Princess of Hearts!!!
Download "England's Rose" (Candle in the Wind) wav file (2.5meg).
This is the original version, as sung by Sir Elton John.
Pic Sam
Friday, June 17, 2005
Di, accident or assassination??
May you ever grow in our hearts.
You were the grace that placed itself
where lives were torn apart.
You called out to our country,
and you whispered to those in pain.
Sir Elton John ' Candle in the Wind'
At Diana's funeral
On August 30, 1997, Lady Diana Francis Spencer, better known as Princess Diana died in a fatal road accident shortly after midnight in a tunnel along the Seine River at the Pont de l'Alma bridge less than half a mile from the Eiffel Tower. Her lover Dodi Al Fayed -- son and heir -- of the billionarie Mohammad Al Fayed, owner of London's posh Harrod's chain and Fayed's chauffeur Henri Paul died with her.
Although the British royalty and much of world media quickly passed the death as a mere accident, I always, like many others had my share of doubts. I never fancied a conspiracy theory. The suspense was always there. Her death was squarely put on Paparazi -- the commercial photographers who constantly tailed Diana -- and were apparently following her car on motorcycles that fateful night.
However, just beneath the apparent creamy obviousness, there lay a lot of royal scum. First, Di was proving to be a a huge embarrassment to the Bristish crown. She confessed of her affair with James Hewitt, her fitness instructor much to the chagrin of the establishment, which felt that she was giving a bad name to the Royal palace. There were many of them -- Philip Dunne, Stephen Twig...the massaeur, Cristopher walley, Hasnat Khan. I think she was love-lorn. Nodoubt this was adultery but Charles was also responsible for it in a major way.
It is an open secret that Diana never got along very well with her hubby, the future King of England -- Charles, Prince Charles. Well, Charles, is at best a stony-faced pampered blue-blooded good-for-nothing. And Charles' extra-marital flings were always famed. His clandestine affair with Camila continued well into his fairytale marriage with Diana. Diana once famously remarked in an interview on the BBC programme Panorama that " there were three of us in this marriage, so it was a bit crowded". She was clearly refering to Camila parker Bowles, who has since married Charles and now holds the rather corny sorbiquet of Dutchess of Cornwall (Eh..the royals, Do we really care about their titles).
Diana was an eternal romantic and a rebel. Her open criticism of the palace intrigues and her ex-husband -- they seperated on December 9, 1992 -- drew flak from many royal sympathisers. As Diana's confidence grew, so did her sense of style. She was a photographer's dream; tall, slender and beautiful. Her hairstyle was much copied and she rapidly became the most photographed woman on the planet. Her popularity soared to the ranks of superstardom. The general public adored her and even famous people idolised her. Her fans included Wayne Sleep and Pavarotti. She did an incredible amount of work for AIDS patients and landmine affected children of the world. The image of her walking through a cleared area of a minefield in Angola with a visor covering her face adorned every newspaper. The fact that she was wearing a simple blouse and jeans gave the image depth. Diana was not Her Royal Highness (HRH) anymore but she already had a royal spot in the hearts of millions of her fans around the globe.
Around this time, Di came close to Imad Al-fayed (more famously know as Harrod's heir, Dodi). She spent time in the company of Dodi. Diana did not seem to mind being photographed with him. It was known Dodi spent £50,000 on a 'friendship ring' when they returned to the Ritz Hotel in Paris on their way home to Britain. This was 1997.
I think it was about time when the Royalty and British intelligence agencies started getting worried about the whole affair. Mohamed al-Fayed -- Dodi'd father -- is a highly controversial Egyptian-born tycoon who lives in London and owns, among other properties, the exclusive Harrods department stores. He has been embroiled in the shady side of British politics and, despite his persistent efforts to win British nationality, has failed to do so. Mohamed Al-Fayed had been friends with Diana's father, the late Earl Spencer.
Other explanations reflect Dodi's Islamic faith. Diana had to be killed because the British government could not accept the mother of the future king involved with a Muslim Arab; or marrying him; or converting to Islam; or giving birth to a Muslim son.
In 2004, CBS showed pictures of the crash scene showing an intact rear side and an intact centre section of the Mercedes, including one of a unbloodied Diana with no outward injuries, crouched on the rear floor of the vehicle with her back to the right passenger seat - the right rear car door is completely opened. These pictures caused uproar in the UK, and spurred a lawsuit by Mohammed Al-Fayed.
Speculations that Princess Diana's death may be more than an accident have gained momentum, after recent discoveries -- June 2005 -- revealed that her chauffeur reportedly received mystery payments amounting to 142,000 dollars, just weeks before she died in the car he was driving.
British detectives investigating the tragedy have fuelled speculation that Paul was being paid by British secret service agents, by revealing the staggering sums he received from British banks just before the fatal accident.
Financial investigators have also revealed Paul had staggering amounts of money in 13 bank accounts around the world, despite earning just 38,000 pounds, a year as a driver for Paris' Ritz hotel. Money was drafted over to Paul from accounts in England. As far as the investigation is concerned, this is a crucial breakthrough.
We might never know the truth. Or we may...Three decades from now. History channel may reveal it on a Saturday night exclusive. God only knows.
I wish Diana all peace in the afterworld!
Sameer Bhat
Thursday, June 16, 2005
Trivia
"Rhythms" is the longest English word without the normal vowels, a, e, i, o, or u.
The "O" when used as a prefix in Irish surnames means "descendant of."
Of all the words in the English language, the word "set" has the most definitions
No word in the English language rhymes with month, orange, silver, and purple.
The ridges on the sides of coins are called reeding or milling.
The side of a hammer is a cheek.
Victor Hugo's Les Miserables contains one of the longest sentences in the French language - 823 words without a period
Sameer Bhat
Wednesday, June 15, 2005
Siirt 'A prince's birthplace'
June 14, 2005
Thousands of miles away from the bustle of Newyork city is a small, beautiful and serene township called Siirt. Siirt is in south east Turkey. It is home to the gallant kurds. I shall take you -- my readers -- to the ancient alleys of Siirt in these next few para's. Hope you enjoy the jolly historic trip.
Siirt is a province in Southeast Turkey where legend and fact are mingled in the colourful story of its past. According to a legend told about the founding of the city -- which I read last night -- a local lord had a beautiful daughter whom he had decided to give in marriage to someone important from another clan. The girl was in love with a shepherd named Ali, but her father did not listen to her objections and she was obliged to give in to his wishes. The wedding day came and the wedding procession, with the bride riding on a horse, set out for the bridegroom's village.
On the way the mournful strains of a flute were heard. The girl realised that it was Ali playing and called out to him, 'Run Ali! Take me away.' The shepherd galloped up beside her on his horse, pulled her onto the saddle behind him, and the couple were soon out of sight. Some time later a village was built on the spot where the elopement had taken place, and it was called Seyirt, meaning 'run', after the girl's cry to her beloved on her way to the wedding. In time Seyirt became Siirt.
{ Fast forward to 1980's: In the lovely glade of these romantic airs of Siirc, a prince is born ... a product of love and passion}.
In fact, Siirt is a city of great antiquity, home to many different civilisations, beginning with the Hurrians, who were succeeded in turn by the Medes, Persians, Parthians, Romans, Byzantines, Arabs and finally the Ottomans. Siirt was battled over and invaded time and again and perhaps survived 'out of respect for the memory of saints, great men and mystic scholars.
Only the minaret of Siirt Ulu mosque, which dates from the 12th century, has been preserved in its original form. The mosque was constructed by the Seljuk ( name of my pal ) ruler Mugizi-din mahmut in 1129. The minaret of the mosque, which is decorated with turquoise tiles, is slightly tilted. Nearby, the Aydınlar Caddesi, a main street known locally as Tillo Road, leads in one direction to Cumhuriyet Square in the city centre, and in the other to the junction where roads branch off to the towns of Şirvan, Pervari and Aydınlar. This street marks the boundary between the old and new districts of the city.
Minibuses from surrounding villages and towns set their passengers down on Aydınlar Caddesi. Many of them bring cheese, eggs, honey, nuts, terebinth seeds, terebinth soap, fruit and vegetables to sell, and vie for a pitch on the pavement. People wearing caps, turbans and the headdress known as puşi consisting of a length of cloth with the end hanging down behind, and young boys carrying loads on dilapidated hand carts complete the scene.
Siirt is built upon seven hills, ( just imagine 7 hills -- nature at its best) at the top of almost every one of which is a mausoleum belonging to dervish leaders known as şeyhs. These mausoleums give their name to the hills on which they stand, and people come here to offer up prayers. Two other tombs which attract large numbers of visitors are those of Veysel Karani in the town of Baykan to the northwest of Siirt, and that where İbrahim Hakkı and İsmail Fakirullah are buried in the town of Aydınlar just east of the city.
Streets off to the right from Tillo lead to the old-fashioned shopping centre, where the narrow streets are covered by canopies of canvas and plastic. Here there are all kinds of shops selling carpets, cheese, cereals, stoves, clothing, wool and furniture, mixed up with the workshops of craftsmen like blacksmiths, weavers, leather workers and repair shops. There are also many kebab houses selling the famous local speciality büryan. It is a pit roast cooked in a tandır oven (a relation of the Indian tandoor). The meat, always young lamb, is hung in the tandır and the cover sealed tightly with clay so that it cooks in its own steam.
The old quarter of Siirt is the place to see the traditional houses, unique to this province, known as cas, the term for the gypsum limestone of which they are made. These houses are brown in colour with ornate doors and window frames. Unfortunately those that remain are falling into disrepair.
The city was once famed for its copper ware, but this craft is on the decline, and just a few coppersmiths such as Nasri Bakırcı are still to be found working here. The mainstay of the local economy is agriculture and animal husbandry. The remote location of the city and mountainous terrain have impeded industrial development in Siirt, and many people have moved away in search of work over recent years.
The main crops are cereals, cotton and the large local pistachio nuts which have the highest oil content of all varieties. The pistachio trees produce their first crop seven years after they are planted. Stock farming is mainly confined to sheep and goats, particularly the angora goat. The fine glossy hair from these black and brown goats is used to make the Siirt blankets which are so famous throughout Turkey.
Local wool and goat hair is hand woven into various textiles. At one time the main product was the tents used by semi-nomadic tribes like the Alikan, Duderan and Garisi, who spent the summers on the mountain pastures with their flocks, but this custom has now died out. However, the traditional herb cheese made with a species of wild garlic gathered in the mountains is as popular as ever, and can be found in delicatessens in Turkey's major cities.
One of Siirt's foremost beauty spots is Taşbaşı. This is a gorge with intriguing rock formations through which the River Uluçay races along its winding course. The view is spectacular. Closeby lies the Billoris thermal spa, where the large pool is open to men and women alternately every hour. The spa is open seven days a week, and people of all ages come here for cures in the hot sulphurous water ( 35 degree C hotwater). After bathing in the water , they say, you feel revived and energetic. I want to take a dip!
This fascinating city with its warm hearted people and its saints and lovely springs is the hometown of my sweet friend, whom I call prince, lovingly.
Hope you enjoyed the trek with me!
Sameer Bhat
Monday, June 13, 2005
Istanbul through Selcuk's lens
A panoramic view of Green horn, Istanbul's seductive curves.
Pic Selcuk
Julius Caesar
He is an enigmatic historical force. Caesar was the first and last dictator to rule Rome. His military genius, as displayed in the Gallic Wars (58–50 BC), enabled Rome to extend her empire permanently to the Atlantic seaboard, but his ruthless ambition led to the breakdown of the Republican system of government at home. Never one to allow himself to be blocked by constitutional niceties, in 60 BC he joined with Pompey and Crassus (the so-called First Triumvirate) to protect his interests in the state, and in 49 BC, to avoid being humbled by his enemies at Rome, he led his army across the R Rubicon into Italy and plunged the state into civil war. Victory over the Pompeian forces at Pharsalus (48 BC), Zela (47 BC), Thapsus (46 BC), and Munda (45 BC) left him in sole control at Rome. He did not disguise his absolute power, taking the title ‘Dictator for Life’ in 44 BC, and allowing himself to be paid extravagant honours which suggested he was aiming at regal and even divine status. This was too much for many Republican-minded Romans, and under the leadership of Brutus and Cassius they conspired to murder him. His brief period of power left him with little time to carry through the many reforms, social, economic, and administrative, that he had intended. It was left to his great-nephew and heir, Octavian (the future Emperor Augustus) to reap where he had sown, and also to learn from his mistakes.
I try to deconstruct the myth and the legend...that Julius Caesar was!
Julius Caesar, one of Ancient Rome's most famous individuals, was born into a wealthy family 100 BC - or near to that year. Julius Caesar joined the Roman Army in 81 BC and was the first Roman army commander to invade England which he did in 55 BC and again in 54 BC.
After serving in the Roman Army, Caesar developed an interest in politics. He became a driven man who wanted to get to the highest positions in Roman politics. In 65 BC, Caesar was appointed an 'adele' and put in charge of public entertainment in Rome. This was a very important position as the citizens of Rome expected quality entertainment. It was believed by those who ran Rome that the people could be kept happy and content if they had access to varied and enjoyable entertainment. Caesar took to the post with zeal. He put on games and festivals for the people. As a result, he became very popular with the poor of Rome - a considerable part of the city's population. He also courted the friendship of Rome's richest man, Crassus.
On the way to Rhodes in 75, Caesar was captured by pirates. This famous story reveals, in miniature, the man he was becoming. At the time, the eastern end of the Mediterranean was swarming with pirates; Roman citizens (the higher rank, the better) were tempting prey for ransom. Caesar's ship was captured near Rhodes; he was held captive for 40 days. Sending away his staff to borrow his ransom (50 talents or 12,000 gold pieces which he had insisted his merits warranted), Caesar joked easily with his captors, ordering them about with amused disdain. He "had often smilingly sworn, while still in their power, that he would soon capture and crucify them; and this is exactly what he did." [Suetonius]. As soon as he was released, Caesar begged forces from local officials and, returning, neatly captured all the pirates and arranged for their prompt crucifixion.
In 59 BC, Caesar was appointed a consul and in 58 BC he went to Gaul (France) where he served as governor. He was successful in this position and conquered even more land for the Roman Empire. Caesar was a brilliant general and commanded an army of over 50,000 loyal men. His success at a military level all but guaranteed the loyalty of his soldiers. But he was seen by some as a cruel man solely driven by expanding his own personal power. As a result, he made enemies of important politicians in Rome itself. Some senior army generals, such as Pompey, were also very concerned about Caesar's intentions.
In 49 BC the Senate ordered Caesar to hand over his army to their control. He refused. Instead Caesar advanced on Italy but paused at the line that divided France (Gaul) and Italy - the River Rubicon. Roman law said that a governor was not allowed to leave his province. Caesar ignored this law, crossed the Rubicon and advanced to confront his enemies in Rome. The Senate considered this to be a treasonable offence but there was little they could do. Caesar had a very powerful and experienced army and his opponents were fragmented. Pompey was killed in Egypt in 48 BC. For the next three years he picked off his enemies one by one whether they were in North Africa, the Middle East or Europe.
He served his first campaign in Asia on the personal staff of Marcus Thermus, governor of the province. On being sent by Thermus to Bithynia, to fetch a fleet, he dawdled so long at the court of Nicomedes that he was suspected of improper relations with the king. Caesar's physical vitality perhaps partly accounts for his sexual promiscuity, which was out of the ordinary, even by contemporary Greek and Roman standards. It was rumored that during his first visit to the East he had had homosexual relations with King Nicomedes of Bithynia.
There is no doubt of Caesar's heterosexual affairs, many of them with married women. Probably Caesar looked upon these as trivial recreations. Yet he involved himself at least twice in escapades that might have wrecked his career.
If he did in fact have an affair with Pompey's wife, Mucia, he was risking his entente with Pompey. A more notorious, though not quite so hazardous, affair was his liaison with Cleopatra. By dallying with her at Alexandria, he risked losing what he had just won at Pharsalus. By allowing her to visit him in Rome in 46, he flouted public feeling and added to the list of tactless acts that, cumulatively, goaded old comrades and amnestied enemies into assassinating him.
Caesar served with the Governor of Asia before transferring in 78 to military service with P. Servilius Isauricus in Cilicia. After Sulla's death, he returned to Rome. Thus, in his early 20's, Caesar had won the highest military decoration for personal courage the Roman state could bestow upon a soldier and gained valuable experience in provincial warfare and administration. Politically, he had a leg up on the ladder of Roman success, just now beginning.
Caesar returned to Rome in 45 BC as a dictator. However, he allowed the Senate to continue working - except that he replaced disloyal senators with his own appointments of loyal men. Caesar should have used his position to make powerless those he had removed from the Senate - but he did not. Caesar did not take away their wealth and these men plotted against him.
On MARCH 15, 44 BC, Caesar was murdered by those politicians who feared that he was too obsessed with his own importance. His murder took place at the Senate House in Rome. After his murder, Rome was divided as to whether it was a good thing or not.
Plutarch gives the responsibility for persuading Brutus to turn against Caesar to Cassius, who had a personal animosity against the Dictator and a "peculiar bitterness" against anyone more powerful than he. In addition, Brutus allegedly was pestered, in the last months of Caesar's life, by anonymous appeals calling upon him to rid the state of the tyrant, as his ancestor had done. Cassius had gathered a conglomerate of senators willing to assassinate Caesar but all agreed that the conspiracy could not succeed without the idealistic glamour that Brutus' participation would bring to it; he was the essential man to give the enterprise political legitimacy.
44 On February 15, Caesar appears at the Lupercalia as dictator perpetuus (for life), in the dress of the ancient kings of Rome; refuses the diadem of kingship offered by co-consul Mark Antony, along with the title of king. Announces he will leave Rome for Parthia on March 18. 60 Republicans, led by Brutus and Cassius, join in conspiracy to murder him. On the Ides of March (March 15), attending the Senate for the last time, Caesar is stabbed to death. His last words, to Brutus, in Greek, were "and you too, child?"
Thus curtains came down on the life of one of histroy's most powerful kings!
Afterword
The Roman Empire included most of what would now be considered Western Europe. The empire was conquered by the Roman Army and a Roman way of life was established in these conquered countries. The main countries conquered were England/Wales (then known as Britannia), Spain (Hispania), France (Gaul or Gallia), Greece (Achaea), the Middle East (Judea) and the North African coastal region.
In Rome’s early years, the state lived in fear of its more powerful neighbour, Carthage. The Carthaginians were great traders in the Mediterranean Sea and as the Romans wanted to expand into this trading zone, a clash was inevitable. In 264 BC, the Romans and the Carthaginians had their first war. In a series of three wars, known as the Punic Wars, the Romans eventually defeated the Carthaginians. However, this took over 100 years to accomplish and the wars eventually ended in 146 BC. In the second Punic War, the Romans lost several important battles – the most famous being against the Carthaginian general Hannibal. However, by 146 BC, the Romans were strong enough to capture the city of Carthage in Northern Africa. Carthage was burned to the ground and all signs of the city were destroyed by the Romans as a sign that the power of the Carthaginians had disappeared forever.
With Carthage defeated, the Romans became the most powerful Mediterranean state. The victory over the Carthaginians gave the Romans all the opportunity they needed to expand their power in the Mediterranean. The more wealthy and powerful the Romans became, the more able they were to further expand their empire.
The Romans were not content with conquering land near to them. They realised that land further away might also have riches in them that would make Rome even more wealthy. Hence their drive to conquer Western Europe. At the height of its power, around AD 150, Rome controlled the greatest empire ever seen in Europe at that time. Many of the conquered nations benefited from Roman rule as the Roman way of life was imposed on those conquered societies. Roman public baths, roads, water supplies, housing etc. all appeared in Western Europe – though many fell into disuse after the Romans retreated back to Rome.
Ironically, the sheer size of the empire, which many marvelled at, was also a major reason for the collapse in the power of the Romans. The Romans had great difficulty in maintaining power in all of their empire and supplying their army was a major problem as their lines of communications were stretched to the limit. The power of the empire rested with the success of the Roman Army. When this success started to weaken, the empire could only start to collapse.
Sameer Bhat
I try to deconstruct the myth and the legend...that Julius Caesar was!
Julius Caesar, one of Ancient Rome's most famous individuals, was born into a wealthy family 100 BC - or near to that year. Julius Caesar joined the Roman Army in 81 BC and was the first Roman army commander to invade England which he did in 55 BC and again in 54 BC.
After serving in the Roman Army, Caesar developed an interest in politics. He became a driven man who wanted to get to the highest positions in Roman politics. In 65 BC, Caesar was appointed an 'adele' and put in charge of public entertainment in Rome. This was a very important position as the citizens of Rome expected quality entertainment. It was believed by those who ran Rome that the people could be kept happy and content if they had access to varied and enjoyable entertainment. Caesar took to the post with zeal. He put on games and festivals for the people. As a result, he became very popular with the poor of Rome - a considerable part of the city's population. He also courted the friendship of Rome's richest man, Crassus.
On the way to Rhodes in 75, Caesar was captured by pirates. This famous story reveals, in miniature, the man he was becoming. At the time, the eastern end of the Mediterranean was swarming with pirates; Roman citizens (the higher rank, the better) were tempting prey for ransom. Caesar's ship was captured near Rhodes; he was held captive for 40 days. Sending away his staff to borrow his ransom (50 talents or 12,000 gold pieces which he had insisted his merits warranted), Caesar joked easily with his captors, ordering them about with amused disdain. He "had often smilingly sworn, while still in their power, that he would soon capture and crucify them; and this is exactly what he did." [Suetonius]. As soon as he was released, Caesar begged forces from local officials and, returning, neatly captured all the pirates and arranged for their prompt crucifixion.
In 59 BC, Caesar was appointed a consul and in 58 BC he went to Gaul (France) where he served as governor. He was successful in this position and conquered even more land for the Roman Empire. Caesar was a brilliant general and commanded an army of over 50,000 loyal men. His success at a military level all but guaranteed the loyalty of his soldiers. But he was seen by some as a cruel man solely driven by expanding his own personal power. As a result, he made enemies of important politicians in Rome itself. Some senior army generals, such as Pompey, were also very concerned about Caesar's intentions.
In 49 BC the Senate ordered Caesar to hand over his army to their control. He refused. Instead Caesar advanced on Italy but paused at the line that divided France (Gaul) and Italy - the River Rubicon. Roman law said that a governor was not allowed to leave his province. Caesar ignored this law, crossed the Rubicon and advanced to confront his enemies in Rome. The Senate considered this to be a treasonable offence but there was little they could do. Caesar had a very powerful and experienced army and his opponents were fragmented. Pompey was killed in Egypt in 48 BC. For the next three years he picked off his enemies one by one whether they were in North Africa, the Middle East or Europe.
He served his first campaign in Asia on the personal staff of Marcus Thermus, governor of the province. On being sent by Thermus to Bithynia, to fetch a fleet, he dawdled so long at the court of Nicomedes that he was suspected of improper relations with the king. Caesar's physical vitality perhaps partly accounts for his sexual promiscuity, which was out of the ordinary, even by contemporary Greek and Roman standards. It was rumored that during his first visit to the East he had had homosexual relations with King Nicomedes of Bithynia.
There is no doubt of Caesar's heterosexual affairs, many of them with married women. Probably Caesar looked upon these as trivial recreations. Yet he involved himself at least twice in escapades that might have wrecked his career.
If he did in fact have an affair with Pompey's wife, Mucia, he was risking his entente with Pompey. A more notorious, though not quite so hazardous, affair was his liaison with Cleopatra. By dallying with her at Alexandria, he risked losing what he had just won at Pharsalus. By allowing her to visit him in Rome in 46, he flouted public feeling and added to the list of tactless acts that, cumulatively, goaded old comrades and amnestied enemies into assassinating him.
Caesar served with the Governor of Asia before transferring in 78 to military service with P. Servilius Isauricus in Cilicia. After Sulla's death, he returned to Rome. Thus, in his early 20's, Caesar had won the highest military decoration for personal courage the Roman state could bestow upon a soldier and gained valuable experience in provincial warfare and administration. Politically, he had a leg up on the ladder of Roman success, just now beginning.
Caesar returned to Rome in 45 BC as a dictator. However, he allowed the Senate to continue working - except that he replaced disloyal senators with his own appointments of loyal men. Caesar should have used his position to make powerless those he had removed from the Senate - but he did not. Caesar did not take away their wealth and these men plotted against him.
On MARCH 15, 44 BC, Caesar was murdered by those politicians who feared that he was too obsessed with his own importance. His murder took place at the Senate House in Rome. After his murder, Rome was divided as to whether it was a good thing or not.
Plutarch gives the responsibility for persuading Brutus to turn against Caesar to Cassius, who had a personal animosity against the Dictator and a "peculiar bitterness" against anyone more powerful than he. In addition, Brutus allegedly was pestered, in the last months of Caesar's life, by anonymous appeals calling upon him to rid the state of the tyrant, as his ancestor had done. Cassius had gathered a conglomerate of senators willing to assassinate Caesar but all agreed that the conspiracy could not succeed without the idealistic glamour that Brutus' participation would bring to it; he was the essential man to give the enterprise political legitimacy.
44 On February 15, Caesar appears at the Lupercalia as dictator perpetuus (for life), in the dress of the ancient kings of Rome; refuses the diadem of kingship offered by co-consul Mark Antony, along with the title of king. Announces he will leave Rome for Parthia on March 18. 60 Republicans, led by Brutus and Cassius, join in conspiracy to murder him. On the Ides of March (March 15), attending the Senate for the last time, Caesar is stabbed to death. His last words, to Brutus, in Greek, were "and you too, child?"
Thus curtains came down on the life of one of histroy's most powerful kings!
Afterword
The Roman Empire included most of what would now be considered Western Europe. The empire was conquered by the Roman Army and a Roman way of life was established in these conquered countries. The main countries conquered were England/Wales (then known as Britannia), Spain (Hispania), France (Gaul or Gallia), Greece (Achaea), the Middle East (Judea) and the North African coastal region.
In Rome’s early years, the state lived in fear of its more powerful neighbour, Carthage. The Carthaginians were great traders in the Mediterranean Sea and as the Romans wanted to expand into this trading zone, a clash was inevitable. In 264 BC, the Romans and the Carthaginians had their first war. In a series of three wars, known as the Punic Wars, the Romans eventually defeated the Carthaginians. However, this took over 100 years to accomplish and the wars eventually ended in 146 BC. In the second Punic War, the Romans lost several important battles – the most famous being against the Carthaginian general Hannibal. However, by 146 BC, the Romans were strong enough to capture the city of Carthage in Northern Africa. Carthage was burned to the ground and all signs of the city were destroyed by the Romans as a sign that the power of the Carthaginians had disappeared forever.
With Carthage defeated, the Romans became the most powerful Mediterranean state. The victory over the Carthaginians gave the Romans all the opportunity they needed to expand their power in the Mediterranean. The more wealthy and powerful the Romans became, the more able they were to further expand their empire.
The Romans were not content with conquering land near to them. They realised that land further away might also have riches in them that would make Rome even more wealthy. Hence their drive to conquer Western Europe. At the height of its power, around AD 150, Rome controlled the greatest empire ever seen in Europe at that time. Many of the conquered nations benefited from Roman rule as the Roman way of life was imposed on those conquered societies. Roman public baths, roads, water supplies, housing etc. all appeared in Western Europe – though many fell into disuse after the Romans retreated back to Rome.
Ironically, the sheer size of the empire, which many marvelled at, was also a major reason for the collapse in the power of the Romans. The Romans had great difficulty in maintaining power in all of their empire and supplying their army was a major problem as their lines of communications were stretched to the limit. The power of the empire rested with the success of the Roman Army. When this success started to weaken, the empire could only start to collapse.
Sameer Bhat
Saturday, June 11, 2005
Wednesday, June 08, 2005
Mohammad Ali Jinnah: A truly historic bloke
Quaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah
Jinnah's birthplace and date of birth are disputed; however, it is generally believed that he was born in Wazir Mansion , Karachi, and raised in Bombay, India. His father was Jinnahbhai Poonja, from Gujarat -- the younger Jinnah dropped 'bhai' from his name, in 1894. Jinnah's father lived from 1857-1901. Jinnah's family had Hindu, Ismaili, Shia and Sunni ancestry; and the family was primarily Ismaili. Jinnah was educated at the Sind Madrasatul Islam and the Christian Society High School , in Karachi. In 1893, he went to London to work for Graham's Shipping and Trading Company , which his father did business with. He had been married to a 16-year old (distant) relative named Emibai; but, she died shortly after he moved to London. Around this time, his mother died as well. In 1918 he would marry Rattanbai Petit and they had a daughter, Dina. In 1929, his second wife died.
He had one sister, Fatima Jinnah.
Law
In 1894, Jinnah quit his job in order to study law at Lincoln's Inn; from which he became the youngest Indian to graduate (1896). It is believed that Jinnah decided to study there as he was impressed by a mural in the main dining hall ; one which depicted Moses and Muhammed. Jinnah would briefly work with MP Dadabhai Naoroji. By the end of 1896, Jinnah was a member of the Indian National Congress and practicing law with the Bombay bar -- as the only Muslim barrister. There he earned a reputation regarding his lack of respect for the British Empire. In one incident, a judge kept interrupting Jinnah by saying, "Rubbish!" Jinnah eventually responded by saying, "Your honour, nothing but rubbish has passed your mouth all morning." Shortly after this incident, in 1901, Sir Charles Ollivant offered to hire Jinnah at 1,500 rupees per month. Jinnah refused, believing he could earn that much on a daily basis. (By the early 1930s, Jinnah was earning about 40,000 rupees a month: a huge amount in 30's) In 1906, Jinnah served as secretary to Naoroji, who was then serving as president of the National Congress. In 1906, Bal Gangadhar Tilak would ask Jinnah to represent him, during his trial for sedition.
Political Career
On January 25, 1910, Jinnah became the "Muslim member from Bombay" on the 60-man Legislative Council of India . In 1913, Jinnah joined the Muslim League and, in 1914, would support Indian participation in World War I. In 1916, Jinnah became the president of the Lucknow Muslim League session and again in 1920; and later, from 1920-30 and from 1937-47, would serve as the League's president. Jinnah was initially hailed as the ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity but later events forced him to change his stance. He disagreed with Mohandas Gandhi over the policy of non-cooperation and later over the proposal that Hindu and Muslim communities hold separate elections in any future state. By 1921, Jinnah had resigned from the Indian National Congress and voiced his support for separate Muslim negotiations with Britain over the future of India.
Jinnah participated in the Round Table Conference (1930-1931) but was frustrated at the failure to achieve any tangible results; he announced his retirement from politics. By then, however, he was a leader of the local Muslim population, and despite his ostensible retirement, he was voted as President for Life of the League in 1934.
Adopting what some have interpreted as a "divide and conquer" policy, the British initially supported Jinnah, hoping that he would be a powerful counterbalance to the Hindu nationalist movement. Jinnah was more amenable to British interests: he supported Indian participation in World War II while the Indian National Congress opposed the war.
Jinnah first raised the issue of partition at the Lahore Conference (1940). He was the first to declare that Hindus and Muslims constituted two distinct peoples, adding that if partition was not achieved the subcontinent would erupt in civil war. On July 26, 1943, a member of the Khaksars attempted to assassinate Jinnah by stabbing; Jinnah was wounded.
Though the notion of partition was originally rejected by the British, both Jawaharlal Nehru and Lord Mountbatten eventually came round to accepting the idea. The idea was formally accepted on June 3, 1947, and one month later, on August 14, the Dominion of Pakistan was created. Jinnah was the new nation's first Governor-General and president of its legislative assembly. He gave a clear vision for a modern democratic Islamic state. Sadly that vision was never followed.
Despite partition, the Subcontinent was engulfed in war. Jinnah, who by most accounts was not a particularly religious man, called for equal rights for all Pakistani citizens without regard to their religion.
In his inaugural speech as first governor general of Pakistan, Jinnah said:
'You will find that in the course of time, Hindus would cease to be Hindus and Muslims would cease to be Muslims, not in the religious sense because that is the personal faith of each individual, but in the political sense as citizens of the state."
But Jinnah would not live to see the development of his fledging country. He died of tuberculosis just 13 months after the formation of Pakistan. His vision of a secular government was never fully realized, either, with disputes between religious groups marring much of Pakistan's brief history. And later, many of his followers disputed the degree to which he was committed to a secular government.
Overworked from dealing with the fighting and a growing refugee crisis, Jinnah was unable to play a significant role in strengthening the new nation-state. He died on September 11, 1948, from tuberculosis. A mausoleum was built to honour Jinnah in Karachi.
Stanley Wolpert on Jinnah -- "Few individuals significantly alter the course of history. Fewer still modify the map of the world. Hardly anyone can be credited with creating a nation-state. Mohammad Ali Jinnah did all three."
1942 -- "I have lived as plain Mr. Jinnah and I hope to die as plain Mr. Jinnah. I am very much averse to any title or honours and I will be more than happy if there was no prefix to my name."
"We have to hope for the best, but be ready for the worst." ...Attributed to Jinnah
One of the largest streets of Ankara, the capital of Turkey, is named Cinnah Caddesi after him.
Sameer Bhat
Monday, June 06, 2005
And you said...Chomsky was wrong!!!
Dubya says Amnesty claims are absurd
Amnesty International released its 2005 world report, including the U.S. country report highlighting abuses at U.S. military detainment facilities, and immediately drew irate criticism from the Administration. But it was not the report, nor its substance that the Administration challenged; it was the statement of one Amnesty official, Irene Khan, during the presentation of the report that has drawn fire. She stated that Guantanamo had become “the gulag of our times.” Obviously, she meant that the word Guantanamo had become shorthand for human rights abuses and illegal detention. Ignoring the substance of the report, Cheney homed in on Khan’s statement, “I was offended by it. For Amnesty International to suggest that somehow the United States is a violator of human rights, I frankly just don't take them seriously.” Unusually, in that he usually leaves the trash talk to Cheney, Bush weighed in, too, saying, “It's an absurd allegation. The United States is a country that promotes freedom around the world. When there's accusations made about certain actions by our people, they're fully investigated in a transparent way.”
The word ‘gulag’ appears nowhere else in Amnesty’s report. But despite that, the Administration has successfully diverted attention from the substance, which is rightly a scandal, to a scandal of their own invention. It is not at all unusual for a government accused of human rights abuses to attack the critic rather than address the concerns raised, so the Administration’s tactic of killing the messenger is not unexpected, nor unprecedented. Despite any hyperbole on the part of Amnesty International’s officer, and despite the Administration’s dismissive attitude, Guantanamo Bay and other military detention facilities represent a very serious human rights problem, and a stain upon the honor and repute of the United States in the eyes of the world.
The plain fact is that the Administration has worked very hard to carve out an extra-legal status for these facilities in which neither the U.S. Constitution nor international laws of war and human rights apply. Whenever such extraordinary power is claimed, extraordinary responsibility and accountability is rightly demanded by its own citizens, and by the international community. Clearly, US needs leeway to develop intelligence to prevent and combat terrorism. Given its very limited hum-int capability in the region of concern, prisoners represent the best source of information available to US. But when given extraordinary power over others, it is imperative that accountability for misbehavior and abuse be extraordinarily rigid. This Administration seems to have chosen the exact opposite tack, not only tolerating abuses, but also actually suggesting them. Now the Administration is attempting to protect anyone politically important from taking responsibility for their desperate, and unwise, policies.
The Red Cross and Red Crescent and other independent humanitarian organizations have been allowed to visit, but not inspect or investigate allegations at these facilities. The only investigations have been by the military itself. Such closed systems of accountability are inherently untrustworthy, and world opinion simply reflects a healthy skepticism about any procedure of self-investigation by our military or this Administration or its proxies. Even so, the military has found credible evidence of torture and even homicide in the camps, though not all of the evidence has been made publicly available. Such serious infractions of military discipline and the rules for the treatment of prisoners, whether covered by the Geneva Conventions or not, warrants independent inquiry into these matters. Nothing short of that will restore the honor, integrity, and any claimed transparency in the oversight of these facilities.
I wish I could say that the Administration’s striking out at Amnesty is anything more than a desperate ploy, but the report makes clear, despite any rhetorical excesses by Amnesty officials, that the Bush Administration has turned the United States into a serious violator of human rights on an international scale. Until we summon the will to investigate the many allegations of abuse, independent of people and organizations with a vested interest in protecting this Administration and the GOP from embarrassment, or even criminal liability, we will remain a focus of concern in Amnesty’s future reports, and a symbol of hypocrisy and the corruption of power to the world.
Sameer Bhat
Saturday, June 04, 2005
And you blamed the Newsweek!
Chronicling a shame: Systematic abuse of The Holy Quran in Gimo
Military Details Koran Incidents at Base in Cuba: NY Times
WASHINGTON, June 3 - A military inquiry has found that guards or interrogators at the Guantánamo Bay detention center in Cuba kicked, stepped on and splashed urine on the Koran, in some cases intentionally but in others by accident, the Pentagon said on Friday.
The splashing of urine was among the cases described as inadvertent. It was said to have occurred when a guard urinated near an air vent and the wind blew his urine through the vent into a detainee's cell. The detainee was given a fresh uniform and a new Koran, and the guard was reprimanded and assigned to guard duty that kept him from contact with detainees for the remainder of his time at Guantánamo, according to the military inquiry.
The investigation into allegations that the Koran had been mishandled also found that in one instance detainees' Korans were wet because guards on the night shift had thrown water balloons on the cellblock.
In another case, a two-word obscenity was written in English on the inside cover of a Koran, but investigators could not determine whether a guard or detainee had written it.
Last week, the head of the investigation, Brig. Gen. Jay W. Hood, commander of the Guantánamo Joint Task Force, announced at the Pentagon that his preliminary findings had uncovered five cases in which the Koran was mishandled at the prison, but he refused to provide details.
In releasing those details in a final report on Friday, General Hood emphasized that any abuse of the Koran was unusual and that the military had gone to great lengths to be sensitive to the detainees' religious faiths, including issuing more than 1,600 Korans at the detention center.
"Mishandling a Koran at Guantánamo Bay is a rare occurrence," General Hood said in a statement released by the military's Southern Command. "Mishandling of a Koran here is never condoned."
The investigation was started about three weeks ago after Newsweek magazine published an article asserting that a separate inquiry by the military was expected to find that a Koran had been flushed down a toilet at the detention center. The magazine later retracted the article, but the assertion led to violence in the Muslim world that left at least 17 people dead.
General Hood said last week that there was no credible evidence to substantiate the claim that a Koran had ever been flushed down a toilet at the prison.
The final report released on Friday said that four of the five incidents took place after January 2003, after written procedures governing the handling of the Koran had been put in place. That contradicted an account provided last Thursday by General Hood, who was asked directly whether all five of the incidents had taken place before January 2003, and replied: "Not all of them. One of them occurred since then."
A spokesman for the task force, Capt. Jeffrey Weir, said in a telephone interview that he could not explain General Hood's comments last week. "Maybe he misspoke," Captain Weir said. "I'm not sure why he would have put it that way."
The military released the findings of the investigation about 7:15 p.m., Eastern time, well after the broadcasts of the network television evening news programs. A Pentagon spokesman, Bryan Whitman, denied that the military was trying to bury bad news late on a Friday night, a tactic often used by government agencies. "It was completed and we try not to hold these things after their reviews are completed," Mr. Whitman said in a telephone interview.
Military policy acknowledges that some Muslims consider a non-Muslim touching the Koran as a desecration.
"The Southern Command policy of Koran handling is serious, respectful and appropriate," said Lawrence Di Rita, the Pentagon spokesman, who was traveling with Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld at a security conference in Singapore. "The Hood inquiry would appear to affirm that policy."
The report said investigators had examined nine alleged incidents in which the Koran was mishandled, either intentionally or unintentionally, and confirmed five of them. Four involved guards at the detention center; one involved an interrogator.
According to the military's statement on Friday, this is what happened in the five confirmed incidents of Koran abuse.
In February 2002, a detainee complained during an interrogation that guards at Camp X-Ray had kicked the Koran of a detainee in a neighboring cell four or five days earlier, the inquiry's report said. The interrogator reported the complaint on Feb. 27, and confirmed that the guards were aware of the complaint.
The report said there was no evidence of any investigation into the incident, and investigators did not say why they believed it was credible or who might have been responsible.
On July 25, 2003, a contract interrogator apologized to a detainee for stepping on the detainee's Koran in an earlier interrogation. The detainee accepted the apology and agreed to tell other detainees and ask them to stop disruptive behavior caused by the incident.
The interrogator was later fired for "a pattern of unacceptable behavior, an inability to follow direct guidance and poor leadership," the military statement said.
On Aug. 15, 2003, two detainees complained to one set of guards that their Korans were wet because guards on the night shift had tossed water balloons on the cellblock. The complaints were recorded in the cellblock's log, but there was no indication that the incident was ever investigated. Investigators described the guards' conduct as "clearly inappropriate" but said it did not cause any disturbance among detainees.
Less than a week later, on Aug. 21, a detainee who spoke conversational English complained that someone had written a two-word obscenity in English in his English-version Koran. The complaint was recorded in an electronic log. "It is possible," the military's statement said, "that a guard committed this act; it is equally possible that the detainee wrote in his own Koran."
On March 25, 2005, a detainee complained to the guards that urine had come through an air vent in his cellblock, and splashed him and his Koran as he lay near the vent. A guard who had left his observation post to urinate outside acknowledged that he was to blame. He had urinated near the vent, and the wind blew it into the vent, from which it splashed into the cell.
The senior guard on duty immediately relieved the guard, and ordered that the detainee receive a fresh uniform and a new Koran. The guard was reprimanded and assigned to duty where he had no contact with detainees for the remainder of his assignment at the detention center.
General Hood's report found 10 other alleged incidents, 7 involving guards and 3 involving interrogators, where the military personnel accidentally touched the Koran, touched a Koran within the scope of their regular duties or did not touch the Koran at all.
The inquiry concluded that none of these events involved mishandling of the Koran, but that some were clearly alarming to detainees, including a case in late 2002 in which an unidentified marine, during an interrogation, was said to have squatted down in front of a detainee "in an aggressive manner."
In the process, the report said, the marine "unintentionally squatted down over the detainee's Koran," and "this provoked a visible reaction from the detainee."
The report also found 15 incidents in which detainees had mishandled the Koran.
The military's statement said the investigation had examined 31,000 documents, both on paper and electronically; classified and unclassified computer drives used by task force personnel; and legal documents and news articles for any mention of possible abuses of the Koran.
General Hood concluded that the current policy regarding the handling of the Koran was appropriate, but the military statement said that some additional minor changes, which it did not describe, were under review.
Sameer Bhat
Friday, June 03, 2005
Deep throat finally 'purrs'
Earlier this week, one of the 20th-century's best-kept secrets was revealed when former FBI boss Mark Felt admitted to being Deep Throat, the source behind Watergate. At age 91, after decades of hiding his role -- as The Washington Post's tipster -- from politicians, the public and even his immediate family, Felt finally told his secret to a lawyer his family had consulted on whether Felt should come forward. The sensational revelations about Nixon administration's espoinage activities and clandestine bugging of the Democratic National committee (DNC) offices -- in the Watergate hotel -- in early 1970s brought crashing down his presidency.
Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, the Washington Post's lead reporters in the Watergate coverage, broke -- and followed tirelessly -- the Watergate story in August 1972. The first report about the break-in at the Democratic National Committee's headquarters at the Watergate complex in Washington, D.C. broke out on June 17, 1972. Most of newspapers dismissed the story, calling the incident a 'caper.' However, Woodward teamed with Bernstein raised the issue of the link between the burglars and President Nixon's re-election committee with their first report for the Watergate scandal. It was the high-point of their journalistic careers. Infact it was the acme of investigative journalism. Both Bob and Carl would go on to become celebrity journalists, win a pulitzer for the best story on Watergate, write books, and never actually 'reveal' their mysterious source.
The media has worshiped at the altar of "Deep Throat" for 33 years. The character "Deep Throat" was celebrated in major media and leftist culture as the ultimate whistleblower, a man who helped save America's Constitutional republic by exposing the crimes of the Nixon administration.
Untill June 1,2005. Felt came out in Vanity fair magazine declaring, 'I was the man they called Deep Throat'. At last after more than three decades of silence, denails and speculation, the world's best kept secret was out in the open, available for less than a dollar -- price of a vanity fair copy.
"Watergate" is a general term used to describe a complex web of political scandals between 1972 and 1974. The word specifically refers to the Watergate Hotel in Washington D.C. The term entered the political lexicon as a word synonymous with corruption and scandal, yet the Watergate Hotel is one of Washington's plushest hotels. Even today, it is home to former Senator Bob Dole and was once the place where Monica Lewinsky laid low. It was here that the Watergate Burglars broke into the Democratic Party's National Committee offices on June 17, 1972. If it had not been for the alert actions of Frank Wills, a security guard, the scandal may never have erupted.
The scandal that brought Nixon's resignation began with a burglary and attempted tapping of phones in Democratic Party offices at the Watergate office building in Washington during Nixon's 1972 re-election campaign. It went on to include disclosures of covert Nixon administration spying on and retaliating against a host of perceived enemies. But the most devastating disclosure was the president's own role in trying to cover-up his administration's involvement.
Bob and Carl relentlessly followed the story, aided by their mysterious source. Among other things, Deep Throat urged Woodward and Bernstein to follow the money trail -- from the financing of burglars who broke into the Democratic National Committee offices to the financing of Nixon's re-election campaign. The resulting campaign finance scandal led Congress to overhaul the nation's campaign finance rules, ordering federal candidates and national party committees to disclose their donors' identities and observe new contribution limits.
Forty government officials and members of Nixon's re-election committee were convicted on felony charges. Felt was convicted in 1980 for authorizing illegal break-ins in the 1970s at homes of people associated with the radical Weather Underground. He was pardoned by President Reagan in 1981.
At 9 pm on the evening of August 8, 1974, Nixon delivered a nationally televised resignation speech. The next morning, he made his final remarks to the White House staff before sending his resignation letter to the Secretary of State, Dr. Henry Kissinger.
Gerald Ford became the 38th President of the United States when Nixon resigned on August 9, 1974. He was the first Vice-President and the first President to ascend to both positions without being elected. Regarded on all sides of politics as a decent man, Ford will be remembered for his controversial pardon of Richard Nixon.
Nixon died in 1994 and was eulogised by the political establishment, although he was still a figure of controversy.
Nixon never knew who his nemesis was. Although Felt was always in the realm of suspicion but his name was always a speculation, along with numerous others. Woodward, Bernstein and Bradlee -- WP editor -- had kept the identity of Deep Throat secret at his request, saying his name would be revealed upon his death. But then Felt revealed it himself, a move that startled Woodward , Bernstein and the Post, the newspaper reported yesterday.
Also surprised was Nixon chief counsel Charles Colson, who worked closely with Felt in the Nixon administration and served prison time in the Watergate scandal. Even the existence of Deep Throat, nicknamed for an X-rated movie of the early 1970s, was kept secret for a time. Woodward and Bernstein revealed their reporting had been aided by a Nixon administration source in their best-selling book "All the President's Men." Felt's name doesn't appear there.
A hit movie was made of the book in 1976 starring Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman. It portrayed cloak-and-dagger methods employed by Woodward and Deep Throat. When Woodward wanted a meeting, he would position an empty flowerpot containing a red flag on his apartment balcony. When Deep Throat wanted to meet, the hands of a clock would appear written inside Woodward's New York Times on page 20.
The identity of the source had sparked endless speculation over the past three decades. Dean, Nixon chief of staff Alexander Haig, White House press aide Diane Sawyer, speechwriter Pat Buchanan and Garment were among those mentioned as possibilities.
Felt also had been mentioned, but he regularly denied it. His motive for tipping off Woodward and Bernstein remains unknown, but the Post suggested in a story Tuesday night that anger over Nixon's decision to pass him over for FBI director after the death of J. Edgar Hoover could have been a factor.
Whatever the reasons. I think all of us love to keep secrets and when secrets are outed, they loose the curiosity about them. I respect the manner in which the identity of Deep Throat was protected by Bob and Carl.
Now that modern history's most intriguing secret is out , let us raise a toast to WP, Bob and Carl for their work and word! For Felt, because the world needs Deep throats -- to keep the faith intact -- in democratic institutions and transpiracy at high places.
For a more sweet sip!
Sameer Bhat
Wednesday, June 01, 2005
Tuesday, May 31, 2005
A game of double bluff
The UK and EU are keeping the poorer nations exactly where they want them: beholden to their patrons
Rejoice! The world is saved! The governments of Europe have agreed that by 2015 they will give 0.7% of their national income in foreign aid. Admittedly, that's 35 years after the target date they first set for themselves, and it's still less than they extract from the poor in debt repayments. But hooray anyway. Though he does not become president of the EU until later this year, Tony Blair can take some of the credit, for his insistence that the G8 summit in July makes poverty history. It's inspiring, until you understand the context.
Everyone who has studied global poverty - including European governments - recognises that aid cannot compensate for unfair terms of trade. If they increased their share of world exports by 5%, developing countries would earn an extra $350bn a year, three times more than they will be given in 2015. Any government that wanted to help developing nations would surely make the terms of trade between rich and poor its priority.This, indeed, is what the UK appears to have done. In March it published the most progressive foreign policy document ever to have escaped from Whitehall. A paper by the departments of trade and international development promised that: "We will not force trade liberalisation on developing countries." It recognised that a policy that insists on equal terms for rich and poor is like pitting a bull mastiff against a chihuahua. Unless a country can first build up its industries behind protectionist barriers, it will be destroyed by free trade. Almost every nation that is rich today, including the UK and the US, used this strategy. But the current rules forbid the poor from following them. The EU, the paper insisted, should, while opening its own markets, allow poor nations "20 years or more" to open theirs.
But two weeks ago the Guardian obtained a leaked letter showing that Peter Mandelson, the European trade commissioner, was undermining the UK's new policies. His most senior official complained that the policy document was "a major and unwelcome shift... Mandelson is taking up our concerns and will press for a revised UK line".
We are being asked to believe, in other words, that a man who owes his entire political career to Tony Blair, and who has repaid him with nauseating sycophancy, was conspiring to destroy his cherished policy. It doesn't look likely, and it doesn't take a great imaginative effort to see a double game being played. Before the election, Blair makes one of his tear-jerking appeals for love, compassion and human fellowship, and gets the anti-poverty movement off his back. After the election he discovers, to his inestimable regret, that love, compassion and human fellowship won't after all be possible, as a result of a ruling by the European commission.
This outcome was predicted by the World Development Movement when the remarkable paper was published in March. "Time will tell if the UK ... will put real political capital into this announcement, or if they will hide behind the European commission and claim inability to affect the negotiations." Nostradamus had nothing on these guys.
The idea that Blair had no more intention of introducing fair terms of trade than I have of becoming a Catholic priest gains credence from the UK's support for the bid by Pascal Lamy, Mandelson's predecessor, to become head of the World Trade Organisation - a post he won on Thursday. Making Lamy head of the WTO is as mad as making, say, Paul Wolfowitz... er, satire doesn't really seem to work any more.
Everyone seems to have forgotten that Lamy was the man who destroyed the world trade talks in Mexico in September 2003. He tried to force through new rules on investment, competition and procurement, which would have allowed corporations to dictate terms to the poor world's governments. He persisted with this policy even when he had lost the support of European governments, and when it became obvious that his position would force the poorer nations to pull out. For cynics like me, it wasn't hard to see why. For the first time in the WTO's history, the poor nations were making effective use of collective bargaining and demanding major concessions from the rich. By destroying the talks, Lamy prevented a fairer trading regime from being introduced. He left the rich countries free to strike individual treaties with their weaker trading partners. And the UK and the rest of Europe hid behind him.
So the poor world is going to need the extra aid, in 2015 and far beyond. This means that it will remain obedient to the demands of countries with an interest in its continued exploitation. Those demands have done more than anything else to hold it down. As the World Bank's own figures show, across the 20 years (1960-80) before it and the IMF started introducing strict conditions on the countries that accepted their loans, median annual growth in developing countries was 2.5%. In the 18 years after (1980-1998), it was 0.0%.
The British government has made its own contribution to the poor world's misery by tying aid disbursements to the privatisation of essential public services. It has been paying the Adam Smith Institute, a rightwing lobby group, up to £9m a year to oversee privatisation programmes in developing countries. Last week Tanzania pulled out of a deal UK government had rigged up for the British company Biwater to privatise water supplies in Dar es Salaam.
Again the government admitted, before the election, that its critics were right. The Department for International Development (DfID) published a long mea culpa in which it promised: "We will not make our aid conditional on specific policy decisions by partner governments, or attempt to impose policy choices on them (including ... privatisation or trade liberalisation)." It looks great, until you read the whole document. On privatisation, DfID admits that there was "concern that in the 1980s and 1990s donors pushed for the introduction of reforms, regardless of whether these were in countries' best interests." The 80s and 90s, eh? What about the privatisation it was demanding in 2004 and early 2005? What about its recent assault on the public services of Tanzania, South Africa, Ghana and the Indian state of Andhra Pradesh? What about the money it is still paying the effing Adam Smith Institute?
DfID goes on to say that it will decide whether to give money to a country by looking "to the IMF to provide an assessment of a country's macroeconomic position". It knows full well that the IMF continues to judge countries by the degree to which they embrace privatisation and liberalisation. Yet again the British government is outsourcing its ethics, using the policy of an international body to make justice history.
While using the right language and flattering their critics, the UK and the EU are keeping the poorer nations where they want them: beholden to their patrons. Suddenly, an increase in aid doesn't look like such good news after all.
With thanks
George Monbiot
www.monbiot.com
Monday, May 30, 2005
Saturday, May 28, 2005
Why the French said non
French rubbished the referendum, calling for an European constitution, here is a reason why:
- They detest their current government and are reluctant to vote for anything that it proposes
- They are fed up with their entire political class, on both right and left, which they feel is arrogant, self-serving, removed from real life and has refused to listen to their concerns for too long
- They believe the treaty is a blueprint for an ultra-liberal, Anglo-Saxon Europe that will promote unfettered capitalism
- They believe it will degrade French public services and cost French jobs
- They feel that when the president, the government and the mainstream opposition combine to trumpet the merits of something and to implicitly denounce its opponents as half-wits who have understood nothing, it is their moral duty to revolt
- They feel ditto, but even more strongly, when virtually every newspaper, TV and radio commentator more or less explicitly backs the constitution and expresses amazement at the very possibility of a no vote
- They are worried about the expanded (and expanding) union and about its impact on their lives, particularly the arrival in France en masse of the key bogeyman of this debate, the Polish plumber (don't even mention the Turkish taxi-driver)
- They believe the French social model is preferable to any other, is at threat, and is worth defending
- They have finally been asked to give their opinion on a Europe that they feel has been constructed more or less behind their backs, and they're damned well going to give it
- They remember that every time over the past decade that a French politician has had to make a difficult announcement, he has blamed Brussels
- They do not feel that saying no will weaken France's position in Europe, because they think it will trigger a tidal wave of comprehension and support in a great many other countries leading to a "salutary crisis" that will eventually create a better, more social Europe
- They believe the text of the treaty can be renegotiated to take account of France's concerns and objections
- They reject the argument of European institutional chaos, saying the treaty of Nice will continue to apply for as long as necessary until the mess is sorted out
- They feel they are not anti-European, just anti the Europe they perceive as enshrined in this constitution, so voting no is actually a pro-European act
- They recognise that the yes camp ran a rubbish campaign led by a president and a prime minister with zero credibility and a Socialist party that could not make its mind up, and whose sole argument for far too long was to say no to the no
- They realise that from the start, the yes was on the defensive rather than the offensive; it admitted the text was "not perfect" and (on both left and right) was never comfortable handling the fundamental issue (very sensitive in France) of economic liberalism
- They are reacting belatedly to the fact that no French politician has ever dared tell them that France will, in one way or another, have to adapt at some stage to the phenomenon of globalisation, and that it will probably involve some degree of pain
- Their very French instinct (and, up to a point, it's one to be proud of) is: Resist
- They subscribe to the notion that 'le compromis n'est pas français'
- Being French, and not living in a colourless Anglo-Saxon world, they were itching for the mother of all ideological debates, the one that would finally pit the true socialism against wicked liberalism, and the treaty gave them the perfect opportunity because its clauses are open to interpretation (that's the point of them, of course - they are not supposed to be doctrine)
Sameer Bhat
Thursday, May 26, 2005
RIP, Mr Dutt
Dutt saab
1929-2005
"Disease and suffering have no religion and no nationality. My work encompasses mankind." Sunil Dutt
I have not watched all his classics. I never met him. I have no idea about the full extent of his charitable work. Yet, I feel sorry that he is no more. Sunil Dutt's genteel face gave it all away. He was many things in that towering six-plus frame -- a thorough gentleman, an iconic movie star, a great human being and a secularist to the core, up until his sudden end. Frankly, Dutt Saab, as he was affectionately called, was one of those virtuous souls, who you wish never die.
What also stood Sunil Dutt in good stead was his heart-in-his-eyes sensitivity which noted filmmakers like Bimal Roy, B R Chopra and Raj Khosla repeatedly drew upon. Dutt capitalised on his abilty to jump genres and expand on his oeuvre at different stages of his career. His willingness to experiment with cinema led him to star in offbeat films like Padosan and Amrapali, be the villain in Geeta Mera Naam, and bankroll films like Yaadein ,a film starring just one man --- himself, Mujhe Jeene Do -- a reformist saga -- and the stark desert epic Reshma Aur Shera.
Dutt's heroic deed on the set of Mother India changed the course of his life. He saved Nargis from a burning film set and later they got married in what is considered one of the great storybook romances of Bollywood history. After making an indelible mark on the filmdom in Bombay and having etched his name in the golden annals of India cinema, Dutt saab took to activism. The death of his wife, Nargis Dutt in 1981, whom he loved intensely, transformed his life. He fought for the rights of the poor. It was Nargis's wish that cancer research be forwarded in India and to that effect Dutt spearheaded the creation of the Nargis Dutt Cancer Foundation.
He became a Member of Parliament and advocated peace. Again he brought a serene dignity to politics, quite unknown of, in recent times. He campaigned for communal harmony, against drug abuse and for better care for cancer and HIV and AIDS patients.
Selfless, tireless and humane, that was Sunil Dutt for those who have know him. For me, he will continue to be among the select few Indians, I admire.
He loved Nargis till lady death kissed him in his sleep. I pray they -- Nargis and Dutt saab -- stroll together, hand in hand, in the gardens of heaven.
Sameer Bhat
Tuesday, May 24, 2005
Beauty or Bend!
VS Naipaul can be difficult for any soul. His prose is generally terse and philosophical. His metaphors can leave you gasping. I picked up his A Bend in the River because I wanted to read something disparate after Dan's Da vinci code. The novel is set in Africa and Naipaul penned it in 1979. Thirty pages into BR and I gave up. Not that I won't read it. I might, perhaps later. My guess is that one can't read Naipaul leisurely in cabs and buses.
I love to read that way. In a busy work schedule you have no time otherwise.
Naipaul makes you think hard and deep. In the 30 odd pages of BR, I guess he uses the word Africa and Bush 50 times. Boondocks. I was almost transported to the bushes and deep into Africa when I decided I must come back and keep Naipaul for home. Relaxed and on your bed, with an air-conditioner purring, he can be better understood. A book has to be assimilated and doten on!
Naipaul is a great author. I don't agree with his strong, at times banal political views, but I love his prose.
I cannot reflect and do justice with his works in the grinding heat and grime of New Delhi's Auto's and oven-hot roads. Allan Hollinghurst will do. In fact, The Line of Beauty bagged Man Booker last summer.
I am already fimiliar with Nick.
Allan knows his readers!
Sameer bhat
Monday, May 23, 2005
Thursday, May 19, 2005
Converts
NY times publised a reader's comment on may 19, 2005 which went on like -- Convert all Muslims and make them Cristians, so that they will learn to live in peace.
Convert them to Christianity and let them eat cake. This might well be a solution. Though I suspect that they, like other Christians, would then start squabbling about minor and irrelevant liturgical and theological differences; then the Shiite-christians would say that God told them THEY owned the oil wells, and the Suni-Christians would say, no they do above the Mosul parallel. Then the Texas-Christians would say, no God gave us all the oil, so it's ours, and the Kansas Christians would then begin talking in tongues, or some other form of ungrammatical English, et al... Being Christian, in other words, has nothing to do with peace. Look at Northern Ireland. Look at the history of Christianity. Whistle "National Brotherhood Week" under the shower...
What makes me giggle a little, of course, is that there is a terrific resemblance between the fundamentalist Christians and fundamentalist Moslems these days. All this fire and brimstone for the sake of some religious hallucinations, and at the bottom of it are the old motives: power, money, control.
So I propose: instead of converting the Muslims, let them fight it out, for this seems to be the much touted Armageddon that will bring peace to the planet. Those on the sidelines should always support the losing side (that is why America started selling arms to Iran as well as to Iraq in the 80s, so that the two countries could whack each other into oblivion). Once these two prosyletizing, colonial, power-mad groups have exhausted themselves, the world may finally have the peace and quiet to get on with more important pursuits, such as correcting the environmental problems we have, spreading the wealth a little, instituting universal healthcare, etc... Because most people, I suspect, just want to get on with life, raising their families, doing their work, enjoying some good times between the cradle and the grave, even making whooppee without some blue-nose peering into the gardenshed window. And this, throughout the ages, has been impeded by the constant interference of men with axes to grind, men with power-obsessions, men of extreme greed, men filled with hatred for anyone who is serene. They range from the Bishop of Lyon in the 2nd century AD to George W. Bush. And most, the overwhelming majority, mark my words, have been men.
And who suffers? The women and children and men who have better things to do than run around the planet destroying things, raping, pillaging, acting like unbalanced 10-year-olds.
Each time I read about some GI who has been knocked off in Iraq and is praised as a good family man, I wonder, then, what in earth he was doing on such an adventure. That is immorality itself. But I have digressed from the subject.
Sameer
Truth unveiled
The descecration of a copy of Holy Quran at the hands of US troops in Guantanamo bay has led to a bitter debate about a range of issues. About the veracity of such media reports, about the military ethics of the US and above all the lack of transpiracy in the US administration.
I reproduce here excerpts from the Newyork times edit on 18 may 2005.
A Sudden Taste for Openness
Newsweek is under intense criticism for a report it has now retracted about the American prison in Guantánamo Bay. Since we've weathered a journalistic storm or two, we can only say the best approach is transparency as Newsweek fixes whatever is broken, if anything. There is already a debate about journalistic practices, including the use of anonymous sources, and these things are worth discussing - especially at a time of war, national insecurity and extreme government secrecy, a time when aggressive news reporting is critical. But it is offensive to see the Bush administration use this case for political purposes, and ludicrous for spokesmen for this White House and Defense Department to offer pious declarations about accountability, openness and concern for America's image abroad.
It took Newsweek about two weeks to retract its report. It has been a year since the very real problem behind the article - the systematic abuse and deliberate humiliation of mainly Muslim prisoners - came to light through the Abu Ghraib disaster. And the Bush administration has not come close to either openness or accountability. The White House and the Pentagon have refused to begin any serious examination of the policymaking that led to the abuse, humiliation, torture and even killing of prisoners taken during antiterrorist operations and the invasion of Iraq. Meanwhile, the administration has stonewalled outside efforts to accomplish that task. No senior officer or civilian official has been held accountable for policies that put every American soldier at greater risk. The men who wrote the memos on legalized torture and evading the Geneva Conventions have been promoted.
If the Pentagon is as enthusiastic about accountability in its own house as its spokesman, Lawrence Di Rita, is when it comes to Newsweek, then it should release the Southern Command's report on Guantánamo Bay, on which the magazine report was based. The administration should also release all the other reports on prisoner abuse it has been withholding, including one by the Central Intelligence Agency about its illegal practice of hiding prisoners from the Red Cross. And it should encourage Senator John Warner, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, to conduct a full investigation of the formation of the policy on prisoners, rather than pressuring him to stop.
I reproduce here excerpts from the Newyork times edit on 18 may 2005.
A Sudden Taste for Openness
Newsweek is under intense criticism for a report it has now retracted about the American prison in Guantánamo Bay. Since we've weathered a journalistic storm or two, we can only say the best approach is transparency as Newsweek fixes whatever is broken, if anything. There is already a debate about journalistic practices, including the use of anonymous sources, and these things are worth discussing - especially at a time of war, national insecurity and extreme government secrecy, a time when aggressive news reporting is critical. But it is offensive to see the Bush administration use this case for political purposes, and ludicrous for spokesmen for this White House and Defense Department to offer pious declarations about accountability, openness and concern for America's image abroad.
It took Newsweek about two weeks to retract its report. It has been a year since the very real problem behind the article - the systematic abuse and deliberate humiliation of mainly Muslim prisoners - came to light through the Abu Ghraib disaster. And the Bush administration has not come close to either openness or accountability. The White House and the Pentagon have refused to begin any serious examination of the policymaking that led to the abuse, humiliation, torture and even killing of prisoners taken during antiterrorist operations and the invasion of Iraq. Meanwhile, the administration has stonewalled outside efforts to accomplish that task. No senior officer or civilian official has been held accountable for policies that put every American soldier at greater risk. The men who wrote the memos on legalized torture and evading the Geneva Conventions have been promoted.
If the Pentagon is as enthusiastic about accountability in its own house as its spokesman, Lawrence Di Rita, is when it comes to Newsweek, then it should release the Southern Command's report on Guantánamo Bay, on which the magazine report was based. The administration should also release all the other reports on prisoner abuse it has been withholding, including one by the Central Intelligence Agency about its illegal practice of hiding prisoners from the Red Cross. And it should encourage Senator John Warner, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, to conduct a full investigation of the formation of the policy on prisoners, rather than pressuring him to stop.
Friday, May 13, 2005
Monday, May 09, 2005
The Portugese Connection
PEDRO
Internet is a wonderful, wonderful tool. If I were asked to single out one particular invention in the last 100 years, without battling an eyelid, I will mark, Internet. The world-wide-web is a magical realm that catapults us in a new universe, beyond boundaries, where mountains cease to exist, beyond the cacophony and high seas -- a world that is so vast, so informative, so intimate and so loving.
I met a charming 15-year old kid from Portugal in one of the labyrinthine alleys of internet. I wasn't particularly cruising for a friend or an acquaintance and yet I chanced upon one. A class 9 student, Pedro is so full of life. Something of a wonder-kid. He is actually a geek. He loves to play with Mindstorm and Legos and makes the best robots ever.
Pedro loves reading and has already devoured Harry Potter and The Order of The Phoenix... as well as other books... and a book about sex that he feels is very interesting (thats what you call a 15 year naughty brat).
Pedro fascinates me. Away from the serious world of business and finance and my hectic work-schedule, he comes as such a relief. He makes you smile with curious innocence. I'll love to meet him someday in Pardilhó, his hometown, tucked away somewhere in the beautiful coastal city of Aveiro. I haven't been to south-western Europe yet but I feel like as I have already trudged the north-Atlantic sea-front. At least I have a little friend, who loves to swim, ride and watch airplanes take off near the wind swept beaches of his lovely country.
Sameer Bhat
Internet is a wonderful, wonderful tool. If I were asked to single out one particular invention in the last 100 years, without battling an eyelid, I will mark, Internet. The world-wide-web is a magical realm that catapults us in a new universe, beyond boundaries, where mountains cease to exist, beyond the cacophony and high seas -- a world that is so vast, so informative, so intimate and so loving.
I met a charming 15-year old kid from Portugal in one of the labyrinthine alleys of internet. I wasn't particularly cruising for a friend or an acquaintance and yet I chanced upon one. A class 9 student, Pedro is so full of life. Something of a wonder-kid. He is actually a geek. He loves to play with Mindstorm and Legos and makes the best robots ever.
Pedro loves reading and has already devoured Harry Potter and The Order of The Phoenix... as well as other books... and a book about sex that he feels is very interesting (thats what you call a 15 year naughty brat).
Pedro fascinates me. Away from the serious world of business and finance and my hectic work-schedule, he comes as such a relief. He makes you smile with curious innocence. I'll love to meet him someday in Pardilhó, his hometown, tucked away somewhere in the beautiful coastal city of Aveiro. I haven't been to south-western Europe yet but I feel like as I have already trudged the north-Atlantic sea-front. At least I have a little friend, who loves to swim, ride and watch airplanes take off near the wind swept beaches of his lovely country.
Sameer Bhat
From D-day to VE-Day
The 60th annev of VE
The world is partying in Moscow. Major world leaders are tossing mugs of beer to mark the passing of 6 decades of Europe's most devastating war. VE: Victory in Europe. It has been 60 long years since Adolf Hitler's Third Reich was destroyed by the allied forces on this day. May 8, 1945. The Axis -- as the German-Italo-Japs alliance was called, collapsed in those early summer days in Europe. Victory in Europe didn't come easy. More than 50 million people lost their lives, half of them Russians. Nazi's sent about 6 million Jews to gas chambers and fashioned the biggest holocaust in human history. In June of 1944, western allies invaded German-occupied France, sailing from Great Britian to storm onto the windswept Normandy beaches amid the cracle of gunfire, as Ron Regan once famously put it. That was the begining of the end of what appeared to be greatest power of the time. Adolf Hitler's Nazi movement. During Hitler's dictatorship, "Heil Hitler" had become a more than the paganlike chant at rallies and parades, it was infact the common form of address. On May 8, 1945, final capitulation was signed by Germans in Berlin. The soviet flag fluttered atop Hitler's palace. The Red Army hoisted the Flag of the Soviet Union over the ruins of the Reichstag marking the begining of a new era!
A new begining had already dawned!
Thursday, May 05, 2005
The Da Vinci code
A great book that cuts across the barebones of belief and faith
I just finished reading The Da Vinci code. It is an amazing book and an extremely erudite one too. The book in its pre-prologue page states that “All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate.” And it was one commingle of secrets, codes and intrigue that I came across, as I flipped pages upon pages of this wonderfully-written work. In their quest to unravel the mystery of the keystone -- which has a deep religious significance -- the protagonists race against time and cadasters. I felt like a part of the small team, working my way to find the final magical word, that would unleash the greatest secret in humanity.
To cut a long story short:
While in Paris on business, Harvard symbologist Robert Langdon receives an urgent late-night phone call: the elderly curator of the Louvre has been murdered inside the museum. Near the body, police have found a baffling cipher. Solving the enigmatic riddle, Langdon is stunned to discover it leads to a trail of clues hidden in the works of Da Vinci…clues visible for all to see…and yet ingeniously disguised by the painter. Langdon joins forces with a gifted French cryptologist, Sophie Neveu, and learns the late curator was involved in the Priory of Sion—an actual secret society whose members included Sir Isaac Newton, Botticelli, Victor Hugo, and Da Vinci, among others. The Louvre curator has sacrificed his life to protect the Priory's most sacred trust: the location of a vastly important religious relic, hidden for centuries.
In a breathless race through Paris, London, and beyond, Langdon and Neveu match wits with a faceless powerbroker who appears to work for Opus Dei—a clandestine, Vatican-sanctioned Catholic sect believed to have long plotted to seize the Priory's secret. Unless Langdon and Neveu can decipher the labyrinthine puzzle in time, the Priory's secret—and a stunning historical truth—will be lost forever.
In an exhilarating blend of relentless adventure, scholarly intrigue, and cutting wit, symbologist Robert Langdon -- first introduced in Dan Brown's bestselling Angels & Demons -- is the most original character to appear in years. The da vinci code heralds the arrival of a new breed of lightening-paced, intelligent thriller…surprising at every twist, absorbing at every turn, and in the end, utterly unpredictable…right up to its astonishing conclusion.
Sameer Bhat
I just finished reading The Da Vinci code. It is an amazing book and an extremely erudite one too. The book in its pre-prologue page states that “All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate.” And it was one commingle of secrets, codes and intrigue that I came across, as I flipped pages upon pages of this wonderfully-written work. In their quest to unravel the mystery of the keystone -- which has a deep religious significance -- the protagonists race against time and cadasters. I felt like a part of the small team, working my way to find the final magical word, that would unleash the greatest secret in humanity.
To cut a long story short:
While in Paris on business, Harvard symbologist Robert Langdon receives an urgent late-night phone call: the elderly curator of the Louvre has been murdered inside the museum. Near the body, police have found a baffling cipher. Solving the enigmatic riddle, Langdon is stunned to discover it leads to a trail of clues hidden in the works of Da Vinci…clues visible for all to see…and yet ingeniously disguised by the painter. Langdon joins forces with a gifted French cryptologist, Sophie Neveu, and learns the late curator was involved in the Priory of Sion—an actual secret society whose members included Sir Isaac Newton, Botticelli, Victor Hugo, and Da Vinci, among others. The Louvre curator has sacrificed his life to protect the Priory's most sacred trust: the location of a vastly important religious relic, hidden for centuries.
In a breathless race through Paris, London, and beyond, Langdon and Neveu match wits with a faceless powerbroker who appears to work for Opus Dei—a clandestine, Vatican-sanctioned Catholic sect believed to have long plotted to seize the Priory's secret. Unless Langdon and Neveu can decipher the labyrinthine puzzle in time, the Priory's secret—and a stunning historical truth—will be lost forever.
In an exhilarating blend of relentless adventure, scholarly intrigue, and cutting wit, symbologist Robert Langdon -- first introduced in Dan Brown's bestselling Angels & Demons -- is the most original character to appear in years. The da vinci code heralds the arrival of a new breed of lightening-paced, intelligent thriller…surprising at every twist, absorbing at every turn, and in the end, utterly unpredictable…right up to its astonishing conclusion.
Sameer Bhat
Wednesday, May 04, 2005
The Vitruvain man
Vitruvain man is a Da vinci gem
The Vitruvian Man is a famous drawing with accompanying notes by Leonardo da Vinci made around the year 1490 in one of his journals... It depicts a naked male figure in two superimposed positions with his arms apart and simultaneously inscribed in a circle and square. The drawing and text are sometimes called the Canon of Proportions. The drawing is in pen, ink, and watercolor over metalpoint, and measures 34.3 x 24.5 cm. It is currently part of the collection of the Gallerie dell'Accademia in Venice.
According to Leonardo's notes in the accompanying text, which are mirror writing, it was made as a study of the proportions of the (male) human body as described in a treatise by the Ancient Roman architect Vitruvius, who wrote that in the human body:
- A palm is the width of four fingers
- a foot is the width of four palms
- a cubit is the width of six palms
- a man's height is four cubits (and thus 24 palms)
- a pace is four cubits
Leonardo is clearly illustrating Vitruvius De Architectura 3.1.3 which reads: The navel is naturally placed in the centre of the human body, and, if in a man lying with his face upward, and his hands and feet extended, from his navel as the centre, a circle be described, it will touch his fingers and toes. It is not alone by a circle, that the human body is thus circumscribed, as may be seen by placing it within a square. For measuring from the feet to the crown of the head, and then across the arms fully extended, we find the latter measure equal to the former; so that lines at right angles to each other, enclosing the figure, will form a square.
The rediscovery of the mathematical proportions of the human body in the 15th century by Leonardo and others is considered one of the great achievements leading to the Italian Renaissance. Note that Leonardo's drawing combines a careful reading of the ancient text, combined with his own observation of actual human bodies. In drawing the circle and square he correctly observes that the square cannot have the same center as the circle, the navel, but is somewhat lower in the anatomy. This adjustment is the innovative part of Leonardo's drawing and what distinguishes it from earlier illustrations.
The drawing itself is often used as an implied symbol of the essential symmetry of the human body, and by extension, to the universe as a whole.
It may be noticed by examining the drawing that the combination of arm and leg positions actually creates sixteen different poses. The pose with the arms straight out and the feet together is seen to be inscribed in the superimposed square. On the other hand, the "spread-eagle" pose is seen to be inscribed in the superimposed circle. This illustrates the principle that in the shift between the two poses, the apparent center of the figure seems to move, but in reality, the navel of the figure, which is the true center of gravity, remains motionless.
Sameer
Monday, May 02, 2005
Humour in the White house
Laura Bush took over the mike at the media dinner at the White House.
I have some very strong political views and I have no qualms about it. I dislike the American foriegn policy. I abhor the opressive US candour. I completely disagreed with Prez Bush's decision to go to an unjust war in Iraq. I detest the mischief United States is upto, world over. However, I would be compelled to add that I love the people of America, the values they stand for. I admire their spirit of freedom and resilience. I salute their valor. I love Hollywood and their liberal culture. I adore the first lady. Nowhere in the world do we have such an informal arrangement where a first lady so graciously springs forth and draws the assembly into peels of laughter. At the anual media dinner the former librarian spoke so candidly and hilariously that she almost sounded real! And the most powerful person on God's green earth -- Dubya -- could do nothing but smile, I mean laugh!
Wish the world were more jovial and the US policies as frontal!
The complete transcript of Laura Bush's comments from the White House Correspondents' Association dinner, held April 30:
President Bush: Thank you and good evening. I always look forward to these dinners, where I'm supposed to be funny — intentionally. I'm really looking forward to hearing Cedric the Entertainer. I kind of think of myself that way.
Cedric, did you hear that hilarious line I ad-libbed down in Arkansas? A woman in a town meeting told me she was from DeQueen, and I said, 'That's right next to DeKing.' You gotta' admit that's pretty good, Cedric. That's what you call sophisticated re — par — tay.
Then out in Montana, I told a joke about a cattle guard, which, to be honest, didn't get a very big laugh — actually, none. But Cedric, I think you'll appreciate this, and you can use it if you want to. See, there was this city slicker who was driving around lost and he came across this ol' cowboy. And so the city slicker asked the old guy how to get to the nearest town, and —
First Lady Laura Bush: Not that old joke — not again.
Ladies and gentlemen, I've been attending these dinners for years and just quietly sitting there. Well, I've got a few things I want to say for a change. This is going to be fun because he really doesn't have a clue about what I'm gonna' to say next. George always says he's delighted to come to these press dinners. Baloney. He's usually in bed by now. I'm not kidding. I said to him the other day, "George, if you really want to end tyranny in the world, you're going to have to stay up later."
I am married to the president of the United States, and here's our typical evening: Nine o'clock, Mr. Excitement here is sound asleep, and I'm watching Desperate Housewives— with Lynne Cheney. Ladies and gentlemen, I am a desperate housewife. I mean, if those women on that show think they're desperate, they oughta be with George.
One night, after George went to bed, Lynne Cheney, Condi Rice, Karen Hughes and I went to Chippendale's. I wouldn't even mention it except Ruth Ginsberg and Sandra Day O'Connor saw us there. I won't tell you what happened, but Lynne's Secret Service codename is now "Dollar Bill."
But George and I are complete opposites — I'm quiet, he's talkative, I'm introverted, he's extroverted, I can pronounce nuclear —! The amazing thing, however, is that George and I were just meant to be. I was the librarian who speant 12 hours a day in the library, yet somehow I met George. We met, and married, and I became one of the regulars up at Kennebunkport. All the Bushes love Kennebunkport, which is like Crawford, but without the nightlife. People ask me what it's like to be up there with the whole Bush clan. Lemme put it this way: First prize — three-day vacation with the Bush family. Second prize — 10 days.
Speaking of prizes brings me to my mother-in-law. So many mothers today are just not involved in their children's lives — Not a problem with Barbara Bush. People often wonder what my mother-in-law's really like. People think she's a sweet, grandmotherly, Aunt Bea type. She's actually more like, mmm, Don Corleone.
Cedric, am I doing all right? I saw my in-laws down at the ranch over Easter. We like it down there. George didn't know much about ranches when we bought the place. Andover and Yale don't have a real strong ranching program. But I'm proud of George. He's learned a lot about ranching since that first year when he tried to milk the horse. What's worse, it was a male horse.
Now, of course, he spends his days clearing brush, cutting trails, taking down trees, or, as the girls call it, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. George's answer to any problem at the ranch is to cut it down with a chainsaw — which I think is why he and Cheney and Rumsfeld get along so well. It's always very interesting to see how the ranch air invigorates people when they come down from Washington. Recently, when Vice President Cheney was down, he got up early one morning, he put on his hiking boots, and he went on a brisk, 20- to 30-foot walk.
But actually, in all seriousness, I do love the ranch, and I love the whole Bush family. I was an only child, and when I married into the extended Bush clan, I got brothers and sisters and wonderful in-laws, all of whom opened their arms to me. And included in the package, I got this guy here.
I think when you marry someone, you unconsciously are looking for something in your spouse to help fulfill something in you, and George did that for me. He brought fun and energy into my life and so many other things. George is a very good listener, he's easy to be around, and on top of it all, he's a loving father whose daughters absolutely adore him.
So in the future, when you see me just quietly sitting up here, I want you to know that I'm happy to be here for a reason — I love, and enjoy being with, the man who usually speaks to you on these occasions. So George and I thank you for inviting us, thank you for all of the good work that you and the press do, and thank you for your very kind hospitality this evening.
Repeated references to Cedris the entertainer: "Considered one of the funniest comics in America, Actor/Comedian Cedric ‘The Entertainer’ is best known as one of the headlining stars of the hit feature film, The Original Kings of Comedy, directed by Spike Lee."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)