Simple Explanations

Those who know me well know that I love politics. Not just domestic politics and not even just International events. For me politics is a manifestation of human behaviour in a larger more flamboyant scale. And I do love studying human behaviour because after all it is human actions that make up life. If you know me we, you also know that I believe the biggest fight of our generation wont be the war against terrorism or drugs, it won't be the fight for civil rights, it will be the right to information. Lack of information drives poor choices and poor choices leave people helpless and in a weaker position to their counterparts.

Last night I was watching a tv show (Backbenches) and a very respected professor said this:

"I’ve got no particular sympathy for Gaddafi but it’s not a morality play; a lot of it is just Americans distracting the world from the fact that the Saudis, to whom they gave $20 billion, are now rolling through Bahrain putting down the rebellion there. And that of course is conveniently dropped out of the news. And point of fact, America doesn’t want any regime to change in the Middle East however dictatorial as long as it’s in their pay. Gaddafi wasn’t of course and he is dispensable. He is a wonderful distraction from what is really going on."


This quote summarises why in 2003 I wrote to my my then local paper in West Lafayaette, Indiana against the US led invasion of Iraq. The U.S. talks the civil rights talk but it walks the self interested resources requirement (oil) walk. The U.S. support for Saudi Arabia is the one reason the Middle East continues to languish in the Middle Ages. While we sit in our comfortable homes, thousands of miles away watching CNN with our superiority complexes of having civil and political rights, we can take little comfort in knowing that eventually the Middle East WILL have those rights that we take for granted but there is much more bloodshed to come and we are the complacent enablers. We are selfish people and is it any wonder that so are our leaders. Individual human behaviour magnified times a gizzilion.

John Key does not need the gay vote

I do not believe that John Key is a principled man. He might live by certain principles but just because he smiles and waves, perches on a wall to talk to tourists or calls an election 10 months out, does not make him a principled man. He is the Right Honourable Prime Minister of New Zealand and the Leader of the National Party but his stance on gay rights in New Zealand coupled with his unguarded outburst in Parliament about beneficiaries has finally what led me to believe that this man lacks principles. John Key was voted into Parliament and as Prime Minister with not only support but he continues to have the support of the public 2 years after the election. I don’t think that John Key has been instrumental in any measurable changes to the lives of Kiwis, yet the Kiwis love him.

This is a free country. We are entitled to love whomever we please even if that person happens to be John Key. The public adulation for this man is translated into polls and and these are touted by the Prime Minister in his jabs to the Opposition and are used as legitimising factors by the rest of his caucus. Unfortunately not everyone has the right to legitimately love whomever they please. While Civil Unions are legal in New Zealand, no thanks to the Prime Minister or a majority of his Cabinet, gay couples are not allowed to adopt children and they are not allowed to get married. Somehow religious people own marriage and no one else is allowed to have it unless of course they do it according to the will of the religious people. Here’s my problem with John Key – He thinks that by not rolling back gay rights that people fought to have he is doing them a favour and he should be entitled to the votes as a result. When asked if he would vote for the Civil Union bill now, he refused to answer. John Key is not only on the wrong side of history, he is proudly so. He is a straight guy with a wife and children who has no problem depriving others of the same right.

On Backbenches last week Chester Borrows (MP for Whanganui) said on the hero parade:

I’m not in support of a hero parade. Well, I am in support of a hero parade but I don’t think that’s a hero parade because actually they’re not heroes…Heroes are people like Willie Apiata. Heroes are people who have done something… I don’t think a hero is someone who wears leather shorts singing YMCA down Queen Street.

While John Key has no control over Borrows and he can say whatever he pleases, Mr Key is certainly not providing the kind of leadership that I would expect when it comes to gay rights in the year 2011.It’s not that anyone who happens to be gay is a hero by virtue of being gay, but what Mr Borrows doesn’t realise that it is a lot harder for someone to actually publicly assert they are gay when we continue to live in a homophobic society. Gay people don’t have a choice but to be gay. Apiata, heroic no doubt, chose to be in the military. I don’t need to comment on the attitudes that people have when talking about homosexuality or the language that is repeatedly used when talking about about gay men and women in many parts of this country. Homophobia is alive and well in New Zealand despite being a comparatively liberal country in many aspects. One only has to look at the recent news events to know that gays are still seen as peripherals in society rather than active members. I suppose heroism is a subjective concept but if one has to walk down the street without hiding who they are even though many have a unjustifiable negative view of who they are, then that person is a hero in my book.

As the law stands now, if one person in a gay relationship has a child, that child can grow up in that household and no one can do anything about it. But the other parent who in all other aspects is that child’s parent would have no legal rights over that child. Similarly gay parents are not ‘trusted’ to adopt children. We allow kids to grow up in unstable homes, homes that provide poor nutrition, single parent homes but two people of the same gender are not allowed to legally raise kids. That is unfair and surely Mr Key knows this to be true.

I am only writing this because as a straight person, I don’t want to be the white male who looking back 60 years form today regrets not fighting for the civil rights of blacks and women. I don’t want to be on the wrong side of history. I don’t want to have to explain to my future gay grandkids why I didn’t say anything when the government of the day blatantly made light of the plight of gay people. I don’t want to be the person that uses my faith as an excuse to make others feel like second class citizens.

If Mr Key wants gays to vote for him, he should fight for their equal rights under the law. But Mr Key is not going to do that because he doesn’t need the gay vote to win an election. So if he did make changes to his policies to take a stand for gay rights, he would have to do so on principle and not for votes. And John Key is not a principled man.

Tyranny of stupidity

Sarah Palin wants “peaceful Muslims” to “refudiate” the plans to build a Mosque two blocks from Ground Zero in New York City. When terrorism occurs in the name of Islam or on behalf of all Muslims, the rest of the world along with America is quick to blame moderate Muslims for not standing up to refute and repudiate extremists and their actions. People like Sarah Palin love taking pride in the great nation that is America and it’s so called “exceptionalism” through mere words but no actions. America is a great nation because it was founded on religious tolerance and freedom. It is great because its Constitution guarantees certain rights. It is great because not only are these freedoms held inherent but there is a responsibility on all those who live in this great nation to make use of that freedom to advance society, increase the knowledge and create a more tolerant society where differences in thought, philosophy and ideas are celebrated rather than demonised. If it is assumed that Mosques “breed terrorists” as has been touted by so many opponents of the plans to build Mosques not only in NYC but all around the country, then the greatness that America has stood for, for the last couple of centuries can only be considered an illusion. If Mosques in the U.S. are breeding terrorists, then it is not a Muslim problem but an American national security problem in the same mould as Christian militants. We’re not going to stop people from building Churches just because a sect of people believes in the superiority of one race or one idea.

Moderate Muslims do not have a voice in many countries around the world the same way Christians and Jews and other minorities do not in those same countries. It is true that Christians cannot build a Church in Saudi Arabia but it is also true that moderate Muslims also do not have the freedom to educate women about their rights in Saudi Arabia either. Not allowing Christians and Jews to practice their religions, not allowing moderate Muslims to have a voice, not allowing the freedom to debate differing ideas is precisely what makes those countries intolerant, inhumane and unattractive to the rest of the world! America’s Mosques should be breeding grounds for universal human rights establishment, supremacy of diplomacy over violence and the forum for intellectual dialogue for a better world. Why does Ms. Palin assume that Muslims living in the western world haven’t lived with the same heart break of terrorism as she has? Why is Ms. Palin afraid to address Muslim Americans on the merits of strong military and low taxes? She doesn’t see Muslim Americans as American like the way she is. Who decided that moose hunting is inherently American and fasting during Ramadan isn’t? America has always been a melting pot. Whatever Americans do what is what is American. Ms. Palin seeks to have everyone believe that America was founded on her Christian principles and her understanding of capitalism and any idea that does not conform to her belief is an inherently un-American idea. The U.S. Constitution promotes “general welfare” of the public. One of the first Treaties signed by President John Adams and ratified by the U.S. Congress said –

“As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.” – Article 11, Treaty of Tripoli (1797)

Sarah Palin said that building the Mosque in NYC is an “UNNECESSARY provocation”. No Ms. Palin. You are an UNNECESSARY provocation and an embarrassment to what America truly stands for.

I am sick and I am tired.... sick and tired... (1st rant of 2010 :p)

Republicans cannot abrogate their responsibility as elected officials. Democrats were just as much to blame for their inaction which lead to the economic meltdown, unnecessary wars, and complete dismembering of the U.S. constitution during the Bush years, as the Administration itself. If this government fails to provide universal health care, reform the financial system and restore justice, the Republicans will have just as much blood on their hands.

The fear and anger that is fuelling the constant opposition without merit, sense or rationality is not constructive, does not benefit the public, is irresponsible and childish. On the other hand, the Democrats need to take their Barbie dresses off, defend their position, educate the public on the merits of their policies, and actually stop cowering to people like Hannity and Bleck who are as much the Fourth Estate as Entertainment Tonight.

The United States is a country where someone like Bush gets elected twice, where Edward Kennedy is replaced by a Republican and where Sarah Palin is considered a viable candidate. Ignorance is not an excuse for mediocrity and surely the so-called greatest nation on earth can do better.

"Their (Republicans') view is if they can defeat Obama in every way imaginable, they'll come up in the midterm election and say, 'Hey, he hasn't accomplished anything.' Unfortunately, they've been succeeding too well." - Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)

Majority - we all agree, therefore, it is right.

What does it really mean when a news clip starts with the sentence, "a majority of the public..."? We live in a democracy where the rule of the majority is not only inevitable but a tool through which governments are elected and policies are justified. So intrinsic the concept of majority is in our society, that it is difficult to even talk about democracy without mentioning the word 'majority' somewhere in the sentence. A majority of New Zealanders think mobile phones should be banned in cars, a majority of the public think health care is a right not privilege, a majority of the people think David Bain is guilty. If we were subscribing to the Greek view of direct democracy, would we be adopting these ideologies because the majority thought so? If that were the case, then billions of dollars would not be spent to conduct studies about effects of policies all over the world. We would not be weighing up consequences and we would not be comparing pros and cons. We would simply leave it up to the majority to decide. And we would have policies like that in Saudi Arabia where the majority do not believe that women should have a right to vote or drive or receive higher education or have a profession of choice. We would not have an adversarial justice system where the onus is on the state to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. And perhaps torture would be justified in the interest of national security.

There is no doubt that in the interest of effective governance, the use of majority consensus not only simplifies many processes, it almost most certainly is the only way things can get done as well as elect presidents like Bush. But does the number of people that watch a movie dictate a "good quality movie"? A book? A piece of art? As a society it is perfectly within our rights to throw our arms up in the air and say that it is impossible to take every situation and weigh up the merits of every different options based on every different circumstances. But unless we really do that, no outcome can be claimed to be the "right" outcome. It is just the preferred outcome. Humans made it possible to go to the moon, to take salmon gene that allows it to survive in cold waters and put it in a tomato so we can have it in the winter, to make skyscrapers that withstand earthquakes. Surely we should not have to leave it up to the majority to decided what is suitable for us to have a better society because the alternatives are too complicated. And if we had left it up to the majority, New Zealand would not have been the first country in the world to give women the right to vote, blacks would not have the right to vote in the 50s, and homosexuals in this country would be criminalised as late as the 80s.

In the end, one only invokes the 'majority' to justify policies that do not have merit on their own, especially when that is the only justification. No one would justify women's suffrage by saying that a majority of the public would like to retain a women's right to vote, no one would justify criminal liability by saying a majority of the public believe that murderers should be punished, and no one would to justify the condemnation of genocide by saying that majority of the world's population thinks genocide is an abominable act. The majority number gives us an indication of the individual’s choice and preference, which is of course important in a democracy, but it does not tell us what is fair, just or right. So now, in the year 2009, when more people than ever are educated, when we have access to more information than ever, when we were more aware of long term consequences of our actions, when we should be doing everything to promote a more peaceful and civilised society, a majority of the New Zealand's public want the right to smack their children in order to discipline them and the government elected by the majority would like to usurp select committee processes, ignore Treaty implications and remove Maori seats in the Auckland Supercity Council.

Is this what most people want?

Yes.

Is it right?

Surely not.

Who's going to take care of the children?

Last week on 60 Minutes there was a story of a group of Australian women are who are going back to being the 50s style stay at home housewife after having a stint at being a career woman. These women are in their late 20s to early 30s that had a taste of the corporate world and then decided that being a fulltime mother and wife was preferable. As a woman in her 20s working towards a potential career in the public sphere, I was completely appalled when I initially watched the segment. Our mother’s generation did not fight for women’s rights for a small group of women to undermine all working women and their ambitions. Women have and continue to work very hard for legitimacy in the working world and to me their stance on what women (as a general entity) should do is appalling. These women claimed that it is impossible to juggle children and the corporate world and that the feminists of the 60s and 70s duped us into thinking that we could both. Their assessment of the situation was that women who are mothers would be better off staying home for the children and husband, ensuring a stable family life for all.

On principle, I believe that if a woman chooses to stay at home, it is her prerogative and she should be commended (as well as fathers who chose to stay home and raise children). I see such a decision as a sacrifice to be willing to take on a task that is purported to be equivalent to having two full time jobs in terms of stress and ethic. But I categorically refuse accept that it is the woman’s role to be home and raising children or that it is even necessary. Women have made a lot of changes in their lifestyle in the last few centuries while men have generally continued to what they’ve been doing for centuries. To this day no one expects a man to have children by 35, no one expects a man to stay at home when he does have children and no on expects the man “to have it all together” at all times. So where have we gone wrong?

Women’s liberation have a come a long way to ensure that we do as well as men in academia and that we can go out and have enjoyable sex without regrets. But at the end of the day after all of that, women are still the only ones that can bear and have children and so we continue to impose the unspoken burden on women to marry and have children. Baby formula changed that burden with regards to breast feeding so there is no doubt in my mind that natural bearing and birthing of the children will one day become a thing of the past. I trust that science and technology will give us at least that much. But who’s going to take care of those children?

Women have been behaving like men to get ahead for decades but men have not done the same. Most women would cringe if men behaved like women so what is the solution to this problem? It seems like society forgot to address all the issues before giving the green light to women to take charge of the workplace and their sexual lives. Studies have shown that children fare better when they are raised by their family rather than day care. So I ask again, who’s going to take care of the children? Both sexes have been given the ability to serve society in many ways and I firmly believe that it is neither the man’s nor the woman’s job to have to raise children. Where men are physically stronger, women have been given better negotiation and empathy skills. Without the input and perspective of both men and women, a society cannot be expected to develop in a healthy and inclusive manner. So it is imperative that we have a significant amount of women in the private and public workforce.

The clear cut answer to this problem has always been relationships. Relationships are the building block of society and it doesn’t take a woman to raise a child but a village. What we lack in society is a balance between our individual pursuits and our responsibility to our society. We no longer have healthy relationships with our parents, our aunts and uncles, our cousins. We try to move as far away from our family and “do our own thing”. We no longer maintain healthy friendships with people we can trust and count on. We no longer know the first names of our friendly neighbour. The working women of this generation no longer stay in touch with the one friend that does decide to stay at home and raise the children. The problem is that we ARE trying to do it alone when we should be involving everyone. I am not suggesting that we revert back to some form of communitarian cult-like culture. What I am suggesting is that while our individual pursuits are necessary, those pursuits have harmful affects when we decide to start a family which by nature is inherently contrary to the “individual pursuit”.

Best clip on tv this week

Bill O'Reilly: I didn’t like the line in the (inaugural) speech about ... uhh... we don’t have to compromise our values to protect ourselves. Ummm I think sometimes we do.

Jon Stewart: If you don’t stick to your values when they’re being tested, they're not values, they’re hobbies!

Republicans - Talk to the hand.... !

It is neither major nor surprising but this week’s news started with the Republicans’ staunch opposition to stimulus package on grounds of their ever flimsy ‘fiscal responsibility’ lies. Democrats faced this opposition and responded in a manner that they know how to do best – running scared and grovelling to the base of the other side. When Republicans took the “my way or the highway” approach in recent history, we saw a complete destruction in may areas of governance, so I am inclined to support the Obama administration’s willingness to cooperate with differing points of view. However, destructive points of view should have no place in politics. On this and many other points Democrats do not have cave to the Republicans. As Paul Krugman, a noted Nobel Prize winning economist has asserted, the best budget bill passed during the Clinton Administration was done with zero votes from the Republicans. While I am against any possibility of a tyranny of the majority, regardless of whether it was Republicans or Democrats, I am also against sabotage, political lunacy and fear mongering, which is all the Republicans have shown they are capable of. The hypocrisy of Republicans of labelling people as un-American if they do not support their President during a time of crisis clearly only applies to Republican Presidents. I for one, however, am not going to discourage Republicans from saying whatever they want because it is their right.

It should be noted that the American people have categorically rejected the platform the republicans put forward. The U.S. House of Representatives have 256 Democrats out of 435 members, the Senate has 58 (possibly 59) Democrats out of 100, and a Democratic President, all of whom have been decisively democratically elected. It is disappointing to see public service and infrastructure projects are being cut out form the stimulus package to accommodate tax cuts, which clearly did not and do not work. We need a way to kick start the economy where people have a source of income and NOT a once a year payment that they clearly are not going to spend. One only has to look at the behavior of banks that were given bailout money to specifically spend it, to see that in times of crisis people hold on to whatever they’re given unless there is a promise of more in a predictable periodic fashion. One word - Security. The public needs to know that there will be a steady income and funnily enough a job provides steady income, tax cuts decidedly do not. Perhaps the time had come for Democrats to show that they too have a spine to make decisions that they were elected to make. Unless the Republicans take a reflective position of what went wrong and more importantly the wrongs they have committed in the last 8 years, Democrats should only have one response.

An Open Letter to the President of United States

Dear Mr. President,

Well it has been almost 2 years since I immersed myself in the US election and now it is finally over. It was one of the most gruelling election primaries in the history of American elections and I loved every minute of it. I cringed at racism, sexism, ageism, and every other despicable “ism” that the media came up with to make this historical election more interesting. But somehow it is over and thank goodness for it and we got the greatest political show on earth to prove it. My election experience consisted of going to one of your rallies in San Antonio, TX during the primaries, following the primary debates and learning about the delegate system, watching and discussing all three Presidential Debates and reading countless articles and blogs. If I have to read another Post article or watch another Youtube ‘viral’ video I will have an aneurism. Although the election is over, there is no doubt that today is the beginning of a new era in leadership.

Mr. President, the American people have not given you a right to govern but a privilege to govern through their valuable time spent in endless campaigning and waiting in lines to vote. The greatest promotion of democracy is its true demonstration and America has no doubt demonstrated that in the last election. You have promised tax cuts for the middle class, universal health care and a restoration of the dignity of diplomacy. I urge you to stand by your word. Prove to the critics and Republicans and the sceptics that the empowerment of the middle class will lead to far greater economic stability than the farcical non-existent trickle down effect from the selfish rich. Prove that universal healthcare is not socialism but an inherent right synonymous with the right to life, which will make America a healthier nation. Prove that the ‘civilised world’ is capable of facilitating the fine art of diplomacy over the savage institution of war and violation of human rights.

Mr. President, I urge you to keep to your promise of holding those responsible for the perpetual defamation the U.S. Constitution in the last 8 years by giving back to Americans what they have the false security of thinking they already have – civil liberties, freedom to dissent and ability to question how they are governed. In a democracy, the power belongs to the people, which the people have entrusted you with. It is now your responsibility, as the face of this nation, to ensure that the thousands of soldiers who have died serving their nation, the millions of people that have endured pain and suffering to make their way to America from various backgrounds in the hope of a better life, and the entire nation that worked harder than any other nation to make it the most powerful country in the world, did not do so in vain.

Mr. President, I am moved by acknowledgment of the USA as a nation among nations, by the extension of your hand to all nations, and the pledge of bringing positive change in not only the United States but the world. I am impressed by your direct address to the Muslim world, the poorer nations and the false notion of a choice between ‘safety and ideals.’ You have more support than dissent, in you more hope and optimism then fear, and the willingness for progress. There was a time not too long ago when people wanted to be America, to have the charms, the ambition, the inspiration to be the best that America symbolises. Deliver us that America from the shroud of secrecy and defiant domination, and end the nightmare that consumed a third of my life. Good Luck.

L.I.
January 21, 2009
Christchurch, New Zealand

Election in Bangladesh - Yay!!! or Nay?

The Bangladeshi elections are almost over and just like the previous elections in my lifetime, we can safely assume a Zia or Hasina leadership with the polls leaning towards Hasina from the Awami-League party, the party that claims the establishment of the nation itself. The country has arguably been under a constitutionally mandated military government in an effort to 'purge' the country of corruption and illegal voting practices experienced in the past. And now we have come to this moment in history where there are 80 million people on the voter rolls with apparently a 70% voter turn out, which is impressive for any democratic elections.

What do Bangladeshis hope to achieve from this elections? An end to the military government, which has been accused of many human rights violations? Will Bangladeshi see better days? Are elections really the solution to the many problems faced by the governance system of the country? I had a chance to take a look at the constitution of the country and like most constitutions, it has adequate provisions for the different branches of government, rights of the citizens, and a recognition that it is founded on social democratic principles, which promotes 'economic and social justice.' There are 150 million people in Bangladesh and time and time again we allow ourselves to be governed by an utterly incompetent, irresponsible government with no accountability to its constituents. So there is no doubt that whatever the outcome we need a definitive change in the way governance is conducted in Bangladesh.

Firstly, we need to see an end to the dynasty-esque politics in the country run by the Zias and the Sheikhs. In the USA, we just saw 20 years of Bushs and Clintons halted with the inability of Hillary Clinton to be elected on her very recognisable name alone. There is no doubt that recognisable names help. A last name like Kennedy, Bush, and Clinton goes a long way but uncomfortably so. The core tenet of democracy is 'For the people, by the people, of the people', which means that it is inherently contrary to democratic rule to have people from the same family create dynasties and rule decade after decade. The Sheikhs and Zias have been threaded into the core of Bangladeshi politics since the birth of the country and the people need to demand a change. At the very least we need to set term limits for prime-ministers and other Ministerial positions. These families are pivotal in the Bangladeshi political scene, and have a certain amount of expertise but would perhaps be better served in advisory and ambassadorial positions.

Secondly, we need to see independence, impartiality and a willingness to enforce the rule of law from the judiciary. It is meaningless to make corruption charges with no follow-through. The entire public is well aware that these leaders and top members are guilty of a certain amount of corruption. How can they not be when the entire country is rife with corruption and we proudly boast the 'most corrupted country in the world' title. But every time the judiciary is soft on our national leaders, it makes other potential leaders inherently immune from future charges. The lack of precedent makes it easier for the next generation of politicians to continue the tradition that we have come to hate but have no intention to change. I was under the impression that the legal system of Bangladesh was complicated and different to what I have studied. The actual truth is that Bangladesh has many learned constitutional lawyers and judges who are well aware of how rule of law operates in the western world the principles they represent. Rather than providing a check on the government's activities, these judges and lawyers have become an aid. It is the judiciary's responsibility to thwart the tyranny of the majority and the Bangladeshi judiciary has completely abrogated their duty to the administration of justice. Someone ought to give them a copy of the Magna Carta. The judiciary has to have the support of the public in that they can do their job without fear of persecution from the government. This is the core principle of the Magna Carta and Bangladesh absolutely needs to adopt those principles.

Thirdly, Bangladesh needs to develop better bilateral relations with countries who can help solve our population crisis. It is no secret that manpower is actually a resource that Bangladesh can export. There are many countries where the official language may not be English but they are in dire need of people to fill certain professions that their citizens cannot. Teachers, GP's and specific positions in bio-technical and environmental research will be in great demand as the baby-boomers all over the world start to retire and birth rates continue to drop. Bilateral trade agreements allow these countries to educate people in their home-countries with accreditation from host countries. We have the population to sustain a brain-drain and lets not forget one of Bangladesh's greatest revenue-making enterprise is income from our citizens living overseas. There is no doubt that Bangladesh will face and environmental refugee problem and sooner or later that tiny piece of land will not be able to sustain the population mostly because it is going to be even tinier. We cannot count on multi-lateral agreements and have to take initiative on our own for our own benefit. We cannot rely on Egypt or India to speak for us at the WTO. We can no longer use our status as a developing country to not engage in trade. If brain is what we have that brain is what we have to offer.

Lastly, Bangladesh does not have unique problems. The country is facing some of the same problems that all countries in the world face. Fortunately as a young country we can look at how other countries have dealt with these problems to draw on solutions. Housing, education, employment, healthcare, infrastructure, sustainability, corruption are some of the few problems that every country has to deal with. Even the richest countries have poverty. It is true that we may have it on a bigger scale but that does not mean that there aren't simple solutions to these big problems. Bangladesh has a rich history, a beautiful culture of arts, music and literature. There are many innovative and hard-working people in Bangladesh who are hopeful for a better future. We have done just fine without fast-food and cable-tv and while the first world is busy losing weight, we can roll our sleeves and get things done for our country.

30 December, 2008