Liberal columnist Michael Tomasky asks -

Is (Herman)Cain not that bright?

He gets a response in the comments(by hound)-

on Cains brightness
- bachelors degrees in mathematics, masters in computer Science
- he was actually a rocket scientist, he computed missile trajectories for the Navy
- VP of Data systems for Pillsbury
this was before he was 35
after 35
- in 3 years he toook 400 of Burger Kings poorest performing restuarants and transformed them into the best performing in the nation
- in 14 months he transformed Godfathers from near bankruptcy to a prefit making chain
- Chairman of the Kansas City Federal Reserve Bank.

those are only some of his achievements, compare that to Barrack Obama's

Mr Tomasky is berating Cain on the fact he is not a professional politician as Obama is. To me that is a big plus, not a negative.

Yes, what exactly are Obama's achievements? Apart from writing successful books - about himself!

A better question is -
Are Tomasky and the hordes of other Obamabots in the media bright?

And am I bright to pose such a question when the answer is obvious?
As stupid as asking if Barkha Dutt is bright.

Media Crooks on fire

No, I don't mean Barkha Dutt et al. in a burning inferno though the thought might cockle some hearts. I mean the passionately written blog Media Crooks is in a fit of (justified, I think) outrage and is producing some fiery stuff. E.g. see this, this or an earlier posted this. Don't miss.

Dogistan

Hindustan has become Scamistan. The country has gone to the dogs. Even its awards go to power brokers

Barkha Dutt receives Padma Shri award

Everyone who is anyone seems to be on the racket.
Politicians venal and corrupt.
Police venal and corrupt.
Anti-corruption officers venal and corrupt.
Bureaucrats venal and corrupt.
And now, as we long suspected, journalists, well you know, venal and corrupt.



Looters and scamsters have made us Dogistan.

Think that is harsh.
I agree, it is harsh.
On the dogs, I mean.

Apropos which, Vidya Subrahmaniam has an article on the Radia affair in The Hindu that is worth catching-

With the Radia debate into its third week, it has become more than apparent that a new kind of journalism has completely rewritten the rules of engagement in the profession. For those working with television, the glamour and fame can be overpowering, with the high visibility translating into throbbing, pulsating fan clubs, enormous following on social media networks and celebrity status on the party circuit. For the likes of Ms Radia, the “celeb journo” is a sitting duck, a vulnerable target both for passing on and acquiring information. News gathered this way slowly and inevitably acquires a legitimacy that eventually allows all lines to be crossed. From this to concluding that news cannot be got any other way is a small step. The trappings of power work similarly for politicians and journalists. Cut off from the rude realities of the normal world, both begin to live in a bubble of their own making. But whereas the politician, used to voter mood swings, will quickly learn his lesson when the truth hits home, the journalist, not tutored in this art, will react in anger and shock and go into spasms of denial.

Do read it all, as they say.

Indian media -asses covering asses of other asses

It's not just me that gets the impression that Rajdeep Sardesai, the top honcho of CNN-IBN,  is trying to distract us from probing deeper into the ethical woes of his media colleagues. His latest column is like pointing at the sky and saying -look a pink elephant! while the rat of journalism sneaks by. Or, as the neglected TV film reporter Smita Smitten, Showbiz Kitten used to say in the delightful comedy Goodness Gracious Me to divert viewers from her woes- "Look, there goes Art Malik!"

I won't bother to fisk the article-I'm too tired now and tomorrow is another day - but comments below the column have done that to an extent already, some in a cruder way than I would have. Some samples -

Looking in the mirror is for others

Over at the Hindustan Times Samar Halarnkar ponders over the dodgy ethics of his many allegedly distinguished media colleagues as exposed in the Radia tapes and gives us this eternal wisdom of the heavens-

It is always hardest to look within and acknowledge one's failings. 

Ironical.

This blog has at various times analyzed and criticized the highly biased "reporting" in this paper by none other than Halarnkar himself. For example see this and this. It was sheer advocacy of an agenda -hardcore environmentalist agenda in this case - that masqueraded as "news" and such is the media world so hermetically sealed in its perceived intellectual superiority and arrogance that neither Halarnkar nor his editors could make out the difference between belief systems and facts. In the few emails and comments we exchanged he simply laughed off all criticism.

I guess media persons do find it hard to look in the mirror. Either that or their mirror is frosted.

Kumkum Dasgupta -no wind in those windmills

The moment I lay my eyes on this article on windmills by Kumkum Dasgupta in today's Hindustan Times, I just knew that it would be strong on uninformed tosh and unquestioning credulity. I was not disappointed(or rather was-  that this large article was no different from thousands of others).Here is the gist of it-

--------------------------------------
A little bit of push from the government always helps, as it did for Samsoe, which is located in the middle of Denmark, a country of 406 islands and peninsula Jutland. Thanks to its geographical position, the Viking explorers once used Samsoe as a meeting point. Today, it has become the centre of the country’s renewable energy (RE) programme. Thanks to a community initiative, the island now runs on 100 per cent RE.

That Samsoe’s contribution is part of Denmark’s larger plans of moving from fossil fuels to RE is clear: by 2025, Denmark wants at least 30 per cent of its total energy consumption to be powered by RE. As of today, RE accounts for over 15 per cent of the country’s gross energy consumption and about 27 per cent of the electricity that is generated.

-----------------------------------------------------------

The residents responded wholeheartedly: they gave up their oil-burning furnaces for centralised plants that burned leftover straw or wood chips to produce heat and hot water. They bought shares in new wind turbines. Then they invested in 11 large land-based turbines, enough to meet their electricity needs.

They also supported the construction of 10 massive offshore turbines. Banks backed the resident-investors because the Danish government assured the price of electricity for 10 years.
“We care about the production, because we own the wind turbines. Every time they turn around, it means money in the bank.


And, being part of it, we also feel responsible,” Hermansen said in an interview to a newspaper.
“The spin-offs have been enormous: the islanders not only saved on its fuel/electricity bills but Samsoe became an island for eco-tourism

-------------------------


“We care about the production, because we own the wind turbines. Every time they turn around, it means money in the bank. And, being part of it, we also feel responsible,” Hermansen said in an interview to a newspaper.

Ok, we get the narrative - a green island paradise that is now teaching the world how to give up completely it's dependence on fossil fuels, a sort of renewable energy kibbutz that actually works and makes money, grassroots collective action for nature and for profit.

Kumkum Dasgupta, following to a T other 'environmental' writers' techniques, raises no doubts, interviews no contrary voices, questions nothing.The truth, alas, is often not found in a newspaper article -a strange and tragic irony.

Ms. Dasgupta, here some facts that you seem to be unaware of -

The answer is that the president's (repeat) claim that "Denmark produces almost 20 percent of their electricity through wind power" is false. Denmark actually produces much less of its own electricity from wind, as low as 4 percent depending on the year, with the recent average of 9.7 percent. This despite a massive buildout of what they flatteringly call the "wind carpet," on some of the most hospitable terrain for wind power in the world.

It is also in return for its households paying the highest eletricity rates in Europe. With a substantially lower per-capita energy use. That means, to get half of what Obama seeks, the U.S. would have to carpet itself twice over — which means lots of windmills where birds fly and Kennedys live — and pay Danish-style rates.

Oh. Wait. That still won't do it. Apparently Denmark's experience isn't even scalable to Scanadanavia. It turns out that, if the Norwegians and Swedes tried to replicate Denmark's expensive folly, well, it would blow the system up. Here's why. Denmark took advantage of long-since-paid-for interconnectors between Jutland and Norway, and the island on which Copenhagen sits and Sweden. It made a political decision that windmills would be their "national champion" industry, and as you will hear to no end throughout the Copenhagen COP, a big part of their national identity. So they built a lot of windmills, and started a mythology.

This buildout was only possible because the Norwegians and Swedes use enormous percentages of hydropower and nuclear, both of which can be dialed up or down according to the whimsy of the wind. When the wind does deign to blow, Denmark sends fully half of its very expensive, ratepayer subsidized wind power to its neighbors at cut rates, in return for said neighbors indulging Denmark's wind mill image-making by dialing up or down its hydro power or nukes at other times (which, most of the time, means "up").

When the wind picks up, the story gets worse. On top of subsidizing their neighbors' electricity and allowing them to go without building more of their own, it turns out that increases in wind generation, under the current buildout, are shipped nearly 100 percent and at a considerable below-cost discount right out of the country. With its politicians now vowing to massively increase installed wind ("50 percent of our elecricity" — how about getting to 20 percent first?), that means Denmark will be sending even more domestic wealth to its neighbors.

Because it is displacing carbon-neutral electricity — as a condition precedent even to deploying the machines, mind you, so this is not something that can be changed — you can kiss claims to massive CO2 reductions (or reduced fuel use) goodbye.

When it comes to Obama's claim that Denmark, not discredited Spain, is the model to follow: waiter, the food was horrible, and the portions too small. You can't replicate Denmark's model — and its a good thing, too.

Although, I'm informed that the Danish wind industry admitted the problems to the media this morning before muttering about needing further (ratepayer) investment, expect the American wind power industry to spin wildly in coming days. Which, incidentally, is more than we can say about their products.

So, the merry islanders are laughing their way to the bank while rest of Denmark pays the highest energy bills in Europe. Denmark has to ship out it's wind-generated electricity at a loss to it's neighbors. And to top it all, the alleged CO2 reductions are a myth.


And this you say, Ms.Dasgupta, is model for the world to follow. Really?



(emphasis mine)


Update -
missing links added.


Update 2-

        Related-



        BBC refuses to air a film not duly worshipful of windmills


       Artists against windmills

Times of India, your website is killing the planet!

Those publications and media organizations that tom-tom their greenness, like the Times of India and NDTV, could have a dilemma(if they are honest to their principles) on their hand -

Twenty milligrams; that's the average amount of carbon emissions generated from the time it took you to read the first two words of this article.

Now, depending on how quickly you read, around 80, perhaps even 100 milligrams of C02 have been released. And in the several minutes it will take you to get to the end of this story, the number of milligrams of greenhouse gas emitted could be several thousand, if not more.

This may not seem like a lot: "But in aggregate, if you consider all the people visiting a web site and then all the seconds that each of them spends on it, it turns out to be a large number," says Dr. Alexander Wissner-Gross, an Environmental Fellow at Harvard University who studies the environmental impact of computing.

Wissner-Gross estimates every second someone spends browsing a simple web site generates roughly 20 milligrams of C02. Whether downloading a song, sending an email or streaming a video, almost every single activity that takes place in the virtual environment has an impact on the real one.

Will these preachy media entities now shut down their websites to save the planet? If not then can we consider them green hypocrites, like Al Gore and Rajendra Pachauri?

Update- Times of India now claims that it "has emerged
as the world's No.1 English newspaper website in terms of page views"
TOI also regularly publishes apocalyptic editorials and articles about Global Warming. In view of the new research above, they are now among top climate criminals among the media.
I ask them to either stop preaching to us unwashed masses or start practicing what they preach. Times of  India, shut down your site at once -it is killing the planet! Or else shut the f*** up about climate change.

What Indians need to hear about Russia

What Indians need to hear about Russia but won't-

EU foreign ministers meeting in emergency session today to discuss the situation in Georgia should begin by asking why it took the outbreak of war to focus their attention. They had no cause to be surprised. The warning signs had been apparent for at least a year, and the Georgian government had made strenuous efforts to raise the alarm. This time last summer a Russian jet violated Georgian airspace and dropped a missile north of Tbilisi in what appeared to be a botched attack on a Georgian radar installation. Russia denied involvement, but two separate independent investigations found otherwise. Despite this, Georgia's plea for diplomatic support fell almost entirely on deaf ears.

Whether or not the incident was planned in order to test international reactions to an escalation of Russian military action in Georgia, Moscow clearly took encouragement from the absence of a response. With western governments preoccupied elsewhere - not least with Iran, where they need Russian support for a negotiated solution on the nuclear issue - Russian strategists evidently concluded that they enjoyed a free hand in their "near abroad". In April, Vladimir Putin announced that Russia would be strengthening official links with Georgia's two breakaway regions, Abkhazia and South Ossetia, including opening formal relations with their political bodies and strengthening trade ties.

This only confirmed what had been apparent for several years - that Russia is actively supporting secessionist forces instead of respecting its mandate and behaving as an honest broker. But it ripped away the final pretence that its role in Georgia is one of peacekeeping. Other steps of escalation quickly followed. Russia moved 400 troops into Abkhazia under the pretext of working on a railway project. Russian planes started shooting down Georgian aerial drones. There was an increase in armed attacks by Russian-backed forces in South Ossetia, including a roadside bomb that injured six Georgian policemen and an attempt to assassinate the head of the pro-Tbilisi provisional administration of South Ossetia.

None of these incidents received much coverage outside the region, so the impression has been created that Georgia initiated the current fighting with an unprovoked assault on South Ossetia. This is quite false. It has surely been a big misjudgment on Georgia's part, but resort to offensive operations came at the end of a long period of rising tension in which Russia had done everything it could to stir up trouble and provoke a reaction.

--------------------------------------

But complexity is no excuse for abdicating moral judgment in situations of this importance. If responsibility for the conflict is not a black and white matter, the picture is not uniformly grey either. By any reasonable measure, the impact of Russian policy has been uniquely destructive in generating instability and political division in the Caucasus. The events of the early 1990s notwithstanding, Georgia's treatment of minorities that have remained under its rule has been generally good. Whatever his faults, Saakashvili is no Milosevic - and wild Russian allegations of genocide have no independent support. Under appropriate international supervision, it would be perfectly possible to turn his offer of autonomy for Abkhazia and South Ossetia into a workable constitutional settlement that guaranteed the security and fundamental rights of people living those territories.

The problem is that considerations of this nature form no part of Russia's vision for the region. It talks about defending the people of South Ossetia, but the Kremlin's aims are geopolitical rather than humanitarian. It seeks to restore the sphere of influence it regards as Russia's birthright, which it lost with the collapse of the Soviet Union (a "major geopolitical disaster", according to Putin). There is no place for an independent Georgia (or Ukraine or Moldova) in this mental picture. When Russian leaders talk about the benefits of "sovereign democracy", they are talking exclusively about their own sovereignty and not at all about democracy. The countries on their borders have no right to foreign policies of their own if they conflict with Russia's. This is especially true of energy supplies, where Georgia's role in maintaining the only east-west pipeline route free of Russia's monopolistic grip causes double offence. This is about the Kremlin's attitude to us, too.

----------------------------------------

There are troubling signs in some of the victory statements coming out of Moscow yesterday that Russia may feel emboldened to impose a punitive settlement, perhaps by annexing territory. This is not something that the EU and its allies should be prepared to tolerate. As so often with bullies, the Russian government's behaviour disguises deep insecurity and a craving for respect. This makes it more susceptible to our opinions than we often think. Further aggressive steps against Georgia would certainly be a reason to reconsider whether Russia should continue to enjoy the prestige that comes with membership of the G8.

From an excellent article by David Clark in the Guardian.Read the whole thing.


Now this is something you won't hear, see or read in the India media unless by some fluke. Ask yourself why some opinions(or rather some kinds of opinion) are shut out from the Indian press.


(emphasis mine)

Anti-imperialists absconding

Where art thou, O Jholawalas* and Jholawalis*

Waiting, still waiting

-for the professional anti-imperialists to condemn Russian aggression

-for jholawalas* to take to the street in support of a tiny country facing the onslaught of an expansionist, imperial power which wants to control oil resources

-for the Indian politicians to condemn 'disproportionate' use of force as they did with Israel

-for our media pundits to get outraged as they do when you mention 'Bush' or 'Iraq' (mention both and they go into an apoplectic fit).

Waiting.....

* Jholawalas and Jholawalis- see the bottom part of this post.

The presidency of George W. Bush-two views

First the conventional, typical, BDS laced view held by 99.97648% of the MSM the world over. This sample is from an editorial in the Times of India-

Many of McClellan's revelations confirm what critics of the Bush administration have been saying all along, namely that it wilfully misled the US and the rest of the world to justify the decision to invade Iraq.

This is a damning indictment of a presidency that has been viewed by many as either bumbling or deceitful. If McClellan is to be believed, Bush and his team of advisers were the latter.

They deliberately spun a web of deception around the Iraq invasion and a host of other issues.
---------------------------------
But now that Bush's term is nearing its end, there is a likelihood of others queuing up to distance themselves from a disastrous presidency.

The second view held by a part of that tiny rebellious and hated minority- the conservatives, neo or otherwise -

George W. Bush - Walking Away a Winner?

We went through similar times in the early 1990’s. The Berlin Wall fell, the Soviet Union crumbled and we won the Cold War. Yet it was beyond the typical liberal’s ability to acknowledge that Ronald Reagan had anything to do with these accomplishments. So you had the ludicrous spectacle of bespectacled college professors arguing that Jimmy Carter could have won the Cold War or the Soviet Union would have fallen apart regardless of what we did. In 1992 after Reagan addressed the Republican convention, Tom Brokaw speculated from his national TV perch that the government debt run up under Reagan’s watch would be the Gipper’s principal legacy.

We’re seeing something similar happen now. In the past couple of weeks, two extremely promising news stories have sprung from the War on Terror. The situation in Iraq is looking promising, and there is a real possibility and perhaps even a likelihood that the Iraq war will leave as its legacy a remarkably civilized and progressive country by the standards of the region. More importantly, the war may leave behind a stable and humane nation that will not be hostile to American interests, one that may serve as a beacon for it neighbors.

Perhaps more noteworthy is the CIA’s assessment that “portrays Al Qaeda as essentially defeated in Iraq and Saudi Arabia and on the defensive throughout much of the rest of the world, including in its presumed haven along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.” While I always take CIA pronouncements of this sort with a grain of salt given the agency’s limitations and recent history of sloppy analysis, this conclusion does square with Al Qaeda’s declining and practically disappearing activities.

Since these have been George W. Bush’s wars, one would think he would receive at least a modicum of credit for any progress. Alas, if Bush is to receive credit, he’ll have to be patient just like Reagan was.
------------------------------

What bin Laden said about the strong horse and the weak horse was right. And he and his minions don’t look like the strong horse running for their pathetic lives in Waziristan for years on end. The Islamic world has watched as al Qaeda has become the weak horse. President Bush deserves credit for fighting the war with the steadfastness he has. Remember, it was less than four years ago when John Kerry implored us to fight a more sensitive war on terror. Somehow I doubt sensitivity would have had the same impact on the Jihadists as the predator drones that now fill their skies.

I’ve never been reticent about pointing out the Bush administration’s shortcomings. Its spendthrift ways, its elevation of unqualified lackeys to positions of importance, its longtime adherence to ineffective tactics in Iraq, its inability to communicate…I better stop – I could go on all day. My point is that the Bush administration has been a flawed vehicle, and I’ve never shied away from saying as much.

But President Bush is on the verge of winning the big ones. It will be no small thing if he has shown and mostly secured the path to victory in Iraq and in the War on Terror before leaving office. It will drive the left crazy and as was the case with Reagan, it will take liberals decades to admit it, but Bush will strut back to Crawford a big winner.

Few remember that Abraham Lincoln spent years running a dreadful war effort presided over by the ineffective likes of George McClellan and Joe Hooker. And those who do remember such things view them charitably, as Lincoln got things right by the end. If President Bush does wind up also having gotten the big things right, something that seems increasingly likely, the enormous successes of his administration will dwarf the failures in history’s eyes.

Read the whole thing.

You are unlikely ever to hear this second view in that 99.97648% of the MSM. So much for giving all opinions a chance.

Oppressed ladies in bikinis may take them off

(image source)
Oppressed ladies in bikinis -take off your garbs! Choose liberation in this instead-


(image source)

In a publication full of inanities, this column by Sunita Aron stands out. She defends the state of women's rights in Ahmadinejad’s Iran.

The dress code has not suppressed women in Iran. The high literacy levels has pushed their participation in Iran’s 1979 revolution as well as for the ongoing one million-signature campaign in support of their petition to the government for equal rights in the Iranian law. And they are ready to go to jail too against what they once described as ‘gender apartheid.’

Perhaps it’s time we admit that the equal status of women is not determined by the dress she wears. A woman in a bikini can be more suppressed than one covered from head to toe. It’s time Iran and India realised this.

Read the whole silly thing.

Sunita Aron appears to be some sort of a big shot at the Hindustan Times. Many a times I wonder why the top honchos of our media, print and TV, utter the stupidest of things with a depressing regularity. Here are a few women feeling liberated in Uncle Ahmadinejad's wonderland-


Video of an Iranian woman being arrested by the relgious police even as she shouts,"I don't want to go"

Here is another-

Another video of an Iranian woman being arrested by the IRI police


On the other hand, Kay S. Hymowitz wonders-"Why Feminism is AWOL on Islam"

Similar musings from Robert Spencer-"Two Women Stoned: Feminists Mum"

(emphasis mine)

Sitaram Yechuriji, come take away all these loonies

E Gawd! There they go again. The American administration has kicked our Pavlovian media dogs in the balls again. For several hours now they(the allegedly 'news' channels) have been bleating about how Bush is now blaming India and China for the rise in oil prices after blaming our emiciated populace for the food crisis earlier(that was was the first kick). So we are now told that Bush has come up with this unique theory that on one else believes in: in fact Sitaram Yechury called America insane for suggesting that India and China might be, um...connected to the rise in price of of oil.

That means no rest for me. No time to ogle at generous female forms on the wilder side of the net. Now I will have to put on my SuperBlogger pyjama suit and get to work. So here goes.


Yechuriji, bring in a large van from the nearest lunatic asylum, for these people will be climbing aboard along with Bush-



Meghnad Desai, The Times of India, 1 May 2008-

The oil price rise is driven almost entirely by China's demand and the chaotic politics of Nigeria and Venezuela.

Mark Shenk at Livemint(a Hindustan Times publication), Apr 21 2008-

Traffic jams in Beijing and air conditioners in Dubai are replacing US highways and suburbs as the driver of global oil prices.

China, India, Russia and West Asia for the first time will consume more crude oil than the US, burning 20.67 million barrels a day this year, an increase of 4.4%, according to the International Energy Agency, or IEA, in Paris. US demand will contract 2% to 20.38 million barrels daily, IEA says.

Kiran Kabtta, TNN(Times of India),28 Apr, 2008-

Nevertheless, the overall demand for crude oil continues to grow, especially in large, emerging countries such as China, India and Brazil, as well as West Asian countries.

Manas Chakravarty and Mobis Philipose at Livemint, Apr 18 2008-

Although world growth may be slowing, growth in countries such as China and India continues to remain robust and it’s the demand from these countries that’s going to keep commodity prices high.

Moira Herbst, BusinessWeek, August 3, 2007-

Unlike in previous periods, the main driver in the recent price boost is not a war, a hurricane, or the machinations of OPEC, but rather robust global economic growth, say analysts. The U.S. economy has remained solid, despite jitters in the stock market. China and India are surging, while most of Europe is strong.

ExpressIndia(from the Indian Express group), January 21, 2008-

Voracious demand for oil, iron ore and other commodities to build roads, sewage systems, and office buildings - especially in the booming economies of China and India – will also help sustain the region through any US slowdown.

Rick Newman, USA Today,March 10, 2008

Although I doubt that this is as important as other factors driving up the price of oil—such as strong growth in parts of the world such as China and India.

Another important issue is that in a lot of countries, like India, China, Indonesia, and some Arab countries, the price of oil and gasoline is subsidized, to keep the domestic price low, usually to prevent social unrest. That matters because if oil prices were allowed to be set at market prices, demand would fall, and so would prices. So demand in those places is artificially high.

Jad Mouawad, The International Herald Tribune, April 28, 2008-

At the same time, oil consumption keeps expanding at a faster clip than production. Demand is forecast to increase this year by 1.2 million barrels a day, to 87.2 million barrels a day. Consumption has actually fallen a bit in theUnited States, the world's biggest consumer, as the country grapples with an economic slowdown.

But that drop is being offset by growth in other countries. World consumption is projected to rise 35 percent, to around 115 million barrels a day, in the next two decades. Most of the growth will come from China, India and oil-producing countries in the Middle East, where retail fuel prices are subsidized, encouraging wasteful consumption.

And to go back to food prices :

The United Nations, November 3 2007-

The price rises are a result of record oil prices, US farmers switching out of cereals to grow biofuel crops, extreme weather and growing demand from countries India and China, the UN said yesterday

8 Sep 2007, 0200 hrs IST,Chidanand Rajghatta,TNN-

A massive purchase of nearly 800,000 tonnes of wheat by India at record prices earlier this week has added to what agricultural experts are calling the great wheat panic of 2007. Wheat prices had already reached record levels ahead of the Indian move, thanks to falling or stagnating production in many countries — blamed on poor weather and crop diversion — and growing population.

Jean Ziegler,The United Nations special rapporteur on the right to food , April 28, 2008-

"There are four main causes that everyone is talking about: biofuels, increased demand in China and India, higher oil prices and global warming. But the real cause is that for decades there has not been proper investment for years in local agriculture in developing countries."

Rajeev Deshpande,TNN, 4 May 2008-

And diversion of foodgrain for bio-fuels in countries like Brazil and US has happened at a time when better incomes are driving demand in economies like India and China. All this, just as years of neglect in modernising agriculture and improving yields suddenly caught up with India making it a nation that imports food.

Joachim von Braun, the head of the International Food Policy Research Institute,February 26, 2008-

Much of the blame has been put on the transfer of land and grains to the production of biofuel. But its impact has been outweighed by the sharp growth in demand from a new middle class in China and India for meat and other foods, which were previously viewed as luxuries.“The fundamental cause is high income growth,” said Joachim von Braun, the head of the International Food Policy Research Institute.

Please bring a really large van, Yechuriji, and take away all these loonies but do drive carefully -remember, the United Nations will be at the back .


(emphasis mine)

Outbreak of the Bush Derangement Syndrome rages on at the Hindustan Times

The latest outbreak of the Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS)-the Indianmediafoodgate -continue in the fevered swamps of our media. Delhi's best selling dog-trainer The Hindustan Times had a picture of the president Bush and the first lady right on top on page 1-


with the snarky caption-
Look How Much They're Eating

As if the hunger in the world is the result of the Bushes eating too much!

This is a demented hit-job that should never have passed through the editor's desk to the print.This too from a publication whose former editor and present chief editor, Vir Sanghvi is known for an affection of delicacies and tasty bits as one can infer from his girth.The generously-sized gentleman loves eating so much that he often writes columns on food, has written a book on food and has a TV show dedicated to -well, food. His favorite work-out could possibly be hopping from one restaurant to another after which a hearty munch would be much welcome and well deserved.



Vir Sanghvi-is he eating too much too?


But then if one assumes that rational people are in charge of our media, one assumes too much.

Barkha Dutt calls the IPL cheerleaders "faceless bimbettes"

These are bimbettes
(image source)

this is not?

Barkha Dutt, the Christiane Amanpour of India, calls the cheerleaders of IPL "faceless bimbettes".

A curiosity-
how does she know they are 'bimbettes', any or all of them?
Or is cheerleading by definition something that only(or mostly) 'bimbettes' do?
Does anybody find this tarring of a whole profession offensive, not to say demeaning of the dignity of women?

What if we said that TV 'news' media is full of arrogant scoundrels?
Tempted as we might, we won't say it for, unlike Ms.Dutt, we do not wish to put down a whole a profession even if it gives great rewards to the dishonest purveyor of information and to the sensationalist(see my post below). The cheerleaders on the other hand have to make a honest living by the dint of their efforts and I doubt if they are paid a fraction of what Ms.Dutt rakes in for, among other things, showing a contempt for them.

Indian media -poison in the air

CPI(M)'s hero Stalin knew a few things about food scarcity.Only 6-7 miilion killed in the Ukrainian famine caused by his policies

We are trapped.
We have a callous, highly corrupt and predatory state. We have an atrocious police system, brutal, inefficient and indifferent at the same time. We have a judiciary where one can go bankrupt and grow old or die before one gets justice, if at all. So for a straw to grasp at we put a lot of faith our free media- and what do we get? An imperial journalism steeped in arrogance,the muck of it's own biases and making a fortune spreading superstition, blind faith and constant sensationalism based on half-truths and pure lies.In one word, poison.

One of the pet hates of our 'objective' journalists is George W. Bush. Mention Bush and like pavlovian dogs kicked in the balls they begin to scream and howl in rabid anger. Just examine Bush's recent statement on food prices and the reaction in India over it-

(I am translating from Hindi some of the ticker running across the screen on the Hindi 'news' channels)
Bush doesn't like Indians to eat better
Bush unhappy with India's prosperity.
Bush childish and pathetic.
Another gaffe from Bush.

And this is merely the ticker.The actuals reports were soaked in boorishly expressed contempt .
And so on and on ad nauseum for the whole day long, the wolf pack of Indian media and intelligentsia(an unfortunate name for such a brain-dead group) went after Bush.

The communists seemed to be among the most offended.Understandable, as their hero, Stalin knew a thing or two about food scarcity and it's causes. His Ukrainian famine, caused deliberately, killed an estimated six million to seven million.Stalin's famine and terror are described in the seminal book The Harvest of Sorrow by Robert Conquest-

The death toll resulting from the actions described in this book was an estimated 14.5 million--more than the total number of deaths for all countries in World War I.

The brainless and highly anti-American crew of aaj-tak seemed to be as angry and offended as the commies. In their narrative Bush is no different from the ogre who tortures kittens for fun and eats babies for breakfast.But again, this is understandable- this is the same channel that went into a hysterical fit when Saddam was hanged.Sympathizing with a genocidal mass murderer while bashing Bush at every non-opportunity - all in a day's job for this bunch and many others at other news media.

And what did Bush say actually?

Here is the full transcript.The relevant excerpt(what Bush said was in response to a question)-

Q That's right. Good point. (Applause.) And I ask this partly because I'm hungry, but your thoughts on rising food prices?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, thank you. (Laughter.) By the way, that's a polite way of saying, hey, man, how about cutting it short. (Laughter.) You know, it's a very interesting debate that's taking place. There's two aspects of rising food prices; one, how it affects our own citizens. And again, we're spending billions of dollars on people who can't afford food, and that's good. We don't have a scarcity issue in America, interestingly enough; we got a price issue. Our shelves aren't going empty, it's just costing more money. And it's why, for example, we've expanded Women and Infants with Children Program, to make sure we help the poor.

Secondly, there is scarcity in the world, and I happen to believe, when we find people who can't find food, we ought to help them find it. I just told you why: There's nothing more hopeless than to be a mom wondering whether or not their child is going to get food the next day. And so I announced a major initiative.

By the way, just so you know, America is by far the most generous nation when it comes to helping the hungry. No contest. We're an unbelievably compassionate nation. And so I asked Congress to put some more money out. It will be over -- it's about $5 billion, over a two-year period of time, of food. Keep in mind, we're spending about $19 billion here at home.

Secondly, I think we ought to change our food policy in Africa and other developing countries. I think we ought to be buying food directly from farmers, as opposed to giving people food. I think we ought to be saying, why don't we help you be able to deal with scarcity by encouraging your farmers to grow and be efficient growers. Otherwise we're going to be in this cycle forever.

Now let me talk about price. As you know, I'm a ethanol person. I believe, as I told you, the interim step to getting away from oil and gas is to go to ethanol and battery technologies for your automobiles. I think it makes sense for America to be growing energy. I'd much rather be paying our farmers when we go to the gas pump than paying some nation that may not like us.

And so -- but most of ethanol now -- or nearly all of ethanol now -- is produced as a result of corn. And the price of corn is real high now. And so people say, well, it's your renewable fuels policy that is causing the price of food to go up. I've looked at this issue a lot. Actually, the reason why food prices are high now is because, one, energy costs are high. And if you're a farmer, you're going to pass on your cost of energy in the product you sell; otherwise you go broke. And when you're paying more for your diesel, paying more for your fertilizer because it's got a lot of natural gas in it -- in other words, when your basic costs are going up, so does the cost of food.

Worldwide there is increasing demand. There turns out to be prosperity in developing world, which is good. It's going to be good for you because you'll be selling products into countries -- big countries perhaps -- and it's hard to sell products into countries that aren't prosperous. In other words, the more prosperous the world is, the more opportunity there is.

It also, however, increases demand. So, for example, just as an interesting thought for you, there are 350 million people in India who are classified as middle class. That's bigger than America. Their middle class is larger than our entire population. And when you start getting wealth, you start demanding better nutrition and better food. And so demand is high, and that causes the price to go up.

And finally, there's been weather-related problems. Some of the major producers of food have had drought. That's what happens. Weather patterns change. And so there's a lot of reasons why the price of food is high. And no question that ethanol has had a part of it, but I simply do not subscribe to the notion that it is the main cost-driver for your food going up.

Anyway, good question. You don't look hungry. (Laughter.)

Yes.

Nowhere does Bush come across as someone who resents Indians now consuming and enjoying more food than the meagre morsels to which the Nehruvian socialism had condemned them. I challenge those jumping up and down over this to point out the 'offensive' part and explain how it is much (or at all) different from what many others have said including the United Nations and such Bush haters like Paul Krugman, Jeffrey Sachs and several others.

Here is what the UN says-

India, China pushing up food prices: UN

--------------------
With the major exporters, including India, banning rice exports, shortages are expected to be felt around the world.

Soaring food prices- up 55 per cent from June 2007 to February 2008, and dwindling global food stocks due to more world food consumption than production are seriously threatening the United Nations ability to keep millions from starvation.

Growing demand for bio-fuels, needs of rising population, growing middle class in India and China with increasing purchasing power and erratic weather are among the reasons that have pushed the food prices up to the level where 100 million people are being pushed into extreme poverty needing international help at a time when international donors are signs of fatigue.

(Hat tip-Rohit)


Here is favorite economist of the trendy left, Jeffrey Sachs, who is no friend of Bush or capitalism-

The most basic reason for the rise in natural resource prices is strong growth, especially in China and India, which is hitting against the physical limits of land, timber, oil and gas reserves, and water supplies.

Paul Krugman, another Bush hater gives a decent rundown of the causes of price rise.One of his causes-

First, there’s the march of the meat-eating Chinese — that is, the growing number of people in emerging economies who are, for the first time, rich enough to start eating like Westerners. Since it takes about 700 calories’ worth of animal feed to produce a 100-calorie piece of beef, this change in diet increases the overall demand for grains.
---------------
The rise of China and other emerging economies is the main force driving oil prices

One can google and find any number of experts who hold the same or similar views on the causes of global price rise in food- a combination of high oil price,the rise of China and other emerging economies(which itself is also one of the causes of high oil price), diversion of land to growing bio-fuels instead of food(which has been a pet cause of the environmental left), and bad weather. There is of course debate about which factor is more important (and Bush mentioned all of these) but Bush has echoed what is now the popularly held opinion among the 'expert' class. Let's say a broad scientific consensus exists over the issue.

Clearly those in the Indian media who keep on bashing Bush over this cannot be so ignorant.As Rohit points out in his excellent post-

That it wasn’t an inadverent error is clear from another story the Times of India ran a few days back on the United Nations attributing rising food prices to the demands of the growing middle class in India and China. In fact, Bush’s speech sounds like a recycled version of the U.N statement. Notice the entirely different treatment to essentially similar issues: While Bush was ”blaming” India and China, the U.N was ”raising alarm!” Apparently, a mundane UN agency isn’t sexy enough to be sensationalized.

The Times of India probably calculated that Indian politicians and policymakers would not even bother reading the speech before racing to express outrage. Unfortunately, the newspaper has been proved exactly right. In a rare show of political unanimity, politicians from Left and Right have criticized Bush for a crime which he did not even commit! Of course, it afforded them an opportunity to advance their own agenda with B.J.P criticizing the government’s failure to control inflation while the Communists blamed ”neo-liberal” agenda forced on the Indian government by the Bush administration!

No Rohit, this is not dumbness but malice.
I accuse the persons responsible for these misleading(no, lying) reports of practicing not jounalism but fraud, of reporting not facts but their own biases, of whipping up emotions for a media equivalent of a 'high' and to stay competitive with other media in the ratings . You sirs(and ladies) are not honest journalists but scoundrels.



(emphasis mine)

Iraq is a quagmire, Bush is a moron, tra la la la

General Petraeus-Person of the Year

Belly dancers, revelers and young people in snakeskin boots. Baghdad celebrates the new year-

"I haven't seen a happy place like this in so long. I wanted to see if I could maybe meet a few girls!" he said. "I only hope the Iraqi people can enjoy more happy times like this."

Salah al-Lami, 27, the singer who performed at the Palestine ballroom and then for another New Year's Eve crowd at the Sheraton Hotel across the street, said it was the first time he had sung before a live audience in four years.

"This will be the year that we take our freedom!" he told Reuters after singing through a boisterous set in front of a packed dancefloor.

"When I went up on the stage and started singing I felt like I was performing for my family."

Belly dancers also took the stage, and revelers showered a female singer with dinar notes, the Iraqi audience's ultimate sign of approval.

But hush, don't tell it to the editors of the Hindustan Times. They are quagmired too deep down in their narrative-

No glad tidings in Iraq
If there were prizes for the most die-hard optimist of 2007, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki would probably have won it, edging out US President George W. Bush. The Iraqi premier was quoted as saying last week that al-Qaeda and terrorism in Iraq will be defeated in the New Year, followed by reconstruction and development of the country.

Although-

there has been an improvement in the security situation in many troubled areas in Iraq, including Baghdad.

But those lying Americans must not be allowed to take credit-

US generals claim that the American ‘troop surge’, which increased the number of troops and “embedded” more American advisers in Iraqi units, was responsible for bringing down the violence.

The editor's vote goes to Moqtada Sadr-

But then so would the Shia cleric Moqtada Sadr, whose order last August to his Mehdi Army militia to halt hostilities for six months made a bigger difference on the ground.

Now the real meat- whether Iraq is a disaster or on the road to recovery, let's all feel good by blaming Bush for the billionth time-

Whichever way it happened, the people of Iraq would welcome this “lull”, which curiously also gives Mr Bush an opportunity to publicly admit that Washington has failed to achieve its original mission in Iraq.

So the editors admit grudgingly to an improvement in Iraq, while not being able to psychologically admit to it's cause -the so far successful strategy of General Petraeus, recently named Person of the Year by the Sunday Telegraph.They would rather be confined to a looney bin than give credit to Bush who against all the wailing of the pundits went ahead with the surge. Incidentally, the editors of the Hindustan Times were vehemently against the surge.

According to the Sunday Telegraph-

To appreciate the scale of the task Gen Petraeus took on, it is necessary to go back to February 22, 2006. Or, as Iraqis now refer to it, their own September 11. That was when Sunni-led terrorists from al-Qaeda blew up the Shia shrine in the city of Samarra, an act of provocation that finally achieved their goal of igniting sectarian civil war.

A year on, an estimated 34,000 people had been killed on either side - some of them members of the warring Sunni and Shia militias, but most innocents tortured and killed at random. US casualties continued to rise, too, but increasingly American troops became the bystanders in a religious conflict that many believed they could no longer tame.
----------------------------
Nine months on, things do seem to have improved, thanks largely to Petraeus's extraordinary coup of turning Sunni insurgents against their extremist allies in al-Qaeda.

With the chief accelerant in the civil war gone, Shia militias such as the Mehdi Army have also been deprived of their main raison d'être, and with extra US troops on the streets, Iraqis who had previously felt vulnerable to the gunmen now feel safe enough to return home.
[Notice how the editors of the Hindustan Times make Moqtada Sadr's decision appear as if it just happened, without any doing from the Americans -ed]

Also notice that the Sunday Telegraph is not without it's doubts, which is quite a reasonable thing to have on the the subject of Iraq -but they do not flinch from giving credit where due-

Iraq's Shia-dominated government is not alone in worrying that the most controversial of Gen Petraeus's policies - the co-opting of former Sunni insurgents into "concerned local citizens" schemes to fend off Shia militias - may create new, better-organised forces for a renewed civil war once the US finally departs.

Many coalition officials fear such a scenario. Were it to occur, it would confirm the charges of Petraeus's critics that at best he has secured only a hiatus in the collapse of Iraq.
advertisement

Ultimately, that may prove to be the case.

But it should not overshadow his achievement this year: he has given another last chance to a country that had long since ceased to expect one. And for that, Gen Petraeus is Person of the Year.

And to rub it in, Bill Kristol writes-

One additional point: Petraeus's counterinsurgency stands out not just for its conceptual ambition and the skill of its execution but for its humanity. There were those who argued that the U.S. military could not succeed in counterinsurgency because Americans were not tough and bloodthirsty enough. They said that brutality was essential in subduing insurgents and our humanity would be our downfall.

They were wrong. The counterinsurgency campaign of 2007 was probably the most precise, discriminate, and humane military operation ever undertaken on such a scale. Our soldiers and Marines worked hard--and took risks and even casualties--to ensure, as much as possible, that they hurt only enemies. Compared with any previous military operations of this size, they were astonishingly successful. The measure of their success lies in the fact that so many Iraqis now see American troops as friends and protectors. Petraeus and his generals have shown that Americans can fight insurgencies and win--and still be Americans. For that and so much else, he is the man of the year.

Now that is something the groupthink prevalent at most of our media offices will never let the Indian public hear.They are stuck too deep down in their own mental muck to admit that they, with all their fancy journalism degrees and other qualifications from elite institutions were wrong. They are behaving like a monkey who has learnt an amusing action -like putting on and taking off a cap-and keeps repeating it ad nauseam:

Iraq is a quagmire, Bush is a moron, tra la la la!

(emphasis mine)


On the other hand, General Petraeus is not so good for the blogosphere.

Diversity of opinion, my foot!

There is a solid, immovable fog of group-think pervasive in the hallowed portals of the society elites all over the world-on Iraq,on globalisation,on America,on UN,on environment,on AIDS, on foreign aid...you get the picture.The vast swathes of 'liberal', 'bien-pensant' media is deeply committed almost unselfconsciously to this.

The New York Times is a paragon of such media. As is the BBC-

It's the fact that its output, including its journalism, is politically as bent as a corkscrew.

As its own impartiality review concluded earlier this year, the BBC operates in a "Leftleaning comfort zone" and has an "innate liberal bias", dictating what issues it chooses to cover and how it does so.

It is institutionally and viscerally hostile to America, Israel, conservatism, big business, religion, the countryside and family values; it supports multiculturalism, environmentalism, European federalism, human rights law and 'alternative' lifestyles.

Worse still, it sees everything through the distorting prism of this "progressive" agenda.

As a result, it views its own Left-wing position as the centre ground, and anyone who disagrees is viewed as a Rightwing extremist.

Indeed, because by definition it cannot acknowledge its own innate bias, the BBC embodies a totally closed thought system.

At the core of all these problems lies one single cause.

The BBC has simply lost sight of the very reason why it exists in the first place. And that is due to a toxic combination of ideology and flawed analysis.

(source) (emphasis mine)

The group-think on some issues is so deeply entrenched that any dissent is considered heresy, the heretic to be excoriated viciously and his/her views not to be published or broadcast if one can help it or to be be heavily downplayed by presenting opposing viewpoints as more credible and mainstream.There are some opinions, viewpoints and facts that the public must be kept away from.

One can immediately think of the neoconservatives- the word 'neocon' has in the MSM become a vile word, standing for war-mongers, war-profiteers, baby-killers and whatnot. How many articles, op-eds, editorials and straight news reports one has read in which the neocons are sneered at and derided? One can find several such items in the media daily.Yet, what does one know of the views of the neocons? What do they believe or say actually? Where are their views in the media? Why don't we hear their point of view in the MSM?
Why not?
WHY NOT?
Any good reason why the public should be kept from hearing their(the neocon's) opinions?

If neocons are really bad, Bush is the arch-villain, the Sauron for the MSM. The newspaper I get, the Hindustan Times, cannot stand Bush. Bush-bashing is a favorite sport among the media elite, where the Vir Sanghvis and the Barkha Dutts of this world can garner automatic approbation by sneering at Bush and calling him stupid.

We only know them(Bush and the neocons) through the various filters and layers of the media, that same media that hates them passionately.

But in an unbiased and objective media, shouldn't those who agree with Bush(on some or most of the issues) should get to air their views too?
So where are they?

Paraphrasing Judah BenHur who demanded menancingly of the Roman Messala in the movie Benhur-
MR.SANGHVI, WHERE ARE THEY? WHERE ARE THEY? WHERE ARE THEY?

Diversity of opinion, my foot!
As you write another Bush bashing editorial, aren't you ashamed of shutting out points of view that you loathe? If not, why not?


Note -No, I am not a neocon or a Bush supporter. I agree with some of their views and disagree with the others. But unlike our 'unbiased' jounalists, I do believe that they hold legitimate opinions which need to be aired more widely in the public rather than shielding the masses from their 'extreme' views.

Let's chant together -"All religions stand for peace."

There are some issues which our media-political-intellectual elites prefer not to look too deeply into. Better to avert one's eyes and close one's mind than to find that one fears that one might find. Better not to look for clues if those threaten to lead where one does not wish to go. This is what our politically-correctist thought control has brought us to.

One of these issues is the virulence which is directed against people such as Salman Rushdie and Taslima Nasreen from within the muslim ummah. Have you noticed that the hate against these appear to particularly vicious compared to that directed against non-muslims with similar views? We prefer not enquire too deeply into it. Perhaps because if we did we might discover (and be forced to think about) this-

There is unanimity among clerics from the various Islamic schools of thought that the penalty for an apostate (murtid) is death, the only disagreement being whether the execution should occur instantly or after the murtid has been given an opportunity to recant and return to the fold of Islam. So sure is the punishment and so strong the attendant social and family pressures that it is unthinkable for Muslims ever to openly question any aspect of their religion, let alone convert to another or to practice agnosticism or atheism.

And-

According to Dr. Andrew G. Bostom, there is also a consensus by all four schools of Sunni Islamic jurisprudence (i.e., Maliki, Hanbali, Hanafi, and Shafi'i), as well as Shi'ite jurists, that apostates from Islam must be put to death. Averroes, or Ibn Rushd (d. 1198), the renowned Aristotelian philosopher and scholar of the natural sciences, who was also an important Maliki jurist in medieval Spain, provided this typical Muslim legal opinion on the punishment for apostasy (vol. 2, p. 552):

"An apostate…is to be executed by agreement in the case of a man, because of the words of the Prophet, 'Slay those who change their din [religion]'…Asking the apostate to repent was stipulated as a condition…prior to his execution."

This is not just a matter of medieval jurisprudence. The 1991 Shafi'i manual of Islamic Law 'Umdat al-Salik, endorsed by the Islamic Research Academy at Al-Azhar, the most prestigious centre of learning in Sunni Islam, states:

"Leaving Islam is the ugliest form of unbelief (kufr) and the worst…When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostasizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed. In such a case, it is obligatory…to ask him to repent and return to Islam. If he does it is accepted from him, but if he refuses, he is immediately killed."
--------------------------------

In other words, those who publicly leave Islam constitute a threat to the morale of the Islamic community, just like soldiers defecting from an army, and must thus be punished before a mass-defection sets in. Al-Qaradhawi agrees with the traditional treatment of Muslims who leave their religion: "For Muslim society to preserve its existence, it must struggle against ridda* from every source and in all forms, and it must not let it spread like wildfire in a field of thorns. Thus, the Muslim sages agreed that the punishment for the murtadd* [who commits ridda] is execution."

We keep ignoring this fact, intentionally so, it seems to me. Rushdie, Nasreen , Ayaan Hirsi Ali and others are hated with a special vehemence because they are perceived to be apostates and traitors, someone from the fold who dares criticize it (or some aspects of it), even if they might not have renounced their faith.

Taslima, of course, has been in news all over because of the attack on her. What we are unlikely to hear much about is the attack on Ehsan Jami. Jami has been under threat for giving up his religion. In fact he is the chairman of the Central Committee for Ex-Muslims.
A daring vocation, I must say. With predictable dangers (via Harry's Place)-

Ehsan Jami (pictured) was knocked to the ground and kicked by a group of three men: two young Moroccans and one Somali. During the incidents, his attackers called him a 'filthy homo' and 'filthy traitor'. Mr Jami's advisor, Afshin Ellian, later pointed out that it was not the first time he had been physically attacked:

"He's also been threatened before, attacked or beaten up, and he reported this to the police too. This is the third time."

Afshin Ellian, an academic and columnist, is also being protected by the authorities.

So will we hear anything about Ehsan in our media? Unlikely or perhaps a passing mention somewhere. Nothing much to be concerned about, move on. Our media refuses to connect the dots even as it goes out of the way to assure us a dozen times a day-
Islam means peace. All religions stand for peace.

Let's chant a few times and all disturbing thoughts and doubts will disappear from our minds-

Islam means peace. All religions stand for peace.
Islam means peace. All religions stand for peace.
Islam means peace. All religions stand for peace.
Islam means peace. All religions stand for peace.
Islam means peace. All religions stand for peace.
Islam means peace. All religions stand for peace.


There. My mind is at rest now. I was going to say something about Theo Van Gogh but the power of the peaceful religions has overwhelmed me. I am drifting into the soothing recesses of inner serenity. Theo who?




*ridda- The Ridda wars (also known as the Riddah wars and the Wars of Apostasy).
*murtad or murtid -apostate


(emphasis mine)

I was on NDTV, la la la la!

NDTV reporter Amulya Gopalakrishnan was nice enough to interview me for a program on Islam, terrorism etc. It was broadcast on the 12th.I got about 18 seconds of screen time and came out looking like a smug and stuffed parrot! A screen shot of my blog also appeared, this being the post highlighted-



The story is also available on the NDTV website.

However, whoever saw that segment without being familiar with this blog might come away with a misleading impression.The narration as my blog was being shown(along with images of other sites) went like this-

"On one hand people vent their most bigoted feelings on blogs and social networks under varying degrees of anonymity ---"

Along with that large 'Venom on the web' highlighted at the bottom part of the screen, one might have got the impression that I am among those spouting 'venom', one of those 'hate-filled' bloggers venting hate and fire from behind anonymity.

Far from it. I am neither anonymous nor venting any 'hate'. I prefer cool-headed logical analysis sprinkled with tongue-in-cheek humor. That analysis might be offensive to some, it might not be politically-correct, it might go against the grain of 'consensus' -but, as sure as hell, it will be rational and logical to the extent of my abilities.

The full sentence in that narration was-

"On one hand people vent their most bigoted feelings on blogs and social networks under varying degrees of anonymity, on the other hand for anyone wiling to go deeper these internet forums offer a profusion of perspectives."
(emphasis mine)

I only wish that my site had had been shown while that second part of the sentence was being read out since it fits this blog to a T. But, what the heck!

Update -Atlantean was the other blogger interviewed. He has the video. In fact, having just discovered Atlantean's blog, I must say it is well worth a look.