2 years ago H D Deve Gowda was considered so advanced as a conspiratinal genius that he was dreaded as an enemy. Now he is dreaded even as a friend.
2 years ago, while chief Deve Gowda was talking of an alliance with the Congress, his second son H D Kumaraswamy, split the party and joined hands with the BJP to form the government in Karnataka. There was a public display of the chief expelling his son from Janta Dal, today 2 years later they have come together and are conspiring again.
To those who are fairly acquanited with the Janta Dal escapade, it becomes fairly certain that Chief Deve Gowda has lost his marbles & he is writing his epitaph.
Deve Gowda ditched the Congress vide his son for the BJP. Then he ditched the BJP to woo the Congress. Then he ditched the Congress to remarry the BJP. Then he virtually ditched the BJP again with a 12 point dictat.
If the BJP ever does get to rule, it would be unprecedented in Indian history, as the BJP has never ruled in any of the 4 southern states since Independence. Deve Gowda could seal his fate if he does give into a communal political party. Incidentally, even if the BJP do come to power with Deve Gowda's support, the BJP would have sleepless nights as Gowda is keen to bed with any party but does not sleep over with any of them.
This situation is very similar to the one we had in Kerala with Karunakaran and his son K Muraleedharan. This kind of escapade was what these 2 were upto in Kerala. Today they have no loyals for no loyalties; maybe that is the price of greed.
Sunday, November 4, 2007
Framing the right rhetoric!
It now seems certain the television viewers are not adept at choosing equitably. In the now popular Star ‘Voice of India’ program, 5 judges had selected 12 able and talented singers from various town and cities pan India. These finalists would render a song each week, and SMS votes were solicited from viewers to the deserving candidate.
The producers of the program assumed that
1. Discerning viewers will vote.
2. Viewers can make the right choice
3. Viewers have no bias or prejudice in casting the vote.
4. Viewers cannot be coerced to vote for any single candidate on account of caste, creed or religion.
5. The poll itself cannot be rigged.
I don't know if the producers of this show considered these assumptions & limitations from inference it looks unlikely. I am certain that there could be more assumptions than what I have cared to mention above, but hope that the few indicated above does communicate the limitations in soliciting an 'open' poll from the public.
The producers of the show should have taken care to frame the question before soliciting a poll. The term 'framing' in pschology and sociology refers to an inevitable process of selective influence over the individual's perception of the meanings attributed to words or phrases. 'Framing' defines the packaging of an element of rhetoric in such a way as to encourage certain interpretations and to discourage others.
However programs in India or producers of such programs in India are a wee bit uninformed about ‘framing’ when soliciting responses from viewers.
Infact 2 deserving contestants were shunted out for lack of votes, but were brought back in vide wild card entry. Despite this fiasco, the producers still have not gathered their wits in framing the rhetoric to solicit an equitable poll. Infact this week, one of the two contestants who were brought in vide wild card entry, were shunted out. Next week the other contestant too will be shunted out for lack of votes. Quite naturally, there will be shock and surprise by viewers and producers alike, a retake of their ‘vote out’ a few weeks ago.
In fact in a program such as this the method to be employed should involve judges grading the finalists based on song renditions. Each week the producers chose the bottom 2 contestants in the grade score. The question should then be posed to the public. “Which one of these 2 contestants performed better? For Contestant A: SMS A for Contestant B: SMS B”. This process can be duplicated every week till the final 2 contestants.
Not everybody in the real world is a clear thinker sometime there is a clutter of information and not everybody can look through it. This is not to say people are daft; but it goes to say some look at it better than others. So choosing and framing the rhetoric is essential to curtail limitations and assumptions to reflect an accurate affirmative.
A similar case was raised a few years ago by Pakistan to conduct a plebiscite in Kashmir; raising the rhetoric ‘let the people of Kashmir decide if they would like to join with Pakistan or remain a part of India’. India moved this motion to the UN, and UN officials rejected this rhetoric on the grounds that the present populace in Kashmir does not reflect the actual populace so a plebiscite would not be an accurate representation of the people’s choice.
The producers of the program assumed that
1. Discerning viewers will vote.
2. Viewers can make the right choice
3. Viewers have no bias or prejudice in casting the vote.
4. Viewers cannot be coerced to vote for any single candidate on account of caste, creed or religion.
5. The poll itself cannot be rigged.
I don't know if the producers of this show considered these assumptions & limitations from inference it looks unlikely. I am certain that there could be more assumptions than what I have cared to mention above, but hope that the few indicated above does communicate the limitations in soliciting an 'open' poll from the public.
The producers of the show should have taken care to frame the question before soliciting a poll. The term 'framing' in pschology and sociology refers to an inevitable process of selective influence over the individual's perception of the meanings attributed to words or phrases. 'Framing' defines the packaging of an element of rhetoric in such a way as to encourage certain interpretations and to discourage others.
However programs in India or producers of such programs in India are a wee bit uninformed about ‘framing’ when soliciting responses from viewers.
Infact 2 deserving contestants were shunted out for lack of votes, but were brought back in vide wild card entry. Despite this fiasco, the producers still have not gathered their wits in framing the rhetoric to solicit an equitable poll. Infact this week, one of the two contestants who were brought in vide wild card entry, were shunted out. Next week the other contestant too will be shunted out for lack of votes. Quite naturally, there will be shock and surprise by viewers and producers alike, a retake of their ‘vote out’ a few weeks ago.
In fact in a program such as this the method to be employed should involve judges grading the finalists based on song renditions. Each week the producers chose the bottom 2 contestants in the grade score. The question should then be posed to the public. “Which one of these 2 contestants performed better? For Contestant A: SMS A for Contestant B: SMS B”. This process can be duplicated every week till the final 2 contestants.
Not everybody in the real world is a clear thinker sometime there is a clutter of information and not everybody can look through it. This is not to say people are daft; but it goes to say some look at it better than others. So choosing and framing the rhetoric is essential to curtail limitations and assumptions to reflect an accurate affirmative.
A similar case was raised a few years ago by Pakistan to conduct a plebiscite in Kashmir; raising the rhetoric ‘let the people of Kashmir decide if they would like to join with Pakistan or remain a part of India’. India moved this motion to the UN, and UN officials rejected this rhetoric on the grounds that the present populace in Kashmir does not reflect the actual populace so a plebiscite would not be an accurate representation of the people’s choice.
Thursday, November 1, 2007
independence and interdependence
motivation based on independence and/or interdependence.
There is a certain part of us that consists of a unique set of attributes which enables us to stand apart and to separate ourselves from others in an environment. This part of us would like to exude these unique attributes and be independent.
At the same time, a part of us wants to be interconnected with and inter related to other in a social context. Experiencing interdependence, recognizing that ones behavior is determined by, contingent upon and to a large extent expressed by thoughts, emotions and actions of others in the social relationship. This part of us would pursue demands and expectations of the social group.
most of us examine and act out decisions based on these 2 factors. Maybe one is dominant more than the other sometimes while at other times we call for compromise on one and choose the other.
There is a certain part of us that consists of a unique set of attributes which enables us to stand apart and to separate ourselves from others in an environment. This part of us would like to exude these unique attributes and be independent.
At the same time, a part of us wants to be interconnected with and inter related to other in a social context. Experiencing interdependence, recognizing that ones behavior is determined by, contingent upon and to a large extent expressed by thoughts, emotions and actions of others in the social relationship. This part of us would pursue demands and expectations of the social group.
most of us examine and act out decisions based on these 2 factors. Maybe one is dominant more than the other sometimes while at other times we call for compromise on one and choose the other.
selection impediment
HABIT is hereditary with us humans. In a familial bevy, we get acclimatized to inter-relations and these in-turns develop or evoke emotions or actions akin. If our existing inter-relations are kindred and we are getting acclimatized to a bequeathed inter-relation then there is a strong probability that we are developing habits causal to the acclimatized bequeathed inter-relation in effect duplicating behaviors, actions or emotions similar to the bevy. In a sense, habits keep us from differentiating.
In contrast in nature, generally in a genus, species that develop variations in character from each other; will have the best chance of seizing on new and different places in the polity of nature. The more diversified the descendants become, the better will be their chance of success in the battle for life. The small differences arise on account of the species struggle for existence and would be passed onto so that its survival is ensured.
How is it that when we know the latter is better suited to our survival and progress that we still consciously choose the former?
Frankly, I don't know...maybe it is something like: ice cream is fattening, but I still have it, I guess we are all entitled to a little lassitude.
In contrast in nature, generally in a genus, species that develop variations in character from each other; will have the best chance of seizing on new and different places in the polity of nature. The more diversified the descendants become, the better will be their chance of success in the battle for life. The small differences arise on account of the species struggle for existence and would be passed onto so that its survival is ensured.
How is it that when we know the latter is better suited to our survival and progress that we still consciously choose the former?
Frankly, I don't know...maybe it is something like: ice cream is fattening, but I still have it, I guess we are all entitled to a little lassitude.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
