I make an exception below to comment on a purely social matter that is pertinent.
Over the last couple of weeks, the press in Africa, Europe and the US were filled with stories of the difficult legal process that baby David Banda has gone through in order to be formally and legally adopted by Madonna and her husband. This is one case in which there are unlikely to be winners because enduring questions that cannot be adequately answered. Madonna and her family are making a very brave step by opting to adopt a child from a separate continent, race and yes, that word culture. Typically uninformed objections and support for the process covered the press pages about whether all this was an exercise in vanity and therefore inimical to the best interests of little David. To their credit, Madonna and her family went about that process with dignity and minimum comment.
A story in the press today reports that she finally went on the offensive by attacking the bunch of those opposed to the adoption of baby Banda and that is where she completely lost the sympathy and respect on my side. Appearing on the Oprah Winfrey show aired on the 25th of October, she alleged that the press maelstrom was hurting all orphans in Africa. That is just pathetic. To my mind, it is akin to another argument recently heard that any adverse comment on the state of the war in Iraq would be "aiding the enemy". The attacks were not worth responding to especially when it is also reported that the father of the child may be having second thoughts about the adoption. Bad advice from whichever publicity firm she employs! While most of the attacks and support for her desire to adopt were really strident and sometimes personal, she has merely ensured that a more critical eye will be cast on her in terms of the parenting outcomes regarding David. She cannot win this and the sooner she stops parenting through the press the better. Fight no one now as your greatest obligation is to David for whom you now have elected to try your best as a parent. While at it, try and get David's biological father to rediscover some higher regard for you. A sanctimonious sermon on Oprah Winfrey show is not the way.
Thursday, October 26, 2006
Thursday, October 19, 2006
Can Spammers Really Spell Well?
I know that the sheer number of commercially driven spam mail is a reflection of the extremely low cost of sending them relative to the possibility that a substantial gain will ensue from a limited number. I have kept count over the last few days and think that I receive between 4 to 5 spam messages daily. I could therefore not help noting that there are defining characteristics of the spam that I receive. The first is that spam mail appears to be replete with grammatical errors and spelling mistakes. The other is that the application of the correct pronoun is often wrong. My main question then is that if one expects an average person to be taken in by the possibility of earning 25% of US$ 25 million, wouldn’t that recipient be particularly suspicious of the large number of errors in that single e-mail? Perhaps this is the wrong question because it appears that the indubitable negligence does not affect the overall success rate. If it did, then I guess that some spammers would take the time to run the messages through some person or computer facility that could detect and clean out the most obvious errors. Finally, it could just be that a person led to share a portion of US$ 25 million just has little time to conduct a spell check and write correct grammar.
Tuesday, October 17, 2006
Nobel Peace Prize 2006
The Nobel Committee awarded the Peace Prize to Prof. Mohammed Yunus who is the founder of the Grameen Bank and the concept of Micro-lending and Micro-finance. The Nobel Committee never fails to surprise me because the odds for this individual were so low that they never featured in any of the discussions or commntaries on the most likly recipients.
My view is that this prize is richly deserved. Not only does the Grameen Bank represent a novel approach to helping the desperately poor, but more especially because the winner represents an institution with a replicable idea. Thus this is as much a prize for an idea whose originator proceeded to implement with significant success. Granted that the idea of micro-lending has its limits, it still represents sufficently original thinking about getting people to engage in profitable enterprise. No one can begrudge Prof. Yunus of this prize.
My view is that this prize is richly deserved. Not only does the Grameen Bank represent a novel approach to helping the desperately poor, but more especially because the winner represents an institution with a replicable idea. Thus this is as much a prize for an idea whose originator proceeded to implement with significant success. Granted that the idea of micro-lending has its limits, it still represents sufficently original thinking about getting people to engage in profitable enterprise. No one can begrudge Prof. Yunus of this prize.
Wednesday, October 11, 2006
Nuclear NPT: In Search of New Paradigm
While the world was focused on the initiatives by the Islamic Republic of Iran to scale up uranium enrichment with the potential for the production of weapons grade material, North Korea conducts an underground nuclear test and reminds us all that we are juggling far too many balls. There have been predictable responses regarding the illegal move by North Korea but I wonder whether North Korea has not done it precisely because it is illegal. Being a rogue nation certainly ensures that one has international attention.
Two important questions come to this mind that is not thoroughly schooled in military affairs. The first one is whether North Korea really intends to maintain a set of military weapons with the intention to use them. Knowing Kim Jong Il, is it likely that he would be so daft as to try and attack while knowing that that such action would probably constitute the last executive action that he would take in North Korea? Judging from the actions that the leadership of North Korea is known for such as to overestimate the degree of control and influence that they may have on international affairs, the primary intent and timing of the test may be the result of different calculations and assumptions. Indeed, the North Korean establishment has communicated that it will abandon further development in return for reciprocation from the United States of America. At this point in time then, nuclear armaments or the threat of their attainment are a bargaining instrument.
The second question is informed by the fact that with the expectation of the Israeli bombardment of Osirak, there is no historical precedent of a nation that was successfully reversed once it took major steps towards being a nuclear power. As a matter of fact, the extremely brave tactical strike such as this one may not be entirely possible today. One may therefore ask, to what extent is the rest of the world determined to go to ensure that the North Korean Nuclear programme is permanently halted. More directly, the question asks what are the acceptable costs for maintaining the Non Proliferation Treaty and the Comprehensive Test Ban in their current forms. My fear is that irrespective of the degree of danger posed by North Korea’s development of nuclear devices, the more appropriate approach demands the adoption of a different mind set altogether. I suspect that most nations, whether classified as rogue state or not, would ultimately cobble together a nuclear device of some kind or other notwithstanding the best endeavors of the international community.
Scary as the implications of this may be, I do not foresee the CBT and Non Proliferation Treaty maintaining their present character within the next two decades while still successfully holding constant the number of nuclear weapon capable states at the current number. Presently, the prestige and respect that nations gain from cheating their way into the circle makes even clumsy attempts at attaining nuclear power status irresistible for desperate dictatorships.
The condemnations aside, background thinking on developing unambiguous symbols to communicate the costs that would be attendant to either use or transfer of nuclear weapons material to non-state combatants is worthy of pursuit. The determination of North Korea and other non-democratic states to acquire nuclear devices suggests that browbeating them will not work for long. The real danger lies in the fact that there will certainly be a panic among its neighbors with the consequence that there will be a real arms race in the region.
A new paradigm for regulating entry into the nuclear weapons capable nations club is required. Otherwise, the international community or whatever is left of it will continue to juggle many balls with the increasing possibility that one may drop.
Two important questions come to this mind that is not thoroughly schooled in military affairs. The first one is whether North Korea really intends to maintain a set of military weapons with the intention to use them. Knowing Kim Jong Il, is it likely that he would be so daft as to try and attack while knowing that that such action would probably constitute the last executive action that he would take in North Korea? Judging from the actions that the leadership of North Korea is known for such as to overestimate the degree of control and influence that they may have on international affairs, the primary intent and timing of the test may be the result of different calculations and assumptions. Indeed, the North Korean establishment has communicated that it will abandon further development in return for reciprocation from the United States of America. At this point in time then, nuclear armaments or the threat of their attainment are a bargaining instrument.
The second question is informed by the fact that with the expectation of the Israeli bombardment of Osirak, there is no historical precedent of a nation that was successfully reversed once it took major steps towards being a nuclear power. As a matter of fact, the extremely brave tactical strike such as this one may not be entirely possible today. One may therefore ask, to what extent is the rest of the world determined to go to ensure that the North Korean Nuclear programme is permanently halted. More directly, the question asks what are the acceptable costs for maintaining the Non Proliferation Treaty and the Comprehensive Test Ban in their current forms. My fear is that irrespective of the degree of danger posed by North Korea’s development of nuclear devices, the more appropriate approach demands the adoption of a different mind set altogether. I suspect that most nations, whether classified as rogue state or not, would ultimately cobble together a nuclear device of some kind or other notwithstanding the best endeavors of the international community.
Scary as the implications of this may be, I do not foresee the CBT and Non Proliferation Treaty maintaining their present character within the next two decades while still successfully holding constant the number of nuclear weapon capable states at the current number. Presently, the prestige and respect that nations gain from cheating their way into the circle makes even clumsy attempts at attaining nuclear power status irresistible for desperate dictatorships.
The condemnations aside, background thinking on developing unambiguous symbols to communicate the costs that would be attendant to either use or transfer of nuclear weapons material to non-state combatants is worthy of pursuit. The determination of North Korea and other non-democratic states to acquire nuclear devices suggests that browbeating them will not work for long. The real danger lies in the fact that there will certainly be a panic among its neighbors with the consequence that there will be a real arms race in the region.
A new paradigm for regulating entry into the nuclear weapons capable nations club is required. Otherwise, the international community or whatever is left of it will continue to juggle many balls with the increasing possibility that one may drop.
Wednesday, October 04, 2006
Quote of the Day
"Coming together is a beginning, Keeping together is progress. Working together is success." Henry Ford
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)