Gmail - Let Calcutta Surprise You - YouTube - sandip.kumar.dasverma@gmail.com:
Interesting art with shadow of fingers.
'via Blog this'
Sunday, April 29, 2012
Monday, April 9, 2012
The Hindu : NATIONAL / NEW DELHI : IIM graduates, IT professionals to play agents of change in Naxal areas
The Hindu : NATIONAL / NEW DELHI : IIM graduates, IT professionals to play agents of change in Naxal areas:
'via Blog this'
IIM graduates, IT professionals to play agents of change in Naxal areas
‘If Maoists attract youth through ideology, Govt. has to counter it in similar way'
As many as 78 districts affected by Maoist menace will soon witness a surge of energy and optimism, with young professionals ready to make a difference. A total of 156 youngsters aged between 22 and 30 will don the mantle of agents of change, working in the Naxal-affected region for two years, in the first batch of the Prime Minister's Rural Development Fellows Scheme (PMRDFS) to be formally launched in Hyderabad on Saturday.
Aim is to win confidence
The aim of the unique scheme is simple. “If the Maoists attract youth through their ideology, then the government has to counter that in a similar way,” Union Rural Development Minister Jairam Ramesh said, speaking to The Hindu earlier this month. As many as 8,600 applications were received for 156 posts, and the applicants ranged from social workers to IIM graduates to IT professionals, Mr. Ramesh said about the project he introduced in 2011.
“The scheme is one way of gaining back the confidence of people in the Naxal areas. It is necessary to create a perception change among the youth,” he said.For the Fellows themselves, this is an opportunity to “be a part of the solution,” as 25-year-old Vishnu Nair states. An engineer from NIT Trichy, Vishnu gave up his job with an MNC in Chicago to return to India.
“Most of the educated youngsters in India today are heavily skilled in solving the problems of the rich or those of the developed countries. I was into risk analytics, and I felt that it was not helping the development of my country in any way. NIT, where I studied, was heavily subsidised by the government, so I felt like I should be giving back to the society.” As Fellows, they will not be part of the ‘permanent bureaucracy' for which the Naxals have contempt. “We will work as goodwill ambassadors, as agents between the government and the people to restore their faith,” said Mr. Nair.
‘Sherpas to Collector'
The role of the Fellows, according to Mr Ramesh, is best described as “sherpas to the District Collector.” They will be placed in the Naxal-affected districts of Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Maharashtra and Odisha covered under the Integrated Action Plan — a project of the Planning Commission and the Home Ministry to intensify development work. “A Collector has a lot of responsibility, and the Fellows, with their experience and training, will help in the development process that includes planning and monitoring,” Mr Ramesh said.
The Ministry is set to spend Rs 60 crore on the scheme, with stipends amounting to Rs. 53 crore and the training cost Rs 6.5 crore.
The Fellows will be paid Rs 50,000 in the initial two months of training to be organised by the Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS), Mumbai, and then Rs 75,000 for the rest of the fellowship period. However, for Neeraja Kudrimoti, like most other Fellows, it is not money but the sense of being part of the development process in the most affected conflict area of the country that matters more.
“Leaving the security of an IT job is a big deal, but there was no sense of contentment working in a cubicle. There was always a sense of ‘what am I doing this for?' This was a great opportunity to contribute and be a part of the change we all hope for, sitting outside,” said the 24-year-old employee of Patni Computer Systems, from Pune.
Integrated planning
Soumita Basu, a development worker with the Azim Premji Foundation, said the fellowship provided an opportunity to participate in integrated planning. “People have lost faith in the development process, and this is one way of restoring that. I would want to contribute to the cultural and social process of bringing the region back on the development agenda.”
Security concern
Asked if security is an issue, Neeraja is honest to admit that it is. The recent Odisha incident in which an MLA was abducted by Maoists has in fact escalated the fears, she said. “I am scared, and I am aware that the government has not really shared a rosy relationship with the Maoists. But facing danger is a part of the journey that we have agreed to take on. Hopefully with the work we do, we will make things easier in the region, and for the next batch. For that, I am willing to take the risk.”
156 youngsters will work in Naxal-affected region for two years
PM's Scheme to be formally launched in Hyderabad today
'via Blog this'
IIT, IIM passouts selected under PM's scheme to spend 2 years assisting collectors in Maoist areas - The Economic Times
IIT, IIM passouts selected under PM's scheme to spend 2 years assisting collectors in Maoist areas - The Economic Times:
'via Blog this'
IIT, IIM passouts selected under PM's scheme to spend 2 years assisting collectors in Maoist areas
NEW DELHI: A bunch of 20-somethings are raring to swap the security of blue-chip firms for the grave hazards lurking beyond the invisible yet palpable thick red line that marks out Maoist-affected areas across the country.
Armed with little more than developmental zeal, these professionals are readying to venture into some of the most dangerous areas in central and eastern India. This is where, for instance, a state government recently agreed to free 27 prisoners to secure the release of an abducted MLA and a foreign national.
The first batch of 156 candidates selected for the Prime Minister's Rural Development Fellows Scheme will spend the next two years assisting district collectors in implementing welfare programmes across 78 worst-affected Maoist districts.
Their deployment, as per the scheme conceptualised by Rural Development Minister Jairam Ramesh last September, will be part of the government's measures to answer critics who have long maintained that Maoism cannot be contained by force alone.
Even as the government grapples with the security threat that the insurgents pose in these districts, the fellows are not scared. "Security is not a big concern for me," says Rajendra Kondepati, who did his BTech in Chemical Engineering from IIT-Madras before going in for a post-graduate degree in public policy from Singapore.
"It is perceived to be very dangerous, and possibly is, but there is still the district administration," says the 28-year-old, focusing on the opportunities more than the threats.
"Unlike administrative services that are extremely rigid, the fellowship promises a range of possibilities. Even compared to the private sector, as far as general management experience is concerned, this will equip us with much better skills."
District collectors, who handle everything from general administration and finance to security and development, feel that the fellows can help devise better ways to evaluate and monitor welfare schemes.
MONTHLY PAY OF RS 65,000
"Our job is too large and we have limited workforce available to us. These young boys and girls will have better perspectives and they will help us utilise modern technology to make implementation and monitoring of these schemes more efficient," said a collector who did not wish to be named, adding, "Ensuring the security of these fellows will be our responsibility."
Like Kondepati, most of the other fellows hail from premier institutions such as the Indian Institute of Technology, Indian Institute of Management and the Tata Institute of Social Sciences. They have given up jobs with companies such as Infosys, Wipro and Patni to be a part of this one-of-a-kind programme in the country.
The ministry received a whopping 8,560 applications in the introductory year for the fellowship scheme that will provide a monthly remuneration of Rs 65,000. "The aim was to get professional, out-of-the-box thinkers into the Naxalaffected districts so as to make development initiatives work," Ramesh told ET.
"In one sentence, these people will act as sherpas for the collectors," the minister said, adding, "This is also the first large-scale entry of professionals into government activity." The fellowship awards will be officially announced and conferred by Ramesh and Planning Commission Deputy Chairman Montek Singh Ahluwaliain Hyderabad on April 7.
'via Blog this'
Monday, April 2, 2012
Republicans Tampered With Court Audio in Obama Attack Ad
Republicans Tampered With Court Audio in Obama Attack Ad
31 March 12
Republican Party Internet advertisement altered the audio of U.S. Supreme Court (1000L) oral arguments in an attack on President Barack Obama's health-care law.
In a web ad circulated this week, the Republican National Committee excerpts the opening seconds of the March 27 presentation by Obama's top Supreme Court lawyer, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli. In the ad, he is heard struggling for words and twice stopping to drink water.
"Obamacare," the ad concludes, in words shown against a photograph of the high court. "It's a tough sell."
A review of a transcript and recordings of those moments shows that Verrilli took a sip of water just once, paused for a much briefer period and completed his thought - rather than stuttering and trailing off as heard in the edited version.
The ad marks a blurring of the line between the law and politics, in which the nation's highest court - and the justices and lawyers who decide and argue cases - are becoming fodder for Republicans' and Democrats' arguments over the validity of the president's signature domestic legislative achievement.
RNC Communications Director Sean Spicer said the video was a "mash-up," condensing and splicing together several separate pauses and stutters by Verrilli during the first two minutes of his argument, produced to illustrate how much difficulty he had defending the health-care law.
Multiple Clips
"Are there multiple clips in that video? Yes," Spicer said. "The point was that he continually had to stop because he was having trouble making the case for why Obamacare was valid."
The Democratic National Committee declined to comment. Obama's re-election campaign also said it wouldn't respond to a query dealing with a matter currently before the Supreme Court. White House spokesman Jay Carney told reporters yesterday that Obama was "pleased" with the presentation Verrilli made, which was criticized by Supreme Court watchers and some media outlets.
Tracy Schmaler, a spokeswoman for the Justice Department, which includes the solicitor general's office, declined to comment.
The RNC said Verrilli's halting performance is evidence that the 2010 law he is arguing to uphold is invalid.
Less Water, Shorter Pauses
"It seems that Obama's lawyer hit a bit of a snag trying to defend the constitutionality of Obama'shealth-care takeover," the RNC said in a statement accompanying the ad. "Maybe he's beginning to realize something the American people already know: It's hard to defend a law that is indefensible."
Recordings of the court proceedings reviewed by Bloomberg News reveal that the audio has been edited. While Verrilli paused once to drink water during the opening moments of his presentation, he stopped talking for only a few seconds before continuing with his argument. In the RNC ad, he pauses for about 20 seconds, coughs, sips water and stutters.
In the RNC's transcript of its ad, it quotes Verrilli as follows: "For more than 80 percent of Americans, the ah insurance system does provide effective access [pause]. Excuse me. Ah [cough] it ah be-be because the ah the ah the [pause]. Excuse me."
Finishing His Thought
In the actual proceedings, Verrilli finished his thought. "For more than 80 percent of Americans, the, ah, insurance system does provide effective access," Verrilli says, pausing briefly and saying, "Excuse me. But for more than 40 million who do not have access to health insurance, either through their employer or through government programs such as Medicare or Medicaid, the system does not work."
While such unflattering editing isn't unusual for a political campaign advertisement, it is atypical in the legal world.
"Unbelievable," said Walter Dellinger, who served as solicitor general under Democratic President Bill Clinton. "It's a dramatic instance of the politicization that has surrounded this challenge, and totally unfair to one of the most widely admired lawyers in public service."
Peter Keisler, a former Republican federal judicial nominee, said the ad could set back efforts to open the court - which does not allow its proceedings to be televised, videotaped, or recorded by the media or spectators - to camera coverage.
'Selective and Misleading'
"The selective and misleading editing of a Supreme Court argument to make a political point is going to confirm the worst fears of those who oppose cameras in the court," said Keisler, a partner at Sidley Austin LLP in Washington, who served as acting attorney general and was nominated to the U.S. Court of Appealsin Washington by former President George W. Bush.
The RNC ad wouldn't have been possible a dozen years ago - at least not this quickly. Before 2000, the court didn't make its audio recordings available until the beginning of its next term; in this case that would have been in October.
Starting with the 2000 Bush v. Gore ruling, which halted the Florida presidential voting recount and made Republican George W. Bush the winner, the court began releasing its recordings in select cases at the end of the day.
Timothy R. Johnson, a University of Minnesota political science professor who researches and writes about Supreme Court arguments and decision-making, said the ad is the first to use the Supreme Court's audio recordings.
'Worst Nightmare'
"This ad is the justices' worst nightmare," he said. "It's the reason why they don't want cameras in the court."
Spicer said the RNC is proud of the video and the attention it has generated.
"Is it novel? Are we ahead of the curve at the RNC? I hope so," Spicer said.
He said the Republican Party would continue to mine the Supreme Court case for material that can be used in its political attacks on the Obama health-care measure.
"The issue of Obamacare will unequivocally be a major issue for this campaign," Spicer said. "If there are great pieces of the written opinion that talk about what an unbelievable takeover of our health-care system and our economy this has been, I strongly suspect we will use it."
Legal specialists across the ideological spectrum said they expect the health-care case and others dealing with such issues as immigration to figure in the presidential campaign.
"We can be pretty confident no one is going to vote for or against Obama based on how good or bad his solicitor general is at arguing, but the bigger question of Obamacare's constitutionality certainly will play out in the campaign," said Curt Levey, executive director of the Republican-aligned Committee for Justice.
"The attention to this argument and this case around the Affordable Care Act is emblematic of the fact that courts matter," said Marge Baker, executive vice president for Policy and Program at the Democratic-aligned People for the American Way in Washington. "No matter how this particular case comes out, it's very clear that voters understand that."
Olbermann's Angry Email Trail
Olbermann's Angry Email Trail
02 April 12
His bitter divorce from Al Gore's network followed months of escalating complaints to Current TV executives. Howard Kurtz unearths the acrimonious correspondence.
t was a terrible marriage from the beginning.
Just weeks after Keith Olbermann launched his nightly program on Current TV last June, his team was complaining that the network founded by Al Gore and attorney Joel Hyatt wasn't living up to its promises to support a professional cable news show.
The arguments escalated for months, with Olbermann directly appealing to the former vice president on three or four occasions, until relations had become so poisoned that, on Friday, Current fired Olbermann for breach of contract. He has vowed to take the matter to court and questioned the ethics of Gore and Hyatt.
Some of the disputes are fundamental - such as missing days of work - and some sound petty, but they add up to a portrait of a dysfunctional alliance that was doomed from the start. Where Current management viewed Olbermann as a chronic complainer who had clashed with the bosses before leaving his previous jobs at MSNBC and ESPN, the liberal commentator came to believe that he had joined a rinky-dink operation, even if the channel was committed to paying him $50 million over five years.
On Aug. 2, 2011, according to emails reviewed by The Daily Beast, Olbermann's manager, Michael Price, sent Hyatt a list of about 40 "deficiencies" that needed to be corrected. Six days later, Price told Hyatt that the problems required "immediate attention" and that "we are not aware of any demonstrable effort to address the issues."
One of management's complaints was that Olbermann would not participate in some press and marketing events, even though he was contractually obligated to promote the network. Executives grew upset when Olbermann balked at touting the programming that followed his 8 p.m. show, Countdown. In the email, Price explained that reluctance by saying the host was being given wrong information about what was to air. It was "inexcusable," he wrote, to repeatedly have Olbermann "identify incorrect programming following Countdown. If people cannot trust him to correctly identify the programming, his credibility on larger matters comes into question."
What's more, he said, Olbermann was told to identify New York Times columnist Paul Krugman on the air as a Countdown contributor when it turned out he was not. The email asked for "demonstrable efforts" that these problems were being fixed.
Hyatt responded that day, saying that David Bohrman, a CNN executive who had just been hired as Current's president, would be on the case. "We not only take the issues seriously, but we hired David to assure that any problems with Countdown are dealt with expeditiously and expertly," Hyatt wrote. Bohrman, he said, has the experience to "assure the quality of Current's ability to support Countdown."
On Sept. 21, Bohrman wrote to Olbermann and Price, saying he would move "quickly" to resolve the problems at the Manhattan studio that were making Countdown a "less than high-class production." He promised to hire a full-time publicist and said "we will get done almost all the things you need and have been asking for."
Despite the conciliatory tone, Olbermann's team was not satisfied. Countdown had been "a daily logistical nightmare dating back to the very first rehearsals," Price wrote back. The response showed "how completely out of touch you and Current management are with the realities of producing a first-rate show." Viewers were even complaining that they couldn't record the show because of incorrect settings being provided for DVR machines. The whole atmosphere "more closely resembles cable access than that of a cable news show," and the problems were "causing low ratings ... The show's production values have actually gotten worse, not better."
Olbermann never came close to the more than 1 million viewers he had averaged at MSNBC, but his Current show was drawing more than 100,000 in the prized 25-to-54 age group last summer - and that gradually dwindled to 30,000.
Neither side would comment because of the likely litigation, but sources familiar with the situation provided further details of what amounted to a slow-motion divorce.
What is clear from the correspondence is that the relationship was dissolving amid a flurry of mutual recriminations. Gore had welcomed Olbermann as the new face of a little-watched network, anointing him chief news officer and giving him an equity stake in the operation. Gore had dealt with big egos in politics, but he and Hyatt told colleagues they had never dealt with anyone quite like Olbermann. On the few occasions when Olbermann wrote to Gore, the onetime presidential candidate sent back polite but vague notes that essentially referred the questions to Hyatt.
Current spent $250,000 on the problem-plagued New York studio that Olbermann helped design. But good intentions aside, the production problems were quite real. On Feb. 10, the lighting failed while Olbermann was on the air, and not for the first time, prompting more correspondence. Three weeks ago, Olbermann's team sounded out of patience. "David, once again Current's technical breakdowns have had a negative impact on Countdown," Price wrote Bohrman on March 8. "We have pleaded with you to focus on the studio and the constant technical failures that diminish the program and turn away the viewership."
The previous night, the email noted, "while Keith was in mid-sentence, the show cut away from him to a promo for the War Room," the new show hosted by former Michigan governor Jennifer Granholm. The situation was "wholly unacceptable ... This diminishes the ratings of Current's most successful show and proves to viewers that Current need not be taken seriously." Bohrman responded within 90 minutes, saying he had been on the phone with the control room as soon as the cameras cut away from Olbermann and that supervisors "insist it will not happen again ... We will stay on them."
But the clock was running out.
The principal beef of Current executives is that the highly paid Olbermann often didn't show up for work, missing 19 of 41 days in January and February. But no one has suggested that he wasn't contractually entitled to that time as vacation and sick days.
The host's absence was especially noticeable on the nights of the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary, when he was asked to anchor the channel's coverage. Olbermann felt the technical glitches plaguing his program cast doubt on the feasibility of live election coverage. According to people familiar with the correspondence, Current executives were exasperated when, on Feb. 27, Price wrote that "Keith is planning to take vacation days," including on March 5 - the day before Super Tuesday. This would become a major flash point between the two sides - indeed, it would lead to a legal threat - when Current insisted that he show up.
Bohrman wrote Price the next night that the network needed Olbermann on the air just before the biggest night of the presidential primary season - and if not, Current would probably preempt Countdown. He added that he was disappointed that Countdown was airing a three-hour-old taped show at that very moment, with Mitt Romney winning the Michigan primary - and that this was a "bad choice."
Things went downhill from there. After Borman insisted that Olbermann work March 5, Price said he was being highly unprofessional. He wrote that Current had failed to provide a list of acceptable guest hosts (except for Eliot Spitzer, who was unavailable). They would not stand for preempting Countdown or allowing an unapproved guest host, Price said, and "ultimately a jury" might have to decide whether replacing Countdown that night was a breach of contract.
From Olbermann's perspective, this was a period when he was battling a throat infection, and he was concerned that being on the air March 5 might cause him to lose his voice during three hours of live coverage the next evening. In fact, he was so concerned about his voice that he all but stopped speaking when he wasn't on the air, forcing those around him to communicate with him by email.
After Olbermann both anchored and produced the Super Tuesday coverage, his team took it as a small victory when Bohrman emailed an interim producer: "Looked really good. Thanks."
But the damage had been done. By month's end, Olbermann would be replaced by Spitzer, who resigned as New York governor after a prostitution scandal and lost his short-lived CNN show last year.
The impasse went well beyond his attendance record. Current officials were rankled that on the nights that he was off, Olbermann wouldn't allow his staffers to promote Countdown or its guest hosts, even through Twitter updates. (Olbermann did plenty of promotional tweets when he was anchoring.)
Even the subject of internal communications was contentious. Some at Current were miffed when Olbermann refused to talk to certain executives except through his lawyer or agent; his team believed they were following procedures set down by Hyatt.
No issue was too small to precipitate a fight. A continuous argument over which car service would ferry Olbermann, who doesn't drive, was emblematic of the deteriorating situation. Olbermann wound up using eight different car services, finding fault with each one, sometimes objecting when drivers talked to him.
His side has depicted this as a budgetary problem. Price warned in a memo last summer that his team was hearing "from vendors that Current has fallen into arrears," creating problems with delayed or nonexistent payments. The network counters that other employees continued to use the hired cars without incident.
Olbermann, of course, is no stranger to contentious departures, having left MSNBC twice (most recently 14 months ago) as well as ESPN under bitter circumstances. But the Current deal was supposed to be different because it was a self-proclaimed liberal channel and not a major corporation, with Olbermann granted a leading management role.
The lawyers will have to sort out the charges and countercharges, but it is hard to argue, given Olbermann's high-profile role at the network, that the breakup is making either side look good.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)