Corruption - India 11-01-26

Rooting-out Corruption is Good, but

Parallel Government is Injurious to Democracy

Mirza A. Beg

Tuesday, August 23, 2011

Indian Express, Delhi, August 26, 2011

http://blogs.expressindia.com/showblogdetails.php?contentid=837637#

Milli Gazette, Delhi, August25, 2011

http://www.milligazette.com/news/2136-india-rooting-out-corruption-is-good-but-parallel-government-is-injurious-to-democracy

Anna Hazare has captured the imagination of the Indian body politic. His clarion-call to end the exponentially growing, endemic corruption in India has been reverberating and gathering supporters with each passing day. The news media in India has become his megaphone.

The corruption has been increasing over the decades in magnitude as well as pervasiveness. The developing economy, increasing disposable income of the middle class and much larger workforce provide more opportunities for bribes. At the top levels of the government the bribes have grown from thousands to tens of millions of Rupees.

On my visits to India, I enjoy asking probing social and political questions in conversations with a wide spectrum of very friendly and talkative fellow travelers. Everyone is against corruption as a simple nebulous principle. But the answers get clouded and muddled when it benefits their lives.

The Indian Government finally realized that the evil of corruption has reached the tipping point and drafted a legislation to create an independent office of Lokpal (ombudsmen) to watch over various agencies with independent, but limited authority. It would have the power to investigate. Based on evidence, it would recommend and direct the judicial system to take action. Obviously it would take time for such a system to mature and work. Unfortunately the judicial system is not beyond corruption either.

The office of Lokpal would be similar to the office of the Election Commissioner, which has worked rather well, notwithstanding all the ills of the society. Indian elections are by and large fair and have successfully changed the government many times.

Yet the corruption at all levels including the legislature has grown, because the most important driving force for voting for a candidate is not honesty, but sectarianism – a substantial majority votes based on religion, cast and regional advantages. Political parties put up candidates based on these considerations. Once elected, they distribute economic largess as well as jobs and contracts to their most important supporters and casts in their constituency. Ironically, it is not considered corruption by a large majority of the populace.

Anna Hazare and his companions proposed a much stronger and aggressive office of the Lokpal (ombudsman). They insist that all the branches of the government would be under its authority including the Prime Minister. It would have independent police and judicial powers. In effect, it would be akin to a parallel unelected government, and would have minimal check on its authority.

When aroused, people like simple and fast remedies. Anna Hazare’s remedy of cut ting the Gordian knot in one strike is simplistic and very appealing. To force his ideas on the government, he first threatened and then took up a fast unto death. It sounds enticing, especially coming from a person who has put his life on the line and has a long record of service to the poor and personal honesty.

Taking advantage of the situation, all sorts of people have jumped on his band wagon for their own purposes, while many opposed to him have unearthed records, where he appears to have supported unsavory ideas and people. Many in the minority community want to join him but are weary of some of the Anna’s unsavory backers. No one is perfect, and he has some explaining to do.

I applaud his taking a stand and galvanizing the placid electorate to demand reform. One needs to look at it not from sectarian perspective, but a long range national perspective. Means and ends should be carefully considered. They do matter. Democracy is not easy to nurture. A system that changes with the changing wind of public opinion does not last very long. An unaccountable parallel government is an idea fraught with danger. Impetuously designed laws with the best of intentions have unintended consequences. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

That is why most stable democracies have a bicameral legislature, so that a part of the legislature, called the upper house or senate --is protected from the immediacy of the impetuous public emotions.

Democracy by its very nature is inefficient. The system of checks and balances is an impediment to quick solutions of long festering social problems. Simplistic and draconian solutions against an evil are easy to understand and support. Anna Hazare has projected himself as a leader in the Gandhian tradition. But there is a difference.

Gandhi Ji agitated and fasted to give voice to the people, against an unelected imperial colonial government. Hazare is holding hostage, a legitimately elected government of the people. With his popularity growing by the day, the government is being held on ransom with a false choice of Hazare’s bill or widespread chaos.

In a democracy, the government is only as good as the people vote for. If the electorate really wanted honesty and integrity, they could have voted for them as beacons. But they did not, they vote for personal aggrandizement on the basis of cast etc. Impetuous quick solutions often bring unintended consequences. Thoughtful people should take time to bring in change without injuring the constitution and the essence of democracy. The start has been made to check corruption. Anna Hazare should compromise to get a good bill instead of throwing the country in to chaos.

Mirza A. beg can be contacted at mab64@yahoo.com or mirzasmusings.blogspot.com

Dr. Siras Suspended! 10-02-22

The Suspension of Dr. Siras For Moral Turpitude
Misconstrued Collision Of Principles

By Mirza A. Beg

22 February, 2010
Countercurrents.org

http://www.countercurrents.org/beg220210.htm

Dr. Shrinivas Ramchandra Siras, reader and chairman of Modern Indian Languages at Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) was suspended for the moral turpitude of consensual homosexuality within the privacy of his home.

From early reports, is seems that the suspension of Dr. Siras may be quite popular. Religions do not agree on all moral principles. That is the reason for adoption of a secular constitution in a pluralistic democracy. If popularity was the yardstick of morality, some of the minorities would have no place in states dominated by sectarian forces in India. The essential questions are, was Dr. Siras flouting his life-style; was the evidence procured by legal means, admissible in a court of law and if not, should the illegally obtained evidence of “sin” be prosecutable in secular courts?

There are many principles, religious and secular at stake here, and they are not in conflict.

1. In most religions homosexuality is considered to be a sin, condemned by the society. Though homosexuality has always existed in all societies, but by and large has been tolerated as a private matter, if not flouted.

2. Blind Puritanism is discouraged, because it leads to widespread intolerance and discord. Religions and societies choose equanimity in social discourse for stability and peace.

3. Islam enjoins believers to respect the inviolable privacy of home. Muslims are enjoined not to gossip or brazenly expose private failings of others. Muslims are exhorted to be introspective and tolerant with humility in the belief that God is the ultimate all knowing judge. Social responsibility is to condemn only lewd public behavior.

4. Democracy and civil society also follow this Islamic principle. Private behavior and public acts are separate realms. Violation of privacy of the home is against the law. Even the state may not search a home, without a warrant from a judge.

The idea of tolerance and personal space is not a western import, Indian and most eastern cultures have lived by these principles more harmoniously in the past than the West.

I remember an incident from my high school years. A teacher was rumored to be homosexual. My father overheard a remark from one of my visiting classmates. Later he asked me if that particular teacher was a good teacher. I said yes. He admonished me that knowledge is all I needed from the teacher. He emphasized that it was not only unseemly, but also un-Islamic to indulge in gossip.

The idea that democracy is good, and civil rights are essential for democracy to function, are easy to parrot, but forbearance is difficult to practice. If we do not protect the rights of the weakest members of the society, the rights naturally gravitate to accrue only to the powerful.

Tolerance of those with whom we disagree or dislike, protects minorities. Social mores change with time. There are hundreds of examples of what was considered abominable, has become acceptable and what was barely acceptable, has become popular. The most obvious example is the rise of stars in the film industry, from allegations of being little better than courtesans to the new royalty ruling the hearts of millions.

Changing mores are not necessarily good or right. The function of leaders is to lead, nurture and guide the society in the direction they deem to be healthy, through a civil dialogue to change the laws they disagree with. Violating the law to entrap or assault those who are on the margins of the society, religion or popular culture is injurious to the basic principles of a civil democracy.

The notion that in pursuit of “good” unlawful means are permissible, is irreligious and unethical, and leads only to evil. Societies and countries that take such short cuts pay a heavy price and often fall to sanctimonious dictatorships that bring only repression.

In almost all civil societies, evidence procured illegally by corrupt means is inadmissible in a court of law. Often ill-informed people rail against the inadmissibility of misbegotten evidence, because at times they let the criminal go free. But it is an important principle. It forces the law-enforcement agencies to be honest. It requires due diligence and proscribes the protectors of the law from becoming violators of the law. It is much more dangerous for power to be used by corrupt means than for a thief to go free.

The function of an institution of higher education is to educate students not only in their chosen subjects, but also in morality and ethics of citizenship and the boundaries on the use of power. It is shameful when the government or educators of young minds violate these bedrock principles, thoughtlessly to appease the majority.

Essentially what we know of the circumstances of the charges leveled against Dr. Siras and his consequent suspension by the AMU administration is troubling. I wonder what the professors in the AMU law faculty would say about its probity. Dr. Siras’ duty was to be a good teacher and respect the norms and traditions of an educational institution. His life style within the privacy of his home, even if “sinful” was no one’s business.

There are laws that protect the society from predators preying on minors, women and the weak. They are not always easy to enforce, that is the challenge and requirement for the sustenance of a civil society. Muslims ought to be sensitive towards the violation of the civil rights of a minority despised by many. They have suffered enough by the police and those in the positions of power, who despise them.

The religiosity, ethics and respect for the laws are strengthened, when we defend those with whom we may strongly disagree, but stand to uphold their civil and legal rights

Morality is when one adheres to principles, even when no one is watching; and courage is when one protects the rights of the weak and even despised, when it is widely unpopular. India and most functioning democracies, particularly the minorities in these countries owe a debt of gratitude to those who courageously adhere to this principle.

Mirza A. Beg can be contacted at mab64@yahoo.com or http://mirzasmusings.blogspot.com/

Surge, a Façade 08-07-23

Surge, a Façade for Changing Disgraced Policy

Mirza A. Beg
Wednesday, July 23, 2008

Media Monitor Network Friday, July 25, 2008
http://usa.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/53190

The American Muslim Friday, July 25, 2008
http://www.theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/surge_a_facade_for_changing_disgraced_policy/0016446

Cross-Cultural Understanding, Tuesday, July 29, 2008
http://www.ccun.org/Opinion%20Editorials/2008/July/29%20o/Surge,%20a%20Facade%20for%20Changing%20Failing%20Bush%20Policy%20in%20Iraq%20By%20Mirza%20A.%20Beg.htm


After four years of obstinate refusal to increase troops, Bush takes credit for the surge. McCain, with some justification thumps his chest claiming fatherhood of the surge. Unfortunately most pundits in the media also parrot the bumper sticker chorus,” The surge is working.”

Yes, American casualties are down; even the Iraqi casualties are down, but there is more to it than the surge. Let us not follow the propaganda mill blindly again. Consider the reasons that are more important and relevant than the surge itself.

Bush policy from the start of the Iraq invasion in March 2003, up to the Republican defeat in the Congressional elections in November, 2006 was essentially as follows:

1- The level of troops in Iraq, about 130,000, is adequate. If the generals ask, more troops will be provided. The generals towed the line and did not question it publicly.

2. Insistence that the dismantling of the Iraqi military, as well as the civilian infrastructure, was the correct policy, after the fall of Saddam. New civilian infrastructure, police and military are being trained with selected loyal Iraqis.

3 - All the resistance in Iraq is by Al Qaida supporters on the Sunni side, and Iran is fomenting trouble on the Shia side. No recognition of nationalist sentiments.

4 - Never negotiate with the insurgents who have American blood on their hands.

Bush, Chaney and Rumsfeld stubbornly adhered to the above mantras while Iraq descended into chaos. American deaths rose to more that 100 per month, reaching 160 in some months. In the meantime, bombing of Iraqi government targets rose dramatically, claiming more than 1,000 Iraqi lives per month. This increased internal religious strife, sinking into civil war. Consequently, about 15% of Iraqi population is displaced. Two million Iraqis fled to neighboring countries and another two million are internally displaced - “ethnically-cleansed” to safer sectarian neighborhoods.

Sunnis and Shias who lived in mixed neighborhoods fled to the ghetto-like safety of walled segregated neighborhoods. The safety walls between the cleansed-sectarian neighborhoods were erected by the American occupation authority.

The American electorate stirred from slumber and defeated Bush cronies in the Congressional elections of November 2006. Bush was forced to fire Rumsfeld, “face of the Iraq war” as the Secretary of Defense. Robert Gates, the new secretary, took the job reluctantly, but found greater freedom with the backing of the new Congress. The long awaited bipartisan Baker–Hamilton report of December 2006, urbanely castigated the administration for doing everything wrong. Some of the important recommendations were that the administration should open a dialogue with the Iraqi resistance as well as the regional opposition and stop the torture and mistreatment of Iraqis.

Bush pretended to ignore the report, but quietly replaced the generals running the war in Iraq. Then with fanfare, he appointed General Petraeus, widely hailed for his humane and cooperative treatment of Kurds at the beginning of the war.

Reversing the largely discredited first three policies, the new policy, up front was to raise the troop strength from 130,000 to 165,000, popularly called the surge. But the violence remained unabated for the first few months of 2007, until General Petraeus, quietly reversed even the 4th bed-rock Bush policy of no quarter to those who killed Americans.

Petraeus recognized the obvious; the insurgency was not pro Al Qaida but nationalistic. He instituted a program, employing former insurgents fighting the Americans in the Sunni areas into provincial militia, particularly in the most dangerous Al Anbar province, west of Baghdad. The program pays $10 per day to about 100,000 of the militia, controlled by local sheiks, not the Shia-dominated Iraqi government. In the shattered economy of Iraq, $10 goes a long way. A total of $30 million per month is pittance compared to hemorrhaging of $12 billion per month.

Finally a sane use of 30 million dollars, in complete reversal of the Bush policy, because almost all the people in the militia supported the resistance against the US forces and undoubtedly quite a few have American blood on their hands. Some may say it is bribery; a surrender to the enemy by the unyielding Bush. But it is the main factor that brought down the violence drastically.

The second reason for the decline in violence is that cleansed sectarian neighborhoods separated by barriers are easy to patrol. It dampened the sectarian violence.

The third reason is patience. With Bush limping towards the end of his term, Iraqi Sunnis and Shias are waiting him out for the new government in the US. They feel that with his diminished power for misadventures it is better to wait than fight.

It is not the surge by itself that is working. The addition of 30,000 troops has marginally helped, but the real reason is the changed Sunni attitude, because of the reversal of the US policy from suppression to paying the Sunnis and supporting them in local autonomy against the central government of Prime Minister Maliki, whom Bush gave unquestioning support. No wonder Maliki now insists on a time-table for American withdrawal.

Bush and McCain keep repeating the simplistic deceit about the surge, and the media keeps reporting it. Occasionally voices are raised challenging it, but they do not make the front pages or the lead story on the network news.

The claim that the surge is working is akin to saying that sun rises because the rooster crows. Eight years ago, I would not have believed that a significant number of voters can be so duped, but after the two Bush terms I know they can be. We as a people were willingly duped at the start of the war. The question is, have we and the media learned the lesson of the duplicity of this administration or will we continue to be duped.

Mirza A. Beg can be contacted at mab64@yahoo.com and at http://mirzasmusings.blogspot.com/

India genocide expose 071031

Tehelka, Journalists Lead Indians to Redeem their Values

Mirza A. Beg

Tuesday, October 31, 2007

Countercurrents, Friday, November 2, 2007
http://www.countercurrents.org/beg021107.htm

My News India, Friday, November 2, 2007
http://www.mynews.in/fullstory.aspx?storyid=1090

Khabrein, Friday, November 2, 2007
http://www.khabrein.info/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=8054&Itemid=88

Indian Muslims; Saturday, November 3, 2007
http://indianmuslims.in/tehelka-journalists-lead-indians-to-redeem-their-values/

Pine magazine, Saturday, November 3, 2007
http://pine-magazine.com/content.php?id=996

Tahelka, the intrepid news magazine did what the Indian government should have done in the past five years. The nation owes a debt of gratitude to the editor of Tahelka, Tarun Tejpal and reporter Ashish Khetan who took enormous risk to procure evidence on video tapes about the planning of the genocide perpetrated by the fascistic Gujarat state government in February – March 2002. The tapes also record admissions of suppression of evidence and bribery by the public prosecutors to protect the guilty.

The culpable Gujarat state government (still in power), got away with it, because at the time their party (BJP) was also in power at the center in Delhi. In 2004 elections for the central Parliament, the Indian electorate exhibited maturity by defeating the fascistic coalition in favor of a secular coalition dominated by the Congress party. However the Congress has been reticent to bring the Gujarat government to the bar of justice. It is afraid of being falsely tarred by the fascists, as anti–Hindu.

That may not come to pass. In the past, when the Congress party was a large undefeatable behemoth, many in its cadre were extremist sectarians who had joined in pursuit of power and weakened the secularist principles from within. To the extent that in early 1990s, Narsimha Rao became the Congress Prime Minister, who by his calculated inaction allowed the demolition of the Babari Masjid, unleashing the demon of naked violence, aided and abated by the guardians of law and order.

Those chauvinists have left the Congress and joined the BJP. The Congress after a long time is again a secularist party and has garnered the votes in 2004 based on secularist values. There is always political danger in taking a principled stand. With the strong evidence provided by the Tahelka reporters, there is more political danger in not following the principles.

Indian newspapers have reported for years that minorities, Muslims and Christians have been harassed in Gujarat since the BJP – a fascistic party came to power. What was not well known is that BJP and its allies were prepared to unleash a state supported pogrom of death, burning and looting on the Muslims. They just needed an excuse. The burning of a train carriage at Godhra on February 28, 2002 provided the pretext. Local Godhra Muslims were accused of setting the carriage afire from outside.

Instead of taking time to bring the culprits to justice, Narendra Modi, the Chief Minister of Gujarat gave verbal license of unrestrained pogrom for three days. It has been known for years, the Tahelka reporter have provided the corroboration on the video tape.
In 2003 a forensic report from the Capital of Gujarat, Ahmadabad came to the conclusion that the fire was set from inside the carriage. In March 2006, a commission appointed by the Ministry of Railways, under the chairmanship of retired Supreme Court Justice Banerjee came to the same conclusion.

The Gujarat state Police and judiciary under pressure from the Modi government have stymied the investigation for years; so much so that the Supreme Court of India passed strong strictures and ordered a proper investigation in the only case filed, because the government could not stop it.

The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, V. N. Khare, referring to the Best Bakery Burning case, wrote on September 13, 2003, “Your rajdharma (governing principle) is to punish offenders and bring the guilty to book. If you can’t, you quit.

In the final judgment, the Justices Raju Doraiswamy and Arijit Pasayat, April 12, 2004 wrote,” The modern day “Neros” were looking elsewhere when Best Bakery and innocent children and women were burning, and were probably deliberating how the perpetrators of the crime can be saved or protected.”

The Supreme Court can only pass strictures on the cases brought before the court. The court has provided the strongest directive to the government of India to take the rights of the oppressed minorities with utmost seriousness.

It is the duty of the state government to follow. In this case the state government is the chief culprit. This puts the onus on the Union (Central) government. The constitution provides for the Union government to intervene when the state government is the oppressor and the state police and judiciary are badly compromised.

The investigations that the Gujarat government suppressed and the Central Bureau of Investigation should have carried out long time ago, were done by Ashish Khetan of the Tahelka magazine at enormous risk. Now the evidence is on the tape and can not be ignored.

For the editorials and articles in the Tahelka Magazine go to-
http://www.tehelka.com/story_main35.asp?filename=Ne031107Tarunspiece.asp
For the Spy-cam video of the culprits boasting of their heinous deeds go to. http://www.tehelka.com/story_main35.asp?filename=Ne031107spycam_videos.asp

Independent observers have widely reported the brutal killing of about 2000 Muslims and the burning and looting of more than 100,000 Muslim homes .The government is the culprit so its figures are suspect. Many of the looters were photographed while the police were looking on. Many social workers, most of them from the Hindu community have taken enormous risk in helping the helpless in preparation of cases and have become voices of the voiceless.

This is not a struggle among the Hindus and Muslims as the bigots would like to propagandize. It is a struggle of decent humane Hindus and Muslims against the oppressive wing of the religion gone astray within Hinduism and Islam.

The greatness of the progressive Indian democracy is evident in that Muslims have done better in India than in many Muslim countries. The struggle against the state sponsored pogroms by the Gujarat government controlled by a fascistic Hindu party is led overwhelmingly by the secularist as well as deeply religious humane citizens, rooted in the Hindu ethos. The Supreme Court Judges, the brave community activists such as Tista Setalvad, Ram Punyani, V. K. Tripathi, and thousands others come from the Hindu tradition. Editor and brave reporters of the Tahelka Magazine and many other national publications such as “The Hindu” have an overwhelmingly Hindu staff.

While India is making great strides, some sectarian criminals in the provincial legislators have become an impediment to peace. Bal Thakary in the name of Hinduism has held the whole state of Maharashtra and its great city Mumbai hostage as his fiefdom. He has engineered riots where hundreds of people have been killed. Narendra Modi is still the chief minister of Gujarat and has used the levers of power to kill and deprive minorities of their constitutional rights.

Last week the Indian government awarded a well deserved national integration award to Professors Punyani and Banduklwala for giving voices to the oppressed. These well deserved awards are not a substitute for justice.

The appointments of judicial inquiry commissions are used as sop. The retired judges do a meticulous job. The inquiry takes a few years to complete. In time passions cool and the national memories fade. The government ignores the recommendations. The guilty not only go free, but also find encouragement to become even more brazen and bold in their evil deeds. It is time to bring cases before the courts to be pursued assiduously against all culprits, particularly those who have used power to spread mayhem and injustice.

Decent citizens of all religions and creeds should raise their voices against the terrorism by misguided individuals. The struggle for the soul of the nation becomes the highest duty when the state itself engages in planned terrorism, in our collective name. The religion we hold dear is besmirched when it is used to justify heinous atrocities. To raise our collective voices to bring the culprits in power to justice becomes imperative and the utmost duty. Those who keep quiet, or find excuses become supporters of the tyranny.

Brave reporters of the Tahelka Magazine have blown the lid off a very well known secret. They have provided the evidence. If the government does not follow through, it will be terribly injurious to the foundational values of Indian democracy.

Mirza A. Beg can be contacted at mab64@yahoo.com, Read his articles at http://mirzasmusings.blogspot.com/

Triple Taxation 03-03-16

Government should address triple taxation
Birmingham News
03/16/03
MIRZA A. BEG

President Bush and his Cabinet have been on the road promoting his new economic stimulus package and the looming war on Iraq, for which no money has been allocated. The deficits are soaring again, and Bush wants to cut taxes for the wealthy a tax cut that even Federal Reserve Bank Chairman Alan Greenspan finds ill-advised.

"It is unfair to tax money twice," Bush said as he presented his economic stimulus proposal in his State of the Union message. "There is a principle involved. The government ought to be content with taxing revenue streams or profits one time, not twice."

His rationale is that corporations pay taxes on their net profits. Part of that is distributed among the shareholders as dividends; therefore, the shareholders should not be taxed again on that income. It is logical, and if it is a matter of principle, Bush should also be against another form of double taxation the Social Security tax.

It is a more regressive form of double taxation and, in some cases, triple taxation. It affects every working American, from all tax brackets. Meanwhile, taxes on dividends are paid by only about one-fourth of all tax filers, and most of them have small investments; the lion's share of benefits goes to the people in the highest tax brackets.

The Social Security tax is deducted from our paychecks by a government mandate to eventually help us through our retirement years. It is a good program. But we never volunteered for it.
The tax rate has increased from 1.5 percent on the first $3,000 of earnings in 1950 to 6.2 percent on the first $87,000 of earnings in 2003. Employers also pay an equal amount on our behalf and the government's behest, effectively bringing the total pay-out to 12.4 percent.

Triple taxation:

The federal government imposes this tax on us, out of the goodness of its heart.
However, we pay income tax on the amount already deducted for Social Security. This is taxation on a tax already paid.

But that is not all: Millions of retirees pay income tax again from 50 percent to a maximum of 85 percent on their Social Security benefit if their income plus half of Social Security exceeds $25,000 a year for a single person and $32,000 for a married couple. This is triple taxation.
Plus, the base taxable income is not inflation adjusted. Therefore, with inflation pushing up incomes, the number of retirees paying the triple tax will rise each year.

The difference between the double taxation of dividends and the triple taxation of Social Security is enormous for an average citizen. Most people do not own stocks. Of the one-fourth of the tax filers who do own stocks, most have them in their 401K plans, which won't benefit from the dividend tax relief because it is deferred income.

In addition, even most of the people who own stocks that pay dividends won't see much savings because they own only a few hundred shares. For example, Microsoft declared a dividend of 16 cents a share. If you own 100 shares of Microsoft stock, you'd get $16 enough to buy a cheap meal for a family of four.

Bill Gates, however, who owns 612 million shares, gets $97.92 million. Of course, he gets more because he owns more stocks. The bottom line is that about 6 percent of the taxpayers will get more than two-thirds of the benefit of the $147 billion windfall.
Here's something else to consider: The full 6.2 percent Social Security tax is paid only on incomes up to $87,000 a year. Income above that is not subject to this tax. Thus, as a percentage of income, the tax decreases as the income rises. On a million-dollar income, it is effectively one-half of 1 percent.

Thus, if the tax on the tax paid for Social Security is exempted, an average family earning $75,000 a year would save about $700. And the rich and the poor would benefit equally.

Cost of business:

In the case of dividends, two different entities pay taxes on the same income. It is a cost of doing business in a peaceful, civil society that the government provides for the business to flourish. Tax on dividends is a tax on a commodity, in this case money, as bankers, brokers and the government view it, use it and get rich in the process.

Conversely, the Social Security tax and the tax on that tax are paid by the same individual. The majority of Social Security taxpayers are middle- and lower-income earners. Sweat of their brows makes the economy work and enables the wealthy to have the privilege of paying taxes on dividends. Most people work hard and would love to be wealthy enough to own stocks and to pay taxes on dividends.

The greatest difference is that the corporations and people who control corporations have money to grease the political machines. Members of Congress routinely sneak special provisions into unrelated bills to give special tax breaks to corporations.

Bush and the Republican leadership were impassioned in their arguments against restrictions on large political contributions. They equated large financial contributions to free speech. The rich buy a lot of "free speech;" the average citizens cannot, because they do not have the means.
We agree, Mr. President: Double taxation is wrong. But let us start with relief from triple taxation.

Mirza A. Beg is a geologist who lives in Tuscaloosa. His e-mail address is mab64@yahoo.com.

Copyright 2003 al.com. All Rights Reserved.

Power of Ind.Voter 02-11-15

The power of the independent voter

Mirza A. Beg
Written on November12, 2002
Birmingham Post Herald, Friday November 15, 2002

Elections are over, Republicans are happy and Democrats are sad at least at the national level. The spin-meisters have had their say. Most of the complaints were about mudslinging and the negative effect it had on the turn out.

Mudslinging and the negative campaigning is reprehensible, but it has been with us in one form or the other since the presidential election of 1796, when Jefferson defeated Adams; and the electoral inception of the political parties. The candidates themselves feigned lack of interest while the partisans on the Federalist as well as the Democratic Republican Party side accused the candidates of every transgression under the sun including treason. Some how with our system of checks and balances, quite new at the time, the republic not only survived but prospered.

Talking of checks and balance, the dyed in the wool Republicans and Democrats provide the checks on each other's propaganda and mudslinging, while the independent voters provide the balance, or should provide the balance but some time fail to do so.

The electoral process suffers because the Democrats and Republicans know the truth and are not confused by the facts, and an Independent voter knows many facts but can not fathom the obscure truth. The Democracy survives.

Solid Democrats form about 40 percent of the vote. That means about 40 percent voted for the party. About Republicans one is less sure in this election as they did not have week candidates. I suspect it is some where around 30 percent. This makes the 30 percent independent vote very important. Nationally, Ross Perot the strongest independent presidential candidate in recent times got about 20 percent of the vote, some independents voted for the major parties.

This being a mid term election the decibel level was supposed to be lower. But the times are such that there were enough issues screaming for our attention. The weak economy, collapse of the stock market, Unmitigated greed of the CEO's such as at the helm of Enron, Worldcom, and Globalcrossing as poster boys of white-collar robbery and Bush administration's push for waging war on Iraq.

We had plenty to worry about and responsibility to give direction to those who serve us. Republicans of course supported the President; it was the job of the Democrats to make a case against the present policies. President tried and succeeded in neutralizing the loyal opposition by wrapping himself in the flag because of our higher sensitivity to Nationalism in the wake of 9/11. Bush and Ashcroft even suggested that opposing and debating the administration policies amounted to giving aid and comfort to the enemy. A jingoistic stifling of democracy.

In the last decade the distinctions in ideologies have become more and more fuzzy. The independent voters usually dislike stark choices and ideologies. But when politics subsumes ideology they miss the choices, become rudderless and confused. In 1988 when Dukakus positioned himself as a better manager, effectively saying that ideology did not matter, competence did. He lost in spite of being way ahead of Bush the elder and maverick Perot in opinion polls until about mid-October 1988.

In this election even though the issues were breaking on the side of the Democrats, they played it safe. They shied away from criticizing the administration on the unseemly haste in calling for war with Iraq. They figured that in the wake of 9/11, it would not be pragmatic. They were afraid that taking a stand against bluster of war on Iraq would be construed as supporting Saddam Husain.

Mr. Bush kept the pot boiling with the drumbeat on Iraq and succeeded in sidetracking the bread and butter issues. It was the "metooism" of the Democrats that the voters did not appreciate. The minority vote that they depend on did not turn out because the genuine issues that effect the minorities were covered only with platitudes.

Democrats lost because the independents do not want to vote for a faded replica of the Republican Party. They could have considered the Democrats, they waited for the Democrats to make a case, take a principled stand but the Democrats were "missing in inaction".

Mirza A. Beg can be contacted at mab64@yahoo.com

Patriot Act Illegal 03-09-18

Patriot Act is an injury inflicted on the Constitution

Mirza A. Beg

Written, September 28,2003
Secondflagsalute. Online magazine Sept.28, 2003
The Anniston Star Thursday, October 16th, 2003
The Birmingham News, Sunday, October 19th, 2003

Shocked Americans in the wake of 9/11 gave Bush a free hand to deal with a situation that was difficult to fathom in the fog of the debris of the twin towers. Under pressure from the administration the Congress approved the Patriot Act in October 2001, but had the wisdom to limit it to 2005 to be reevaluated.

USA PATRIOT Act is a contrived acronym to pull at our heartstrings. It stands for, 'Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and obstruct Terrorism'.

Attorney General Ashcroft is canvassing to make it permanent and even more draconian. On September 27th concerned citizens of Birmingham held a hearing in the city hall on the nature of the Patriot Act. They had the courage to expose its insidious nature in the face of an onslaught by the present administration.

What makes America so special is its constitution. The reason for the survival of the constitution is the protection of civil liberties under the bill of rights. According to Nancy Chang, of Center for Constitutional rights, the Patriot Act violates 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th and 8th amendments.

In violation of the 1st amendments' right of association, people were arrested for simply buying air tickets from the agency the terrorist used. In violation of the 4th amendment, Ashcroft can and has held people incommunicado without ever being charged. Ashcroft proposes to completely do away with judicial oversight and need for a warrant. Reliance on secret evidence makes a mockery of the 5th and 6th amendments. In many cases the accused are denied effective counsel. Indefinite detention violates the right to speedy trial, a cruel and unusual punishment, violating the 8th amendment.

Librarians and booksellers have bitterly complained at being coerced to spy for the government under this nefarious act.

The proclamation of these rights in the US gave millions around the world a will to fight to attain them. These rights are in jeopardy in the land of their birth. The system of checks and balance has been tilted in favor of the executive branch. The Patriot act amputates the arm of justice in favor of the arm of the prosecution and makes these violations possible.

The people who were responsible for the 9/11 tragedy were Muslims of Middle Eastern descent. The government not only had the right but a duty to investigate the possibilities of terrorist cells among them. But they did not have to be arrested in the Soviet style, without informing even the family members some were whisked away to unknown destinations.

The detentions are Kafkasque. Kafka was quite familiar with the pogroms in the Eastern Europe. His partly written manuscript was posthumously published as an existential classic “The Trial,” where “Joseph K” is arrested and is supposed to defend himself without knowing the charges. The Patriot Act does exactly the same thing.

Ashcroft is empowered by the patriot act to misuse his powers without effective legal recourse. More than 1,200 people were arrested on minor visa violation or simply as material witnesses. According to internal Justice Department investigation, suspects were held for weeks without charges, and confined for about three additional months even after being formally cleared of the charges. Some were kept in solitary confinement for months, without a shred of evidence against an overwhelming majority of them. Some were even beaten and tortured. This is selective state terrorism.

This is not a liberal issue or a conservative issue. This is not a Democratic issue or a Republican issue. It separates those who value human dignity from those who don’t. Many conservative think tanks have opposed this Act. Republican Senator Arlen Specter calls the lack of candor from the administration as "a big black hole'. Republican Senator Charles Grassley says, "it is like pulling teeth to get answers". More than 177 communities and three states have adopted resolutions opposing the Patriot Act.

The American constitution is an elegant document. It has taken more than two centuries of struggle for its protections to be actually enforced. Acts once considered lawful- mistreatment of the Indians, slavery, racism against Jews, Irish, Italians, Hispanics, and others, the internment of Japanese Americans during the 2nd World War, and the McCarthyite red baiting of mid Fifties - In time were interpreted to be unconstitutional.

Today we are ashamed of that part of our past. The redeeming feature is that America has consistently, with setbacks from time to time, evolved to be a better country and will not dream of justifying those practices.

The terrorists gave America a body blow on 9/11, from which we are fully capable of recovering. The present administration is insidiously injuring the soul of American liberty, which if not challenged may prove to be lethal. Let us take this country on the road to freedom and excellence and rescue it from the road of fear.

Mirza A. Beg may be contacted at mab64@yahoo.com

Satire- letter- Bush 06-04-20

Dear Mr. Bush, I understand you

Mirza A. Beg
Written, Tuesday, April 18, 2006

Counter currents, Thursday, April 20, 2006
http://www.countercurrents.org/us-beg200406.htm

Al Jazeerah, Sunday April 23, 2006
http://www.aljazeerah.info/Opinion%20editorials/2006%20Opinion%20Editorials/April/22o/Dear%20Mr%20Bush,%20I%20understand%20you%20By%20Mirza%20A%20Beg.htm

Locust Fork, Friday April 21, 2006
http://www.locustfork.net/blog/

Milli Gazette, Wednesday, April 26, 2006
http://www.milligazette.com/dailyupdate/2006/20060426_usa_bush.htm

Just – International, April 30, 2006
http://www.just-international.org/article.cfm?newsid=20001282

Muslim Observer, Friday, April 28, 2006

Islamica community, May 3, 2006
http://www.islamicaweb.com/forums/showthread.php?t=49811


Dear Mr. Bush - I know you do not tolerate criticism, so this letter is written with understanding. The mid term elections are around the corner. Some retired generals are demanding Rumsfeld’s head. Predictably the Democrats have joined in and even some Republicans, afraid of loosing their seats are peeling the blinders off and flirting with disloyalty. As usual they ‘misunderestimate’ you.

They do not grasp that you cannot fire your mentors like Cheney, Rumsfeld, Condi Rice and the Neo-con coterie, or perhaps they do understand that it would knock off the props from what they consider to be a Manchurian Presidency. Who else can run the policies with greater vigor than the ones who instituted them in your name?

You have the courage of their convictions. You do not entertain silly, soul-searching, tortuous reasoning that comes from studying history and analyzing contexts. It saps resolve and creates anxiety. You are proud of strong single-minded leadership with confidence rooted in cultivated ignorance.

Your mentors planned getting rid of Saddam Hussein even before your election. The quick way to defeat a regional bully is to be a world-class bully. You so enjoy that role. It always works in the short run. Elections are not fought for the long-term. The long-term consequences are for the historian nannies and the future generations to handle.

People who eagerly swallowed the lies in the service of “the cause” are complaining now. You know better. Torture of prisoners, spying on Americans, deceit in the service of “the cause” is justified and should be commended. Those citing constitution do not appreciate the importance of lying as the central tenet of an effective policy.

Unfortunately you have hit a rough patch. The Congressional Republicans committing the sin of getting caught in sleazy deals and the inept cover up of the utter fiasco in response to Katrina does not help either.

People do not realize how difficult it is to attend to silly problems. They even intrude in your vacations. You are right to lay down strict rules not to be disturbed. What are the mentors for? It worked for Reagan.

You resolutely destroyed the Iraqi army and its civilian infrastructure. The best way is to start with a clean slate and build a new country to the liking of your mentors. But Iraqis are such ingrates. They not only do not appreciate it, they have the temerity to ask for a democratic system suited to their historical, ethnic and cultural needs. Time and again they have stymied the Quislings you installed.

You have stayed the course with tenacity and were able to scare the Iraqis, the Arabs and the world, but master-stroke was scaring the Americans into re-electing you. Unfortunately the Americans are also impetuous ingrates. They are not scared any more and have started questioning your policies. Even the supine news media has started asking rude questions, thus helping the enemy. Just freeze them out, except sycophants like O’ Reillys and Hannitys populating the Fox news, and please do not forget the loyalty of Judith Miller.

To keep Americans scared, it is a good time to saber rattle against Iran. Your advisors brilliantly kept Iran firmly planted as an enemy. The axis of evil gambit helped defeat the moderating influence of President Khatami’s government. With quagmire in Iraq, problems in Afghanistan, the failure in North Korea, the Iranians came through when you needed a new enemy to demonize.

The Congress foolishly blocked your efforts to develop tactical nuclear bunker buster bomb that violated the nuclear nonproliferation treaty. Threatening Iran for three years, you skillfully succeeded in strengthening their resolve to start Uranium enrichment. With your bluster you were able to convince Iranian Mullahs that the only safety for them is to have nuclear weapons. It helps in keeping Americans scared.

With the US power, the world stands in awe of your ability to ignore reality and speak with ambidextrous mouth. You have thrown the gauntlet for Iran to accept our meddling to change their democratically elected government, as in the past. In 1941 we installed the young Shah, then overthrow Mosaddeq’s democracy in 1953 and helped Saddam Hussein to wage an eight-year war on Iran, using chemical weapons in the 1980s. It is good that Americans only remember the hostage taking by Iran in 1979. It helps in brazenly threatening Iran with invasion, including nuclear attack.

The courage of your mentors’ conviction helped you invade Iraq. The same courage is helping you carry on, unmindful of the no-win situation. If Iran does not back down we loose whatever credibility is left. If we attack Iran no one in the world, except Israel would even pretend to be with us. But that is a long-term problem. It will actually be advantageous in supplying more terrorists for you and your successors to keep Americans scared for a long time. There are people calling for caution. Do not listen to them. It only weakens the resolve and saps your visceral energy.

The most important thing is to keep Americans scared and plied with well placed lies. Lofty ideals are for speeches, real politics works at the basest level. I am in awe of your simplistic courage Mr. President. You may need to get this letter translated, just ask any high school student; do not bother Cheney, Rumsfeld or Rice.

Mirza A. Beg can be reached at mab64@yahoo.com

Cyclic Polit. Morality 03-01-08

Is Political Morality Cyclical?

Mirza A. Beg
Written, December 16,2002

Muslim Observer Jan 8, 2003

Every four years during the elections the old administration is castigated for the lapses of judgements, political compromises, being out of touch and often, for plain immorality and circumvention of the will of the Americans and the constitution.

Charges though, exaggerated, are usually not without foundation. Opinion writers do cover the shenanigans, but we pay attention only when it becomes a full-blown scandal.

The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it to be always kept alive. (Thomas Jefferson, letter to Abigail Adams, February 22, 1787)

The scandals come with almost quadrennial bipartisan regularity. Major. Escalation of the Vietnam War based on a falsehood of the Gulf of Tongkin resolution, resulting in the "credibility gap" of the Johnson administration. Secret war in Cambodia and the overthrow of the Government in Chile culminated in "Watergate" of the Nixon administration. Savings and loan debacle in first and the Iran-Contra Affair tarnished the second Reagan administration. The renting of Lincoln bedroom (Symptomatic of bribes) in the first and Monica affair in the second Clinton administration jarred as well as entertained us for eight years.

Congress wakes up to what they already knew and condoned. At great expense and drama the investigations are televised and compete with the soap operas. Some of us malign the investigation as being partisan witch-hunt; others revel in the expose depending on which side of the political divides one roosts. Those found guilty after enormous expense are often pardoned by the outgoing administration and are rehabilitated when that party comes back to power. There is the rub.

After eight years of very successful soap opera called Clinton administration, Bush squeaked into office by a bare minority vote of the electorate and a bare majority of the Supreme Court. Irrespective of one's politics most were hopeful and reasonably convinced that Bush may not be the brightest bulb on the Republican roster, at least he appeared to be honest and would shy away from the felons and near felons of the former administrations. That was not to be. Graduates of the felonious Iran-Contra affair of the Reagan Administration are gradually being rehabilitated in this Administration.

Bush and most Republicans can justifiably be credited for being tough on crime, petty crimes that is! Former felons, pardoned felons and facilitators of mass murders from former administrations are gradually being rehabilitated in the corridors of power.

Mid way through his term, a more confident Bush has appointed Elliot Abrams, John Poindexter, John Negroponte and Otto Reich to manage critical policy positions. Mercifully Henry Kissinger has just withdrawn from Chairing the commission on 9/11. He could not reveal the list of his international clients as required. Good for those who really want the commission to find the truth. Mr. Kissinger and truth had never been on amicable terms. His role in Nixon era shadow killings has made it difficult for him to even travel to many European and Latin American countries.

The first four are graduates of the felonious Iran-Contra affair of the Reagan Administration. To recapitulate, they were discredited for plotting and subsequent cover up of sale of weapons to Iran (prohibited by law), so they could funnel the proceeds to the Contras (also prohibited), who indulged in mass killings and even raping of American Nuns in Nicaragua.

Abrams the then Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Central America pleaded guilty to withholding information from Congress and received two years probation and 100 hours of community work. In testimony to the congress, he said, ”I never said I had no idea about most of the things you said I had no idea about”. In his autobiography he wrote that he had to lie to the Congress to protect national interest.

Abrams is the Presidents man on the Middle-East policy. Bush wants to convince the world that he is committed to the creation of the Palestinian State. He appoints a man committed to destruction of Palestinian entity. Bush can fool us, the world leaders watch US policy more closely. Credibility gap again?

John Poindexter, former Admiral and National Security Advisor to President Reagan was convicted of five felonies involving conspiracy, obstruction of Congress. Appellate court reversed the sentence citing congressional immunity for his testimony. He is in the Homeland Security Department.

John Negroponte our Ambassador to the UN was then ambassador to Honduras overseeing horrendous human rights abuses by the Junta, some of whose former generals are not even allowed to enter the US. We want the world to think we are for Human rights!

Otto Reich now Assistant Secretary of State was Head of the Office of Public Diplomacy. Essentially his job was Goebbelian propaganda in praise of murderous Contras. We want the world to believe us.

Once safely ensconced in power Bush is gravitating towards people prone to felonious conduct. It is a shame that among two hundred and seventy million Americans he can not find honest, intelligent and dedicated Republicans to staff these positions.

It is an insult to the Americans in general and the honest law abiding Republican in particular. There are many highly qualified Republicans who could do credit to these positions. Perhaps they have not earned their stripes for deceit and thus can not be relied upon to play toady in times of need.

Mirza A. Beg can be contacted at mab64@yahoo.com

Felonious Friends 03-01-12

Bush has appointed Iran-Contra grads
Felonious Friends

Birmingham News
01/12/03

MIRZA A. BEG

Candidate George W. Bush gained credibility at home and abroad by promising that as president he would appoint Colin Powell as his secretary of state. Other early high-profile appointments to his administration were also well-respected and untouched by past scandals.

After eight years of the Clinton soap opera, many people were hopeful that the Bush administration would be free of scandals and would shy away from those who were involved in the scandals of former administrations. That was not to be.

Now safely ensconced in power, Bush is gravitating toward people of questionable backgrounds. He has appointed at least four graduates of the Iran-Contra scandal of the Reagan administration to very important positions. They are John Negroponte, Otto Reich, Elliot Abrams and John Poindexter.

Mercifully, another veteran of past administrations, Henry Kissinger, withdrew from chairing the commission on the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Kissinger and truth have never been on amicable terms. His role in Nixon-era shadow killings has made it difficult for him to even travel to many European and Latin American countries.

Iran-Contra:

Poindexter and others in the Iran-Contra affair were discredited for plotting and then covering up of the sale of weapons to Iran (prohibited by law) so they could funnel the proceeds to the Contras (also prohibited), who indulged in mass killings and torture in Nicaragua.

In 1981, U.S. Ambassador to Honduras Jack Binns complained about the human rights abuses by the Honduran military. Reagan replaced him with Negroponte, who oversaw our aid to the murderous junta grow from $4 million to $77.4 million. Hundreds of people were murdered or disappeared. U.S. and international human rights organizations and newspapers reported the activities of the death squads run by the junta, some of whose generals have since been barred from entering the United States.

Negroponte denies any knowledge of wrongdoing. One is forced to conclude that either he lived in total incompetent isolation or he is not truthful.

Negroponte is now our ambassador to the United Nations, the second most important post for foreign affairs after the secretary of state. We could not have found a more ill-suited spokesman.

Reich, meanwhile, is now assistant secretary of state for Western Hemisphere Affairs. As head of the Office of Public Diplomacy during the Reagan administration, his job was propaganda in praise of military death squads that were involved in widespread killings, including the raping and killing of U.S. nuns in Central America.

In 1987, the comptroller general, a Republican appointee, concluded that the efforts of Reich were "prohibited, covert propaganda activity." He spread false information to the American public through planted stories in the media and op-ed columns, at taxpayers' expense. With Reich at the helm, how can we expect Latin Americans and the world to believe us?

Abrams was deputy assistant secretary of state for Central America in the Reagan administration and pleaded guilty to two counts of withholding information from Congress, covering up the slaughter of civilians by the U.S.-funded Salvadoran military. In testimony to Congress, he said, "I never said I had no idea about most of the things you said I had no idea about." In his autobiography, he wrote that he had to lie to Congress to protect national interest.

Abrams in later incarnations has worked for the obliteration of Palestinian territories by Israel. He is now the director of Human Rights, Democracy and International Operations on the National Security Council staff and an important adviser on the Middle East. How can Bush hope to convince the world he is committed to the creation of the Palestinian state when he appoints a man committed to the destruction of the Palestinian entity?

Poindexter's data:

That takes us to Poindexter, a former admiral and national security adviser to President Reagan. He was convicted of five felonies involving conspiracy and obstruction of Congress, but the appellate court reversed the conviction, citing congressional immunity for his testimony.

His explanation for his actions: "I made a very deliberate decision not to tell the president so that I could insulate him from the decision and provide some future deniability for the president if it ever leaked out." He assigned himself to run America's foreign policy behind the president's back.

Poindexter has been tapped by Bush to run the Information Awareness Office of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, which has now morphed into the Total Information Awareness System. These confusing, overlapping offices collect information about every American's bank records, tax filings, driver's license, credit card purchases, medical data and phone and e-mail records into one giant centralized data base. This would then be gleaned for evidence of suspicious activity.

Are we supposed to believe that Poindexter would not misuse such authority?

It is a shame that out of 290 million Americans, Bush cannot find honest, intelligent and dedicated Republicans to staff these positions. It is an insult to Americans in general and honest, law-abiding Republicans in particular.

There are many highly qualified Republicans who could do credit to these positions. Perhaps they have not earned their stripes for deceit and thus cannot be relied upon to play toady when needed.

Mirza A. Beg is a geologist who lives in Tuscaloosa. His e-mail address is mab64@yahoo.com.

Copyright 2003 al.com. All Rights Reserved.