I have no horse in the upcoming Bangladesh elections. Furthermore, I find the Awami League, the BNP, Jamaat-i-Islami, and all the other political parties that come to mind to be seriously lacking in transparency, democracy, ethics, and reason. So, I don't offer this criticism of Khaleda Zia out of any political motive, but out of sincere concern for the nation and people of Bangladesh.

Making proclamations like

"We showed enough of our patience and won't tolerate anymore. We know how to tackle someone trying to create anarchy.

"From now on, if anyone tries to attack on my workers, we will hit back."

is completely irresponsible.

For the leader of a democratic government to make statements such as this following days of massive political violence is not only irresponsible, it's shameful.

The last thing Bangladesh needs right now is for party leaders to fan the flames of political violence. Khaleda Zia and Sheikh Hasina both are failing the people of Bangladesh. The truth is that both should step aside and make way for real democratic political reform.

I believe that, outside of the crony network that has solidified in Bangladesh, the people on the street agree. Says, one Bangladeshi:

Please feel 'embarrassed'
Rafique Ahmed, Gulshan, Dhaka

I believe the problem is not with Mr. Hasan or Mr. Aziz and feeling "embarrassed" by those guys even would not help solve the present crisis created in the country. The main problem lies with the two women heading the two major political parties who do not believe in any solution except confrontation.

Can you imagine how irresponsible they could be by leaving the country for pleasure trips at such a crucial juncture when the entire country was looking forward to the dialogue and on the outcome of which the country's future depended! They are the roots of all evils. Their intransigent behaviour will never allow them to come to a solution even when the country is facing a grave threat. It was Khaled Zia who with the ulterior motive to come back to power by hook or by crook amended the age limit of the Chief Justice to pave the way for a party man to become the head of the caretaker government so that he could manipulate the election result in their favour. Had this irresponsible act been not committed, the present grave situation facing the country would not have occurred in the first instance. It would, therefore, be worthwhile to seek their "embarrassment" first. Unless these two women are removed from the helms of the national affairs, no peace or progress will come to this country ever.

So, let us urge these two women, " Please feel embarrassed and retire and thus save the country from destruction."

The U.S. is not the only country with national elections right around the corner. And for all the hyperbole coming from both the left and the right, the election will, once again, pass relatively calmly.

Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for Bangladesh, where pre-election violence is resulting in a rising death toll. Constitutionally, prior to an election the ruling party must hand over power to a caretaker government. The head of the BNP and current President of Bangladesh Khaleda Zia tapped retired chief justice H.K. Hasan. Opposition leader Sheikh Hasina rejected Hasan as a former BNP member and too close to the BNP coalition government. Hasan eventually declined the appointment citing ill health.

Yesterday, the government installed Iajuddin Ahmed as interim President, despite concern by Hasina's Awami League over Ahmed's past as a BNP candidate and party member. The AL has decided not to protest Ahmed's installment for now.

As the democratic process began to break down, politics moved to the street. Over the past three days dozens have been killed and hundreds wounded, transport in and out of Dhaka has been cut off, and people across the country are stranded in their home villages where they returned last week for Eid-al-Fitr.

The situation remains tense. My friends in Bangaldesh have all e-mailed me over the past few days saying that they are very worried and that the violence is very bad. Indian and Australian news outlets are suggesting that further violence could result in a military coup. Bangladesh was under the rule of military dictators until 1990.

The BBC has a photo series capturing some of the violence. The Daily Star had a number of unsettling photos over the weekend, but their site, along with The Bangladesh Observer appear to be unavailable. New Age is still being updated.

How to be an adult

Don't be affronted Being affronted (or offended, or complaining about 'inappropriateness') is no response for a grown-up. Only children believe the world should conform to their own view of it: a sort of magical thinking that can only lead to warfare, terrorism, unmanageable short-term debt and the Blair/Bush alliance

Mistrust anything catchy, whether it's the Axis of Evil, advertising slogans, or blatant branding ('New Labour'). Catchiness exists to prevent thought and to disguise motive. Grown-ups can think for themselves

Ignore celebrities, except when they are doing what they are celebrated for doing: acting, playing football et cetera. Skill does not confer moral, political or intellectual discrimination. (Except in the case of writers. Writers know everything and can lecture you with impunity.) If a celebrity is not celebrated for doing anything but being a celebrity, smile politely but pay no notice

We should not assume that market forces will decide wisely. The market is rigged by manipulation and infantilisation

Consider our own motivations. We may rail about being treated like children, ordered about, kept from the truth, nannied and exploited… but are we complicit in it? Could the reward actually be infantilisation itself?

Autonomy is the primary marker of being grown up. Babies, children and adolescents don't have any. We don't want to be in their boat

Suspect administration Its purpose is to free the organisation to do what it's meant to do: but the triumph of the administrators - the lawyers, the accountants, the professional managers - means that too many organisations now believe that what they are meant to do is administer themselves. This is a profoundly infantile attitude

Do not love yourself unconditionally. Such love is for babies and comes from their mothers. Ignore fashion, particularly in clothes. You don't want to look like a teenager for ever

Never do business with a company offering 'solutions' as in 'ergonomic furniture solutions which minimise the postural strain associated with sitting' (chairs) and 'Post Office mailing solutions' (brown paper). The word suggests we have a problem, but since we are grown-ups, that is for us to decide

Denounce relativism at every turn. Shouting 'not fair' is childish. Demanding respect without earning it is childish. Don't fear seriousness. Babies aren't allowed to be serious

Watch our language. Is there really much difference between a six-year-old in a fright-wig and his father's waders shouting 'I'm the Mighty Wurgle-Burgle-Urgley-Goo' and an ostensible grown-up demanding to be called 'Tony Blair's Respect Tsar'?

Hide Grown-ups are not required to be perpetually accountable, while the instincts of government and big business, both of which are, almost by their nature, great infantilisers, are to keep an eye on everyone all the time

Eat it up There is nothing more babyish than having dietary requirements

Never vote for, do business with or be pleasant to anyone who uses the words 'ordinary people'

- Michael Bywater We're All Big Babies

Hooray North Korean nuclear capability?

From yesterday's Washington Post:

Before North Korea announced it had detonated a nuclear device, some senior officials even said they were quietly rooting for a test, believing that would finally clarify the debate within the administration.

via ThinkProgress

Yay.

Our lifestyle, we are told, is sacrosanct, any sacrifice in "our way of life" not only unnecessary but unpatriotic. Our elected leaders treat us as children or consumers -- ideally both, monstrous in our appetites, unable to discriminate between our wants and our needs. As early as 1954 [Edward] Abbey wrote presciently in his journal about the culture of Texas, an assessment with even greater relevance today, given the source of so many of our troubles: "Why pick on Texas? Because it typifies, concentrates and exaggerates most everything that is rotten in America: it's vulgar -- not only cultureless but anti-cultural; it's rich in a brazen, vulgar, graceless way; it combines the bigotry and sheer animal ignorance of the Old South with the aggressive, ruthless, bustling, dollar-crazy brutality of the Yankee East and then attempts to hide this ugliness under a facade of mock-western play clothes stolen from a way of life that was crushed by Texanism over half a century ago. The trouble with Texas: it's ugly, noisy, mean-spirited, mediocre and false."

- Salon.com Where have you gone, Edward Abbey?

Once in Congress, [Colorado Representative Marilyn Musgrave] introduced a constitutional amendment to outlaw gay marriage -- which she calls "the most important issue that we face today" -- nearly a year before a Massachusetts court approved civil unions. "She doesn't like the idea of one gay person," says Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts. "So obviously the idea of two of us hanging out makes her very unhappy." For her opposition to gay marriage -- as well as her push to legalize concealed weapons -- Musgrave received an endorsement from the KKK in May.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi doesn't consider Musgrave's move to rewrite the nation's founding document a laughing matter. "She is trying to taint the Constitution," Pelosi says. "That is a violation of the oath of office." But Frank notes one thing he admires about Musgrave: "If you're going to have someone who's a hater, it's best that she's not very bright. I appeared with her in a couple of forums to debate her bill, but she's totally incapable of even explaining what it says."

- Rolling Stone: "The 10 Worst Congressmen"

John Tierney has a column in today's New York Times which is, unfortunately, behind the "Times Select" firewall. But, since you can't afford to read it, allow me to lay you how absolutely brilliant it is.

Tierney starts by noting that Nobel Laureate Mohammad Yunus has helped the poor of Bangladesh. But, Tierney asks, does he deserve the Nobel Peace Prize as much as, oh, I don't know - Sam Walton?

After all, notes Tierney,

Most "sweatshop" jobs — even ones paying just $2 per day — provide enough to lift a worker above the poverty level, and often far above it, according to a study of 10 Asian and Latin American countries by Benjamin Powell and David Skarbek. In Honduras, the economists note, the average apparel worker makes $13 a day, while nearly half the population makes less than $2 a day.

I've been arguing for years that encouraging job creation and entrepreneurship in a sustainable, self-supporting economy is far less beneficial to little brown people than if they would just go to work for a large international corporation. Tierney, at least, can see the writing on the wall. And it's not like there's no historical precedent. Look at Honduras. Those people were wandering around naked eating each other. Then United Fruit came in and gave people jobs. Visit Honduras today and you'll see that poverty has been eradicated and the economy is booming.

But Tierney's idea isn't just good for the Third World, no. By supporting Wal-Mart, we Americans get to do away with all those frustrating choices about where to shop. And it helps alleviate the stress of running our own businesses. Who needs the headache of owning and operating your own shoe or hardware or grocery or record or appliance or anything else store? After all, now we can work and shop at Wal-Mart. See, it even saves on gas and travel time. With that freed up, maybe we can get a second job at McDonald's and really create some wealth. And this isn't lost on Tierney, either:

The best evidence is that, while Wal-Mart's competition might (or might not) depress the wages of some workers, on balance Americans come out well ahead because they save so much money by shopping there.

Absolute genius. Me? I'd like to see Tierney get the Noble Prize.

A theory in legal sociology called “status expectations theory” contends that “the influence attempts of high-status individuals succeed, and those of lower-status people fail, due to the socially shared cognitions and expectations that link social status to attributions about person ability and worth.” Higher status individuals have more cultural capital than individuals with lower status because of culturally beliefs about their character and reputation.

This theory was first formally articulated in 1976 by Donald Black, who argued that the relative social standing of the defendant and his victim significantly influence the outcome of both criminal and civil cases. Marshaling the studies then available, he claimed that low status individuals who injure high status individuals are treated more harshly by the law than high status individuals who injure low status victims.

- PG Peters, Jr., Doctors and Juries, U of Missouri-Columbia Law, Legal Studies Research Paper Series, Research Paper No. 2006-33: 35-36. Available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=929474