The Immoral Family
A Shiraz March 2, 2004
#48 Posted by solitude on March 23, 2004 6:45:33 am
#46 by mubakr on March 16, 2004 10:03pm PT
Thanks for the compliments. If my words have made one person feel good it is worth all the attacks and the abuse from the traditionally insane.
You are fortunate to have come across a wise person. I was plagued for the longest time and still am about my love for my family and my desire to individuate.
Thanks for the compliments. If my words have made one person feel good it is worth all the attacks and the abuse from the traditionally insane.
You are fortunate to have come across a wise person. I was plagued for the longest time and still am about my love for my family and my desire to individuate.
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#47 Posted by soysauce on March 17, 2004 10:23:27 am
#45 Shiraz,
Apologize? Surely you jest, in a post dripping with condescension?
This post of yours also is exemplary for dissembling - You had no obligation nor is it humanly possible to write an essay that makes sense to everyone. BUT, in your half a dozen or so follow-ups to me your ``tutorials`` have been in the nature of telling me what you couldn`t do in your article. You never made an attempt at a coherent case. In the last 2 posts you have been sulking - a bit too much.
Prove that nepotism is taboo in the US. If not, all your arguments are a waste.
Bye bye.
Apologize? Surely you jest, in a post dripping with condescension?
This post of yours also is exemplary for dissembling - You had no obligation nor is it humanly possible to write an essay that makes sense to everyone. BUT, in your half a dozen or so follow-ups to me your ``tutorials`` have been in the nature of telling me what you couldn`t do in your article. You never made an attempt at a coherent case. In the last 2 posts you have been sulking - a bit too much.
Prove that nepotism is taboo in the US. If not, all your arguments are a waste.
Bye bye.
#46 Posted by mubakr on March 16, 2004 10:03:55 pm
Shiraz:
good work partner. to be honest, for quite sometime, i`ve not read a good critique of the family system that eventually effects - or disturbs if i may say - the very social fiber of countries like pakistan. the family compulsions are exactly the reasons due to which one tends to get corrupt and i myself have been in this very delicate balance. my confusion was resolved when i 1) carefully analyzed the whole family chemistry in our society 2) spoke to an illiterate - yes completely illiterate - woman on this issue. i was feeling the guilt for taking decision which your artical encourages and was deeply depressed. she said that if ``parents have got some rights, they`ve got some duties too!`` bang and clouds over my confused mind were gone!
i`d strongly encourage you to keep touching upon these issues and you have my best wishes.
Mubashir
good work partner. to be honest, for quite sometime, i`ve not read a good critique of the family system that eventually effects - or disturbs if i may say - the very social fiber of countries like pakistan. the family compulsions are exactly the reasons due to which one tends to get corrupt and i myself have been in this very delicate balance. my confusion was resolved when i 1) carefully analyzed the whole family chemistry in our society 2) spoke to an illiterate - yes completely illiterate - woman on this issue. i was feeling the guilt for taking decision which your artical encourages and was deeply depressed. she said that if ``parents have got some rights, they`ve got some duties too!`` bang and clouds over my confused mind were gone!
i`d strongly encourage you to keep touching upon these issues and you have my best wishes.
Mubashir
#45 Posted by solitude on March 16, 2004 1:03:50 pm
#44 by soysauce on March 15, 2004 11:26am PT
I apologize if you felt offended by anything I said.
What disturbs me also along with the hostility of your tone are subjective personal opinions of yours like
``cannot afford to be faint hearted``
``writing lacks logical cohesion``
``hide behind vaguenss``
``all you have to offer is back-handed dismissal``
``vague allegations`` along with remarks previously mentioned.
I don`t wish to convert, nor would I like to spend half my post explaining to you what I REALLY meant. I believe I was quite clear but I cannot make what I write completely comprehensible to everyone. Even though I wish I could give more one-on-one tutorials on what I am trying to say unfortunately I would rather write something original than explain and re explain what I have already written (just a personal preference).
I apologize if you felt offended by anything I said.
What disturbs me also along with the hostility of your tone are subjective personal opinions of yours like
``cannot afford to be faint hearted``
``writing lacks logical cohesion``
``hide behind vaguenss``
``all you have to offer is back-handed dismissal``
``vague allegations`` along with remarks previously mentioned.
I don`t wish to convert, nor would I like to spend half my post explaining to you what I REALLY meant. I believe I was quite clear but I cannot make what I write completely comprehensible to everyone. Even though I wish I could give more one-on-one tutorials on what I am trying to say unfortunately I would rather write something original than explain and re explain what I have already written (just a personal preference).
#44 Posted by soysauce on March 15, 2004 11:26:02 am
#42 Dear Shiraz,
Perhaps you should go to the very first post you addressed to me to see what stereotyping, presumptuosness and aggressive tone are like. Someone who dares criticise publicly cannot afford to be faint hearted.
If you do not care to interact further, that`s fine. I do think you are a fine writer but one whose nonfiction writing lacks logical cohesion. You make specific points and hide behind vaguenss when questioned. I give an example of a prominant company which advertises its practice of nepotism boldly and all you have to offer is back-handed dismissal. And some vague allegations about Italy - when questioned you say it was southern italy but then change your mind and say it`s all the same culture. Think about some prominant criticism of nepotism within american public life and think about whether it resonates with the public or not. Above all, keep an open mind. You have shown very little inclination to modify any of your opinions. One would think you had strong reasons to believe what you believe and yet you cannot explain them, not for lack of words, I`m sure. Very strange...
Perhaps you should go to the very first post you addressed to me to see what stereotyping, presumptuosness and aggressive tone are like. Someone who dares criticise publicly cannot afford to be faint hearted.
If you do not care to interact further, that`s fine. I do think you are a fine writer but one whose nonfiction writing lacks logical cohesion. You make specific points and hide behind vaguenss when questioned. I give an example of a prominant company which advertises its practice of nepotism boldly and all you have to offer is back-handed dismissal. And some vague allegations about Italy - when questioned you say it was southern italy but then change your mind and say it`s all the same culture. Think about some prominant criticism of nepotism within american public life and think about whether it resonates with the public or not. Above all, keep an open mind. You have shown very little inclination to modify any of your opinions. One would think you had strong reasons to believe what you believe and yet you cannot explain them, not for lack of words, I`m sure. Very strange...
#43 Posted by solitude on March 14, 2004 12:34:16 pm
#41 by PM on March 12, 2004 1:54pm PT
You have read my work before, so when you write to me be gentle and considerate of my sensitive nature. However if you write to attack then its another thing. Write your own article about the virtues of whatever it is you stand for. I wrote because of the following remark.
``the US of A, there are laws protecting man/woman from having to testify against a spouse. One could ask why the principle of justice should not supercede the bonds of marital loyalty in capitalist society.``
Marital loyalty vs. loyalty towards people who are your blood relative. Love for your beloved and the one you choose to love vs. those who you are obligated to love simply because you are born with them.
I wrote something after thinking about this issue. If you are interested I will email it to you. My email is arthurshiraz@yahoo.com
``the loyalty-corruption link``
There is a direct link between nepotism and close-knit families and over all corruption of a nation. I posted a link of a survey conducted in one of the interacts (world values survey). You can go there to see the actual data so its no longer just
``but in slipping in brotherhood of Islam, ``
I don`t know if you realize how the brotherhood and most extremist Islamic groups work. Its hard to get in unless you belong to the right family. Your devotion will only get you a bomb jacket but if you want to lead these organizations or stay alive within its structure you have to be related to someone within the organization (in most cases).
``if Shiraz is looking for evidence that one cannot expect legislation to control all corruption``
What makes you think i am looking for evidence ? It was a statement I made saying that legislation cannot control corruption. The family structures have to change.
``he patently capitalistic value of more being better ``
I can`t help you with your anti-capitalistic stances or your communist leanings or the grudge you seem to hold against America etc. sorry its out of the scope of the article.
``the sad 18 year-old in the West not quite ready to leave the nest but who must, on the corresponding pressure of that society’s norms``
Have you heard of gen. X? Your conceptions of the west are cliched and in alignment with the most fundamentalist Muslims. PM that cannot be good for you or your lovers :) (in the long run)
``S.S contributions will actually cover the cost of his Medicare and SS cheques in the future! ``
Thats the socialist influence in the US.
``Perhaps the author has failed to notice that Japan and Singapore ... modernized and progressed more than a generation ago``
It takes time for economic progress to encourage individualism in members of society.
PM, the unfortunate thing about Liberalism in Pakistan is it can be heavily influenced by the socialists. I have outgrown that socialist, anarchist, environmentalist thing :) but again much in Pakistan is caught in a time warp, like a freeze frame of sorts. Due credit for this attempt at stagnation can be attributed to the islamists with their desire to drag us back to the ideal time : the 6th century.
You have read my work before, so when you write to me be gentle and considerate of my sensitive nature. However if you write to attack then its another thing. Write your own article about the virtues of whatever it is you stand for. I wrote because of the following remark.
``the US of A, there are laws protecting man/woman from having to testify against a spouse. One could ask why the principle of justice should not supercede the bonds of marital loyalty in capitalist society.``
Marital loyalty vs. loyalty towards people who are your blood relative. Love for your beloved and the one you choose to love vs. those who you are obligated to love simply because you are born with them.
I wrote something after thinking about this issue. If you are interested I will email it to you. My email is arthurshiraz@yahoo.com
``the loyalty-corruption link``
There is a direct link between nepotism and close-knit families and over all corruption of a nation. I posted a link of a survey conducted in one of the interacts (world values survey). You can go there to see the actual data so its no longer just
``but in slipping in brotherhood of Islam, ``
I don`t know if you realize how the brotherhood and most extremist Islamic groups work. Its hard to get in unless you belong to the right family. Your devotion will only get you a bomb jacket but if you want to lead these organizations or stay alive within its structure you have to be related to someone within the organization (in most cases).
``if Shiraz is looking for evidence that one cannot expect legislation to control all corruption``
What makes you think i am looking for evidence ? It was a statement I made saying that legislation cannot control corruption. The family structures have to change.
``he patently capitalistic value of more being better ``
I can`t help you with your anti-capitalistic stances or your communist leanings or the grudge you seem to hold against America etc. sorry its out of the scope of the article.
``the sad 18 year-old in the West not quite ready to leave the nest but who must, on the corresponding pressure of that society’s norms``
Have you heard of gen. X? Your conceptions of the west are cliched and in alignment with the most fundamentalist Muslims. PM that cannot be good for you or your lovers :) (in the long run)
``S.S contributions will actually cover the cost of his Medicare and SS cheques in the future! ``
Thats the socialist influence in the US.
``Perhaps the author has failed to notice that Japan and Singapore ... modernized and progressed more than a generation ago``
It takes time for economic progress to encourage individualism in members of society.
PM, the unfortunate thing about Liberalism in Pakistan is it can be heavily influenced by the socialists. I have outgrown that socialist, anarchist, environmentalist thing :) but again much in Pakistan is caught in a time warp, like a freeze frame of sorts. Due credit for this attempt at stagnation can be attributed to the islamists with their desire to drag us back to the ideal time : the 6th century.
#42 Posted by solitude on March 14, 2004 10:24:46 am
#39 by soysauce on March 10, 2004 1:29pm PT
When one writes as you have one has the following motivations :
1) the desire to be contrary or the desire to argue for the sake of arguement. This includes making up things the opponent allegedly said, extrapolating and acting sanctimonious and generally being very aggressive in tone.
2) You truly misunderstood what I wrote or do not understand what I have said.
I will assume #2 and clarify what I can. Nonetheless it would be foolish to think so in light of words like ``Not kicking you too hard I hope...`` #39 by soysauce on March 10, 2004 1:29pm PT
``If Sicily can taint all of Italy``
Sicily cannot taint all of Italy. People are intelligent enough to tell the difference between the North and South of Italy. However there are general values and cultures shared by both N. and S. Italy that exhibit similar symptoms.
``If Amish aren`t corrupt how do they fit in``
I cited the Amish as a classic example of a primitive subculture`s presance within America. This article is NOT about the Amish nor about America, nor about Southern Italy.
``It`s been in the same family for 4 generations and that`s supposed to be a good thing``
Family can lead to survival but not to development (as stated in the article). It is helpful to some primitive extent (tribal cultures and societies) but not if you have greater ambitions.
`` so far have failed to substantiate ...``
`` you dissembling like this``
``you start citing irrelevant stuff ``
``sheds light on your own mindset.. ``
``What`s so damn hard to understand about this?``
``You didn`t really answer the point``
Since your attitude in writing to me has not changed I will note this to be an end to this discussion with you. You seem to be riling yourself up over presumptions and extrapolate excessively instead of being empathetic (like asking ``Is this what you meant?``. Perhaps such an attitude helps you personally but it does not make my task of explaining any easier. When you wish to be reasonable rather than antagonistic we can talk again. On my part I will strive to make the progressions more clearer in my future works. Thanks for the compliments but they do not make up for your rhetoric and even come across as insincere.
When one writes as you have one has the following motivations :
1) the desire to be contrary or the desire to argue for the sake of arguement. This includes making up things the opponent allegedly said, extrapolating and acting sanctimonious and generally being very aggressive in tone.
2) You truly misunderstood what I wrote or do not understand what I have said.
I will assume #2 and clarify what I can. Nonetheless it would be foolish to think so in light of words like ``Not kicking you too hard I hope...`` #39 by soysauce on March 10, 2004 1:29pm PT
``If Sicily can taint all of Italy``
Sicily cannot taint all of Italy. People are intelligent enough to tell the difference between the North and South of Italy. However there are general values and cultures shared by both N. and S. Italy that exhibit similar symptoms.
``If Amish aren`t corrupt how do they fit in``
I cited the Amish as a classic example of a primitive subculture`s presance within America. This article is NOT about the Amish nor about America, nor about Southern Italy.
``It`s been in the same family for 4 generations and that`s supposed to be a good thing``
Family can lead to survival but not to development (as stated in the article). It is helpful to some primitive extent (tribal cultures and societies) but not if you have greater ambitions.
`` so far have failed to substantiate ...``
`` you dissembling like this``
``you start citing irrelevant stuff ``
``sheds light on your own mindset.. ``
``What`s so damn hard to understand about this?``
``You didn`t really answer the point``
Since your attitude in writing to me has not changed I will note this to be an end to this discussion with you. You seem to be riling yourself up over presumptions and extrapolate excessively instead of being empathetic (like asking ``Is this what you meant?``. Perhaps such an attitude helps you personally but it does not make my task of explaining any easier. When you wish to be reasonable rather than antagonistic we can talk again. On my part I will strive to make the progressions more clearer in my future works. Thanks for the compliments but they do not make up for your rhetoric and even come across as insincere.
#41 Posted by PM on March 12, 2004 1:54:38 pm
The little that is of merit in this article will surely be lost to the much that is questionable at best and outrageous at worst.
I believe the author makes a compelling point in suggesting that the unquestioned obedience to elders, ``typical of pre-capitalist feudal societies`` should be challenged. No one would argue with that, except that he actually uses the word `loyalty` instead of `obedience`, assumes that this level of blind obedience is indeed uniform all over Pakistan, and, to top it off, takes for granted that the capitalist values (of detachment from all such ties, we are to assume) are desirable substitutes. ``If we are to change the face of our country``, he prophesizes, ``we must first learn to question the values that are taught to our children.``
Not altogether bad advice, except that one could, and often does, hear the same offered to capitalist societies. Surely, the author would not have us believe that all the ills of our society stem from this admittedly often exaggerated sense of loyalty.
Perhaps it is just poor writing strategy, but the opening paragraph renders the author guilty of ridiculous extrapolation. Then again, it offers some interesting insight into motivation. But I will not dwell on this.
If one can look past such inappropriate generalizing, one must then contend with logical flaws. Shiraz sahib furnishes data relating to family-orientedness and Corruption Perception[!] Index but fails to show a causal link. He would do well to apply the same (il)logic to data from, say, his adopted nation`s capital, where single motherhood and (one may assume) individuality is among the highest of all the Nation`s districts.
The author asks ``How can loyalty to the family be bad? Can you imagine a citizen of the third world turning his own blood brother in to the Police to be tried for terrorism?``, perhaps forgetting that in the US of A, there are laws protecting man/woman from having to testify against a spouse. One could ask why the principle of justice should not supercede the bonds of marital loyalty in capitalist society. But one does not.
In contending that ``[o]ne cannot expect the government to control corruption by making law after law when the unwritten law of the land, the very values of the people of Pakistan creates an environment of corruption that rivals that of Uganda and Kenya.`` the author not only runs away with his somewhat questionable theory of the loyalty-corruption link, but makes the telling error of assuming that these are the ``very values`` (that is, the prime movers) that inform social life here. A bit of a stretch at best, but one can see where he hopes to get reach with it, in the very next sentence: ``The Italian mafia and the brotherhood of Islam is [sic] an extreme example of this ``we hear and obey`` loyalty.``
Well, at least he qualifies ‘loyalty’ here, but in slipping in ``brotherhood of Islam``, one wonders whether the author realizes he`s shooting himself in the foot. If such loyalty were indeed an operating principle, one would expect less, not more, corruption in a religiously near-homogeneous society like Pakistan. Quite clearly, ties of blood and other values like good old-fashioned greed take precedence over any sense of loyalty engendered by religion- whatever the pitch of sloganeering after Juma prayers. And if Mr. Shiraz would have us believe that it is Islam`s stress on brotherhood that is the cause of existing corruption - overriding all precepts enjoining justice and fair play -then I have a few tails, complete with dogs attached, that he might be interested in.
Further, if Shiraz is looking for evidence that one cannot expect legislation to control all corruption, he need look no further than the capitalist society in which he resides. Or perhaps he has was on vacation to Mars over the past two years! At any rate, he`d do well to consider other factors contributing to corruption, including the patently capitalistic value of more being better, even if it is not,/I> to be spread around the tribe.
The author goes on: ``Primitive societies … stress loyalty to the family and urge the dominant classes to help the less fortunate. In contrast, modern rationally driven market economies stress individualism and concern for self. It is this individualism that is conducive to capital accumulation.``
Again, no one would argue much with the Protestant ethics of work and egalitarianism. But the author has perhaps failed to notice that, even in the society which he seemingly idolizes for it ‘accumulation’ of 21 percent of the world’s capital, one in eight, or over 30 million people, live below the poverty line, despite having an economy built, initially, on slave or pseudo slave labour and that continues to export poverty, while its rich keep getting richer. Viva individualism/capitalism indeed!
The rest of the essay again takes anecdotes and extrapolates too liberally from them. Yes, many U.S. immigrants are expected to send money back home even when not the most opportune time. Much of this is a result of a misconception of the US as the land of Milk and Honey. But, for every such hapless immigrant -hapless, indeed, only if he`s imbibed a thorough sense of ``I/Myslef``-there is the sad 18 year-old in the West not quite ready to leave the nest but who must, on the corresponding pressure of that society’s norms.
And if ammah and abba expect to be supported by, and even live with, Munna and his kids in their old age, it is because they would have spent their last penny not on pension funds and Roth IRAs with which to later contribute to environmental destruction in trotting the globe on geriatric tours, but on Munna`s higher education and that bangla for him and his brothers in Gulberg. In any case, the contention that Westerns are not paying for their parents’ upkeep (and in fact, will have their children pay as well) through their taxes, is merely laughable-- unless Mr Shiraz knows of some way by which his present S.S contributions will actually cover the cost of his Medicare and SS cheques in the future!
The sheer selfishness and cruelty, indeed, of the older, Eastern, generations!!
The author writes, ``They say that wherever modernity and prosperity touches its feet `the children question their elders`. The children are rebelling in traditionally Confucian but fast modernizing societies like Thailand and Singapore and Japan. I say that if you wish to modernize and progress then differentiate yourself from your father.``
Perhaps the author has failed to notice that Japan and Singapore had ``modernized and progressed`` more than a generation ago, and that if anything, the present-day rebelliousness of the youth, if true, coincides with downturns in those economies. Whatever the driving forces behind the changing attitudes, and whatever their merits, it is difficult to see how they can be seen as products of the now allowing ‘progress’.
It would be more realistic, though still far from accurate, to see the these attitudinal changes as products of the more recent wave of global capital flux where the values of individualistic get-rich-quick capitalism ride rough-shod over all considerations of tradition and `culture`, in any meaningful sense of that word.
But then this, to the author, is presumably a good thing, because ``[t]he close-knit family encourages physical and sexual abuse of children.[!] The traditional family restricts the child’s individuation. The harm done to our children and our members translates into harm inflicted on our societies. Individuate for your children if you don’t have the courage to do it for yourself.
Ah yes, indeed, if all else fails, invoke the poor, innocent, children. And nothing, of course, works better than throwing in abuse. So much the better if it`s sexual. Much better we just throw out the baby with the dirty bathwater. Now if only we were all `individuated` enough to go on to buy two-garage homes like they do in the suburbs of Boston, our children would be so much safer! And our societies so much …cooler!
I believe the author makes a compelling point in suggesting that the unquestioned obedience to elders, ``typical of pre-capitalist feudal societies`` should be challenged. No one would argue with that, except that he actually uses the word `loyalty` instead of `obedience`, assumes that this level of blind obedience is indeed uniform all over Pakistan, and, to top it off, takes for granted that the capitalist values (of detachment from all such ties, we are to assume) are desirable substitutes. ``If we are to change the face of our country``, he prophesizes, ``we must first learn to question the values that are taught to our children.``
Not altogether bad advice, except that one could, and often does, hear the same offered to capitalist societies. Surely, the author would not have us believe that all the ills of our society stem from this admittedly often exaggerated sense of loyalty.
Perhaps it is just poor writing strategy, but the opening paragraph renders the author guilty of ridiculous extrapolation. Then again, it offers some interesting insight into motivation. But I will not dwell on this.
If one can look past such inappropriate generalizing, one must then contend with logical flaws. Shiraz sahib furnishes data relating to family-orientedness and Corruption Perception[!] Index but fails to show a causal link. He would do well to apply the same (il)logic to data from, say, his adopted nation`s capital, where single motherhood and (one may assume) individuality is among the highest of all the Nation`s districts.
The author asks ``How can loyalty to the family be bad? Can you imagine a citizen of the third world turning his own blood brother in to the Police to be tried for terrorism?``, perhaps forgetting that in the US of A, there are laws protecting man/woman from having to testify against a spouse. One could ask why the principle of justice should not supercede the bonds of marital loyalty in capitalist society. But one does not.
In contending that ``[o]ne cannot expect the government to control corruption by making law after law when the unwritten law of the land, the very values of the people of Pakistan creates an environment of corruption that rivals that of Uganda and Kenya.`` the author not only runs away with his somewhat questionable theory of the loyalty-corruption link, but makes the telling error of assuming that these are the ``very values`` (that is, the prime movers) that inform social life here. A bit of a stretch at best, but one can see where he hopes to get reach with it, in the very next sentence: ``The Italian mafia and the brotherhood of Islam is [sic] an extreme example of this ``we hear and obey`` loyalty.``
Well, at least he qualifies ‘loyalty’ here, but in slipping in ``brotherhood of Islam``, one wonders whether the author realizes he`s shooting himself in the foot. If such loyalty were indeed an operating principle, one would expect less, not more, corruption in a religiously near-homogeneous society like Pakistan. Quite clearly, ties of blood and other values like good old-fashioned greed take precedence over any sense of loyalty engendered by religion- whatever the pitch of sloganeering after Juma prayers. And if Mr. Shiraz would have us believe that it is Islam`s stress on brotherhood that is the cause of existing corruption - overriding all precepts enjoining justice and fair play -then I have a few tails, complete with dogs attached, that he might be interested in.
Further, if Shiraz is looking for evidence that one cannot expect legislation to control all corruption, he need look no further than the capitalist society in which he resides. Or perhaps he has was on vacation to Mars over the past two years! At any rate, he`d do well to consider other factors contributing to corruption, including the patently capitalistic value of more being better, even if it is not,/I> to be spread around the tribe.
The author goes on: ``Primitive societies … stress loyalty to the family and urge the dominant classes to help the less fortunate. In contrast, modern rationally driven market economies stress individualism and concern for self. It is this individualism that is conducive to capital accumulation.``
Again, no one would argue much with the Protestant ethics of work and egalitarianism. But the author has perhaps failed to notice that, even in the society which he seemingly idolizes for it ‘accumulation’ of 21 percent of the world’s capital, one in eight, or over 30 million people, live below the poverty line, despite having an economy built, initially, on slave or pseudo slave labour and that continues to export poverty, while its rich keep getting richer. Viva individualism/capitalism indeed!
The rest of the essay again takes anecdotes and extrapolates too liberally from them. Yes, many U.S. immigrants are expected to send money back home even when not the most opportune time. Much of this is a result of a misconception of the US as the land of Milk and Honey. But, for every such hapless immigrant -hapless, indeed, only if he`s imbibed a thorough sense of ``I/Myslef``-there is the sad 18 year-old in the West not quite ready to leave the nest but who must, on the corresponding pressure of that society’s norms.
And if ammah and abba expect to be supported by, and even live with, Munna and his kids in their old age, it is because they would have spent their last penny not on pension funds and Roth IRAs with which to later contribute to environmental destruction in trotting the globe on geriatric tours, but on Munna`s higher education and that bangla for him and his brothers in Gulberg. In any case, the contention that Westerns are not paying for their parents’ upkeep (and in fact, will have their children pay as well) through their taxes, is merely laughable-- unless Mr Shiraz knows of some way by which his present S.S contributions will actually cover the cost of his Medicare and SS cheques in the future!
The sheer selfishness and cruelty, indeed, of the older, Eastern, generations!!
The author writes, ``They say that wherever modernity and prosperity touches its feet `the children question their elders`. The children are rebelling in traditionally Confucian but fast modernizing societies like Thailand and Singapore and Japan. I say that if you wish to modernize and progress then differentiate yourself from your father.``
Perhaps the author has failed to notice that Japan and Singapore had ``modernized and progressed`` more than a generation ago, and that if anything, the present-day rebelliousness of the youth, if true, coincides with downturns in those economies. Whatever the driving forces behind the changing attitudes, and whatever their merits, it is difficult to see how they can be seen as products of the now allowing ‘progress’.
It would be more realistic, though still far from accurate, to see the these attitudinal changes as products of the more recent wave of global capital flux where the values of individualistic get-rich-quick capitalism ride rough-shod over all considerations of tradition and `culture`, in any meaningful sense of that word.
But then this, to the author, is presumably a good thing, because ``[t]he close-knit family encourages physical and sexual abuse of children.[!] The traditional family restricts the child’s individuation. The harm done to our children and our members translates into harm inflicted on our societies. Individuate for your children if you don’t have the courage to do it for yourself.
Ah yes, indeed, if all else fails, invoke the poor, innocent, children. And nothing, of course, works better than throwing in abuse. So much the better if it`s sexual. Much better we just throw out the baby with the dirty bathwater. Now if only we were all `individuated` enough to go on to buy two-garage homes like they do in the suburbs of Boston, our children would be so much safer! And our societies so much …cooler!
#40 Posted by soysauce on March 11, 2004 9:30:29 am
Shiraz,
Here`s an example for you: SC Johnson - a family company. Have you heard of them? They make a lot of household, sanitary products and proudly advertise themselves on TV (presumably to the mainstream and not to the ``primitive subcultures``) as a ``family company.`` It`s been in the same family for 4 generations and that`s supposed to be a good thing. I rest my case.
Here`s an example for you: SC Johnson - a family company. Have you heard of them? They make a lot of household, sanitary products and proudly advertise themselves on TV (presumably to the mainstream and not to the ``primitive subcultures``) as a ``family company.`` It`s been in the same family for 4 generations and that`s supposed to be a good thing. I rest my case.
#39 Posted by soysauce on March 10, 2004 1:29:33 pm
#38 solitude
Not kicking you too hard I hope. Kicking you is not my intention anyway.
It`s interesting to see a good writer, an excellent writer even, like you dissembling like this. I never contested that pakistan is corrupt. However, you linked nepotism/favoritism to corruption and so far have failed to substantiate it. When questioned about it, you start citing irrelevant stuff like the map you put up or Transparency International web site. I don`t see that they have used nepotism as a measure of corruption. You made the point & you back it up.
Here`s what you said about the Amish:Corruption is a symptom of a primitive society. Primitive societies and subcultures can exist within progressive societies (like the Amish in America or the Pakistani towns in England).
What is the logical link here? If Amish aren`t corrupt how do they fit in? I note in passing that your definition of a people who do no harm to anyone else and have chosen a way of living on their own and abhor violence as primitive sheds light on your own mindset..
About control of small businesses, how do you expect me to ``back it up?`` I happen to know personally a lot of such companies. If you have no such contact with them, pick up a small business magazine like ``Inc`` or FSB (Forbes Small Business) from your library. They rank small businesses once a year and give a brief history of each one of them and it`s easy to see there that except for the ones that were bought out control stays with the family. Read the business section of the newspaper where they occasionally cover a company. This is not some shattering revelation. Family ownership is not a taboo in the US as you make it out to be. When someone dies, unless there`s a will to the contrary, the estate (that includes the business) passes to the legal heirs. What`s so damn hard to understand about this? Same with control of shares in publicly traded companies. This is how it works the world over, including your personal hellhole of pakistan.
You didn`t really answer the point about what you say are aberrations within the larger society. When does it cease to be an aberration? If you leave out the italians, the chicanos, the rednecks and the evangelical christians (who believe the larger society is sinful) how much is left? If Sicily can taint all of Italy, why can`t these groups as a whole taint america?
Not kicking you too hard I hope. Kicking you is not my intention anyway.
It`s interesting to see a good writer, an excellent writer even, like you dissembling like this. I never contested that pakistan is corrupt. However, you linked nepotism/favoritism to corruption and so far have failed to substantiate it. When questioned about it, you start citing irrelevant stuff like the map you put up or Transparency International web site. I don`t see that they have used nepotism as a measure of corruption. You made the point & you back it up.
Here`s what you said about the Amish:Corruption is a symptom of a primitive society. Primitive societies and subcultures can exist within progressive societies (like the Amish in America or the Pakistani towns in England).
What is the logical link here? If Amish aren`t corrupt how do they fit in? I note in passing that your definition of a people who do no harm to anyone else and have chosen a way of living on their own and abhor violence as primitive sheds light on your own mindset..
About control of small businesses, how do you expect me to ``back it up?`` I happen to know personally a lot of such companies. If you have no such contact with them, pick up a small business magazine like ``Inc`` or FSB (Forbes Small Business) from your library. They rank small businesses once a year and give a brief history of each one of them and it`s easy to see there that except for the ones that were bought out control stays with the family. Read the business section of the newspaper where they occasionally cover a company. This is not some shattering revelation. Family ownership is not a taboo in the US as you make it out to be. When someone dies, unless there`s a will to the contrary, the estate (that includes the business) passes to the legal heirs. What`s so damn hard to understand about this? Same with control of shares in publicly traded companies. This is how it works the world over, including your personal hellhole of pakistan.
You didn`t really answer the point about what you say are aberrations within the larger society. When does it cease to be an aberration? If you leave out the italians, the chicanos, the rednecks and the evangelical christians (who believe the larger society is sinful) how much is left? If Sicily can taint all of Italy, why can`t these groups as a whole taint america?
#38 Posted by solitude on March 10, 2004 10:59:45 am
#37 by soysauce on March 9, 2004 4:24pm PT
It is nice to see you are still alive and kicking.
Let me just bring to your attention Transparency International`s Corruption Perception Index :
http://www.transparency.org/
I was referring to the Index compiled in 1999:
http://www.transparency.org/cpi/1999/cpi1999.html
``In what way are the Amish corrupt``#37 by soysauce on March 9, 2004 4:24pm PT
I said the Amish are a primitive subculture in America.
``Control of these businesses usually remains within the family``#37 by soysauce on March 9, 2004 4:24pm PT
Do you have anything to back this claim. If it is true then it is probably reflected in the CPI (after all the US is not perfect).
``Per your definition then, americans are corrupt. `` ``#37 by soysauce on March 9, 2004 4:24pm PT
They are LESS corrupt than Pakistan (very much so).
``you ought to be prepared to say more than go read a book`` ``#37 by soysauce on March 9, 2004 4:24pm PT
I cannot possibly cover everything in <1000 word document. I have pointed you out to the websites and books. I cannot regurgitate my entire learning to you - particularly since you don`t ask nicely but adopt a belligerent tone. You asked about southern Italy the best book on corruption in S. Italy is by Banfield (in my opinion).
``Where exactly are you going with all this? ``#37 by soysauce on March 9, 2004 4:24pm PT
You sound really upset. You tell me where you think I am going. I state my position in the article quite clearly on the subject of the amoral familism.
``If the author of that map were to argue that it`s based on some objective measure then he/she deserves to be challenged. ``
Please go and ask and learn whatever you can from the website (http://www.worldvaluessurvey.com) .
It is good to see that you are interested in these matters.
``as you were saying, before I interrupted you, pakistan must be bad because of what? ``#37 by soysauce on March 9, 2004 4:24pm PT
As I stated in the article Pakistan has a high standing as a corrupt country because of its primitive values and its rampant practice of nepotism which arises from extremely close relationships between family members (to the point of being unhealthy).
It is nice to see you are still alive and kicking.
Let me just bring to your attention Transparency International`s Corruption Perception Index :
http://www.transparency.org/
I was referring to the Index compiled in 1999:
http://www.transparency.org/cpi/1999/cpi1999.html
``In what way are the Amish corrupt``#37 by soysauce on March 9, 2004 4:24pm PT
I said the Amish are a primitive subculture in America.
``Control of these businesses usually remains within the family``#37 by soysauce on March 9, 2004 4:24pm PT
Do you have anything to back this claim. If it is true then it is probably reflected in the CPI (after all the US is not perfect).
``Per your definition then, americans are corrupt. `` ``#37 by soysauce on March 9, 2004 4:24pm PT
They are LESS corrupt than Pakistan (very much so).
``you ought to be prepared to say more than go read a book`` ``#37 by soysauce on March 9, 2004 4:24pm PT
I cannot possibly cover everything in <1000 word document. I have pointed you out to the websites and books. I cannot regurgitate my entire learning to you - particularly since you don`t ask nicely but adopt a belligerent tone. You asked about southern Italy the best book on corruption in S. Italy is by Banfield (in my opinion).
``Where exactly are you going with all this? ``#37 by soysauce on March 9, 2004 4:24pm PT
You sound really upset. You tell me where you think I am going. I state my position in the article quite clearly on the subject of the amoral familism.
``If the author of that map were to argue that it`s based on some objective measure then he/she deserves to be challenged. ``
Please go and ask and learn whatever you can from the website (http://www.worldvaluessurvey.com) .
It is good to see that you are interested in these matters.
``as you were saying, before I interrupted you, pakistan must be bad because of what? ``#37 by soysauce on March 9, 2004 4:24pm PT
As I stated in the article Pakistan has a high standing as a corrupt country because of its primitive values and its rampant practice of nepotism which arises from extremely close relationships between family members (to the point of being unhealthy).
#37 Posted by soysauce on March 9, 2004 4:24:58 pm
#36 solitude
Corruption is a symptom of a primitive society. Primitive societies and subcultures can exist within progressive societies (like the Amish in America or the Pakistani towns in England).
Huh? In what way are the Amish corrupt or, for that matter, pakistanis in GB?
You keep asserting that nepotism exists only within certain subcultures. That`s plain wrong. Small businesses (<100 employees) together employ the largest number of people in the US. Control of these businesses usually remains within the family. Per your definition then, americans are corrupt. Majority shareholders of publicly traded companies also tend to be family members. They too must be corrupt. Is that hard for you to understand?
Whatever point you wished to make about pakistan, your rationalizations have failed you.
If you were going to make an argument about pakistan alone, then I`d defer to your personal knowledge. But when you start making sweeping statements about whole civilizations to justify your prejudices, you ought to be prepared to say more than go read a book! First you rant about Italy as somehow being different from the US. Then you narrow it down to southern italy & if Chicago is beset by the same problems it`s no reflection on the whole of US. Ah, but then the rednecks and the Amish & the 25 million or so born-again christians don`t really count either. Where exactly are you going with all this?
And, what of the map? It`s someone`s opinion of where nations stand. If the author of that map were to argue that it`s based on some objective measure then he/she deserves to be challenged.
Anyway, as you were saying, before I interrupted you, pakistan must be bad because of what?
Corruption is a symptom of a primitive society. Primitive societies and subcultures can exist within progressive societies (like the Amish in America or the Pakistani towns in England).
Huh? In what way are the Amish corrupt or, for that matter, pakistanis in GB?
You keep asserting that nepotism exists only within certain subcultures. That`s plain wrong. Small businesses (<100 employees) together employ the largest number of people in the US. Control of these businesses usually remains within the family. Per your definition then, americans are corrupt. Majority shareholders of publicly traded companies also tend to be family members. They too must be corrupt. Is that hard for you to understand?
Whatever point you wished to make about pakistan, your rationalizations have failed you.
If you were going to make an argument about pakistan alone, then I`d defer to your personal knowledge. But when you start making sweeping statements about whole civilizations to justify your prejudices, you ought to be prepared to say more than go read a book! First you rant about Italy as somehow being different from the US. Then you narrow it down to southern italy & if Chicago is beset by the same problems it`s no reflection on the whole of US. Ah, but then the rednecks and the Amish & the 25 million or so born-again christians don`t really count either. Where exactly are you going with all this?
And, what of the map? It`s someone`s opinion of where nations stand. If the author of that map were to argue that it`s based on some objective measure then he/she deserves to be challenged.
Anyway, as you were saying, before I interrupted you, pakistan must be bad because of what?
#36 Posted by solitude on March 8, 2004 2:15:01 pm
``I established previously that there`s nepotism everywhere contrary to your assertion that only ``primitive`` societies suffer from it``-#35 by soysauce on March 8, 2004 1:10pm PT
Corruption is a symptom of a primitive society. Primitive societies and subcultures can exist within progressive societies (like the Amish in America or the Pakistani towns in England). I state clearly in the article that primitive societies with amoral family structures suffer the MOST from corruption and nepotism.
As I mentioned earlier if a Pakistani family immigrates to the US and make their sons the CEO does it make America corrupt? or does it make the culture that the Pakistani family comes from, corrupt?
Similarly some people pointed out nepotism in the US on this board. Sure, nepotism exists in some circles everywhere like the Italian mobs in Chicago and NY and the Mexican families (I stated that before) but that is because these primitive sub-cultures practise what most primitive societies engage in : favoritism based on blood relations. Is this so hard to understand ? or do you just like to engage in imagined debates?
``show me why control of family businesses passing from parent to child in the US would not be nepotism`` -#35 by soysauce on March 8, 2004 1:10pm PT
It sounds like nepotism to me. You will have to be specific about the instance you are talking about.
``If you wanted to keep your point confined to Pakistan, you should not have mentioned a slew of other countries. You did and you can`t tell others to go read a book to see why you said certain things. ``-#35 by soysauce on March 8, 2004 1:10pm PT
Where is this rule written ? Since when did you come up with that? I was going to put up a map with dozens of countries :
You want to ask me about Macedonia now that its mentioned ?
I cannot go into detail about Southern Italy when the article is primarily focused on Pakistan and Muslims. If you have such great interest in it by all means read the book I referred you to. I am sorry if the scope of the article was not clear to you however mentioning examples does not mean you go into sociological details about it. I can elaborate a little more: Southern Italy is notorious as the homeland of the cosa nostra or the Mafia and if you have been there it is very primitive (ancient houses and even older values and family structures, for a fictional social commentary see GodFather series and Malena and tons of other Italian films etc.).
Corruption is a symptom of a primitive society. Primitive societies and subcultures can exist within progressive societies (like the Amish in America or the Pakistani towns in England). I state clearly in the article that primitive societies with amoral family structures suffer the MOST from corruption and nepotism.
As I mentioned earlier if a Pakistani family immigrates to the US and make their sons the CEO does it make America corrupt? or does it make the culture that the Pakistani family comes from, corrupt?
Similarly some people pointed out nepotism in the US on this board. Sure, nepotism exists in some circles everywhere like the Italian mobs in Chicago and NY and the Mexican families (I stated that before) but that is because these primitive sub-cultures practise what most primitive societies engage in : favoritism based on blood relations. Is this so hard to understand ? or do you just like to engage in imagined debates?
``show me why control of family businesses passing from parent to child in the US would not be nepotism`` -#35 by soysauce on March 8, 2004 1:10pm PT
It sounds like nepotism to me. You will have to be specific about the instance you are talking about.
``If you wanted to keep your point confined to Pakistan, you should not have mentioned a slew of other countries. You did and you can`t tell others to go read a book to see why you said certain things. ``-#35 by soysauce on March 8, 2004 1:10pm PT
Where is this rule written ? Since when did you come up with that? I was going to put up a map with dozens of countries :
You want to ask me about Macedonia now that its mentioned ?
I cannot go into detail about Southern Italy when the article is primarily focused on Pakistan and Muslims. If you have such great interest in it by all means read the book I referred you to. I am sorry if the scope of the article was not clear to you however mentioning examples does not mean you go into sociological details about it. I can elaborate a little more: Southern Italy is notorious as the homeland of the cosa nostra or the Mafia and if you have been there it is very primitive (ancient houses and even older values and family structures, for a fictional social commentary see GodFather series and Malena and tons of other Italian films etc.).
#35 Posted by soysauce on March 8, 2004 1:10:03 pm
#34
OK, let`s take your definition. I established previously that there`s nepotism everywhere contrary to your assertion that only ``primitive`` societies suffer from it. You`re welcome to dispute that (since you haven`t done so already) and show me why control of family businesses passing from parent to child in the US would not be nepotism.
If you wanted to keep your point confined to Pakistan, you should not have mentioned a slew of other countries. You did and you can`t tell others to go read a book to see why you said certain things.
OK, let`s take your definition. I established previously that there`s nepotism everywhere contrary to your assertion that only ``primitive`` societies suffer from it. You`re welcome to dispute that (since you haven`t done so already) and show me why control of family businesses passing from parent to child in the US would not be nepotism.
If you wanted to keep your point confined to Pakistan, you should not have mentioned a slew of other countries. You did and you can`t tell others to go read a book to see why you said certain things.
#34 Posted by solitude on March 6, 2004 3:55:49 pm
``If we go by your election criterion, then family businesses everywhere (most US small businesses with less than 100 employees are family-owned and passed down from one generation to the next) are guilty of nepotism and no public business either in the US or in Italy or India or Pak practices nepotism. That`s because an elected board of directors runs the business and appionts the chairman & CEO. ``
The difference between nepotism and election:
Nepotism: You give someone an opportunity not on merit but because you are related to them.
Election: You give someone an opportunity by common vote because you overwhelmingly feel that the candidate is suitable (the voters are NOT necessarily related to the candidate).
I don`t understand what runs for logic in your universe of discourse but I don`t see your point.
People may want to elect you because you have an illustrious lineage or heritage but that is not nepotism. People may support you because you are descended from someone famous , though this is not a good criterion for supporting a person it is still not nepotism nor is it corruption.
``Give me some examples of why you say nepotism is strong in ``primitive`` Italy. Make sure no counter examples exist in the ``advanced`` societies. ``
Go to the library and pick up a book on the subject particularly the one by Edward Banfield (Moral Basis of backwards Society). Forgive me but I am here to discuss Pakistan not Italy.
The difference between nepotism and election:
Nepotism: You give someone an opportunity not on merit but because you are related to them.
Election: You give someone an opportunity by common vote because you overwhelmingly feel that the candidate is suitable (the voters are NOT necessarily related to the candidate).
I don`t understand what runs for logic in your universe of discourse but I don`t see your point.
People may want to elect you because you have an illustrious lineage or heritage but that is not nepotism. People may support you because you are descended from someone famous , though this is not a good criterion for supporting a person it is still not nepotism nor is it corruption.
``Give me some examples of why you say nepotism is strong in ``primitive`` Italy. Make sure no counter examples exist in the ``advanced`` societies. ``
Go to the library and pick up a book on the subject particularly the one by Edward Banfield (Moral Basis of backwards Society). Forgive me but I am here to discuss Pakistan not Italy.
#33 Posted by solitude on March 5, 2004 11:21:24 am
``Now as to your claim that nepotism does not exist in US, lets look at some ``
#27 by malik99 on March 4, 2004 3:46pm PT
Can you tell me where I made such a claim? Nepotism is practised all over the world
to some degree, usually by families from traditional backgrounds.
For e.g. If a Pakistani family immigrates to the US and decides to make their 18 year old son the next ``manager`` of a corner shop they started. Does it mean : that America is riddled with nepotism and therefore it is ok to be corrupt in Pakistan?
You gave the example of the Kennedys. In America there are lots of ``close knit`` mexican, hispanic families but they live in the ghettos. There are many close black families but they live in the projects. There are white families who live in trailers. There are white families who run mafias and have ties to organized crime and they usually have values similar to Muslims. These families come from an impoverished Irish Catholic background (like the Kennedys) or Southern Italian Catholic background. Do the actions of these people make it alright to be corrupt? Does it make us Pakistanis feel better about ourselves? Does it make you feel superior again ? or perhap it makes you feel ``less inferior`` ? Does accusing others of the same crimes ease your consciousness ? If it has , lets move on. If it hasn`t then look at the bottom for a charge by charge response.
The good and the great are confident enough to laugh at themselves, they are brave enough to change their ways no matter how holy the way no matter how old the traditions.
What I brought to your attention was that Pakistan and most of the 3rd world countries are the most corrupt and there is statistical and scientific analysis that directly relates corruption to the lifestyle and views and values of the corrupt. I quoted the World Values Survey http://www.worldvaluessurvey.org
So let us (1) bring out examples related to Pakistan (pro and con) (2) identify and understand and take responsibility for the causes (3) change the way we do things no matter the abuse, no matter the resistance, anger or heartbreak.
``He got into Harvard ... Yale because of his daddy `` #27 by malik99 on March 4, 2004 3:46pm PT
There is a legacy factor in admission decisions for the top universities. This is not the same as nepotism or corruption. Bush went to a school (Andover) that is vastly superior to any Karachi Grammar School you can imagine. It is a good thing that schools like Harvard and Yale do not merely look at grades and standardized tests but take the person as a whole into account. It does not make the admissions comm. corrupt. It is very easy to assume nasty scenarios. It is very convenient to imagine Bush Sr. making a ``Sifarish`` to the board but the truth is such imaginings only spring from the minds of people who wish they were equal. You do not become equal by wishing, hoping, imagining conspiracy theories of the Bush family`s corruption.
``He did a half-ass job with his daddy`s money ... business ... bought a baseball team with his daddy`s money``
Bush Jr. did not borrow from his father or take his money. He took from his trust fund. You see this has been my point. In traditional households fathers take $5 out of their pocket and bestow it upon their sons making it seem like they are gods. In modern families the parents ask their children to work hard to earn every penny AND they put money into their children`s portfolio or fund. It then becomes Bush Jr.`s money. I know its a hard concept to grasp for a people who are used to Eidi money which you receive only to have it recycled by your parents. But there it is. Using money from your education trust fund does not make you corrupt, nor borrowing money from parents during hard times make you someone who is corrupt.
Before I go any further,your dislike for Bush does not make America corrupt, it does not make Pakistan less corrupt , it does not make the Bush family corrupt.
If you still feel that Bush was wrong in taking money from his mutual fund porfolio that his parents created for him then you seem to feel the views of Marx who felt all private property should be abolished because property of parents gives undue advantage to the children. If you are a socialist or anti-capitalist who feels the west is evil and corrupt and decadent join the club (also populated by Islamists and communists).
As for the rest, I can go one by one to exagerrate on each item or I can ask you to consider the following, if you feel there is corruption in America you must do something about it not just malign America and excuse Pakistan for America`s shortcomings. There is no point in wasting bile on a predominantly Pakistani board, most of these people already hate America (unless the point was to reinforce that hatred and to give them a justification for their old ways).
p.s. I don`t view this as my board. I appreciate divergent views.
#27 by malik99 on March 4, 2004 3:46pm PT
Can you tell me where I made such a claim? Nepotism is practised all over the world
to some degree, usually by families from traditional backgrounds.
For e.g. If a Pakistani family immigrates to the US and decides to make their 18 year old son the next ``manager`` of a corner shop they started. Does it mean : that America is riddled with nepotism and therefore it is ok to be corrupt in Pakistan?
You gave the example of the Kennedys. In America there are lots of ``close knit`` mexican, hispanic families but they live in the ghettos. There are many close black families but they live in the projects. There are white families who live in trailers. There are white families who run mafias and have ties to organized crime and they usually have values similar to Muslims. These families come from an impoverished Irish Catholic background (like the Kennedys) or Southern Italian Catholic background. Do the actions of these people make it alright to be corrupt? Does it make us Pakistanis feel better about ourselves? Does it make you feel superior again ? or perhap it makes you feel ``less inferior`` ? Does accusing others of the same crimes ease your consciousness ? If it has , lets move on. If it hasn`t then look at the bottom for a charge by charge response.
The good and the great are confident enough to laugh at themselves, they are brave enough to change their ways no matter how holy the way no matter how old the traditions.
What I brought to your attention was that Pakistan and most of the 3rd world countries are the most corrupt and there is statistical and scientific analysis that directly relates corruption to the lifestyle and views and values of the corrupt. I quoted the World Values Survey http://www.worldvaluessurvey.org
So let us (1) bring out examples related to Pakistan (pro and con) (2) identify and understand and take responsibility for the causes (3) change the way we do things no matter the abuse, no matter the resistance, anger or heartbreak.
``He got into Harvard ... Yale because of his daddy `` #27 by malik99 on March 4, 2004 3:46pm PT
There is a legacy factor in admission decisions for the top universities. This is not the same as nepotism or corruption. Bush went to a school (Andover) that is vastly superior to any Karachi Grammar School you can imagine. It is a good thing that schools like Harvard and Yale do not merely look at grades and standardized tests but take the person as a whole into account. It does not make the admissions comm. corrupt. It is very easy to assume nasty scenarios. It is very convenient to imagine Bush Sr. making a ``Sifarish`` to the board but the truth is such imaginings only spring from the minds of people who wish they were equal. You do not become equal by wishing, hoping, imagining conspiracy theories of the Bush family`s corruption.
``He did a half-ass job with his daddy`s money ... business ... bought a baseball team with his daddy`s money``
Bush Jr. did not borrow from his father or take his money. He took from his trust fund. You see this has been my point. In traditional households fathers take $5 out of their pocket and bestow it upon their sons making it seem like they are gods. In modern families the parents ask their children to work hard to earn every penny AND they put money into their children`s portfolio or fund. It then becomes Bush Jr.`s money. I know its a hard concept to grasp for a people who are used to Eidi money which you receive only to have it recycled by your parents. But there it is. Using money from your education trust fund does not make you corrupt, nor borrowing money from parents during hard times make you someone who is corrupt.
Before I go any further,your dislike for Bush does not make America corrupt, it does not make Pakistan less corrupt , it does not make the Bush family corrupt.
If you still feel that Bush was wrong in taking money from his mutual fund porfolio that his parents created for him then you seem to feel the views of Marx who felt all private property should be abolished because property of parents gives undue advantage to the children. If you are a socialist or anti-capitalist who feels the west is evil and corrupt and decadent join the club (also populated by Islamists and communists).
As for the rest, I can go one by one to exagerrate on each item or I can ask you to consider the following, if you feel there is corruption in America you must do something about it not just malign America and excuse Pakistan for America`s shortcomings. There is no point in wasting bile on a predominantly Pakistani board, most of these people already hate America (unless the point was to reinforce that hatred and to give them a justification for their old ways).
p.s. I don`t view this as my board. I appreciate divergent views.
Interact Index
Similar Articles
- Alcohol and Teenagers: A Lethal Mixture Feroz Qutabshahi
- Quarter No.5 Nadeem Akram
- What's In a Name? Aziz Akhmad
- Aamir - A Film Review Dost Mittar
- Local Liberal Dribble Nadeem F Paracha
US Elections 2008 Primaries
Get Chowk RSS FeedLatest Interacts
- iron_mask: absolutely timely. Though a... India-Pakistan: Empathy, grief in
- KaalChakra: ha ha, salimbro, you... An Indian Muslim
- neembu: Timely, thoughtful piece. Now watch... India-Pakistan: Empathy, grief in
- masanamuthu: Also, if one checks... An Indian Muslim
- Salim_Chauhan: #161 BJ2, Thank you for... An Indian Muslim
- Salim_Chauhan: #166 Posted by BJ2... An Indian Muslim
- Salim_Chauhan: #166 Posted by BJ2... An Indian Muslim
- Goldfinger: Re: # 222 tahmed... An Indian Muslim
