean, 11 people died in that attack, right, including two Reuters employees?
JA: Yeah. Two Reuters employees, two young children were wounded. There were between 18 and 26 people killed all together.
CA: And releasing this caused widespread outrage. What was the key element of this that actually caused the outrage, do you think?
JA: I don't know, I guess people can see the gross disparity in force. You have guys walking in a relaxed way down the street, and then an Apache helicopter sitting up in one corner firing 30-millimeter cannon shells on everyone -- looking for any excuse to do so -- and killing people rescuing the wounded. And there was two journalists involved that clearly weren't insurgents because that's their full-time job.
CA: I mean, there's been this U.S. intelligence analyst, Bradley Manning, arrested. And it's alleged that he confessed in a chat room to have leaked this video to you, along with 280,000 classified U.S. embassy cables. I mean, did he?
JA: Well, we have denied receiving those cables. He has been charged, about five days ago, with obtaining 150,000 cables and releasing 50. Now, we had released early in the year a cable from the Reykjavik U.S. embassy. But this is not necessarily connected. I mean, I was a known visitor of that embassy.
CA: I mean, if you did receive thousands of U.S. embassy diplomatic cables ...
JA: We would have released them. (CA: You would?)
JA: Yeah. (CA: Because?)
JA: Well, because these sort of things reveal what the true state of, say, Arab governments are like, the true human-rights abuses in those governments. If you look at declassified cables, that's the sort of material that's there.
CA: So let's talk a little more broadly about this. I mean, in general, what's your philosophy? Why is it right to encourage leaking of secret information?
JA: Well, there's a question as to what sort of information is important in the world, what sort of information can achieve reform. And there's a lot of information. So information that organizations are spending economic effort into concealing, that's a really good signal that when the information gets out, there's a hope of it doing some good. Because the organizations that know it best, that know it from the inside out, are spending work to conceal it. And that's what we've found in practice. And that's what the history of journalism is.
CA: But are there risks with that, either to the individuals concerned or indeed to society at large, where leaking can actually have an unintended consequence?
JA: Not that we have seen with anything we have released. I mean, we have a harm immunization policy. We have a way of dealing with information that has sort of personal -- personally identifying information in it. But there are legitimate secrets -- you know, your records with your doctor; that's a legitimate secret. But we deal with whistleblowers that are coming forward that are really sort of well motivated.
CA: So they are well-motivated. And what would you say to, for example, the, you know, the parent of someone -- whose son is out serving the U.S. military, and he says, "You know what, you've put up something that someone had an incentive to put out. It shows a U.S. soldier laughing at people dying. That gives the impression -- has given the impression to millions of people around the world that U.S. soldiers are inhuman people. Actually, they're not. My son isn't. How dare you?" What would you say to that?
JA: Yeah, we do get a lot of that. But remember, the people in Baghdad, the people in Iraq, the people in Afghanistan -- they don't need to see the video; they see it every day. So it's not going to change their opinion. It's not going to change their perception. That's what they see every day. It will change the perception and opinion of the people who are paying for it all. And that's our hope.
CA: So you found a way to shine light into what you see as these sort of dark secrets in companies and in government. Light is good. But do you see any irony in the fact that, in order for you to shine that light, you have to, yourself, create secrecy around your sources?
JA: Not really. I mean, we don't have any WikiLeaks dissidents yet. We don't have sources who are dissidents on other sources. Should they come forward, that would be a tricky situation for us. But we're presumably acting in such a way that people feel morally compelled to continue our mission, not to screw it up.
CA: I'd actually be interested, just based on what we've heard so far -- I'm curious as to the opinion in the TED audience. You know, there might be a couple of views of WikiLeaks and of Julian. You know, hero -- people's hero -- bringing this important light. Dangerous troublemaker. Who's got the hero view? Who's got the dangerous troublemaker view?
JA: Oh, come on. There must be some.
CA: It's a soft crowd, Julian, a soft crowd. We have to try better. Let's show them another example. Now here's something that you haven't yet leaked, but I think for TED you are. I mean it's an intriguing story that's just happened, right. What is this?
JA: So this is a sample of what we do sort of every day. So late last year -- in November last year -- there was a series of well blowouts in Albania like the well blowout in the Gulf of Mexico, but not quite as big. And we got a report -- a sort of engineering analysis into what happened -- saying that, in fact, security guards from some rival, various competing oil firms had, in fact, parked trucks there and blown them up. And part of the Albanian government was in this, etc., etc. And the engineering report had nothing on the top of it. So it was an extremely difficult document for us. We couldn't verify it because we didn't know who wrote it and knew what it was about. So we were kind of skeptical that maybe it was a competing oil firm just sort of playing the issue up. So under that basis, we put it out an said, "Look, we're skeptical about this thing. We don't know, but what can we do? The material looks good, it feels right, but we just can't verify it." And we then got a letter just this week from the company who wrote it, wanting to track down the source -- (Laughter) saying, "Hey, we want to track down the source." And we were like, "Oh, tell us more. What document, precisely, is it you're talking about? Can you show that you had legal authority over that document? Is it really yours?" So they sent us this screen shot with the author in the Microsoft Word ID. Yeah. (Applause) That's happened quite a lot though. This is like one of our methods of identifying -- of verifying what a material is, is to try and get these guys to write letters.
CA: Yeah. Have you had information from inside BP.
JA: Yeah, we have a lot, but I mean, at the moment, we are undergoing a sort of serious fundraising and engineering effort. So our publication rate over the past few months has been sort of minimized while we're re-engineering our back systems for the phenomenal public interest that we have. That's a problem. I mean, like any sort of growing startup organization, we are sort of overwhelmed by our growth. And that means we're getting enormous quantity of whistleblower disclosures of a very high caliber, but don't have enough people to actually process and vet this information.
CA: So that's the key bottleneck, basically journalistic volunteers and/or the funding of journalistic salaries?
JA: Yep. Yeah, and trusted people. I mean, we're an organization that is hard to grow very quickly because of the sort of material we deal with. So we have to restructure in order to have people who will deal with the highest national security stuff, and then lower security cases.
CA: So help us understand about you personally and how you came to do this. And I think I read that as a kid you went to 37 different schools. Can that be right?
JA: Well, my parents were in the movie business and then on the run from a cult, so the combination between the two ...
(Laughter)
CA: I mean, a psychologist might say that's a recipe for breeding paranoia.
JA: What, the movie business?
(Laughter)
(Applause)
CA: And you were also -- I mean, you were also a hacker at an early age and ran into the authorities early on. JA: Well, I was a journalist. You know, I was a very young journalist activist at an early age. I wrote a magazine, was prosecuted for it when I was a teenager. So you have to be careful with hacker. I mean there's like -- there's a method that can be deployed for various things. Unfortunately, at the moment, it's mostly deployed by the Russian mafia in order to steal your grandmother's bank accounts. So this phrase is not -- not as nice as it used to be.
CA: Yeah, well, I certainly don't think you're stealing anyone's grandmother's bank account. But what about your core values? Can you give us a sense of what they are and maybe some incident in your life that helped determine them?
JA: I'm not sure about the incident. But the core values: well, capable, generous men do not create victims; they nurture victims. And that's something from my father and something from other capable, generous men that have been in my life.
CA: Capable, generous men do not create victims; they nurture victims?
JA: Yeah. And you know, I'm a combative person, so I'm not actually sort of big on the nurture. But some way -- There is another way of nurturing victims, which is to police perpetrators of crime. And so that is something that has been in my character for a long time.
CA: So just tell us, very quickly in the last minute, the story: what happened in Iceland? You basically published something there, ran into trouble with a bank, then the news service there was injuncted from running the story. Instead, they publicized your side. That made you very high-profile in Iceland. What happened next?
JA: Yeah, this is a great case, you know. Iceland went through this financial crisis. It was the hardest hit of any country in the world. Its banking sector was 10 times the GDP of the rest of the economy. Anyway, so we release this report in July last year. And the national TV station was injuncted five minutes before it went on air. Like out of a movie, injunction landed on the news desk, and the news reader was like, "This has never happened before. What do we do?" Well, we just show the website instead, for all that time, as a filler. And we became very famous in Iceland, went to Iceland and spoke about this issue. And there was a feeling in the community that that should never happen again. And as a result, working with some Icelandic politicians and some other international legal experts, we put together a new sort of package of legislation for Iceland to sort of become an offshore haven for the free press, with the strongest journalistic protections in the world, with a new Nobel Prize for freedom of speech. Iceland's a Nordic country so, like Norway, it's able to tap into the system. And just a month ago, this was passed by the Icelandic parliament unanimously.
CA: Wow.
(Applause)
Last question, Julian. When you think of the future then, do you think it's more likely to be Big Brother exerting more control, more secrecy, or us watching Big Brother, or it's just all to be played for either way?
JA: I'm not sure which way it's going to go. I mean there's enormous pressures to harmonize freedom of speech legislation and transparency legislation around the world -- within the E.U., between China and the United States. Which way is it going to go? It's hard to see. That's why it's a very interesting time to be in. Because with just a little bit of effort we can shift it one way or the other.
CA: Well, it looks like I'm reflecting the audience's opinion to say, Julian, be careful and all power to you.
JA: Thank you, Chris. (CA: Thank you.)
(Applause)
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Sunday, July 25, 2010
Are we fit to be Teachers? - Arindam Chaudhuri
PHYSICAL PUNISHMENT IN SCHOOLS LEADING TO DEATHS AND SUICIDES… ARE WE FIT TO BE TEACHERS?
When I was growing up in one of the better schools of Delhi, it was most common to see teachers slapping students. Scales being broken on our knuckles was as common a sight too, and as early as in class fifth, though luckily I always escaped. When I reached class sixth, I wasn’t that lucky. In one of the sculpture classes, an assistant came around and with his hard hands, slapped me hard on my head, because in all my creative excitement, I was engaged in talking to my friend Partho Saha, who was someone I looked up to when it came to creativity (I still do; and today he heads most of our technology projects at Planman, along with being a Dean at IIPM). I was furious. I wanted to hit back. I controlled myself, but went back home and told my father that he must do something about it. He was from the same school of thought as mine – rather, I had inherited his points of view. So the next day, my father took me to the principal of our school – a legendary name in education those days, R S Lugani – and told him that physical punishment is not what he would allow his son to go through in school.
So after discussions, it was decided that I would from then on carry a letter in my pocket, which mentioned that if any teacher had a problem with me, it could be written down and subsequently sent to my father, but the teachers couldn’t hit me. And the letter bore a stamp of the Principal’s office. I think it was the most unique exception that our principal had ever made. And from thereon, till I passed out of school, no teacher could ever physically hit me! (Incidentally, my grandfather too had obtained a similar letter for my father during his school days, which allowed my father to escape all kinds of physical punishment). However, like I mentioned, this was an exceptional case. The reality was that students were getting beaten up regularly almost by all male teachers and by a third of female teachers. The solace that students used to find was from the one or two good words these rank bad and rude teachers used to tell them. And thus the word used to spread about specific teachers, that they beat students up – mercilessly at that – but had a very kind heart. I found it sickening. So much so that when I got promoted to class eleventh and took up the commerce stream, there was a teacher who was known for keeping hockey sticks in his room and beating students up with them. But again, the word was that he otherwise had a very kind heart!
The truth is that by hitting anyone – especially a child in school – we only display our lack of education. We display the fact that we aren’t fit to be teachers in the first place. Because if we want a world where peace stands a chance, where road rage doesn’t happen and where people are more tolerant and loving towards each other, we have got to show peace, love and tolerance from the very beginning to all our children in schools. We have to see to it that they grow up seeing no violence.
In my sixteen years of experience as a teacher, I can say very confidently that there can be absolutely no reason for which a teacher is required to physically punish a student inside a classroom or in front of others. If a teacher is good, and committed to teaching – and not churning out mechanical morons who mug up topics – he enjoys the process so much that even for students, it becomes akin to recreation. Learning becomes fun and the question of forcing any student doesn’t arise. In fact, in IIPM, when any teacher comes and complains that some particular section of students is uncontrollable and bad, I drop the teacher. Because it’s my firm belief that no, absolutely no student is bad. Those are teachers who are bad, boring and less passionate about changing lives. So they don’t teach well; and students therefore are not attentive. Finally, the teachers blame the students.
It’s not a student’s responsibility to enter a classroom and be attentive and learn. It’s a teacher’s responsibility to make the student feel interested in the class and make him feel that it is a life changing experience. Only then will students attend classes. And if that’s not the case, then in fact students shouldn’t attend classes. So a good teacher never has student problems. Only bad teachers have. And they use physical punishment as a shortcut force to make students attentive. But the human nature unfortunately is such, that physical punishment in childhood never helps. It gives rise to mainly two kinds of people. One, those who get used to it and don’t care and become all the more adamant. And the other, whose personalities get deformed due to the fear of punishment – such students may become more obedient but their personalities are ruined forever.
Therefore, we need serious laws in the country which completely rule out the use of physical punishment in school. A school’s job is to change lives and not to ruin them. Yes, there are kids who come from dysfunctional families, who get beaten up at home and have a nature that is oft en very negative. A teacher’s job is to have the ability to change such a nature. And there are scores of examples where great individual teachers have changed the most hardened of negative souls. That’s what a teacher is about. Yes, if the teacher is not trained well enough to change the students, and the student is a menace, then the teacher can at worst hand the student over to his parents or law enforcers. But a teacher is no police and should have absolutely no legal right to physically hit children. And no parent must allow their children to be hit in school. They must have a great level of communication with their children so that they share freely and tell what’s happening with them in school.
We all must realize that a good teacher is that teacher who believes his job is to make better human beings through the education he imparts – be it literature, history or science. He is that person who believes that his job is to make students believe that the learning inside the class will change their lives and make them better persons. A teacher should be a person who is so passionate about this that he innovates ways to make his classes so interesting that students don’t find it a burden and enjoy the same. Such a teacher is one for whom punishment is not an option at all – the only option is good and passionate teaching. And the only religion for such a teacher is an obsession to make the boy sitting in the front row of the class understand his teachings as well as the boy sitting in the last row of the class – regardless of their intellect, IQ, past interest in the subject or upbringing. That’s what good teaching is about. That’s what creating miracles in the classrooms is about. That’s what I must add IIPM is about.
When I was growing up in one of the better schools of Delhi, it was most common to see teachers slapping students. Scales being broken on our knuckles was as common a sight too, and as early as in class fifth, though luckily I always escaped. When I reached class sixth, I wasn’t that lucky. In one of the sculpture classes, an assistant came around and with his hard hands, slapped me hard on my head, because in all my creative excitement, I was engaged in talking to my friend Partho Saha, who was someone I looked up to when it came to creativity (I still do; and today he heads most of our technology projects at Planman, along with being a Dean at IIPM). I was furious. I wanted to hit back. I controlled myself, but went back home and told my father that he must do something about it. He was from the same school of thought as mine – rather, I had inherited his points of view. So the next day, my father took me to the principal of our school – a legendary name in education those days, R S Lugani – and told him that physical punishment is not what he would allow his son to go through in school.
So after discussions, it was decided that I would from then on carry a letter in my pocket, which mentioned that if any teacher had a problem with me, it could be written down and subsequently sent to my father, but the teachers couldn’t hit me. And the letter bore a stamp of the Principal’s office. I think it was the most unique exception that our principal had ever made. And from thereon, till I passed out of school, no teacher could ever physically hit me! (Incidentally, my grandfather too had obtained a similar letter for my father during his school days, which allowed my father to escape all kinds of physical punishment). However, like I mentioned, this was an exceptional case. The reality was that students were getting beaten up regularly almost by all male teachers and by a third of female teachers. The solace that students used to find was from the one or two good words these rank bad and rude teachers used to tell them. And thus the word used to spread about specific teachers, that they beat students up – mercilessly at that – but had a very kind heart. I found it sickening. So much so that when I got promoted to class eleventh and took up the commerce stream, there was a teacher who was known for keeping hockey sticks in his room and beating students up with them. But again, the word was that he otherwise had a very kind heart!
The truth is that by hitting anyone – especially a child in school – we only display our lack of education. We display the fact that we aren’t fit to be teachers in the first place. Because if we want a world where peace stands a chance, where road rage doesn’t happen and where people are more tolerant and loving towards each other, we have got to show peace, love and tolerance from the very beginning to all our children in schools. We have to see to it that they grow up seeing no violence.
In my sixteen years of experience as a teacher, I can say very confidently that there can be absolutely no reason for which a teacher is required to physically punish a student inside a classroom or in front of others. If a teacher is good, and committed to teaching – and not churning out mechanical morons who mug up topics – he enjoys the process so much that even for students, it becomes akin to recreation. Learning becomes fun and the question of forcing any student doesn’t arise. In fact, in IIPM, when any teacher comes and complains that some particular section of students is uncontrollable and bad, I drop the teacher. Because it’s my firm belief that no, absolutely no student is bad. Those are teachers who are bad, boring and less passionate about changing lives. So they don’t teach well; and students therefore are not attentive. Finally, the teachers blame the students.
It’s not a student’s responsibility to enter a classroom and be attentive and learn. It’s a teacher’s responsibility to make the student feel interested in the class and make him feel that it is a life changing experience. Only then will students attend classes. And if that’s not the case, then in fact students shouldn’t attend classes. So a good teacher never has student problems. Only bad teachers have. And they use physical punishment as a shortcut force to make students attentive. But the human nature unfortunately is such, that physical punishment in childhood never helps. It gives rise to mainly two kinds of people. One, those who get used to it and don’t care and become all the more adamant. And the other, whose personalities get deformed due to the fear of punishment – such students may become more obedient but their personalities are ruined forever.
Therefore, we need serious laws in the country which completely rule out the use of physical punishment in school. A school’s job is to change lives and not to ruin them. Yes, there are kids who come from dysfunctional families, who get beaten up at home and have a nature that is oft en very negative. A teacher’s job is to have the ability to change such a nature. And there are scores of examples where great individual teachers have changed the most hardened of negative souls. That’s what a teacher is about. Yes, if the teacher is not trained well enough to change the students, and the student is a menace, then the teacher can at worst hand the student over to his parents or law enforcers. But a teacher is no police and should have absolutely no legal right to physically hit children. And no parent must allow their children to be hit in school. They must have a great level of communication with their children so that they share freely and tell what’s happening with them in school.
We all must realize that a good teacher is that teacher who believes his job is to make better human beings through the education he imparts – be it literature, history or science. He is that person who believes that his job is to make students believe that the learning inside the class will change their lives and make them better persons. A teacher should be a person who is so passionate about this that he innovates ways to make his classes so interesting that students don’t find it a burden and enjoy the same. Such a teacher is one for whom punishment is not an option at all – the only option is good and passionate teaching. And the only religion for such a teacher is an obsession to make the boy sitting in the front row of the class understand his teachings as well as the boy sitting in the last row of the class – regardless of their intellect, IQ, past interest in the subject or upbringing. That’s what good teaching is about. That’s what creating miracles in the classrooms is about. That’s what I must add IIPM is about.
Sunday, June 27, 2010
Can't you conserve a bucket of water?
Y. Phanindra
Water is being used as if it is a never-ending source. Obviously, we cannot decide how much rain we will get, nor can we predict to a good degree of accuracy when would rain occur. The only thing we can do to save ourselves from the dangerous situation of “lack of water to drink while we are thirsty” is to conserve water.
Let us ask ourselves how much water is wasted when we brush our teeth due to the non-stop flow from the tap? Water is also excessively used, rather wasted, while washing clothes and cleaning dishes. Flushing the toilet sometimes excessively when just two mugs of water is sufficient — which of course is a sign of laziness — is another cause of water loss. If just one person wastes so much water, we can well imagine the amount wasted by a family, a town, a city, nay, an entire nation.
Most of us know about these things. Knowing is one thing but realising it and taking steps to remedy the situation is crucial. We can impart the message of conservation to our children in school; the alarming decline in water resources and the ever-increasing need for the precious life giving liquid should be taught to the younger generation today so it will become responsible citizenry tomorrow.
That apart, what can we do? If we are really serious about the situation, we should act now. All of us can all conserve at least a bucket of water everyday if we are prudent in using the scarce resource. Please remember, a bucket of water saved by every individual everyday in our country of billion-plus means enormous.
We may become richer if we have a lot of gold reserves, but we will die if we don't have water. In olden times, people used to say that a person is spending money like water when he is spending too much.
If we continue in that fashion, the situation may get reversed. We need to create a situation where a person will spend water like money. A country with more water reserves will be richer than one which has more money. And India, where agriculture is the primary occupation for many people, water conservation is a must.
A bucket of water saved by everyone means a lot for our billion-plus population.
Source:http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-features/tp-openpage/article487999.ece
Water is being used as if it is a never-ending source. Obviously, we cannot decide how much rain we will get, nor can we predict to a good degree of accuracy when would rain occur. The only thing we can do to save ourselves from the dangerous situation of “lack of water to drink while we are thirsty” is to conserve water.
Let us ask ourselves how much water is wasted when we brush our teeth due to the non-stop flow from the tap? Water is also excessively used, rather wasted, while washing clothes and cleaning dishes. Flushing the toilet sometimes excessively when just two mugs of water is sufficient — which of course is a sign of laziness — is another cause of water loss. If just one person wastes so much water, we can well imagine the amount wasted by a family, a town, a city, nay, an entire nation.
Most of us know about these things. Knowing is one thing but realising it and taking steps to remedy the situation is crucial. We can impart the message of conservation to our children in school; the alarming decline in water resources and the ever-increasing need for the precious life giving liquid should be taught to the younger generation today so it will become responsible citizenry tomorrow.
That apart, what can we do? If we are really serious about the situation, we should act now. All of us can all conserve at least a bucket of water everyday if we are prudent in using the scarce resource. Please remember, a bucket of water saved by every individual everyday in our country of billion-plus means enormous.
We may become richer if we have a lot of gold reserves, but we will die if we don't have water. In olden times, people used to say that a person is spending money like water when he is spending too much.
If we continue in that fashion, the situation may get reversed. We need to create a situation where a person will spend water like money. A country with more water reserves will be richer than one which has more money. And India, where agriculture is the primary occupation for many people, water conservation is a must.
A bucket of water saved by everyone means a lot for our billion-plus population.
Source:http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-features/tp-openpage/article487999.ece
Have your luxuries, but spare a thought for the environment
Sophia Yusuf
Is there a way of living extravagantly and still saving the planet?
Extravagance. Amazing cars with powerful engines and huge exhausts and half a kilometre of unleaded petrol per litre, air cons anytime everywhere, huge houses, lots of servants, expensive furniture, real leather, fur, mink, how many of us are drooling as we read this?
Let us admit it. We love extravagance. Unless we have religious reasons to stay away from something or the other, we just have to have everything. Let us just admit it; we are not the Mahatma. That requires an extraordinary strength of mind, and more than a little madness in the blood. How many of us can boast these characteristics?
But we all would like to see a green world, a clean world, one where you see natural beauty everywhere you turn, where breathing is a healthy and pleasing thing to do, rather than a necessity you would avoid if you could (how many times do we walk the city with our hands on our noses?).
So how do we achieve both? How do we achieve that elusive balance between extravagance and environmental-friendly living? How do we enjoy our luxuries without feeling guilty, or wondering whether we are contributing to global warming?
By being aware, of course. You want to buy that car? That incredibly expensive car that people will stare at every time you take it out (or rather, try to spot it, because you are not driving below a hundred when you take that car out)? Go ahead, then, buy it.
But also include walking in your routine. Sure, if you want to zip on the highway, that car makes perfect sense. Sure, if you want to show off to your gym buddies, take it there. But to the grocery store? I am pretty sure those people at the grocery store couldn't care less about the car you come in to buy milk. Walk. Walk to your grocery store. In fact, why don't you chart a mental map? Walk to all those places that are 10-15 minute walk from your house.
When you go shopping, try parking your car five minutes away from the mall and walk. Saves that much petrol, and stops that much pollution. Five minutes can't kill you. And even if you have heavy bags to carry, you could always come back and drive your car to the entrance to take them in, or ask the shop boys to help you. If for no other reason, they will help you for ten bucks out of your pocket.
Can't be bothered to turn off all lights and fans (sorry, a/c) when you are not using them? All right, don't. Can you turn one light off? By turning off that one light, you save that much energy. Just a pinch, maybe, but saving that pinch is better than wasting that pinch, don't you think so?
Too cool to carry your own cloth bag to the grocery store? Ok, don't. But you can at least make sure they put everything in one or two bags, rather than using too many bags, cant you? I am sure that is not much of a sacrifice. But it saves that much of plastic.
Too lazy to find a dustbin on the road? All right, don't. But as you are walking or driving, you will come across garbage heaps on the roadside. Throw your garbage there at least. That way, you are still showing some civic sense, aren't you?
Oh yes, go ahead and spend all the money you have on all the luxuries you can buy. Just make sure that you save wherever you can . That is all you need to do. So stop feeling guilty about all the harm you are causing society, and get involved in some any planet-saving activity. The smallest gesture makes a difference. And the word is awareness .
Source:http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-features/tp-openpage/article488000.ece
Is there a way of living extravagantly and still saving the planet?
Extravagance. Amazing cars with powerful engines and huge exhausts and half a kilometre of unleaded petrol per litre, air cons anytime everywhere, huge houses, lots of servants, expensive furniture, real leather, fur, mink, how many of us are drooling as we read this?
Let us admit it. We love extravagance. Unless we have religious reasons to stay away from something or the other, we just have to have everything. Let us just admit it; we are not the Mahatma. That requires an extraordinary strength of mind, and more than a little madness in the blood. How many of us can boast these characteristics?
But we all would like to see a green world, a clean world, one where you see natural beauty everywhere you turn, where breathing is a healthy and pleasing thing to do, rather than a necessity you would avoid if you could (how many times do we walk the city with our hands on our noses?).
So how do we achieve both? How do we achieve that elusive balance between extravagance and environmental-friendly living? How do we enjoy our luxuries without feeling guilty, or wondering whether we are contributing to global warming?
By being aware, of course. You want to buy that car? That incredibly expensive car that people will stare at every time you take it out (or rather, try to spot it, because you are not driving below a hundred when you take that car out)? Go ahead, then, buy it.
But also include walking in your routine. Sure, if you want to zip on the highway, that car makes perfect sense. Sure, if you want to show off to your gym buddies, take it there. But to the grocery store? I am pretty sure those people at the grocery store couldn't care less about the car you come in to buy milk. Walk. Walk to your grocery store. In fact, why don't you chart a mental map? Walk to all those places that are 10-15 minute walk from your house.
When you go shopping, try parking your car five minutes away from the mall and walk. Saves that much petrol, and stops that much pollution. Five minutes can't kill you. And even if you have heavy bags to carry, you could always come back and drive your car to the entrance to take them in, or ask the shop boys to help you. If for no other reason, they will help you for ten bucks out of your pocket.
Can't be bothered to turn off all lights and fans (sorry, a/c) when you are not using them? All right, don't. Can you turn one light off? By turning off that one light, you save that much energy. Just a pinch, maybe, but saving that pinch is better than wasting that pinch, don't you think so?
Too cool to carry your own cloth bag to the grocery store? Ok, don't. But you can at least make sure they put everything in one or two bags, rather than using too many bags, cant you? I am sure that is not much of a sacrifice. But it saves that much of plastic.
Too lazy to find a dustbin on the road? All right, don't. But as you are walking or driving, you will come across garbage heaps on the roadside. Throw your garbage there at least. That way, you are still showing some civic sense, aren't you?
Oh yes, go ahead and spend all the money you have on all the luxuries you can buy. Just make sure that you save wherever you can . That is all you need to do. So stop feeling guilty about all the harm you are causing society, and get involved in some any planet-saving activity. The smallest gesture makes a difference. And the word is awareness .
Source:http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-features/tp-openpage/article488000.ece
Travails of a teacher
T.R. Maragatham
I was spurred to write this article on reading the news item, “Strength of class also counts” ( The Hindu, June 9, Chennai edition), wherein it has been stated that the attention a student gets depends to a large extent on the student-teacher ratio, which in any ideal elementary class should be 25-30: 1. A retired teacher, I can understand the importance of this issue.
Till last year, I was working in an aided higher secondary school with a good reputation. But I opted for voluntary retirement for a variety of reasons, among them the workload of handling unwieldy classes. The school produces excellent results in the board exams and so the demand for admissions is always high. The management has to yield to the tears and pressures of parents. The result is an overflowing population in each classroom and we teachers are helpless witnesses to the phenomenon.
An overcrowded class drains the physical and even mental strength of the teacher. This is what happened in my career spanning 25 years. Since I was handling classes X and XII, I was under constant pressure to produce cent per cent results. A language teacher has to correct double the number of answer papers, of Language Paper I & II. I held special classes on most Saturdays and, on many occasions, I could not manage time for personal work. I was travelling almost two hours daily to reach my school. So it would be very late when I returned home after completing the special class and I had to concentrate on class work late into the night.
All this told on my health. My voice got abused by the necessity of speaking loud to reach out to all students. My forefinger thickened with continuous correction work. In fact, my correction work consumed all my Dasara and Christmas vacations and at the end of every vacation, I returned to school with irritation in the eyes and pain in the neck and back. Social commitments and entertainment were next to non-existent.
Inspirational teachers like Dr. Radhakrishnan could not help me either when I had to face a class of 80 to 90 students. Eye contact with every student was not possible as by the time my eyes surveyed half of the class one period would be over! Practically, it became impossible to look at everyone. That my myopic vision couldn't register faces from the last rows was another matter!
I am not boasting, I have all through been a teacher with commitment. In all my service, I availed myself of only 10 days of medical leave for a surgical operation. I had never exhausted my CL or EL. I say all this only to stress how demanding a teacher's job is, especially when the strength of the class is unreasonably large. You are exhausted and you call it quits.
Source:http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-features/tp-openpage/article488003.ece
Teachers, isn't it time to teach?
Sunil Sondhi
In recent years, the government of India has substantially increased the financial resources for inputs that will help to provide quality education for all. Measures have also been taken to make education more inclusive by providing assured access to disadvantaged sections. The implicit (though rarely stated) expectation is that this financing and access would provide students with time and opportunities to interact with teachers and engage in learning activities.
Surprisingly, little attention has been paid to the proportion of the mandated teaching time that is actually used to engage students in learning and its relationship to student performance and government spending. The number of teaching days mandated by the government is rarely implemented in most of the government schools and colleges. Without looking into this important issue, educational policy reforms may not yield the desired results. Government schools and colleges systematically seem to function in deviation from the official timetables. Strikes, festivals, elections, and delayed opening of academic sessions account for routine disruptions in most schools and colleges, which are estimated to impart education for only 120 days of the mandated 180. It is common to see classes in colleges getting disrupted for several days during elections to student unions or staff associations. Strikes too seem to have become a norm and matter of right.
Teacher absenteeism has been studied in considerable detail, and it has been recognised for long that the loss rates are 25 per cent. Even when they are not absent, teachers may come late. They may also avoid teaching. A Public Report on Basic Education in India found that in only 53 per cent of the schools visited by the research staff all teachers were actually teaching in their classrooms; in 21 per cent of the surveyed schools, teachers were mainly “minding the class.” In the remaining 26 per cent, they were talking with other teachers, sitting/standing outside the room, were in the staff room, or were observed in other non-teaching activities. The situation in government colleges may not be very different.
The loss of learning time due to disruptions and absenteeism has an adverse impact on the quality of education. Though correlation studies do not prove causality, published studies do suggest that teacher absenteeism is related to lower student performance. A NASSCOM study recently reported that only 25 per cent of the graduates from the Indian universities were considered employable by industry. What these graduates lacked most were soft skills such as communication, teamwork, and problem-solving approach. If learning is imparted in colleges for only 120 out of the 180 teaching days, there will hardly be any time for teaching anything beyond the bare syllabus. Even that may not be always completed. In such a situation, what goes on in the name of higher education in most colleges is more a farce than reality.
To make up for the learning time lost to strikes, absenteeism, and lack of timely feedback, some students resort to private tuition. Tutored students are able to perform better in schools and colleges, whereas students of low-income families become disadvantaged. Students from low-income families need more time for learning to read, write and engage in discussions. Classroom interruptions and disruptions have a greater impact on these students in terms of loss of learning time. It has been estimated that such students would need to attend classes for several months in order to attain an equivalent amount of engaged learning time. Wastage adds up over time and creates the risk of failure for poorer students. Educators call this problem the “pedagogy of poverty.”
Loss of learning time has significant economic implications for the country. Government revenues pay for teachers' salaries, buildings, teacher training, and materials, and it is expected that 100 per cent of this investment will be used for student learning. For instance, the total Plan and non-Plan grant to the University of Delhi under the XI Plan is estimated at Rs. 2,500 crore. This is meant for an academic year of 180 teaching days. If it actually turns out to be of only 120 days, more than Rs. 800 crore of taxpayers' money will go down the drain. Probably, no institution uses 100 per cent of its time productively, but losses of the magnitude shown in various studies suggest that education costs more than it ought to, or achieves less for what it costs.
There could be several ways of increasing the instructional inputs and outputs if policy or managerial interventions were designed to increase learning time. Such interventions may be institutionally harder, though they would be cheaper on government outlays. Policy dialogue is needed to address the sources of “leakage” at the levels of administration, teacher and classroom, and plan action to eliminate it. The future of the educational reforms will depend on how seriously the government takes the wastage of learning time. The proposed regulatory authority for education must ensure that the time and money the government provides for learning by the students are actually spent for obtaining learning outcomes.
(The writer is Principal, Maharaja Agrasen College, University of Delhi. Emai l: sondhisunil@yahoo.com)
If learning is imparted in colleges for only 120 out of the 180 mandated days, there will hardly be any time for teaching anything beyond the bare syllabus.
Source:http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-features/tp-openpage/article488001.ece
When you pen a letter, you put life into it
-
Do people still write letters, that is, by hand? This question will seem absurd for a generation intoxicated with gadgets that eliminate face-to-face-interaction and require using fingers to type keys or press mobile phone buttons rather than hold pens to write on paper. Technological innovations bombard us every day at breathtaking speed that we seldom reflect on how our social lives have changed, how social phenomena which held sway for centuries have been rendered redundant, if not totally irrelevant.
Solemn obituaries have been written for the old fashioned typewriter, the pager and the telegram. Let us pause and spare a moment for the vanishing handwritten letter.
For centuries, personal letters were the dominant mode of communication among people. The postman was one of the most awaited daily visitors in the household. Emotions varied from disappointment when the postman said ‘no letter' to excitement and euphoria when he handed an inland letter card, a postcard or an envelope. The inland letter was the most preferred mode for personal communication as its contents could be protected from prying eyes.
The card was mostly used for conveying pithy messages not requiring confidentiality. Some chose the envelope as it could enclose several pages.
The younger generation might ask: what is so great about the handwritten letter? Is it not a waste of time to sit down and write on a paper which will anyway take a few days to reach the addressee when the message could be conveyed within seconds by e- mail? The advent of cheap mobile telephony has driven another nail in the coffin of personal letter.
The greeting card has also reduced the need to sit down and write down loving messages to our dear ones. The once mighty pen is used nowadays mostly to put signatures.
A printed letter lacks the personal feeling and emotional affinity a written letter conveys. While reading a written letter one can visualise the writer sitting down and putting down his feelings on paper. There is an instant rapport in the written communication which the printed message or telephonic talk could never replicate. The familiar handwriting of a dear one evokes such happiness and delight that has to be experienced to be believed. People used to preserve letters for years as these humble pieces of paper afforded companionship in absentia.
Writing a letter requires us to slow down, think carefully and put down our thoughts. It adds a new perspective to our thought process. An e-mail or telephonic talk is impersonal and ephemeral. A written letter is a permanent record of communication. The greatest and noblest thoughts that the world has seen have been penned by their authors rather than recorded in print. The letters of Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru contained some of their loftiest thoughts. The world would have lost much had great men had used tele- conversations or e- mail to pour out their wisdom.
People used to polish their handwriting skills by writing more and more letters. Writing also helped to improve the vocabulary, whether it was in vernacular or English.
The younger generation is sadly missing one of the most creative and emotionally and intellectually stimulating activities — writing letters. E-mails and texting reflect our inability to pause, think and create thoughts which carry the authenticity of intense feeling. The electronic letters have played havoc with grammar and structure. It is doubtful whether smart kids can write an error-free page with clarity. This is not to generalise the weakness. But the sad truth is known to those who are in finishing schools which teach soft skills to the ‘educated' unemployed. Instances of bloomers and absurd letters abound. A techie wrote a letter requesting leave of absence for attending his mother's funeral stating that he was ‘responsible' for his mother's death!
The intent is not to trivialise technology. Ironically, this piece has been typed on a computer and sent by e-mail. But the point is that we must occasionally use the pen and paper medium at least for personal communication. My advice to the young people who work at distant places is to try writing a letter to parents for a change. Hearing your voice over the mobile is comforting and reassuring. On the other hand, a telephonic conversation is forgotten soon. But reading your handwriting on paper opens the floodgates of nostalgia and emotional satisfaction which no other medium of communication can replicate. The pen is mighty even in this electronic age. Let us wield it at least occasionally to create islands of tranquillity and happiness in the vast ocean of sick hurry and digital surfeit.
A printed letter lacks the personal feeling and emotional affinity a written letter conveys… There is an instant rapport in the written communication which the printed message could never replicate.
Source:http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-features/tp-openpage/article488002.ece
Do people still write letters, that is, by hand? This question will seem absurd for a generation intoxicated with gadgets that eliminate face-to-face-interaction and require using fingers to type keys or press mobile phone buttons rather than hold pens to write on paper. Technological innovations bombard us every day at breathtaking speed that we seldom reflect on how our social lives have changed, how social phenomena which held sway for centuries have been rendered redundant, if not totally irrelevant.
Solemn obituaries have been written for the old fashioned typewriter, the pager and the telegram. Let us pause and spare a moment for the vanishing handwritten letter.
For centuries, personal letters were the dominant mode of communication among people. The postman was one of the most awaited daily visitors in the household. Emotions varied from disappointment when the postman said ‘no letter' to excitement and euphoria when he handed an inland letter card, a postcard or an envelope. The inland letter was the most preferred mode for personal communication as its contents could be protected from prying eyes.
The card was mostly used for conveying pithy messages not requiring confidentiality. Some chose the envelope as it could enclose several pages.
The younger generation might ask: what is so great about the handwritten letter? Is it not a waste of time to sit down and write on a paper which will anyway take a few days to reach the addressee when the message could be conveyed within seconds by e- mail? The advent of cheap mobile telephony has driven another nail in the coffin of personal letter.
The greeting card has also reduced the need to sit down and write down loving messages to our dear ones. The once mighty pen is used nowadays mostly to put signatures.
A printed letter lacks the personal feeling and emotional affinity a written letter conveys. While reading a written letter one can visualise the writer sitting down and putting down his feelings on paper. There is an instant rapport in the written communication which the printed message or telephonic talk could never replicate. The familiar handwriting of a dear one evokes such happiness and delight that has to be experienced to be believed. People used to preserve letters for years as these humble pieces of paper afforded companionship in absentia.
Writing a letter requires us to slow down, think carefully and put down our thoughts. It adds a new perspective to our thought process. An e-mail or telephonic talk is impersonal and ephemeral. A written letter is a permanent record of communication. The greatest and noblest thoughts that the world has seen have been penned by their authors rather than recorded in print. The letters of Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru contained some of their loftiest thoughts. The world would have lost much had great men had used tele- conversations or e- mail to pour out their wisdom.
People used to polish their handwriting skills by writing more and more letters. Writing also helped to improve the vocabulary, whether it was in vernacular or English.
The younger generation is sadly missing one of the most creative and emotionally and intellectually stimulating activities — writing letters. E-mails and texting reflect our inability to pause, think and create thoughts which carry the authenticity of intense feeling. The electronic letters have played havoc with grammar and structure. It is doubtful whether smart kids can write an error-free page with clarity. This is not to generalise the weakness. But the sad truth is known to those who are in finishing schools which teach soft skills to the ‘educated' unemployed. Instances of bloomers and absurd letters abound. A techie wrote a letter requesting leave of absence for attending his mother's funeral stating that he was ‘responsible' for his mother's death!
The intent is not to trivialise technology. Ironically, this piece has been typed on a computer and sent by e-mail. But the point is that we must occasionally use the pen and paper medium at least for personal communication. My advice to the young people who work at distant places is to try writing a letter to parents for a change. Hearing your voice over the mobile is comforting and reassuring. On the other hand, a telephonic conversation is forgotten soon. But reading your handwriting on paper opens the floodgates of nostalgia and emotional satisfaction which no other medium of communication can replicate. The pen is mighty even in this electronic age. Let us wield it at least occasionally to create islands of tranquillity and happiness in the vast ocean of sick hurry and digital surfeit.
A printed letter lacks the personal feeling and emotional affinity a written letter conveys… There is an instant rapport in the written communication which the printed message could never replicate.
Source:http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-features/tp-openpage/article488002.ece
Friday, May 21, 2010
Facebook: Social Networking or Social Engineering?
By: Mirza Yawar Baig
Posted: 6 Jumad al-Thani 1431, 20 May 2010
The big question is, ‘What is social networking and how is it useful?’
Of course you will hear the usual bleating saying, ‘It is so nice to know what my sister is doing….blah, blah.’
So ask this person, ‘Why can’t you send your sister an email asking what she is doing and she can respond to you. Or even better, if you can, call your sister and talk to her.’ But no, I must talk to my sister in a space where it is not only the sister who is listening but almost anyone who cares to listen, even if that person is a total stranger. So is it about your concern for your sister or is it something else?
So also in this space are pictures which really have no place outside the home – like the pictures showing you hugging your sister or wife or whoever! And so on and so on. I don’t think I need to describe all that there is to people who put it there in the first place.
Yes, of course there are controls. Tell me all about them. Tell me also how come almost nobody uses them. How many Facebook profiles do you know who have the maximum control activated where only their immediate family can see them? And of course in the end, all control is only as good as the techies and geeks on the Facebook site allow. After all they can access all that information anyway.
So what is really being achieved by Facebook, Twitter and so on? (Twitter?? Whoever coined that term was clever. Talk about under the belt. Who twitters? A twit!! – but then I suppose a twit doesn’t know that he is a twit, right?)
So what is achieved?
What is achieved is what would be the equivalent of peeping in through your window. Wanting to know what you are doing all the time. I want to know what you are doing all the time and I want you to know what I am doing all the time.
Intrusion into privacy when it is done against your will is unpleasant. So what is better? Get you into a state of mind where you will volunteer to tell people all about your internal organs on your own. See the change? An intruder is an intruder only when he intrudes against your will. If you invite him in, then he is a guest, not an intruder. Same person, same you but different rules. And that’s what it is all about, the rules of engagement.
So is it ‘social networking’ or is it ‘social engineering?’
The purpose is to change the rules of the society. Break barriers. Destroy the boundaries that protect us.
And where does this lead to? Addiction and intoxication. Addiction to seeing what others are doing and telling others what you are doing on a daily, hourly, minute by minute basis. And being intoxicated with the false feeling that you are so interesting that people are really interested in what you are doing. Not realizing or willing to believe that these are the actions of other intoxicated people.
You don’t like the word ‘intoxication’? Just don’t log onto your Facebook or Twitter account for two days and monitor your heartbeat, blood pressure, tremor in your mouse, whatever and you will see what I mean.
And all this for what? What is achieved with the time that you spend reading about other’s adenoids and telling them about yours? Incidentally I know what adenoids means and that you don’t talk about them. But let us not mention what facebookers really talk about!
So what did you achieve? Just ask yourself this question, ‘What did I achieve by being on Facebook and Twitter (or whichever of these infernal social networks you are on) over the past month, year or whatever period.’ Remember this is a serious question because you Muslim/ah are spending your time (life) doing it. And that makes it among the first questions that you will have to answer to Allah. So what did you achieve? Prepare the answer. You will need it.
Social networking is social engineering. Its purpose is to change the values and ethics of people. This is done, in its most benign form, to encourage you to indulge more and more in the consumerist society that is all consuming. We think we are the consumers. But we are in reality the consumed. Just think, how many of you buy things, see shows, go to restaurants (and other places), like or dislike things because of campaigns on Facebook and Twitter? See what is happening? Your minds are invaded, your thoughts are influenced, and consequently your actions are manipulated and you may not even realize it.
Today Muslims the world over are very angry with the latest offensive of the Facebook. But an impulsive reaction will hardly do us any good. Just staying off of the offensive site for one day, as many have advocated, will only highlight our capitulation to it.
It is time we rethink what are we doing with our lives and say no to social engineering. It is time to get off of Facebook, Twitter, and other similar sites that are destroying us from within.
Source:http://albalagh.net/current_affairs/0103.shtml
Posted: 6 Jumad al-Thani 1431, 20 May 2010
The big question is, ‘What is social networking and how is it useful?’
Of course you will hear the usual bleating saying, ‘It is so nice to know what my sister is doing….blah, blah.’
So ask this person, ‘Why can’t you send your sister an email asking what she is doing and she can respond to you. Or even better, if you can, call your sister and talk to her.’ But no, I must talk to my sister in a space where it is not only the sister who is listening but almost anyone who cares to listen, even if that person is a total stranger. So is it about your concern for your sister or is it something else?
So also in this space are pictures which really have no place outside the home – like the pictures showing you hugging your sister or wife or whoever! And so on and so on. I don’t think I need to describe all that there is to people who put it there in the first place.
Yes, of course there are controls. Tell me all about them. Tell me also how come almost nobody uses them. How many Facebook profiles do you know who have the maximum control activated where only their immediate family can see them? And of course in the end, all control is only as good as the techies and geeks on the Facebook site allow. After all they can access all that information anyway.
So what is really being achieved by Facebook, Twitter and so on? (Twitter?? Whoever coined that term was clever. Talk about under the belt. Who twitters? A twit!! – but then I suppose a twit doesn’t know that he is a twit, right?)
So what is achieved?
What is achieved is what would be the equivalent of peeping in through your window. Wanting to know what you are doing all the time. I want to know what you are doing all the time and I want you to know what I am doing all the time.
Intrusion into privacy when it is done against your will is unpleasant. So what is better? Get you into a state of mind where you will volunteer to tell people all about your internal organs on your own. See the change? An intruder is an intruder only when he intrudes against your will. If you invite him in, then he is a guest, not an intruder. Same person, same you but different rules. And that’s what it is all about, the rules of engagement.
So is it ‘social networking’ or is it ‘social engineering?’
The purpose is to change the rules of the society. Break barriers. Destroy the boundaries that protect us.
And where does this lead to? Addiction and intoxication. Addiction to seeing what others are doing and telling others what you are doing on a daily, hourly, minute by minute basis. And being intoxicated with the false feeling that you are so interesting that people are really interested in what you are doing. Not realizing or willing to believe that these are the actions of other intoxicated people.
You don’t like the word ‘intoxication’? Just don’t log onto your Facebook or Twitter account for two days and monitor your heartbeat, blood pressure, tremor in your mouse, whatever and you will see what I mean.
And all this for what? What is achieved with the time that you spend reading about other’s adenoids and telling them about yours? Incidentally I know what adenoids means and that you don’t talk about them. But let us not mention what facebookers really talk about!
So what did you achieve? Just ask yourself this question, ‘What did I achieve by being on Facebook and Twitter (or whichever of these infernal social networks you are on) over the past month, year or whatever period.’ Remember this is a serious question because you Muslim/ah are spending your time (life) doing it. And that makes it among the first questions that you will have to answer to Allah. So what did you achieve? Prepare the answer. You will need it.
Social networking is social engineering. Its purpose is to change the values and ethics of people. This is done, in its most benign form, to encourage you to indulge more and more in the consumerist society that is all consuming. We think we are the consumers. But we are in reality the consumed. Just think, how many of you buy things, see shows, go to restaurants (and other places), like or dislike things because of campaigns on Facebook and Twitter? See what is happening? Your minds are invaded, your thoughts are influenced, and consequently your actions are manipulated and you may not even realize it.
Today Muslims the world over are very angry with the latest offensive of the Facebook. But an impulsive reaction will hardly do us any good. Just staying off of the offensive site for one day, as many have advocated, will only highlight our capitulation to it.
It is time we rethink what are we doing with our lives and say no to social engineering. It is time to get off of Facebook, Twitter, and other similar sites that are destroying us from within.
Source:http://albalagh.net/current_affairs/0103.shtml
Freedom of Expression?
By: Khalid Baig
Posted: 6 Jumad al-Thani 1431, 20 May 2010
With the latest in-your-face act of the Facebook, the issue is once again attracting headlines. Should Muslims react? How should they react? Where do they stand on the philosophical issue underlying all this?
In the media the issue has been framed as a clash between two camps. One camp stands for freedom of expression. The other wants to curtail it. Needless to say the first camp is enlightened and virtuous. The other is a relic of the dark ages. The clash in other words is between a civilized and civilizing West and Islam that just refuses to be civilized.
Once you accept this framing of the whole issue, the outcome is already decided. Are you for freedom of expression or not? It is a loaded question, and just like the yes/no question, “Have you stopped beating your wife?” no matter how you answer it, you remain guilty.
Look at the typical Muslim response which begins, “We also believe in freedom of expression but…” It matters little what you say after that. It is obvious that you are trying to add exclusions and limitations to a basic moral value while the other side is asking for no such limits. It is not difficult to see which side will come out ahead.
But this predicament is a result of uncritically accepting a false statement about the nature of the clash. For the real clash is not between those who are for and those who are against a freedom. Rather it is between two different freedoms. On the one hand is the freedom to insult. On the other is freedom from insult. Whether it was the Satanic Verses of the 1980s or the Cartoons of 2005 and their endless reproduction since then, if they stand for any freedom, it is freedom to insult. Pure and simple. Muslims, on the other hand, have stood for and demanded freedom from insult. Nothing more. Nothing less.
These are certainly opposing values. You can be for one or the other. And the question does arise, which one is a better value.
To see that let us imagine a society that truly believes in the first as a cherished moral value. It celebrates freedom to insult and guards it at all costs. Every member of it enjoys this freedom and practices it regularly. In a business everyone insults everyone else. The boss is insulting the employees, the employees are insulting the bosses. The salesmen are insulting the customers. The accountants are insulting the creditors. Everyone is enjoying the great freedom to insult. The same is true of the home. The parents are always insulting the children. The children are constantly insulting the parents. The spouses are incessantly insulting each other. And in doing so they all stand on the high moral ground because freedom to insult is such a fundamental freedom on which the society is built.
Actually contrary to the claims of the pundits if the Western society was truly built on this “cherished moral value,” it would have perished a long time ago --- consumed by the fires of hatred and negativity generated by this freedom. No home, no neighborhood, no village, no business, no organization and no society can survive for long if it makes freedom to insult as a cornerstone of its freedoms. Clearly most who advocate this freedom do not practice it in their daily lives. But they are making an exception in the case of Islam and Muslims. The driving force behind this is not any great moral principle but a deep rooted hatred born of ignorance.
Software professionals sometimes use a term called beature. It stands for a bug turned into a feature. A bug is a defect in the software. A feature, on the other hand, is a desirable attribute. A beature is a defect that is presented (thanks to slick marketing) as a feature. Freedom to insult is also a beature. It is the growing sickness of Islamophobia in the West which is being presented as a high moral value, packaged by the slick marketing departments as freedom of expression.
Well, whether or not freedom to insult is a Western value, Islam has nothing to do with it. It lays emphasis on its exact opposite: the freedom from insult. It values human dignity, decency, and harmony in the society. The freedom of religion it ensures includes freedom from insults. While it does not shy away from academic discussion of its beliefs and showing the falsehood of non-Islamic beliefs, it makes sure that the discussion remains civil. In those discussions it wants to engage the intellect of its opponents; in contrast those who itch to insult their opponents are interested in satisfying their vulgar emotions. Thus while its most important battle is against false gods it asks its followers to refrain from reviling them. (Qur’an, Al-anam, 6:108). It also reminds them to stay away from harsh speech. “Allah loves not the utterance of harsh speech save by one who has been wronged.” (Qur’an, Al-Nisa, 4:148). Prophet Muhammad, Sall-Allahu alayhi wa sallam, who is being reviled by the scum of the world, taught Muslims to never let the low moral standards of their adversaries dictate theirs.
As a result of these teachings Muslims can never even imagine insulting any Prophet --- from Adam to Moses to Jesus to Muhammad, peace be upon them all. Even when they ruled the world, Muslims treated the religious leaders of non-Muslim also with respect – even during battles. In the Baghdad court Jewish and Christian scholars engaged in open discussions with the Muslim savants. Needless to say they had not been attracted by the freedom to insult but its exact opposite. Freedom from insult is a fundamental value that assures peace and harmony. It leads to healthy societies. And Muslims are very proud of their impeccable record here.
What is true of a home or a village is also true of the world as it has become a global village. Now, more than ever before, the world needs the harmony and tolerance that can only be assured by the freedom from insults.
Source:http://albalagh.net/food_for_thought/0096.shtml
Posted: 6 Jumad al-Thani 1431, 20 May 2010
With the latest in-your-face act of the Facebook, the issue is once again attracting headlines. Should Muslims react? How should they react? Where do they stand on the philosophical issue underlying all this?
In the media the issue has been framed as a clash between two camps. One camp stands for freedom of expression. The other wants to curtail it. Needless to say the first camp is enlightened and virtuous. The other is a relic of the dark ages. The clash in other words is between a civilized and civilizing West and Islam that just refuses to be civilized.
Once you accept this framing of the whole issue, the outcome is already decided. Are you for freedom of expression or not? It is a loaded question, and just like the yes/no question, “Have you stopped beating your wife?” no matter how you answer it, you remain guilty.
Look at the typical Muslim response which begins, “We also believe in freedom of expression but…” It matters little what you say after that. It is obvious that you are trying to add exclusions and limitations to a basic moral value while the other side is asking for no such limits. It is not difficult to see which side will come out ahead.
But this predicament is a result of uncritically accepting a false statement about the nature of the clash. For the real clash is not between those who are for and those who are against a freedom. Rather it is between two different freedoms. On the one hand is the freedom to insult. On the other is freedom from insult. Whether it was the Satanic Verses of the 1980s or the Cartoons of 2005 and their endless reproduction since then, if they stand for any freedom, it is freedom to insult. Pure and simple. Muslims, on the other hand, have stood for and demanded freedom from insult. Nothing more. Nothing less.
These are certainly opposing values. You can be for one or the other. And the question does arise, which one is a better value.
To see that let us imagine a society that truly believes in the first as a cherished moral value. It celebrates freedom to insult and guards it at all costs. Every member of it enjoys this freedom and practices it regularly. In a business everyone insults everyone else. The boss is insulting the employees, the employees are insulting the bosses. The salesmen are insulting the customers. The accountants are insulting the creditors. Everyone is enjoying the great freedom to insult. The same is true of the home. The parents are always insulting the children. The children are constantly insulting the parents. The spouses are incessantly insulting each other. And in doing so they all stand on the high moral ground because freedom to insult is such a fundamental freedom on which the society is built.
Actually contrary to the claims of the pundits if the Western society was truly built on this “cherished moral value,” it would have perished a long time ago --- consumed by the fires of hatred and negativity generated by this freedom. No home, no neighborhood, no village, no business, no organization and no society can survive for long if it makes freedom to insult as a cornerstone of its freedoms. Clearly most who advocate this freedom do not practice it in their daily lives. But they are making an exception in the case of Islam and Muslims. The driving force behind this is not any great moral principle but a deep rooted hatred born of ignorance.
Software professionals sometimes use a term called beature. It stands for a bug turned into a feature. A bug is a defect in the software. A feature, on the other hand, is a desirable attribute. A beature is a defect that is presented (thanks to slick marketing) as a feature. Freedom to insult is also a beature. It is the growing sickness of Islamophobia in the West which is being presented as a high moral value, packaged by the slick marketing departments as freedom of expression.
Well, whether or not freedom to insult is a Western value, Islam has nothing to do with it. It lays emphasis on its exact opposite: the freedom from insult. It values human dignity, decency, and harmony in the society. The freedom of religion it ensures includes freedom from insults. While it does not shy away from academic discussion of its beliefs and showing the falsehood of non-Islamic beliefs, it makes sure that the discussion remains civil. In those discussions it wants to engage the intellect of its opponents; in contrast those who itch to insult their opponents are interested in satisfying their vulgar emotions. Thus while its most important battle is against false gods it asks its followers to refrain from reviling them. (Qur’an, Al-anam, 6:108). It also reminds them to stay away from harsh speech. “Allah loves not the utterance of harsh speech save by one who has been wronged.” (Qur’an, Al-Nisa, 4:148). Prophet Muhammad, Sall-Allahu alayhi wa sallam, who is being reviled by the scum of the world, taught Muslims to never let the low moral standards of their adversaries dictate theirs.
As a result of these teachings Muslims can never even imagine insulting any Prophet --- from Adam to Moses to Jesus to Muhammad, peace be upon them all. Even when they ruled the world, Muslims treated the religious leaders of non-Muslim also with respect – even during battles. In the Baghdad court Jewish and Christian scholars engaged in open discussions with the Muslim savants. Needless to say they had not been attracted by the freedom to insult but its exact opposite. Freedom from insult is a fundamental value that assures peace and harmony. It leads to healthy societies. And Muslims are very proud of their impeccable record here.
What is true of a home or a village is also true of the world as it has become a global village. Now, more than ever before, the world needs the harmony and tolerance that can only be assured by the freedom from insults.
Source:http://albalagh.net/food_for_thought/0096.shtml
Blasphemous Cartoons - STATEMENT FROM DARUL IHSAN
International Muslim community strongly condemns publishing of cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad (Peace and Blessings be upon Him). Write to media. Protest through all appropriate channels within the law.
STATEMENT FROM DARUL IHSAN
Why the International Muslim Community is Angry About the Insulting Cartoons!!!
The international Muslim community is deeply offended by cartoons mocking the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and depicting him negatively. It is evident that these publications are aiming to demonise the character and personality of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) who is followed by 1.5 billion Muslims globally and who is admired by millions of others all over the world. After all, what was the intention of these publications by depicting the Prophet negatively when it is a well known fact that he was a paragon of peace, mercy, tolerance and forgiveness?
The publication of these cartoons demonstrates contempt for the religious beliefs of the Muslim Community. These publications have abused freedom of speech by taking it to a dangerous, irresponsible and unacceptable level by showing disregard for the sensitivities of Muslims around the world. The Muslim community views the publications of such offensive material as a serious attack on the integrity of their religion, and as an attack on the global Muslim Community.
MEDIA SHOULD NOT ABUSE FREEDOM OF SPEECH
The media has a duty to act responsibly in sensitive issues of this nature and not to push the right to freedom of expression to ridiculous levels where the lines of distinction between profound and profane are virtually obliterated. Freedom of expression is not an absolute; it is limited by the requirement of not causing offence or inciting racial or religious hatred.
Sensible and responsible leaders around the world, including the pope, issued strong statements against the Danish cartoons some time back. The US Government also condemned these caricatures. "These cartoons are indeed offensive to the belief of Muslims," State Department spokesman Kurtis Cooper said in answer to a question. "We all fully recognize and respect freedom of the press and expression but it must be coupled with press responsibility. Inciting religious or ethnic hatreds in this manner is not acceptable."
IMAGES NOT ALLOWED
The reason why Muslims are so angry is because these cartoons have violated fundamental teachings of their religion. Islam has traditionally prohibited images of humans and animals altogether - which is why much Islamic art is made up of decorative calligraphy or abstract arabesque patterns. Throughout history Muslims have cast out, destroyed or denounced all images, whether carved or painted, as idolatry.
Therefore, images of the Prophet are strictly forbidden in Islam, because it is forbidden and because this is deemed disrespectful to him, and for the very fear that his image could then be distorted and abused. Thus no records of any authentic image or portrait of the Prophet is to be found anywhere in the world throughout history. Yet some people seem to have little understanding of why this should be so, nor do they understand the intensity of the feelings aroused in Muslims when this is done.
Muslims love the Prophet (peace be upon him) so intensely that this love supersedes their love of everyone else. When speaking or writing, his name is always preceded by the title "Prophet" and followed by the phrase: "Peace be upon him", often abbreviated in English as PBUH.
Attempts to depict him in illustration were therefore an attempt to depict the sublime - and so forbidden. To depict him in a series of mocking and provocative cartoons is the worst form of blasphemy imaginable. No Muslim can ever tolerate such disrespect. The Muslim Community is disgusted at these cartoons and must protest against them responsibly. Write to publishers, editors, participate in all legal marches and protests within the law.
RESPECT - AN IMPORTANT ISLAMIC VALUE
The entire culture and value system of Islam is based on respect and reverence, such as respect for parents, wives, elders, religious symbols and so forth. For certain people respect means nothing at all. Such people satirise and mock anything and everything, including their own religion, all of which is done in the name of freedom of expression. They expect to also mock at others, in the name of freedom of expression. But Muslims, who are required by their religion to respect all of the Holy Prophets (peace be upon all of them), will not tolerate the mockery of any of the Holy Prophets. Hence when the Prophet (peace be upon him) was mocked in the cartoons, there was a furious reaction from Muslims around the world and this could very well be the case again. Unfortunately some editors either do not have the understanding of Islamic values, or deliberately abuse the freedom of speech to incite and offend Muslims in these provocative ways.
Two things are wrong with the cartoons. Firstly, the illustrated depiction of the Holy Prophet (PBUH), and worse, the intention to ridicule the Prophet (peace be upon him) through it. This was an explosion waiting to happen. Muslims view this as an example of the ignorance and arrogance that certain people display towards them.
Yet there are countless of other people, who may not be Muslims, but who have shown respect and admiration of the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) not because they believe in him or are his followers, but because they are fair, just and not prejudiced in their study or analysis of his personality as recorded in his biography. These people have found him to be a wise, kind, tolerant, forgiving, honourable and generous person, who has inspired millions around the world.
The Prophet (peace be upon him) himself was the subject of abuse, violence and mockery in his lifetime, but he always tolerated, forgave and showed kindness even to his opponents. Although Muslims are furious about disrespect shown to the Prophet, it is important that they register their protest respecting law and order, and do not act irresponsibly, for that is not what the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) would have approved.
Source:http://www.darulihsan.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3012:blasphemous-cartoons-statement-from-darul-ihsan&catid=55:news&Itemid=155
STATEMENT FROM DARUL IHSAN
Why the International Muslim Community is Angry About the Insulting Cartoons!!!
The international Muslim community is deeply offended by cartoons mocking the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and depicting him negatively. It is evident that these publications are aiming to demonise the character and personality of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) who is followed by 1.5 billion Muslims globally and who is admired by millions of others all over the world. After all, what was the intention of these publications by depicting the Prophet negatively when it is a well known fact that he was a paragon of peace, mercy, tolerance and forgiveness?
The publication of these cartoons demonstrates contempt for the religious beliefs of the Muslim Community. These publications have abused freedom of speech by taking it to a dangerous, irresponsible and unacceptable level by showing disregard for the sensitivities of Muslims around the world. The Muslim community views the publications of such offensive material as a serious attack on the integrity of their religion, and as an attack on the global Muslim Community.
MEDIA SHOULD NOT ABUSE FREEDOM OF SPEECH
The media has a duty to act responsibly in sensitive issues of this nature and not to push the right to freedom of expression to ridiculous levels where the lines of distinction between profound and profane are virtually obliterated. Freedom of expression is not an absolute; it is limited by the requirement of not causing offence or inciting racial or religious hatred.
Sensible and responsible leaders around the world, including the pope, issued strong statements against the Danish cartoons some time back. The US Government also condemned these caricatures. "These cartoons are indeed offensive to the belief of Muslims," State Department spokesman Kurtis Cooper said in answer to a question. "We all fully recognize and respect freedom of the press and expression but it must be coupled with press responsibility. Inciting religious or ethnic hatreds in this manner is not acceptable."
IMAGES NOT ALLOWED
The reason why Muslims are so angry is because these cartoons have violated fundamental teachings of their religion. Islam has traditionally prohibited images of humans and animals altogether - which is why much Islamic art is made up of decorative calligraphy or abstract arabesque patterns. Throughout history Muslims have cast out, destroyed or denounced all images, whether carved or painted, as idolatry.
Therefore, images of the Prophet are strictly forbidden in Islam, because it is forbidden and because this is deemed disrespectful to him, and for the very fear that his image could then be distorted and abused. Thus no records of any authentic image or portrait of the Prophet is to be found anywhere in the world throughout history. Yet some people seem to have little understanding of why this should be so, nor do they understand the intensity of the feelings aroused in Muslims when this is done.
Muslims love the Prophet (peace be upon him) so intensely that this love supersedes their love of everyone else. When speaking or writing, his name is always preceded by the title "Prophet" and followed by the phrase: "Peace be upon him", often abbreviated in English as PBUH.
Attempts to depict him in illustration were therefore an attempt to depict the sublime - and so forbidden. To depict him in a series of mocking and provocative cartoons is the worst form of blasphemy imaginable. No Muslim can ever tolerate such disrespect. The Muslim Community is disgusted at these cartoons and must protest against them responsibly. Write to publishers, editors, participate in all legal marches and protests within the law.
RESPECT - AN IMPORTANT ISLAMIC VALUE
The entire culture and value system of Islam is based on respect and reverence, such as respect for parents, wives, elders, religious symbols and so forth. For certain people respect means nothing at all. Such people satirise and mock anything and everything, including their own religion, all of which is done in the name of freedom of expression. They expect to also mock at others, in the name of freedom of expression. But Muslims, who are required by their religion to respect all of the Holy Prophets (peace be upon all of them), will not tolerate the mockery of any of the Holy Prophets. Hence when the Prophet (peace be upon him) was mocked in the cartoons, there was a furious reaction from Muslims around the world and this could very well be the case again. Unfortunately some editors either do not have the understanding of Islamic values, or deliberately abuse the freedom of speech to incite and offend Muslims in these provocative ways.
Two things are wrong with the cartoons. Firstly, the illustrated depiction of the Holy Prophet (PBUH), and worse, the intention to ridicule the Prophet (peace be upon him) through it. This was an explosion waiting to happen. Muslims view this as an example of the ignorance and arrogance that certain people display towards them.
Yet there are countless of other people, who may not be Muslims, but who have shown respect and admiration of the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) not because they believe in him or are his followers, but because they are fair, just and not prejudiced in their study or analysis of his personality as recorded in his biography. These people have found him to be a wise, kind, tolerant, forgiving, honourable and generous person, who has inspired millions around the world.
The Prophet (peace be upon him) himself was the subject of abuse, violence and mockery in his lifetime, but he always tolerated, forgave and showed kindness even to his opponents. Although Muslims are furious about disrespect shown to the Prophet, it is important that they register their protest respecting law and order, and do not act irresponsibly, for that is not what the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) would have approved.
Source:http://www.darulihsan.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3012:blasphemous-cartoons-statement-from-darul-ihsan&catid=55:news&Itemid=155
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)