[BITList] Jacob's Jewels.

[John Feltham]

G'day,

Jack Jacob is an old boy of the school that I went to near Darjeeling,  
West Bengal - but long before my time. At one time he was being  
considered for the post of the President of India.



Begin forwarded message:

From: jack jacob <jfrjacob at hotmail.com>
Date: 12 October 2009 9:46:53 AM AEST
To: rajendra dichpally <rajender.dichpally at gmail.com>, john feltman <wulguru.wantok at gmail.com 
 >, warren orourke <warrenorourke at rogers.com>, Email List for Victoria  
and Dow Hill Schools <vsdh at lists.bcn.mythic-beasts.com>, sally stewart  
<karoo4 at bigpond.com>
Subject: FW:



HI..INFO.......JFRJ



From: karanthapar at itvindia.net
To: jfrjacob at hotmail.com
Subject:
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2009 15:23:39 +0530


Jacob’s Jewels

Who’d have ever thought retired army generals spend their time  
trawling the net, discovering the witty or insightful comments of  
others and then circulating them widely to their friends? And  
certainly not generals who’ve played a critical role winning the  
Bangladesh war and then gone on to serve as governors of states like  
Goa and Punjab. But Jack Jacob is definitely one such.

I’m a regular and grateful recipient of Gen. Jacob’s tireless efforts.  
Depending on what strikes his fancy, his wide-ranging output keeps me  
variously informed, amused, appalled and, occasionally, horrified.  
I’ve even based a few television current affairs discussion programmes  
on “research” that he’s sent me.

Today, however, I want to share what he calls “ageless wit and  
observations”.  It’s a collection of pithy comments which the good  
general must have spent a fair deal of time digging out.

First, how has politics and government been viewed down the ages? As  
far back as 430 BC, Pericles had seen the truth: “Just because you do  
not take an interest in politics doesn’t mean politics won’t take an  
interest in you!” By 1764 Voltaire had considerably sharpened his  
focus on the problem: “In general, the art of government consists of  
taking as much money as possible from one party of the citizens to  
give to the other”. A century or so later George Bernard Shaw worked  
out the political logic behind such behaviour: “A government which  
robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul”.

But it was Winston Churchill who ultimately exposed the folly of  
believing that simply by taxing the rich you can make everyone well  
off: “I contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity  
is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by  
the handle”.

The problem is our expectations of government. Ironically, it doesn’t  
only make us secure. It can also make us vulnerable. As Thomas  
Jefferson put it in the 19th century: “A government big enough to give  
you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you  
have”. Ronald Reagan converted his admired predecessor’s aphorism into  
the simple language ordinary citizens can understand: “Government’s  
view of the economy can be summed up in a few short phrases: if it  
moves, tax it; if it keeps moving, regulate it; and if it stops  
moving, subsidize it”.

The solution is a more cautious and less ambitious view of government.  
Keep it slim and limited. Omniscient government can be a monster. As  
P. J. O’Rourke explained: “Giving money and power to government is  
like giving whisky and car keys to teenage boys”. But if cautious  
handling doesn’t work then there is the artist Edward Langley’s  
suggestion: “What this country needs are more unemployed politicians”.

However, Gen. Jacob’s collection of witticisms are not solely targeted  
on politicians or governance. Another favourite subject is the press.  
He’s no admirer of my profession and usually dismisses us as hacks. If  
you ask him what he thinks of newspapers, television and journalists,  
he will quote from Mark Twain: “If you don’t read the newspaper you  
are uninformed, if you do read the newspaper you are misinformed”.

In private conversation he’s a lot sharper. Once, when I was disputing  
a point he’d made and quoted what I considered relevant facts, he shot  
back: “If you’ve got that from a journalist, it’s either exaggerated  
or down right wrong”.

I wonder how many of you agree?







ooroo

Bad typists of the word, untie.




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.bcn.mythic-beasts.com/pipermail/bitlist/attachments/20091012/90dd781e/attachment.shtml