I do not know about the rest of you but certain phrases and statements just amuse me. We tend to hear them very often and repeat them in front of others to impress them with our skills and command over current events. Take the term ‘civil society’ for example. At least in this flawed scribe’s opinion it is funny to call a society a ‘civil society’. For giggles, a society is supposed to be civil to begin with. A society is comprised of people who follow the rules of that society to begin with, hence by default those people are supposed to be civil. Any others who fail to conform to those standards are either uncivil or, in the extreme case, outlaws. I remember hearing and reading this term a lot in 2007, when so-called ‘defining events’ were taking place back home. My reference here is to the sacking of the former Chief Justice (CJ) Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry by former President Pervez Musharraf. The media giant back in those days was busy projecting and promoting the former CJ and his highly political campaign of totally ‘non-political matters’. Even as one of the staunchest critics of Mr Musharraf, I was, am and will remain of this unpopular yet personal opinion that Mr Musharraf did one thing right and it was his act of March 2007. I know I will be highly criticised for this statement but so be it. I welcome any such criticism and strongly believe that history will prove that, despite its ugly outcome, the initial move of March 2007 was right. It was one individual who was removed but somehow it became an attack on the entire institution. There was some amazing spin and we all know who was busy fanning this entire campaign but, as they say, sometimes luck has to play a hand and perhaps Musharraf’s stars were about to fade. The term ‘civil society’ was used and overused. Call it whatever but back then I enjoyed that show as well. It would have earned my unyielding respect and support had that so-called movement for judicial independence been launched in October 1999. Anything after that was not based on any high moral ground but purely personal reasons. If this clichéd term implies the existence of ‘non-military’ members of society, then that would give a whole new dimension to this term. Enough said on this; now let us move on to the next one. I smile when people tell me that the media is the fourth pillar of the state. I ask: since when? The three pillars of the state are the executive, legislative and judicial branches. The first two are elected by the people and the last one is appointed typically by the executive. The media, whether print or electronic, is never elected nor appointed. It is a business and should always be treated as such. The media is more of a collective mirror to society. Through the media, the public tends to constantly judge, criticise, reform and correct the actual pillars of the government. The media, at all times, should be neutral, unbiased and forthright about its responsibility towards society. It cannot act like the imaginary fourth pillar of the state because, like your personal mirror at home that shows your face the way it appears at various stages during the day, it shows the reflection of the entire society. The argument that it is the moral compass of society is a bit overrated too. The mirror has no responsibility other than providing the reflection of your face. Much like that mirror, the media only provides a reflection and that is about it. From thereon it is up to society to correct itself. Those corrections can come through the legislative branches of the government, in a situation where legislation is extremely necessary. The benefits of the legislation outweigh the cost and are applicable to all members of society, regardless of their personal, religious or political beliefs. Do not forget that the media is a business as well. It derives its revenues through commercial advertising and programmes. It has a vested interest in increasing viewership to claim a viable medium for the advertisers. Hence, with its entrenched economic interests, it can never pretend to be doing a so-called ‘social or moral service’. A business only has one interest, to maximise revenues and profits. That is the fact and anything else that is fed on the airwaves to fool the common folk is nothing but hogwash.Last but not least, let us touch on a very emotional yet real issue. I hear a lot of idiots peddling the relationship between love for the armed forces and its spook agency with patriotism. This is so absurd that it requires no clarification. Here in the US, millions (including this scribe), disagreed with the US’s invasion of Iraq. All of us made our views very vocal at any and every public forum. Now does that mean that people who disagreed with that move were traitors? The armed forces of most civilised countries serve voluntarily. In most civilised countries, the armed forces take their cue from the executive branch of the government. While a nation owes a debt of gratitude to its soldiers, this certainly does not mean that uniformed men and women are more patriotic than the civilians. The only time such a claim holds any merit is if the uniformed men and women serve pro bono. Until then their peddlers and handlers should take all those certificates of patriotism to the nearest recycling bins or shredders. The writer is a Pakistani-American mortgage banker. He blogs at http://dasghar.blogspot.com and can be reached at dasghar@aol.com. He tweets at http://twitter.com/dasghar