END OF THE WORLD

From Mayan to ‘Obama’yan

Yes, we can’t (duh) 

Perhaps it’s already too late to save the world of its various ills; a primer

“State of Fear”. That is the name of a book where the late Michael Crichton talks about eco-terrorists who are attempting to create a ‘state of fear’ to press forward their point-of-view regarding global warming. There have been several prophecies from almost all civilizations pointing toward the end of the world. Be it the Mayan 2012 prediction or the Chinese oracle of the I Ching or the internet bot software program – ‘Web-Bot Project’ (which predicted that a reversion of the earth’s magnetic poles will devastate the world in 2012) – all forecasts have boiled down to a specific date of the end of the global society to peddle their postulation.
Surprisingly, we are not questioning the credibility of these oracles; instead; we are forwarding the premise that perhaps all these oracles who did get it right (their forecasts, that is) for all the wrong reasons (of course, the dates were all kooky) dug up a bigger problem – and that was that all the ‘other’ forecasts which were positively more pertinent and had a better chance of seeing the light – or dark – of the day were also relegated to the standard bin of ‘end of the world’ theories. To contribute our mite to the weight of the bin, is this issue’s section of Scrutiny, in which we pretend to be the first ones to be predicting how and why the end of the world is nearer than you thought and why Obama might end up being able to do nothing about it.
At least geo-politically, what we are seeing around is surely nothing less than steps towards the end of the world – the rising tension in Middle East, strategic moves by Russia, emergence of China and South Asia in making themselves potently loaded with nuclear weapons... Economists who support the growth of nuclear arsenal (yes, they are there!) forward the hypothesis that in the modern era, weak countries are arming themselves not with an intention to attack, but with an objective to dissuade other stronger countries from attacking them. The theorem does hold credibility – when Pakistan attacked India’s borders, India was constrained in its response due to Pakistan’s visible atomic base.
However, those are not democratic and sane governments that rule all countries across the world. Studies have shown, but obviously, that even a limited nuclear war would devastate the world. And the day an autocratic or military ruler decides push has come to shove and the time to decimate the opponent is now, many more than the two of us would wish we were living near the Thames in London.
What the world today requires is a foolproof non-proliferation policy. Comprehending the vibes, Obama has already amended his policy to protect the world from nuclear terrorism. During his April 2009 speech in Prague, he delineated his arms control and non-proliferation agendas and promised a US-led international effort to secure “all vulnerable nuclear materials” within the next four years. That is the most far reaching agenda any US President – for that matter, any premier across the world – has announced in history. To start it up diplomatically, in the recent G8 Summit in Italy, he announced a Nuclear Security Summit in 2010 to combat nuclear smuggling and prevent nuclear terrorism.
Obama knows his priorities too well – the US considers climate emissions control its last priority on the ‘save the world’ list; the December Copenhagen summit will be proof enough. We aren’t complaining about that...

Alpha (decay) male

Alpha males that we all are, none of us believes a nuke attack will ever happen in our lifetimes – so we write this treatise to the alpha female

With around 2000 nuclear weapons on high alert and ready for launch, the nuclear Armageddon is just waiting for its reincarnation. We provide some ‘what if’ details.
There are currently more than 30,000 nuclear weapons of which 8,000 are currently operational. In 1977, the US Department of Defense predicted 265 million casualties from a full-scale US-Soviet nuclear war. United Nations Disarmament Committee states there are more than 16,000 strategic and tactical nuclear weapons ready for deployment and another 14,000 in storage. With regional tension intensifying, especially among nuclear-rich countries, the probability of nuclear war can’t be denied.
Around 50 nuclear weapons are reportedly deployed against each other by India and Pakistan, targeting their megacities. An incident involving Israel and a neighbour (particularly Syria and Lebanon and to some extent the Palestinian areas) may stimulate the Arab nations to fight. Even the nuclear tensions in Iran and North Korea are increasing. Iran’s nuclear program and North Korea’s nuclear testing spree adds to the complexity. Factoring in nuclear terrorism creates a creepy new dimension with enhanced risk. A nuclear country with a terrorist presence could trigger a nuclear war easily. After the US attempt to push Russia’s neighbours into NATO and the EU, the probability of a US-Russia flash war, though feeble, still can’t be done away with. NATO has stationed around 500 nuclear weapons in Belgium, Netherlands, Italy, Germany and Turkey. When it comes to the mightiest, the US and Russia keep hundreds of missiles armed with thousands of nuclear warheads on high-alert, 24 hours a day, that reach their targets in less than 30 minutes.
So what if a ‘mild’ nuclear bomb detonates, say in the subcontinent (ten times the power of Little Boy)? In the 30 million subsequent deaths, NRDC (Natural Resources Defence Council) calculated that almost 22.1 million people (in India and Pakistan) would be exposed to lethal radiation doses of 600 rem (units that measure the effects of ionizing radiation on humans) in the first two days after the attack. Add to this, 8 million people would be affected by 100 to 600 rem. In general, besides the local destructions, any nuclear war in any part of the world would result in a ripple effect. A study on the ‘Atmospheric chemistry of regional nuclear war’ suggests that the hot smoke from a burning city would tear holes in the ozone layer. Research by scientists at the University of Colorado at Boulder proves that the increased ultraviolet radiation (from the ozone loss) would double the DNA damage along with increasing the cancer rates manifold. This would also reduce crop yields and starve hundreds of millions the world-over.
It is now clear that even a limited and local nuclear war involving less than 100 low-yield weapons, apart from killing a minimum of 20-25 million people, would activate a decade of cold climate titled the ‘nuclear winter’ (report by the American Association for the Advancement of Science). This limited war would also generate 1 to 5 million tonnes of carbonaceous smoke particles, darkening the sky. NASA predicts that 40% of this smoke would stay in the stratosphere for 10 years. The Journal of Geophysical Research concludes through climate model simulations that even a small nuclear conflict would cause mayhem on the atmosphere by “cooling it twice as much as it has heated over the last century.” The journal reports that on an average, global surface cooling of –7°C to –8°C would remain for years – this could well make global temperatures colder than they were 18,000 years ago.
Like we mentioned, it is much easier (and faster) to die from the effects of a nuclear disaster than from those of global warming. Black humour aside, the world in general should gather behind Obama to support his effort to make the world free of nuclear weapons. What would work against him is the fact that the US has extremely less moral authority on this issue. Well, they’ve carried out 1050 plus known nuclear tests till date..

Abortion (to allow it. . . or not to)

Birth rights of sperms & eggs

The debate on abortion has moved away from the empowerment of women to cutting religious propaganda

Of course, all this is not happening for the first time. Since time immemorial, a woman’s body has been the theoretical and unembellished territory for societal and political war. From the theoretical, scientific and religious end, there are numerous logical stages that define the starting point where ‘human life’ begins. Many schools of thoughts believe that sperms and eggs have life; and put them at par with humans, thus considering them as preconceived life. Many don’t! But almost all blocks ranging from political to religious are in some or the other form discussing the issue of abortion – or as the critics call it, immoral killing of a life.

So what is the debate all about? That’s simple, as that rests on the analysis of the options a woman with unwanted pregnancy has, and those are: one, she can put up the child for adoption; two, she can accept the child; and three, she can abort the unborn child. And that is where the whole debate on abortion starts, with opposing philosophies promoted by two schools of thought: Pro-choice campaigners (who demand a mother be allowed to choose whichever of the three options she might wish to undertake), as opposed by pro-life campaigners (who generally argue in terms of foetal rights rather than reproductive rights). The pro-choice group believes that “a woman should have complete control over her fertility and the choice to continue or terminate a pregnancy,” and demand that a woman is given ‘the guarantee’ of reproductive rights – access to sexual education, fertility treatments, contraception, to safe and legal abortion, and even legal protection from forced abortion. The pro-life group’s philosophy revolves around the argument that “…human foetuses and embryos are persons, and therefore they have a right to live.” Thus, the movement is characterised by extreme wingers opposing sale and use of contraception, practise of death penalty, euthanasia, cloning, embryonic stem cell research et cetera.

Philosophers and writers have been key in this debate, saddling further complicated arguments. Mary Anne Warren, noted American writer and philosophy professor (cited in major publications like Peter Singer’s ‘The Moral of the Story: An Anthology of Ethics Through Literature’ and Bernard Gert’s ‘Bioethics: A Systematic Approach’) concludes that the foetus “satisfies only one criterion: consciousness (and this, only after it becomes susceptible to pain); the foetus is not a person and abortion is therefore morally permissible.” Using a scientific angle, a former President of the British Academy and current President of the Royal Institute of Philosophy, the well known Anthony J P Kenny believes that since division of the zygote into twins through the process of monozygotic twinning can occur until the 14th day of pregnancy, abortion should not be permissible after two weeks! Again, noted American moral philosopher and metaphysician Judith J Thomson states that even if the foetus has a right to life, abortion is still morally permissible because a woman has a right to control her own body. The concepts of pro-life versus prochoice are in general visible across the world, leading to starkly distanced abortion laws across the world – for example, if in Canada abortion is available ‘on demand’, then in a country like Nicaragua, abortions are illegal.

In history, under Roman law, abortion did occur and was allowed, though only sometimes. Under the common law in England and in the US, abortion was illegal after the movements of the foetus could first be felt by the mother to be. In the 19th century, many western countries began to use statutes to codify abortion.

Under Vladimir Lenin, the Soviet Union legalised all abortions in 1920, but this was fully reversed in 1936 by Stalin in order to increase population growth. Between 1930 to 1960, several countries like Poland, Turkey, Denmark, Sweden, Iceland and Mexico legalised abortion in some special cases. This was followed by legalisation of abortion in Japan, Yugoslavia, Soviet Union, Canada, United States, France, Austria, New Zealand, Italy, the Netherlands and Belgium. Since the last few decades, as per reports published by Guttmacher Institute, most of the decline in abortion rates occurred in countries where abortion had long been legal. Contemporarily, the highest rates of abortion have shifted to developing countries, which often have some of the most restrictive abortion laws. In countries like Thailand and Iran, after abortion restrictions were eased around 1997, unsafe abortions have slipped from 15 to 14 per 1,000 women, a big drop when seen demographically, given the fact that around 70,000 women – mostly in developing countries – die each year from unsafe abortions. Chile, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Malta and Vatican City ban the procedure entirely, but in Canada and the US, as we mentioned before, there are no restrictions on the provision of abortion. In the US, almost half of all pregnancies are unintended and thus four in ten of these end in abortions. The Bush administration had placed a ban on federal funding for international family planning programs that provide abortion information to clients. Obama, within a week of being sworn in, lifted the Bush administration’s ban. Obama further passed an executive order officially scrapping the Mexico City Policy (that ‘protected’ – or rather, restricted – taxpayers from involvement in overseas abortions for eight years). Kenya, India, Bangladesh, Spain, Mexico, all are nations where abortion is illegal (sometimes, after a few weeks of conception; like in India) but the governments are not able to control or deliberately overlook the illegal abortions (Mexico has over 900,000 illegal abortions every year). And this point is where religious groups, especially the Catholic communities, are lobbying very hard to stop abortions globally. In general, a majority of Catholic Christians are considered to be pro-life. We repeat, in general! While pro-life believers use scripture references to propagate their views, Roman Catholics in particular recognise that conception is the definitive start of what we know as human life; and therefore, abortion at any stage is immoral.

While Barack is now giving millions of dollars to groups that aggressively promote the pro-choice concept on a worldwide scale, he has been highly condemned by the Vatican along with pro-life leaders on this move. In the Dominican Republic, after the Dominican Catholic Church lobbied, the present laws ban abortion in all circumstances, even in cases of rape; in fact, even when the mother’s life is in danger. Abortion is banned in Catholic heavy Ireland, except in cases where the mother’s life is in danger. In Spain, though abortion is illegal, with the passage of gay rights the ban was expected to be removed. However, the Catholic Church has launched strong campaigns to prevent the reform from being passed. It’s clear that the issue of abortion can never escape the bloodying conflict between the political and religious spheres. The politician who attempts to go against the existing religious paradigm could well end up losing a huge base of voters – Obama knew that and still won. But then, is abortion right or wrong?

That, we truly believe, is for a nation and its people to decide. If the democratically elected legislature of a country – which promotes equal women’s rights – believes abortions should be allowed or banned, in whatever form or reason, then be that as it may! Unfortunately, not only is the majority of most global legislative assemblies almost always made up of men, these nations also suffer what we now know as the Roe Effect, which says that pro-choice parents have generally ended up having more abortions and hence fewer children over decades than the pro-life population; thus support for legal abortions has declined over time, and will decline further in the future. That, sadly, might be the way of things to be in the future...

 

 

Around the world: mental (in)competence

Are you nuts?

They were great men, running great countries... oh, they were all nuts

Psychos, freaks, insane...! We were amazed when we found out that there have been political leaders in this world who have qualified on all three of the above accounts – no, we’re not referring to our dearest Members of Parliament. It’s more astounding when we realised after our (brilliant?) secondary research that  some of these mentally unstable politicians actually ended up becoming the heads of countries!

Going by the example, the case of Richard Nixon comes first. Nixon was President of the United States from 1969 to 1974 and the first one in US history to resign from office (facing sure impeachment). The book, Richard Nixon: The Shaping of His Character, by Fawn M. Brodie – famous biographer and history teacher at the University of California – became the totem pole for understanding who the real Nixon was. Shockingly, the book reveals that Nixon was actually a sufferer of paranoia. For information, paranoia is most often linked with psychotic illnesses like schizophrenia – experts comment that in some cases (not necessarily in Nixon’s), the person believes he is on a special mission and has been chosen by God. To that effect, some of Nixon’s controversial policies do bear evidence of a traumatic childhood he had gone through.

A study done by a group of psychiatrists at the Duke University Medical Centre astoundingly reveals that 49% of former US presidents were afflicted by mental illnesses. The study published in the Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease further reveals that 18 out of the 37 presidents researched, were found to have suffered a mental illness of some form or the other. Ulysses S. Grant (general-in-chief of the Union Army during the Civil War and the then President of US) was also among them. The medical case of depression was the most prevalent disorder among presidents, occurring at a rate of 24 percent – ‘At least 10 presidents were affected by episodes while in office, and the study found evidence that symptoms interfered with their performance in almost all cases.’ Abraham Lincoln was one of the most famous of the sufferer lot – his seven losses (at various levels) before he finally became President big reasons for the same. Surprisingly, or perhaps not so surprisingly, George W. Bush is the most recent documented case of a president suffering from high levels of depression.

On the other hand, although Garry Will, author, journalist, historian specialising in policy and politics states in his book, Kennedy Imprisonment: Meditation on Power, how John F Kennedy’s “insatiable machismo” had dangerous foreign policy implications for his country as well as for the world, one cannot directly infer that Kennedy was suffering from any mental illness – the concept of ‘sexual addiction’ has still not been accepted notably as a disease of the mind.

In a book called Ronald Reagan: the politics of symbolism, the famous American historian specialising on biographies of American presidents, Robert Balleck, says that Reagan’s bitter experience in early childhood, due to his alcoholic father, had severe implication in his later life. As Balleck writes, “The episode(s) must have reinforced Reagan’s horror of being in a helpless condition, beholden to someone else for survival... Reagan lived in fear of his father’s uncontrolled behaviour and understandably places an exaggerated premium on self-mastery in his own life and in the life of the nation.” Although Reagan left office in 1989, in the year 1994, he announced to the public that he had been diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease, an affliction that kills brain cells. Then CBS White House correspondent Lesley Stahl has commented that during an interview when Reagan was in office, “a vacant Reagan barely seemed to realize anyone else was in the room,” and that “I had come that close to reporting that Reagan was senile.” Reagan’s doctors refute this presumption that Reagan had developed the affliction in office.

If the US has its hands full, the world has its hands fuller. In a medical disclosure of the current President of Pakistan, Asif Ali Zardari was declared mentally ill by doctors appointed by him personally during the time he was behind bars. Doctors reveal how he was suffering from psychological problems like dementia, depression or post traumatic mental disorder. It is also documented how Zardari attempted to commit suicide in the between of the jail terms. On a similar platform was the killing Ugandan President, Idi Amin, who was accused of suffering from the “general paralysis of the insane” (demantia paralytica; a neuro-psychotic disorder). But the diagnosis could never be substantiated.

Next in the line is Kjell Magne Bondevik, former Norwegian Prime Minister (from 1997 to 2000 and again from 2001 to 2005). He stakes his claim to the fact that he was and still remains the first head of any nation state to publicly announce that he is mentally ill. Wonder of wonders, he did not resign but took sick leave. And currently he remains the President of the Oslo Centre for Peace and Human Rights in Norway.

Winston Churchill was noted to be a manic as he suffered from manic depression. In 2006, a British mental health charity even commissioned a statue of Churchill, and defended the same despite a public outcry – the charity later clarified that it was trying to project a more positive image of people with mental illness (which speak volumes about its initial claim). In his book Black Dog, Kafka’s Mice, and Other Phenomena of the Human Mind, psychiatrist and historian Anthony Storr wrote: “Had he [Churchill] been a stable and equable man, he could never have inspired the nation....”

Premiers and heads of states have been ridiculed, mocked at and made a joke of since almost time immemorial. And more often than not, many of these premiers have given those slights of hand a pass rather than a challenge – unless of course in non-democratic nations, when civilians have been jailed or even executed for mocking the head of a nation. But can one ever imagine living in a world where your own leaders are certified maniacs? There you go again about our MPs...    

us: racial profiling

Uncle Tom’s cabin!

Obama’s concerns over racism in US are well researched and well read

It was a debate of yesterday. It is still a debate of today and would remain so, even for tomorrow, cans of beer guzzled down the throat or not! Now, it’s not at all about the “stupid” act of Cambridge police in arresting Professor Henry Gates, but about Obama’s lateral comment (extremely intelligently put, we should say), “...there’s a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately. That’s just a fact.” Many Americans ostensibly were shocked by the statement; but they have very less justification.

For Obama was voted to power backed by his commitment to righting this disparity (We quote from his speech in the Congressional Caucus Democratic debate, “In our criminal justice system, African-Americans... [as compared to whites], for the same crime... are arrested/convicted at very different rates. That is something that we have to talk about.”). America has a long deep-rooted history of discrimination. It is a land where women witnessed discrimination and were not allowed to vote till 1920 (they were allowed only after the passage of the 19th Amendment to the constitution). The struggle of blacks for their rights is no more a jaw-dropping story. Going by Department of Justice data, by the mid of 2008, 4,777 black male inmates per 100,000 black males were held in prisons, compared to 727 white male inmates per 100,000 white males – this despite the fact that blacks make up only 13.4% of the US population.

Blacks experience disproportionate burden of health diseases, injury and death. Researches show that in 2002, HIV deaths amongst blacks were approximately 11 times more amongst whites. National Urban League’s 2006 annual report revealed that out of 580,000 blacks who are serving sentence in prison, a mere 6.89% males had a bachelor’s degree. Nearly 70% blacks in prison never completed their schooling. Likewise, in a 1994 Department of Justice survey of felony, it was found that blacks were in general more likely to receive prison sentences than whites. Between 1995-2000, out of 682 defendants facing death penalty, 48% were blacks, 29% were Hispanics, and 20% were whites. Following this, a study by Wake County found African Americans had bail set 18% higher than whites charged with similar crimes.

Even in terms of earnings, researches show that in 1964, African Americans’ income was 58% of white people’s income. In 1991, African Americans’ income was just 57% of income of whites. And in the US army, as per the recent data, while 62.7% are whites, 20% are blacks. At the commissioned officer level, the ratio is 12.4% blacks vs 73% whites.

The recent NBC/Wall Street Journal poll shows that 27% of Americans think Professor Gates is more at fault for getting arrested than Sergeant Crowley! If you think that that percentage is fortunate for a change, don’t be hasty in passing the baton of goodness. Wrong judgements and hasty ‘Rodney King’ decisions by police force are not new phenomena. Some cutting cases – Amadou Diallo, an African immigrant, was shot dead in 1999 by police officers who mistook his taking out a wallet for a gun; he was shot 41 times. For a similar reason, Sean Bell was shot to death by NYPD in 2006 – shot 50 times. Omar Edwards, May 2009 – same result! The list is long...

The customary approach of whites on blacks clearly makes the case against James Crowley and in favour of Dr. Louis Henry Gates. President Obama is unquestionably right with his comments against Crowley. They’re damn well timed, and he must be gloating at the amount of media coverage his statements got. It was not always like this.

Take for instance, the 100th anniversary of the NAACP’s founding. In his concluding words, Obama frustratingly comments, “…I’ve noticed that when I talk about personal responsibility in the African American community, that gets highlighted… But then the whole other half of the speech, where I talked about government’s responsibility [towards it] ...that somehow doesn’t make news.” And working towards government’s responsibility is what Obama has done fanatically. While in power in Illinois, he introduced a bill that not only made it compulsory for officers to record the racial background of each person they stopped on the roads, but brilliantly, also forced police to video tape all criminal interrogations (to reduce forced confessions, torture and deaths in police custody).

Everybody in the police department opposed it tooth and nail. The governor came on record to oppose it. Obama faced a scenario of being defeated massively in the 58 seat state assembly. But with conviction, and with the audacity of hope, Obama worked on getting people to his side. When the bill was finally introduced, it was passed 58-0!

We quote from Obama’s iconic Audacity of Hope, from an excerpt where he describes a particular incident sometime after he was trounced badly in the 2000 Congressional elections – “A year and a half later, the scars of that loss sufficiently healed, I had lunch with a media consultant who had been encouraging me for some time to run for statewide office... “You realize, don’t you, that the political dynamics have changed,” he [the media consultant] said as he picked at his salad.

“What do you mean?” I asked, knowing fully well what he meant. We both looked down at the newspaper beside him. There, on the front page, was Osama bin Laden.

“Hell of a thing, isn’t it?” he said, shaking his head. “Really bad luck. You can’t change your name, of course. Voters are suspicious of that kind of thing. Maybe if you were at the start of your career, you know, you could use a nickname or something. But now...” His voice trailed off and he shrugged apologetically before signalling the waiter to bring us the check.

I suspected he was right, and that realization ate away at me...”

Obama always knew that in white America, white Americans will never vote in majority for a black President... On November 4, 2008, Barack Hussein Obama won the US Presidential elections – 95% blacks voted for him; only 43% whites did...     

US : Pr o s e c u t i o n

Hang him again, he ain’t dead

It’s amazing how US continues to execute ‘criminals’, blind to the fact that many convictions could be wrong

It was the recent US Supreme Court judgement that kicked our peeve more than Saddam could have ever of Bush. The Court ruled that Kentucky’s threedrug method of execution by lethal injection does not violate any kind of constitutional amendments. Not that it would matter anymore, but we just thought of putting history in the right perspective. Going back in time, in 1879 (Wilkerson vs. Utah), in a judgement cited by the same Supreme Court (execution by firing), the criminal in question was documented to have suffered for 27 minutes, even in the presence of a doctor, before dying. Again, in 1890, in an electric chair execution, the criminal was breathing after the exercise. People like Ray Krone, Jonathon Hoffman, Madison Hobley, Aaron Patterson, Stanley Howard, LeRoy Orange and many other unreported names spent numerous years in jail for crimes they didn’t commit (including being on death bench). What’s more, since 1973, more than 125 people (10 in 2003 alone) in the US have been freed from death penalty due to evidence of their convictions being faulty. If one goes even by some tasteless financial logic, legislative audits show now that the estimated cost of a death penalty case is 70% (and in some cases 300%) more than the cost of a comparable non-death penalty case. Various studies show that the chance of a case being put on trial for death penalty is 84% higher in cases where the victim is white. It further reveals that African-American defendants receive the death penalty at thrice the rate of white defendants (especially in cases where the victims are white). Moreover, killers of whites are treated more strictly than killers of the nonwhites. In a survey of 1,788 male inmates by Human Rights Watch, about 21% claimed they had been forced into sexual activity and raped during confinement. Clearly, Illinois’ Governor George Ryan’s statement in January 2000 was less hyperbole and more of pertinent argument, when he said, “I cannot support a system which, in its administration, has proven so fraught with error and has come so close to the ultimate nightmare – the state’s taking of innocent life... Until I can be sure everyone sentenced to death in Illinois is truly guilty, ...no one will meet that fate.”

Even now the Nebraska top Court’s ruling uses an electric chair that violates the state Constitution’s ban on cruel and inhumane punishment. Strangely, the US Supreme Court has repeatedly declared lethal injection to be ‘uncruel’ and humane, in spite of documented evidence that the cocktail of drugs used to execute criminals could cause severe anguish. Well, what more can you expect of a nation, whose people argue more about Paris Hilton’s dressing sense, and debate more about Britney Spears’ marital problems, than of severe human indiscretions.