What is currently happening in US media world, especially with respect to actions of one cable TV channel, is utterly flabbergasting! The anchors, talk show hosts of the TV channel in question have been highly strident in their criticism of President Obama from the time he assumed office. But of late in the context of proposed health care reform this channel is seen to have gone ballistic in their antagonism to Democrats and President Obama in particular.
Watching this TV channel the question that comes to the mind of any one who is rational and sane minded: Is this the type of democratic practice any country should aspire to have? Is this the ideal model of right to ‘free speech’? If an individual or corporate body or an organisation has enough money, can that individual or corporate body or an organisation launch a sustained campaign based on any nonsensical, stupid premise/argument against an individual – an individual who happens to be the President of USA?!
What is the limit to which right to free speech can be stretched in a democracy? In other democracies in the world – be they in Western world or in Asia or Latin America – the opposition parties are known to oppose any proposed change in policy by arranging public rallies. Opposition parties are also known to attack the government, the Prime Minister or minister(s) in and outside the Parliament (or Senate et al), but the verbal attacks are generally more based on reasoning – whether rational or flimsy – related to the policy in question (sometimes it gets physical too inside the lawmakers chamber).
But the main point to note is that the attacks and responses mostly take place between the government and the opposition – rarely an outside organization, and that too a media channel, is roped in that fight in such a blatant and brazen manner. In US at the moment the TV channel referred to at the beginning of the blog is carrying out a sustained campaign against the president by name, and all kinds of information (or disinformation) is being disseminated.
A random sampling of information (or disinformation) regarding President Obama thrown at public by the said American cable channel include following (this is by no means a exhaustive listing):
· Mischievously highlighting that Obama’s middle name is Hussein;
· He may not be born in USA, hence is not eligible to be president (as per US law);
· He is a socialist (sometimes he is branded as quasi-communist);
· Sometimes he has been compared to being a fascist;
· His proposed health care reform involves killing of elderly people…etc etc
This kind of sustained campaign against a Prime Minister or President through blatant and partisan use of TV channel, and worse, based on apparently irrational/whimsical arguments, is unheard of in any other democracy. Thank goodness, the people of the other democracies in the West and other parts of the world don’t get to see the aforesaid circus on a daily basis and in a detailed manner (for whatever reasons). If they did, they would have:
· Rolled in laughter listening to the whimsical/irrational points made by that channel;
· Wondered how intellectually challenged and mentally half grown people get to speak on TV on a regular basis;
· Developed a hateful opinion of American democracy;
· Added another reason to their list for disliking US, and strengthened their disdain for Americanism.
But potentially the worst implication could be that some folks in the other democracies might get ideas of how one could run the head of the government – prime minister or the president – down in the dirty game of politicking; how electronic media can be used (or misused) to manipulate public opinion to any extreme! This is indeed a frightening prospect.
The potentially catastrophic aspect of use (or misuse) of electronic media is that in a country of relatively large population (US population around 340 million) there are always people who are vulnerable and susceptible to manipulation – who could potentially get driven to extremes. In a large population this segment (of vulnerable people) can be fairly big.
And, when people belonging to this segment, even a handful, get driven to extremes they could potentially get morphed in to radical elements and create havoc in society. Fanatic religious radicalism is one such example of people driven to extremes though in this case the radicalism is fed and fomented through religious channels, again, through use of electronic means.
It will be interesting to see if and at what point the current ongoing character assassination – it will not be unfair to call it such – of the American leadership will stop. If it continues like this, in medium and long term future the socio-politico repercussions for the people of USA could be potentially highly toxic and dangerous. One hopes the saner elements in the US will pause to ponder on what is going on and stop the slide before a serious damage takes place to its polity!!
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Saturday, October 10, 2009
NEGLECT OF YOUNG CANADIAN UNDERGRADS GIVING RISE TO POTENTIALLY DISASTROUS SITUATION IN ALBERTA (AND CANADA)
The economic recession that engulfed the globe in mid-2008 has triggered a very disturbing situation in Canada, and Alberta in particular. There were massive job losses in Canada and Alberta not witnessed since 1980s and the people who were among the most severely hit were the young workers – in the age group of 18-26.
In Alberta the huge number of oilsands projects brought a fantastic economic upswing in the province from 2001-02 onwards. Fort McMurray, Calgary, and Edmonton were flush with jobs – with engineering jobs more concentrated in Calgary and Edmonton, and tradespersons’ jobs abounding in Fort McMurray. Hourly rates were going through the roof in the so-called ‘Middle East’ of North America, i.e., Fort Mc.
The burgeoning engineering companies in Alberta were offering jobs to fresh engineering undergrads to experienced alike at frenetic pace. The joke making round in 2005-06 was that if someone could spell ‘engineering’ that person was getting hired. There was a mad rush of immigrant engineers who claimed experience in oil, gas and other sectors.
But as the oilsands projects started to come to a grinding halt in 2008, massive lay offs ensued. And, bearing the brunt of this all were, among others, the young engineers. The saddest part is that these young engineers had cut their teeth in engineering in Canadian engineering schools. These young engineers who were aspiring to be the future torch bearers of Canadian expertise were given most shabby treatment by the oilsands related companies of Alberta.
During these trying times, most of the engineering companies and a number of operating companies of Alberta were and are found following dangerously short-sighted policy of relying on immigrant engineers, who have on paper more number of years of experience, to run their show.
A large chunk of these foreign educated Bachelor degree holders are pathetically ill equipped in terms of communication skills and Canadian outlook toward work culture and excellence in general. As well, most of the immigrant work force is relatively more aged.
Now, what is happening is that by not providing employment opportunities to the young Canadian engineers (EITs), the layer that would otherwise be ready to fill in the vacuum in the middle management level in the coming years when the baby boomers will be gone is not getting properly formed. These young undergrads not only bring the excellence of the Canadian engineering schools but also bring the mindset of Canadian work ethics and attitude right from the day one to their respective jobs.
The young men and women coming out of the various Canadian universities after completing their undergrad studies had formed the backbone of Canadian industrial resurgence in the late 20th century. These young men and women had brought with them the potential managerial skills so very vital to development and sustaining the edge in competition.
But that edge is getting severely blunted and lost especially in Alberta. Because, if the young engineers don’t get the experience they need in their formative years, out of the engineering schools, how will they develop the necessary oilsands and other oil and gas expertise which is fundamental to continuation of Canada’s reputation of delivering high quality output?!
Performance of a company and quality of work depends on the managerial competence of those entities. Canadian universities not only impart high quality education, they also provide a well rounded personality development, including solid grounding in soft skills, during the undergrad courses.
But if the young Canadian undergrads are not provided continued job opportunities how can they get groomed to be future managers of Canada? How will that competent layer be ready to fill the void created by the retiring baby boomers? A layer that is competent in communication skills and ingrained with Canadian work culture and values, a layer that is trained in Canadian excellence and trained to think like one! This situation is indeed potentially disastrous for Canada!!
But sadly, the incompetent and intellectually impoverished decision makers of the various engineering and operating companies are destroying the future of Alberta (and Canada) by not taking back the Canada educated engineering undergrads as soon as new job opportunities are coming up. The situations is getting further exacerbated by robot-like recruiters who cannot distinguish between ‘real’ talent and the ‘irrelevant’ talent which claims simply more number of years of experience on paper.
One hopes Alberta has not become totally devoid of sane and competent people, and that these people will realize the path of disaster the short-sighted blundering idiots are treading on. One hopes the companies in Alberta, especially the oilsands related, will refocus their attention on development of future layers of management based on home grown young undergrad talent by re-absorbing them in jobs.
If the handful sane elements in the provincial or federal Govt don’t intervene soon enough, the damage that will have been caused to future managerial competence of Alberta (and Canada) will be irreparable. Ruing at a later day will not undo the stupid actions of the present day. May God give the decision makers some modicum of intellectual sense!
In Alberta the huge number of oilsands projects brought a fantastic economic upswing in the province from 2001-02 onwards. Fort McMurray, Calgary, and Edmonton were flush with jobs – with engineering jobs more concentrated in Calgary and Edmonton, and tradespersons’ jobs abounding in Fort McMurray. Hourly rates were going through the roof in the so-called ‘Middle East’ of North America, i.e., Fort Mc.
The burgeoning engineering companies in Alberta were offering jobs to fresh engineering undergrads to experienced alike at frenetic pace. The joke making round in 2005-06 was that if someone could spell ‘engineering’ that person was getting hired. There was a mad rush of immigrant engineers who claimed experience in oil, gas and other sectors.
But as the oilsands projects started to come to a grinding halt in 2008, massive lay offs ensued. And, bearing the brunt of this all were, among others, the young engineers. The saddest part is that these young engineers had cut their teeth in engineering in Canadian engineering schools. These young engineers who were aspiring to be the future torch bearers of Canadian expertise were given most shabby treatment by the oilsands related companies of Alberta.
During these trying times, most of the engineering companies and a number of operating companies of Alberta were and are found following dangerously short-sighted policy of relying on immigrant engineers, who have on paper more number of years of experience, to run their show.
A large chunk of these foreign educated Bachelor degree holders are pathetically ill equipped in terms of communication skills and Canadian outlook toward work culture and excellence in general. As well, most of the immigrant work force is relatively more aged.
Now, what is happening is that by not providing employment opportunities to the young Canadian engineers (EITs), the layer that would otherwise be ready to fill in the vacuum in the middle management level in the coming years when the baby boomers will be gone is not getting properly formed. These young undergrads not only bring the excellence of the Canadian engineering schools but also bring the mindset of Canadian work ethics and attitude right from the day one to their respective jobs.
The young men and women coming out of the various Canadian universities after completing their undergrad studies had formed the backbone of Canadian industrial resurgence in the late 20th century. These young men and women had brought with them the potential managerial skills so very vital to development and sustaining the edge in competition.
But that edge is getting severely blunted and lost especially in Alberta. Because, if the young engineers don’t get the experience they need in their formative years, out of the engineering schools, how will they develop the necessary oilsands and other oil and gas expertise which is fundamental to continuation of Canada’s reputation of delivering high quality output?!
Performance of a company and quality of work depends on the managerial competence of those entities. Canadian universities not only impart high quality education, they also provide a well rounded personality development, including solid grounding in soft skills, during the undergrad courses.
But if the young Canadian undergrads are not provided continued job opportunities how can they get groomed to be future managers of Canada? How will that competent layer be ready to fill the void created by the retiring baby boomers? A layer that is competent in communication skills and ingrained with Canadian work culture and values, a layer that is trained in Canadian excellence and trained to think like one! This situation is indeed potentially disastrous for Canada!!
But sadly, the incompetent and intellectually impoverished decision makers of the various engineering and operating companies are destroying the future of Alberta (and Canada) by not taking back the Canada educated engineering undergrads as soon as new job opportunities are coming up. The situations is getting further exacerbated by robot-like recruiters who cannot distinguish between ‘real’ talent and the ‘irrelevant’ talent which claims simply more number of years of experience on paper.
One hopes Alberta has not become totally devoid of sane and competent people, and that these people will realize the path of disaster the short-sighted blundering idiots are treading on. One hopes the companies in Alberta, especially the oilsands related, will refocus their attention on development of future layers of management based on home grown young undergrad talent by re-absorbing them in jobs.
If the handful sane elements in the provincial or federal Govt don’t intervene soon enough, the damage that will have been caused to future managerial competence of Alberta (and Canada) will be irreparable. Ruing at a later day will not undo the stupid actions of the present day. May God give the decision makers some modicum of intellectual sense!
Sunday, October 4, 2009
TO SUCCEED IN AFGHANISTAN UNITED STATES WILL FIRST NEED TO UNDO ITS NEFARIOUS SOUTH ASIAN POLICIES OF THE 1990s
For the following major US and ISAF losses in one day in Afghanistan:
· Oct 2009: Eight US die in Taliban attack in Nuristan, eastern Afghanistan close to Pak border;
· Sept 2009: Six Italian soldiers die in suicide bomb in Kabul;
· Aug 2008: Ten French troops killed in ambush in Sarobi, east of Kabul;
· July 2008: Nine US soldiers die in militant siege in Wanar, bordering Nuristan and Wanar provinces;
· Nov 2007: Six US soldiers and three Afghan troops killed in ambush;
· July 2007: Six Canadian soldiers and Afghan interpreter die when vehicle hits IED in Kandahar province;
· May 2007: Five US, one UK, one Canadian soldier die in hostile attack on helicopter in Helmand province;
· June 2005: Sixteen US soldiers die in attack on helicopter in Konar province; and counting…..
if one had to point toward one major reason, then it would have to be the former President Bill Clinton. And, this is not being said because one is anti-Democrat or pro-Republican. Any impartial, objective analysis of US policies in South Asian region of India, Pakistan and Afghanistan would unequivocally bring out that in 1990s United States pursued a nefarious policy of ‘overlook what Pakistan (and Saudi) is doing in the region’.
Since the buck stops at the table of US President, therefore, the responsibility of policy of deliberate callous indifference towards the diabolical games played by Pakistan in ‘90s must be attributed to then US President – Clinton. Clinton’s era was one of the worst from US foreign policy perspective.
What happened on 9/11 was the direct consequence of Clinton administration's callous indifference alluded to above. President Bush went in to Afghanistan like a mad bull in rage. However, he continued to indulge Pakistani leadership and get fooled (most of the time knowingly) by Pakistani chicanery.
Either Bush was incapable or he was, like his Republican predecessors, more anti-Indian; whatever it was he could not unravel the rogue Pakistan was (and is). Like a fool he continued to play in the hands of the Pakistanis. Result? US and ISAF continued to bleed in Afghanistan.
But Bush's Afghanistan strategy was more of a band aid because he had not fathomed the Clinton-era mistakes nor he had the inclination to do so either. He had no clue of what would be the best strategy or what it should be predicated on! He was too bogged down in Iraq, and he and his advisers were too incapable of figuring out anything sensible beyond Iraq.
Going back to Clinton - regardless of whatever the so-called biographers of Bill Clinton may say or write about the characteristics of the former President, one thing is for sure – Clinton had a pathological aversion (or shall we say, inability) to taking major decisions, especially, related to military geo-politics. Clinton exhibited classic ostrich-like behaviour when it came to dealing with potential or real armed conflict issues.
Clinton liked to be an ‘escapist’ (probably he still does) and under the self-created illusion that everything is fine devilishly revelled in procrastination and avoidance. In case of South Asian region he deliberately overlooked what was going on in the region. Following were some of the notable situations:
· Pakistan was aiding Taliban to overrun Afghanistan so as to control that area indirectly;
· Saudi Arabia was promoting radical Islam (Wahabism) by pumping money in that region (and elsewhere in the moderate Islamic communities);
· Pakistan was fostering terrorism in Kashmir and countless innocent Indians were dying;
· Pakistan, through its nuclear scientist A. Q. Khan, was not only developing its own nuclear capability but also transferring the deadly technology to North Korea, Iran and others;
· Pakistan was channelling US military and civilian aid to further its own military build up;
· Pakistan’s Shia politicians were colluding with Iran to help expand its influence in the region.
It will be disastrous to assume that CIA did not know about the above and much more and was not keeping the President and his advisers informed (if CIA indeed failed to notice and/or track the above, then God bless the US!). But President Clinton chose to overlook all this. Why? Possibly because apart from being an incorrigible ‘escapist’ that he was, he thought that there was NO potential direct (or may even indirect) impact on an American due to whatever Pakistan or Saudi Arabia was doing!! He thought “oh why bother, things are happening thousands of miles away from US shores”.
But this psychopathic philanderer probably forgot what the geniuses of political science have said from ancient times – be it Chanakya or Sun Tzu – to the modern times that to maintain political and military influence one needs to anticipate far ahead what can happen in the coming times. Sun Tzu mentions at one place in his book (The Art of War): ...A leader must be “serene and inscrutable" and capable of comprehending "unfathomable plans".
But then that’s the price a country pays for electing someone whose dick reigns rather than the cerebral competencies. If history is impartial and someday people reflect on past presidents of US, there will be a general consensus that Clinton’s era was a disaster in terms of statesmanship and foreign policy; Clinton failed miserably in its task of protecting US by failing to anticipate and act proactively where it was required.
[Sidebar comment: The so-called economic prosperity seen during Clinton presidency was a result of previous policies already put in place, he was just lucky to reap the fruits]
One may ask, why bring in all the past, Clinton and all, in today’s discussion on Afghanistan strategy? Again, the answer is simple: if you don’t analyze what might have been the cause for a given current situation, how do you assess and arrive at the best option! And, mind you, the top US general in the region Gen Stanley McChrystal is asking for a "dramatically different" strategy to ensure success there.
So, how do you arrive at a "dramatically different" strategy if you don’t know what went wrong in the first place; if you don’t know what has been going on for all these years in the region? What are the areas that need to be fixed to achieve success of the mission? If President Obama and his advisers want to arrive at the ‘best’ option, they will have to look at the past with an open and impartial mind, analyze with the mind set of nobody is a ‘holy cow’, explode old shibboleths, and then come to the conclusion on the best path forward.
Taliban can be defeated. And by the way, President Obama keeps harping on the word Al-Qaeda without mentioning Taliban in his speeches. One hopes he knows that ‘real’ enemy of US and ISAF are the Taliban, Al-Qaeda are just riding piggy back to synergize and cause maximum damage. Anyway, back to Afghanistan: US and the international community can defeat the Islamic radical monsters – created to a large extent by the aid and abetment of Pakistan and Saudis – but it would need a sustained campaign.
How should that campaign be run, that will be the subject of next blog.
· Oct 2009: Eight US die in Taliban attack in Nuristan, eastern Afghanistan close to Pak border;
· Sept 2009: Six Italian soldiers die in suicide bomb in Kabul;
· Aug 2008: Ten French troops killed in ambush in Sarobi, east of Kabul;
· July 2008: Nine US soldiers die in militant siege in Wanar, bordering Nuristan and Wanar provinces;
· Nov 2007: Six US soldiers and three Afghan troops killed in ambush;
· July 2007: Six Canadian soldiers and Afghan interpreter die when vehicle hits IED in Kandahar province;
· May 2007: Five US, one UK, one Canadian soldier die in hostile attack on helicopter in Helmand province;
· June 2005: Sixteen US soldiers die in attack on helicopter in Konar province; and counting…..
if one had to point toward one major reason, then it would have to be the former President Bill Clinton. And, this is not being said because one is anti-Democrat or pro-Republican. Any impartial, objective analysis of US policies in South Asian region of India, Pakistan and Afghanistan would unequivocally bring out that in 1990s United States pursued a nefarious policy of ‘overlook what Pakistan (and Saudi) is doing in the region’.
Since the buck stops at the table of US President, therefore, the responsibility of policy of deliberate callous indifference towards the diabolical games played by Pakistan in ‘90s must be attributed to then US President – Clinton. Clinton’s era was one of the worst from US foreign policy perspective.
What happened on 9/11 was the direct consequence of Clinton administration's callous indifference alluded to above. President Bush went in to Afghanistan like a mad bull in rage. However, he continued to indulge Pakistani leadership and get fooled (most of the time knowingly) by Pakistani chicanery.
Either Bush was incapable or he was, like his Republican predecessors, more anti-Indian; whatever it was he could not unravel the rogue Pakistan was (and is). Like a fool he continued to play in the hands of the Pakistanis. Result? US and ISAF continued to bleed in Afghanistan.
But Bush's Afghanistan strategy was more of a band aid because he had not fathomed the Clinton-era mistakes nor he had the inclination to do so either. He had no clue of what would be the best strategy or what it should be predicated on! He was too bogged down in Iraq, and he and his advisers were too incapable of figuring out anything sensible beyond Iraq.
Going back to Clinton - regardless of whatever the so-called biographers of Bill Clinton may say or write about the characteristics of the former President, one thing is for sure – Clinton had a pathological aversion (or shall we say, inability) to taking major decisions, especially, related to military geo-politics. Clinton exhibited classic ostrich-like behaviour when it came to dealing with potential or real armed conflict issues.
Clinton liked to be an ‘escapist’ (probably he still does) and under the self-created illusion that everything is fine devilishly revelled in procrastination and avoidance. In case of South Asian region he deliberately overlooked what was going on in the region. Following were some of the notable situations:
· Pakistan was aiding Taliban to overrun Afghanistan so as to control that area indirectly;
· Saudi Arabia was promoting radical Islam (Wahabism) by pumping money in that region (and elsewhere in the moderate Islamic communities);
· Pakistan was fostering terrorism in Kashmir and countless innocent Indians were dying;
· Pakistan, through its nuclear scientist A. Q. Khan, was not only developing its own nuclear capability but also transferring the deadly technology to North Korea, Iran and others;
· Pakistan was channelling US military and civilian aid to further its own military build up;
· Pakistan’s Shia politicians were colluding with Iran to help expand its influence in the region.
It will be disastrous to assume that CIA did not know about the above and much more and was not keeping the President and his advisers informed (if CIA indeed failed to notice and/or track the above, then God bless the US!). But President Clinton chose to overlook all this. Why? Possibly because apart from being an incorrigible ‘escapist’ that he was, he thought that there was NO potential direct (or may even indirect) impact on an American due to whatever Pakistan or Saudi Arabia was doing!! He thought “oh why bother, things are happening thousands of miles away from US shores”.
But this psychopathic philanderer probably forgot what the geniuses of political science have said from ancient times – be it Chanakya or Sun Tzu – to the modern times that to maintain political and military influence one needs to anticipate far ahead what can happen in the coming times. Sun Tzu mentions at one place in his book (The Art of War): ...A leader must be “serene and inscrutable" and capable of comprehending "unfathomable plans".
But then that’s the price a country pays for electing someone whose dick reigns rather than the cerebral competencies. If history is impartial and someday people reflect on past presidents of US, there will be a general consensus that Clinton’s era was a disaster in terms of statesmanship and foreign policy; Clinton failed miserably in its task of protecting US by failing to anticipate and act proactively where it was required.
[Sidebar comment: The so-called economic prosperity seen during Clinton presidency was a result of previous policies already put in place, he was just lucky to reap the fruits]
One may ask, why bring in all the past, Clinton and all, in today’s discussion on Afghanistan strategy? Again, the answer is simple: if you don’t analyze what might have been the cause for a given current situation, how do you assess and arrive at the best option! And, mind you, the top US general in the region Gen Stanley McChrystal is asking for a "dramatically different" strategy to ensure success there.
So, how do you arrive at a "dramatically different" strategy if you don’t know what went wrong in the first place; if you don’t know what has been going on for all these years in the region? What are the areas that need to be fixed to achieve success of the mission? If President Obama and his advisers want to arrive at the ‘best’ option, they will have to look at the past with an open and impartial mind, analyze with the mind set of nobody is a ‘holy cow’, explode old shibboleths, and then come to the conclusion on the best path forward.
Taliban can be defeated. And by the way, President Obama keeps harping on the word Al-Qaeda without mentioning Taliban in his speeches. One hopes he knows that ‘real’ enemy of US and ISAF are the Taliban, Al-Qaeda are just riding piggy back to synergize and cause maximum damage. Anyway, back to Afghanistan: US and the international community can defeat the Islamic radical monsters – created to a large extent by the aid and abetment of Pakistan and Saudis – but it would need a sustained campaign.
How should that campaign be run, that will be the subject of next blog.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)