Poor little rich boy

If asked the reason for crime, the gut reaction is poverty, unemployment, illiteracy, etc. But proving all of those wrong, the scion of a wealthy industrialist was finally caught after embarking on an orgy of theft and looting. The reason? “Crime is an art”. I’m just glad that Karachi has one less teenager drunk on his family’s power to worry about.

53 Comments so far

  1. Sa'ad (unregistered) on November 19th, 2006 @ 1:32 am

    More BS from his father. That SOB needs to be locked up too. There is clear evidence against this boy as our own members of MB have testified to have been robbed by this a-hole yet his father doesn’t want his son to learn a lesson.
    http://img144.imageshack.us/img144/3832/174bx2.gif


  2. saima Nasir (unregistered) on November 20th, 2006 @ 9:02 pm

    @RAMLA A.

    You said,
    “Second just a minor correction, I said “status, psyche, capability” not just status. What I have been saying throughout is that status is not the only determinant of a person’s behavior. Nor should they be judged on that alone.”

    I emphasised the word STATUS in your post, because thats all the society or people in general can see or are able to analyse, a person’s STATUS……PSYCHE and CAPABILITIES are judged or interpreted by TRAINED EYES only, and can therefore have many interpretations.

    Now, I didn’t even discussed punishments, I said people will always critisice and catagarise RICH and previledged more, because they are prominant.
    Their actions will always be louder than of some one average or of low status in that societ…this is reality….and will remain so!!!!
    Their(RICH) patronisation of a person, movement or a process will always have wider effects on the society as compared to that of an average person with average means.

    You said,
    “However, we live in this society and can see for ourselves the overall behavior of the privileged which do not such include the “rich.” I myself have been making a lot of assumptions about those both above and below me on any kind of ladder: of wealth, beauty, health, any gift. Time teaches that humanity and human traits (good or bad) cross these barriers. ”

    Call it human nature, psychology or learned behavior, but this problem exists everywhere in the world….not just our society. It may be of different strengths in different cultures…but passing judgements or analysing people with pre conceived notions is very normal and prevelant in all societies…..infact you need to be a trained counsellor or a pschologist, so as not to judge people just by their behavior.

    Now, whether you or I like or dislike a society which is quick in jugding or eager to punish is entirely a different discussion…..it has many layers and as such needs careful handling….{I would rather discus it with you on your blog}, but for starters….

    “Your ideals of a society” are very close to that of Michael Edwards, who is of the beief that ,

    “In ‘Civil Society’ we seek to increase the impact of citizens’ groups working for peace and social justice, strengthen the philanthropic community that supports them, and encourage citizen oversight of the public and private sectors. We believe in the value of associational life and in nurturing strong, independent and democratic civil societies. Grants seek to increase participation in public affairs beyond the act of voting and to strengthen civil society organizations. Another initiative aims to foster philanthropy that contributes to social justice outcomes. Other work strengthens global civil society and the ability of transnational citizens’ coalitions to address public policy problems.”

    As a scholar and as what can be called a practitioner of civil society politics at the Ford Foundation (where his section has, among other things, helped to support open Democracy) he sets out to clarify and reconstruct the concept.

    He describes three different uses of the term:

    as a description of varieties of association
    as a value advocating the advantages of cooperation
    as democratic ecosystem – a public sphere in which engagement with the whole future and shape of society takes place (or could take place).

    “Civil society”, Edwards argues,

    “is the story of ordinary people living extraordinary lives through their relationships with each other, driven forward by a vision of the world that is ruled by love and compassion, non-violence and solidarity.”

    I share his hopes and YOURS. But I hesitate to share his more than positive assessment of “civil society”, which by the end of a short but important book, overshadows his initial understanding of the problems it poses. We can be political theorists, but, we also have to think and speak as a citizens of Pakistan, where the politics of intolerance, fundamentalism, and rabid hate for minorities overtook Pakistan’s civil society far too easily in the late 1960s and 70s…..and has not ended or died as yet…

    The problem of moral pluralism has become intractable in large parts of the world simply because each version of the good should be honoured and yet cannot be honoured. Allowing everyone to articulate their own notions of the good life may be relatively simple; the task of ensuring that groups approach in a spirit of compassion and love other groups with different notions of the good may prove impossible

    The idea that it is our job as responsible citizens to sustain a moral conversation is attractive. But is it fair and just? The public sphere can exclude certain voices and marginalise others. After all, some people can use words like daggers, and others employ the skills of the surefooted polemicist: considered pauses, oratorical flourishes, a touch of satire here, a touch of mockery there, sonorous delivery and above all the killer instinct. Many more lack such ammunition. Who will “win” in the discussion does not need to be spelt out; it is all too painfully obvious.

    Societies are also multilingual( as in case of ours) and this too creates problems for the possibility of deliberation itself. What happens when two languages expressing different understandings encounter each other? Certainly many languages reach out to each other. But some languages acquire hegemony in the domain of civil society and a position to either subdue or to ignore other languages.

    Think, for example, of legal and bureaucratic languages that penetrate civil society but are embedded in the power of the state. Both lay down standards of what vocabularies are acceptable within the public sphere and what are not.

    At the heart of the civil society debate is the question of democratic agency. Can “we the people” lead both markets and states towards societies where compassion and cooperation are governing values? I would like to think so. But if the concept of civil societ” is to play a guiding role in this, then it also needs to take a measure of the downsides and the dark sides of democratic life.


  3. Ramla A. (unregistered) on November 20th, 2006 @ 11:57 pm

    Saima:

    First, think you for sustaining the dialog. Right, wrong, left or right, it is critical that as a nation we learn to speak and exchange ideas. Which is why I think in some ways, and passively, the KMB is doing a great side-service of bringing together people who actively think and talk. The quality of the content is another matter – it requires training and knowledge, not just spontaneous experimentation (i.e. the act of “talking” alone).

    Why not visit and comment on my blog some time? A rich discuss always brings life to a blog, and apparantly we have much knowledge to share. :)
    ++++

    All right I just deleted a mile-long response I wrote. I understand the gamut of problems you have presented, and indeed these “conflicts” and questions baffle the human mind. Personally, I think it’s time that humanity starts drawing conclusions from all the systems it has tested so far. As Einstein said, if we use the old methods, we will reach the old results. I sense that a critical part of humanity is tired of the old ways.

    What I am attempting to do through my work (in progress and unconcluded as it is) is to take a fresh approach towards social issues, ranging from the religious debates to business. I take a macro-view of the situation and see if a variety of schools of thought can be brought together. Micro solutions can then be derived at local levels.

    The Whole-World Thinking is one idea that I am working on.
    And the People-Centered Model of Business takes a holistic view of society’s development – the first 7 pages are relevant. I have put the human at the center of this model. And this model extends beyond business – just one instance where I have applied this model.

    The center of this model is the human – an individual, then a group, then a society – who makes decisions in the light of the beliefs that are held.

    Within this model one can see where the “common points” are. To state it plainly, I believe the common table around which people gather is BELIEF.

    And the action center? Humans themselves.

    Who takes the first step? The one who takes the first step. Always. In school, jobs, life: the one who moves first, moves first. That is why it is in the interest of the society to sustain a generally humane environment, and make sure that the good are active. Another story.

    As Paulo Coelho – and many others – says: “There is no such thing as permission in life.”



Terms of use | Privacy Policy | Content: Creative Commons | Site and Design © 2009 | Metroblogging ® and Metblogs ® are registered trademarks of Bode Media, Inc.