Kipling thought more like the ruling power would, Democrats need to follow suit
Browsing through a used-book store Friday – in the Milwaukee airport, of all places – I came across a 1981 paperback collection of George Orwell's essays. That's how I happened to reread his 1942 essay on Rudyard Kipling. Given Orwell's perpetual ability to elucidate, one shouldn't be surprised that its argument would shed light – or so it seems to me – on contemporary American politics. Orwell offers a highly qualified appreciation of the then (and still) politically incorrect Kipling. He insists that one must admit that Kipling is "morally insensitive and aesthetically disgusting." Still, he says, Kipling "survives, while the refined people who have sniggered at him seem to wear so badly." One reason is Kipling "identified himself with the ruling power & not with the opposition."
"In a gifted writer," Orwell remarks, "this seems to us strange and even disgusting, but it did have the advantage of giving Kipling a certain grip on reality." Kipling "at least tried to imagine what action and responsibility are like." For, Orwell explains, "The ruling power is always faced with the question, 'In such and such circumstances, what would you do?', whereas the opposition is not obliged to take responsibility or make any real decisions." Furthermore, "where it is a permanent and pensioned opposition, as in England, the quality of its thought deteriorates accordingly." If I may vulgarise the implications of Orwell's argument a bit: substitute Republicans for Kipling and Democrats for the opposition, and you have a good synopsis of the current state of US politics. Having controlled the executive branch for 28 of the last 40 years, Republicans tend to think of themselves as the governing party – with some of the arrogance and narrowness that implies, but also with a sense of real-world responsibility. Many Democrats, on the other hand, no long even try to imagine what action & responsibility are like. They do, however, enjoy support of many refined people who snigger at the sometimes inept & ungraceful ways of Republicans. (And, if I may say so, the quality of thought of the Democrats' academic & media supporters – a permanent & as it were, pensioned opposition – seems to me to have deteriorated as Orwell would have predicted).
The Democrats won control of Congress in November 2006, thanks in large part to President Bush''s failures in Iraq. Then they spent the next year seeking to ensure that he couldn''t turn those failures around. Democrats were "against" the war and the surge. That was the sum and substance of their policy. They refused to acknowledge changing facts on the ground, or to debate the real consequences of withdrawal and defeat. It was, they apparently thought, the Bush administration, not America, that would lose. The 2007 congressional Democrats showed what it means to be an opposition party that takes no responsibility for the consequences of the choices involved in governing. So it continues in 2008. The director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Gen. Michael Hayden, director of national intelligence, retired Vice Adm. Mike McConnell, and the attorney general, the former federal judge Michael Mukasey, are highly respected, non-political officials with little in way of partisanship or ideology in their backgrounds. They have all testified, under oath, that in their judgments, certain legal arrangements regarding surveillance abilities are important to our national security.
Not all Democrats have refused to listen. In the Senate, Jay Rockefeller, chairman of the Intelligence Committee, took seriously the job of updating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in light of technological changes and court decisions. His committee produced an impressive report, and, by a vote of 13-2, sent legislation to the floor that would have preserved the government''s ability to listen to foreign phone calls and read foreign e-mail that passed through switching points in the US. The full Senate passed the legislation easily – with a majority of Democrats voting against, and Sens. Obama and Clinton indicating their opposition from the campaign trail. But the Democratic House leadership balked – particularly at the notion of protecting from lawsuits, companies that had cooperated with the government in surveillance efforts after Sept. 11. McConnell repeatedly explained that such private-sector cooperation is critical to anti-terror efforts, in surveillance and other areas, and that it requires the assurance of immunity. "Your country is at risk if we can''t get the private sector to help us, and that is atrophying all the time," he said. But for the House Democrats, sticking it to the phone companies – and to the Bush administration – seemed to outweigh erring on the side of safety in defending the country.
To govern is to choose, a Democrat of an earlier generation, John F. Kennedy, famously remarked. Is this generation of Democrats capable of governing?
For Complete IIPM Article, Click on IIPM Article
Source : IIPM Editorial, 2008
Browsing through a used-book store Friday – in the Milwaukee airport, of all places – I came across a 1981 paperback collection of George Orwell's essays. That's how I happened to reread his 1942 essay on Rudyard Kipling. Given Orwell's perpetual ability to elucidate, one shouldn't be surprised that its argument would shed light – or so it seems to me – on contemporary American politics. Orwell offers a highly qualified appreciation of the then (and still) politically incorrect Kipling. He insists that one must admit that Kipling is "morally insensitive and aesthetically disgusting." Still, he says, Kipling "survives, while the refined people who have sniggered at him seem to wear so badly." One reason is Kipling "identified himself with the ruling power & not with the opposition."
"In a gifted writer," Orwell remarks, "this seems to us strange and even disgusting, but it did have the advantage of giving Kipling a certain grip on reality." Kipling "at least tried to imagine what action and responsibility are like." For, Orwell explains, "The ruling power is always faced with the question, 'In such and such circumstances, what would you do?', whereas the opposition is not obliged to take responsibility or make any real decisions." Furthermore, "where it is a permanent and pensioned opposition, as in England, the quality of its thought deteriorates accordingly." If I may vulgarise the implications of Orwell's argument a bit: substitute Republicans for Kipling and Democrats for the opposition, and you have a good synopsis of the current state of US politics. Having controlled the executive branch for 28 of the last 40 years, Republicans tend to think of themselves as the governing party – with some of the arrogance and narrowness that implies, but also with a sense of real-world responsibility. Many Democrats, on the other hand, no long even try to imagine what action & responsibility are like. They do, however, enjoy support of many refined people who snigger at the sometimes inept & ungraceful ways of Republicans. (And, if I may say so, the quality of thought of the Democrats' academic & media supporters – a permanent & as it were, pensioned opposition – seems to me to have deteriorated as Orwell would have predicted).
The Democrats won control of Congress in November 2006, thanks in large part to President Bush''s failures in Iraq. Then they spent the next year seeking to ensure that he couldn''t turn those failures around. Democrats were "against" the war and the surge. That was the sum and substance of their policy. They refused to acknowledge changing facts on the ground, or to debate the real consequences of withdrawal and defeat. It was, they apparently thought, the Bush administration, not America, that would lose. The 2007 congressional Democrats showed what it means to be an opposition party that takes no responsibility for the consequences of the choices involved in governing. So it continues in 2008. The director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Gen. Michael Hayden, director of national intelligence, retired Vice Adm. Mike McConnell, and the attorney general, the former federal judge Michael Mukasey, are highly respected, non-political officials with little in way of partisanship or ideology in their backgrounds. They have all testified, under oath, that in their judgments, certain legal arrangements regarding surveillance abilities are important to our national security.
Not all Democrats have refused to listen. In the Senate, Jay Rockefeller, chairman of the Intelligence Committee, took seriously the job of updating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in light of technological changes and court decisions. His committee produced an impressive report, and, by a vote of 13-2, sent legislation to the floor that would have preserved the government''s ability to listen to foreign phone calls and read foreign e-mail that passed through switching points in the US. The full Senate passed the legislation easily – with a majority of Democrats voting against, and Sens. Obama and Clinton indicating their opposition from the campaign trail. But the Democratic House leadership balked – particularly at the notion of protecting from lawsuits, companies that had cooperated with the government in surveillance efforts after Sept. 11. McConnell repeatedly explained that such private-sector cooperation is critical to anti-terror efforts, in surveillance and other areas, and that it requires the assurance of immunity. "Your country is at risk if we can''t get the private sector to help us, and that is atrophying all the time," he said. But for the House Democrats, sticking it to the phone companies – and to the Bush administration – seemed to outweigh erring on the side of safety in defending the country.
To govern is to choose, a Democrat of an earlier generation, John F. Kennedy, famously remarked. Is this generation of Democrats capable of governing?
For Complete IIPM Article, Click on IIPM Article
Source : IIPM Editorial, 2008
Read these article :-
ZEE BUSINESS BEST B SCHOOL SURVEY
B-schooled in India, Placed Abroad (Print Version)
IIPM in Financial times (Print Version)
IIPM makes business education truly global (Print Version)
The Indian Institute of Planning and Management (IIPM)
IIPM Campus
Top Articles on IIPM:-
'This is one of Big B's best performances'
IIPM to come up at Rajarhat
IIPM awards four Bengali novelists
IIPM makes business education truly global-Education-The Times of ...
The Hindu : Education Plus : Honour for IIPM
IIPM ranked No.1 B-School in India, Management News - By ...
IIPM Ranked No1 B-School in India
Moneycontrol >> News >> Press- News >> IIPM ranked No1 B-School in ...
IIPM ranked No. 1 B-school in India- Zee Business Survey ...
IIPM ranked No1 B-School in India :: Education, Careers ...
The Hindu Business Line : IIPM placements hit a high of over 2000 jobs
Deccan Herald - IIPM ranked as top B-School in India
India eNews - IIPM Ranked No1 B-School in India
IIPM Delhi - Indian Institute of Planning and Management New Delhi ...
domain-b.com : IIPM ranked ahead of IIMs
at a staggering pace (the coefficient of variation, which measures volatility, rose to 15 from 9.7 during the same period). If you add to this the popular perception that this year’s Budget, being the last one for the current regime before the general election in 2009, would be generally populist, you have the mother of all gorillas. So, while it is difficult to predict the short-term behaviour of the market, experts still believe that over the next 12 months, the Sensex would be trading about 15-20% higher than the current levels of 17,000-18,000, which should be in-line with India Inc.’s earnings growth. Affirms Hitesh Agrawal, Head, Research, Angel Broking to B&E, “The Sensex is trading currently at 14-15X the FY 2010 expected earnings of its constituent companies, which is reasonable considering our expected 8-9% GDP growth.”
the outcome could still remain uncertain. That is precisely what the results of Super Tuesday have been indicating as 24 states voted in the primaries to choose the candidates for both the Republicans and the Democrats. In the Republican camp where George Bush and his pathetic legacy is an albatross around the neck of hopefuls, Senator John McCain has taken a decisive lead over his close rivals Mitt Romney and the deeply conservative Mike Huckabee, Though the two have refused to give up, most analysts contend that McCain will almost certainly be the Republican candidate for the November 2008 Presidential elections.
is all set to soar high. All thanks to liberalisation, competition and now diversification that has forced biggies in the financial domain to look towards this highly untapped sector with great interest. No doubt, its low penetration level (at 3% of the GDP) coupled with the fact that only 20% of the total insurable Indians have a life insurance cover provide players a perfect launch pad for growth. Considering the fact, broking firm Indiabulls, which entered the fray recently through a joint venture (74:26) with French insurance major Societe Generale, aims to tap 2-3% of the domestic life insurance market by 2010. A good move when the thriving insurance sector (growing at a CAGR of 175%) is all set to reach Rs.2 trillion by 2010 from Rs.500 billion at present (Assocham). Even their target to collect Rs.10 billion as premium in their first year and Rs.50 billion in next three years looks achievable when one takes into account expected growth of 140% in the private sector insurance business.