tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4300823739374341842024-02-21T16:34:20.737+05:30Reddie Reasons.Khartoumhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10463800175526988857noreply@blogger.comBlogger93125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-430082373937434184.post-14595705848985401012012-06-17T03:44:00.002+05:302012-06-17T03:44:30.410+05:30Hear Me Ranting ...<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Living in the US for a year now, I feel as if I am stuck in between two worlds. People have asked me how different America is from India ... and my responses to moving halfway across the world. It's very different, even if you are the sort of kid who grew up with classic rock and tons of western influences. This post has caught me in a particularly emotional moment.<br />
<br />
Anyway, what's different? There are tons of concerts here, to witness the American spirit, you must visit a sporting event. The commentator will go, "Who wants ice-cream?"" and the whole stadium will yell and scream, like little kids, that they would love ice-cream. People are free. Happy.<br />
<br />
But this post is not about America, it's about me. I usually find myself looking at the news in India and in the US at the same time. I look at the news in India first though. It is weird. I didn't care much for the news in India when I was home, but now it seems to be a big deal. I have closely followed the devaluing of the rupee. I know now that Congress stands for bureaucracy after watching the millions of scams in the Center and my own state -- Andhra Pradesh -- just look at the Chief Minister's son, Jagan, the richest kid on the block. The BJP, I am not sure yet. I think they stand for something like more economic reform and swifter action as opposed to Congress, but want to curtail our political freedoms (no short dresses for women, and obviously no kissing on the street ... duh). I think I am finally old and mature enough to start to see trends around me.<br />
<br />
For example, the mind-body dichotomy in politics. One party wants economic freedom but wants to curtail our political freedoms. (BJP, Republicans) The other is "progressive" and "liberal" on the political front (respect for privacy, etc) but will not think twice in implementing a million welfare schemes. (Democrats and Congress) One party wants to control the mind, the other wants to control the body.<br />
<br />
I think my greatest asset that I take away from studying in the US, regardless of whether I live here after I graduate or not, is contrast. I am seeing a society that quite literally works. Traffic is organized. It's the best law education I have ever had -- no question. They have a healthy political debate in the country about all the relevant issues. For instance, I could switch on the TV in India, tune into the news and feel complete indifference at the kind of stuff I see on TV. A Member of Parliament gets into a fight with a schoolteacher. Like dude, what the fuck are you doing? You're on TV for gods sake.<br />
<br />
Here, they know the basic issue -- capitalism v. socialism -- in one form or another -- conservatives v. liberals, the Tea Party movement v. The Occupy Wall Street Movement, pro-choice v. pro-life and so on.<br />
<br />
In India, people are simply utterly ignorant of the the relevant issues. From where I come from, there's a fight for a separate state, Telangana. Why? Well, one part of the state has more government schools, more government jobs, more government investment, and a million other government paid projects. Now they are fighting over the loot each of the participants wants. How do we resolve this? Put on a committee -- they will figure it out, somehow. How about rolling the government back? Huh?<br />
<br />
Or take corruption. They now want a super committee that regulates other committees. If having a million committees created the problem of corruption to begin with, how could more of the same be a solution to the problem? If the Anti-Corruption Bureau didn't solve the problem, why would a new Anna Hazare committee solve the problem. How about banishing government from all human affairs? Huh? Are you a crazy communist or something? A communist -- really, you fuckking idiot?<br />
<br />
I just read an article where a social activist in India was thrown into jail for making a pitch against the government. He kept a journal in prison. If you have the stomach, you can read all of its morbid details <a href="http://www.openthemagazine.com/article/nation/prison-diaries">here</a>. That was my emotional moment. Grassroot activists here are protected by the law regardless of how "extreme" their position is. They are not molested and beaten by the cops. Ultimately, given my passion for Objectivism, activism, and cultural change, the fact that such incidents happen in India may tilt the balance for me to continue living in the States. I don't want to go to jail, get raped, and live the worst life possible fighting for a better world. I have 60 more years perhaps, and I am going to make the best life possible to me.<br />
<br />
In any case, I have probably broken all the rules of writing I set for myself. Never write without setting a theme. Never write without an outline. Never publish without doing three layers of editing on each level -- for structure, paragraph, and editing it line by line. It's my space after all, and if writing casually gets me going, then so be it.<br />
<br />
Here is a comment I left on facebook, on the piece about the journal the activist kept while he was in prison.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="background-color: #edeff4; color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; line-height: 14px;">It's an extremely dangerous job ... being an activist in India. Especially the kind that are anti-government as opposed to groups for the environment or animal rights and stuff like that. </span><br style="background-color: #edeff4; color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; line-height: 14px;" /><br style="background-color: #edeff4; color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; line-height: 14px;" /><span style="background-color: #edeff4; color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; line-height: 14px;">In a country where non-objective law knows no bou</span><span class="text_exposed_show" style="background-color: #edeff4; color: #333333; display: inline; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; line-height: 14px;">nds, where laws are so out-of-touch with harsh procedural realities in remote villages and towns, where freedom of speech is disposable at a second's notice, and where human life is dirt cheap, one is exposing oneself to mortal risks by speaking up against injustices perpetrated by the government.<br /><br />Objectivism is anti-government given the scope of government today. It can so easily be misrepresented and caricaturized as Naxalism or Maoism and whatnot by putting the activist in the worst of situations any accused could potentially face – an unsympathetic, unpatriotic communist terrorist.<br /><br />Practically speaking, if one wants to be an activist in India – especially for Objectivism – such incidents tell me a couple of things. Activism should perhaps be limited to nicer looking, urban circles which could – could—preclude something horrible like this from happening.<br /><br />In contrast, imagine if one started a college newspaper in India, like The Undercurrent in the US, which provided commentary to students on the political climate of the country. Obviously, this would require that such a paper be published in local languages that the student is able to read. Most colleges are not in the cities, they are spread across many towns and districts where the policemen state what the law is. I think it would be extremely dangerous to engage in such grassroot activism in India.<br /><br />Your viewpoint will be twisted, you could be harassed, beaten, sexually assaulted (god forbid you the activist are a woman), and you will be left with no recourse to the law. I hope it’s not as bad as it sounds, but there is no getting around reports of such horrible incidents.</span>
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 11px; line-height: 14px;"><br /></span></span></div>
</div>Khartoumhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10463800175526988857noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-430082373937434184.post-3959956035144058252011-05-04T10:55:00.009+05:302011-05-04T17:16:24.501+05:30Argh!This completely pissed me off. How much more dubious can it get? Really?<br /><br />Report one: <a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics/nation/pakistan-has-lost-dignity-self-esteem-following-us-osama-operation-imran-khan/articleshow/8157779.cms">Imran Khan has begun </a>his rant about there being no evidence that Pakistan was harbouring Osama Bin Laden:<br /><br /><br /><div align="center"></div><br /><div align="center">"There is no answer to these questions and this simply allows allegations from the West and from India to go unchallenged that Pakistan has been protecting Bin Laden and other terrorists; that Pakistan knew he was here and kept him safe" </div><br /><p>Report two: John O. Brennan, a senior counterterrorism official, said it was highly unlikely that Pakistan was not aware of Osama's presence in the country:<br /></p><br /><p align="center">On Monday, <a href="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/US-to-probe-if-Pakistan-helped-Qaida-chief/articleshow/8156286.cms">Brennan suggested </a>that the US would go further than just letting Pakistan ask those questions. He said it was "inconceivable" that bin Laden did not have a support network inside of Pakistan, though he stopped short of suggesting that the network involved government officials. "We are going to pursue all leads to find out exactly what type of support system and benefactors that bin Laden might have had," Brennan said. </p>Khartoumhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10463800175526988857noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-430082373937434184.post-82378243894204477312011-01-28T01:12:00.004+05:302011-01-28T01:27:47.147+05:30Scholarships!Did I tell YOU that I have received TWO (!) scholarships from the adorable, generous, smashing, swell, the all-merciful ;) <a href="http://www.cgkfoundation.org/">Charles. G. Koch Foundation </a>to take Market Process Economics I and II from National University? Did I also tell YOU that I am also having an orgasm just thinking about the wonderful time I would have?<br /><br />Oh yeah my lovely, lovely reader -- its all true! Enuff' said!Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-430082373937434184.post-37280369653072877382011-01-27T18:34:00.011+05:302011-01-28T13:08:32.738+05:30My Thoughts on Determinism and Free will.<p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><span class="Apple-style-span">I think the debate about free will as generally portrayed is a false alternative.<?xml:namespace prefix = o /><o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><span class="Apple-style-span"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><span class="Apple-style-span"><br /></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span style="font-size:0;"></span>On one hand, the determinists pretend to act as the defenders of science by attributing cause and effect to man's actions. They argue that all effects have causes and in order to be scientific about the whole issue, man's choices have to determined by antecedent causes and that they are determined by one's environment or one's genes.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><span class="Apple-style-span"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><span class="Apple-style-span"><br /></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><span class="Apple-style-span">On the other hand, the indeterminists argue that man's actions have no causes and that there is no reason that explains why a man acts in a particular fashion. Such a view of the debate leads one to think that man is either determined or that he is a freak.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><span class="Apple-style-span"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><span class="Apple-style-span"><br /></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><span class="Apple-style-span">I think this where Ayn Rand stands up and makes herself counted by not getting boxed into any of these </span><span class="Apple-style-span">alternatives. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><span class="Apple-style-span"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><span class="Apple-style-span"><br /></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><span class="Apple-style-span">Before she addresses the question of determinism or indeterminism, she first looks at the facts. Each of us face a fundamental choice even before one starts thinking about any issue (including the issue of determinism versus free will): the choice to focus or not. Focus doesn’t mean thinking. As Peikoff puts it, it is the "readiness to think". The choice to focus, however, requires effort -- every single time one chooses to activate one's equipment. It requires effort to start up the machinery and sustain it through out any thought process however long or short. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><span class="Apple-style-span"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><span class="Apple-style-span"><br /></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><span class="Apple-style-span">One can easily contrast such a phenomena from the phenomena of mental drift (where one may be reading a lengthy passage and not remember what was said in the preceding paragraphs) or from the phenomena of outright evasion (where one is required to think of some urgent, uncomfortable, pressing matter but puts it off actively by thinking of something less discomforting). </span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><span class="Apple-style-span"></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><span class="Apple-style-span"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><span class="Apple-style-span"><o:p></o:p></span> </p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><span class="Apple-style-span"><o:p></o:p></span> </p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><span class="Apple-style-span"><o:p>Once the primary choice is made, secondary choices readily follow. For instance, one may choose to activate one's equipment by focusing in a computer shop (primary choice). A person may then prefer to buy a Dell instead of Apple after giving thought to various considerations he might have on his mind (a secondary choice). </o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><span class="Apple-style-span"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><span class="Apple-style-span"><br /></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><span class="Apple-style-span">In order to unpack the debate on determinism, it is crucial to distinguish between the primary choice and the secondary choice. Given man’s metaphysical nature, the only thing <strong>necessitated</strong> by his nature that at every moment of his life is that he has the primary choice to think or not to do so. The content of the secondary choices which is made after the primary choice however, is not determined or neccessitated in the same way as the primary choice is. </span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><span class="Apple-style-span"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><span class="Apple-style-span"></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><span class="Apple-style-span"></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><span class="Apple-style-span"><br /></span><span class="Apple-style-span">Although one can ask why one preferred a Dell instead of Apple (a secondary choice), one cannot ask such a question about the primary choice itself. One cannot ask what antecedent factors neccessitated one to be in focus and expend effort. A person chose to be in focus because he wanted to be aware of reality or if a person was partially in focus, it was because he wanted to be partially aware of reality. Even though one accepts a reality oriented approach to life, the choice to focus can neither become automatic (my daily temptation to procrastinate is proof of it) nor can it become neccesitated by antecedent factors. Activating my faculty of thought is an act of <strong>choice</strong> and requires effort each time. </span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><span class="Apple-style-span"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><span class="Apple-style-span"><br /></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span style="font-size:0;"></span>The debate about free-will should not be a debate about CONTENT, like something versus something else, but should be a debate about PROCESS, like a choice between something being activated and nothing being activated. Put another way, given human nature, the primary <b>choice</b> to think or not is NECCESITATED by antecedent factors (his nature), but the content of the secondary choices itself (whether to buy a Dell or an Apple) is not determined by prior causes.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><span class="Apple-style-span"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><span class="Apple-style-span"><br /></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><span class="Apple-style-span">Free-will is an axiom and therefore any determinist who tries refuting it has to fall into the same trap : reaffirming free will by denying it. When a determinist argues that determinism gives an accurate account of man, what he really means is that he has followed the evidence wherever it has taken him. On the basis of his thinking and evaluation, he beleives he is correct. But how are we to know that his position wasn’t necessitated or pre-determined by factors unknown to him (in his environment or his genes) which only give him the illusion that he has followed the evidence conscientiously? His adjudication of the matter then, however scrupulous, would be irrelevant. </span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"> </p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt">Update: Minor edits<span style="font-size:0;"><br /></span><span style="font-size:0;"><span class="Apple-style-span">.</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:11;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="font-family:'Calibri','sans-serif';font-size:11;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-430082373937434184.post-2562399147111047252010-07-16T14:49:00.002+05:302010-07-16T14:59:59.496+05:30The Ambani’s Fiasco<span xmlns=''><p>After six years, the dust has finally settled between the <a href='http://way2online.com/?p=54999'>warring multi-billion dollar Ambani brothers</a>. Owing to their differences, the empire had been split into two with a scheme of demerger. Agreements were drawn between both the brothers that elder Mukesh Ambani could take control of the gas sector provided the younger Anil Ambani was given a fixed quantity of gas produced from the Krishna Godavari basin on previously agreed rates. <br /></p><p>Everything seemed to go as planned until a <a href='http://business.rediff.com/slide-show/2010/may/07/slide-show-1-sc-to-announce-ril-rnrl-gas-dispute-verdict-today.htm'>committee led by the Finance Minister</a> nullified the contract between the brothers since the price of hydrocarbons had shot up. The justification advanced by everybody supporting the move including the <a href='http://blog.taragana.com/law/2010/05/07/murli-deora-welcomes-supreme-courts-verdict-on-krishna-godavari-basin-gas-dispute-22006/'>Indian Supreme Court</a> is that natural resources belong to the people of the country and therefore the State has the right to regulate the price at which the gas would be sold. <br /></p><p>Much debate has centered on the scheme of demerger between the brothers and a million other factors but the one percept deemed blasphemous to question in public policy debates is the notion that natural resources somehow belong to the people. Even critics of the government policy debate only how much government intervention is permissible but the governments' right to offshore property is considered self-evident. As <a href='http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/I-am-disgusted-with-fight-between-Ambanis-Deora/492160/'>Murli Deora, the Petroleum Minister commented</a>, "I am appalled and disgusted at how these two brothers are fighting over something that belongs to the government and the people of India." <br /></p><p>But does it?<br /></p><p>Any natural resource belongs to individuals who have put in the necessary thought and effort to harness the otherwise unusable material lying in remote, inaccessible corners of the sea. Without the complex technical know-how of scientists or innovators and the courage of entrepreneurs to risk large sums of money in exploration and extraction, there is no potential resource itself, let alone the gas which we use to enrich our own lives. Consider oil. Before men understood how to process oil, oil fields far from being perceived as a boon, were looked upon as menace where one could neither inhabit nor cultivate. However, the ingenuity and labor of pioneers transformed a seemingly annoying liquid and a menacing natural "resource" to products that are used for human benefit. <br /></p><p>Recognizing such facts, innovators should straightaway own the lands off shore where they have taken the pains to unlock a resources' potential with the help of astounding technical achievements and effort. As John Locke noted, it is only one's labor in a thing that "excludes the common right of other Men". However, such Lockean notions of property and ownership are lost out on today's socialist mentality. <br /></p><p>Consider Production Sharing Contracts.<br /></p><p><a href='http://www.rulg.com/documents/The_Concept_of_Production_Sharing.htm'>Production Sharing Contracts</a> are contracts whereby the State reduces producers to mere contractors who invest their own funds into exploration, extraction and processing of any mineral or gas. If such an investment turns out to be a good one, the State acquires a substantial part of the end product (hence the name Production Sharing Contract) and compensates the producer by allotting him a part of the end product he made possible. Even from the minor share allotted to the producer, the government dictates to what sectors and at what price the gas may be sold. In other words, the right of ownership of the usable product is retained by the customer (the government) and the contractor is compensated by taking a part of the end product. <br /></p><p>Morally, such horrible policies are based on the assumption that a businessman has a "duty" to give back to the society what he has taken in terms of natural resources. However, resources don't <em>belong </em>to any collection of individuals since none of them have put in an iota of effort to make it usable for human purposes. More importantly, one does not merely discover his wealth readymade at the bottom of the sea; one has to <em>make </em>it by investing decades of thought backed up by action to develop enough knowhow to tap the otherwise useless material resource. <br /></p><p>Legally, such policies are based on the assumption that the government holds all natural resources in trust and that they should reach the "ultimate consumer" in each sector of the economy deemed important by the government. However, if consumers can claim a right over the products created – not merely discovered -- by entrepreneurs, it means that the entrepreneurs are deprived of rights and condemned to slave labor. Ironically, the beneficiaries of the trust don't include producers because it doesn't recognize their right to rightfully trade the resources they have toiled to tap. <br /></p><p>Although Courts can legitimately decide how to manage private property issues arising from off-shore land, policies such as the PSC's must be opposed since they are -- on principle -- hostile to the institution of private property itself. <br /></p></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-430082373937434184.post-92115666918079945692009-10-12T19:38:00.004+05:302009-10-12T22:15:27.205+05:30Crazy Signage.These crazy signs on from all around the world are sure to crack you up. My personal favorite: WARNING Trespassers will be prostituted. Hehe.<br /><br />Check em' out <a href="http://www.darkroastedblend.com/2009/09/hilarious-and-crazy-signage-part-13.html">here</a>!Unknownnoreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-430082373937434184.post-81320492257393984412009-10-06T21:40:00.001+05:302009-10-06T21:43:46.043+05:30Paul Van Dyk - Nothing but you (Cirrus Mix).I've never really been a fan of trans music but this one by Paul Van Dyk has an awesome tune.<div><br /></div><div>Enjoy!</div><div><br /></div><div><object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/1RnIKQwXvP8&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/1RnIKQwXvP8&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-430082373937434184.post-87050013897917233332009-10-02T22:25:00.002+05:302009-10-04T13:41:46.520+05:30S.L. Kirloskar on Mahatma Gandhi<span xmlns=""><p><span style="font-family:Arial;">Last night, as I was reading some of the blogs I follow, I found <a href="http://aynrandindia.blogspot.com/2009/09/s-l-kirloskar-true-maverick.html">this fascinating account</a> of India's history by one of first few entrepreneurs, S. L. Kirloskar. One incident in his life in particular caught my attention – his meeting with Mahatma Gandhi.<br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family:Arial;">Today, October the 2<sup>nd </sup>is Mahatma Gandhi's birthday and his birthday is being celebrated all over the country – especially in Gujarat which has <a href="http://khartoum-khartoum.blogspot.com/2009/08/gujarats-prohibition.html">kept the prohibition</a> on liquor based on Gandhi's ideas, I thought it would be instructive to understand Kirloskar's evaluation of Gandhian philosophy and the reasons for his judgment.<br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family:Arial;">Some background: During the Indian independence movement, Gandhi had popularized a small wooden spinning-wheel known as the Charkha which spun Khaddar cloth. His purpose in doing so was to discourage the use of foreign goods among Indians and promote local, Indian made goods. The Charkha in the early 1920's in India was a real patriotic symbol. Gandhi then introduced a competition in April 1931 to improve the charkha and laid down the rules of competition that the desired charkha "could be run by one person and which would produce 15,000 yards of 40-count yarn within 8 hours of working." An engineer working under Kirloskar's father had though of an ingenious simple machine doing exactly what was required by the competition. However, the engineer later received a letter informing him that Mahatma Gandhi "did not approve of the charkha". Kirloskar, his father, the engineer and an entourage went to meet Gandhi to find out why he had not approved of the Charkha in spite of the fact that it fulfilled all the requirement as laid down in the competition.<br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family:Arial;">The following is the conversation that they had <a href="http://www.kbl.co.in/cactus/A14d.html">according to Kirloskar</a>:<br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family:Arial;">Gandhi: "Your charkha is good but I felt it is more like a modern machine than a simple device. I did not want a machine."<br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family:Arial;">Mr. X: "You had stipulated how much output you expected from the new charkha, but you never laid down a condition that it should not look like a machine."<br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family:Arial;">Gandhi: "I agree with you. But we must consider that it is the uneducated villager who is going to use this charkha. You know how scared villagers are of anything that looks like a machine."<br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family:Arial;">Kirloskar's dad: "I know how scared the farmers get of new machines. But they also get used to them; and if their experience convinces them of their benefits they enthusiastically use machines. Farmer's now-a-days use bicycles, sewing machines and even pumping sets. So, in my opinion, once they know the benefits of this new charkha they will accept it."<br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family:Arial;">Gandhi: "And supposing, your charkha breaks down?"<br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family:Arial;">Mr. Y: "We guarantee immediate attention for its repairs and will also make the spare parts available"<br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family:Arial;">Gandhi: "I know you would but what I had visualized was a Charkha of my dreams, so simple in construction and operation that even a village carpenter should be able to make one. I don't think your charkha is according to my dream."<br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family:Arial;">Kirloskar: "Then the best way for you was to give us a blue-print of your Dream-charkha."<br /></span></p><p><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial; ">Kirloskar expands on the conversation elsewhere in his book saying:</span></p><p style="text-align: center"><span style="font-family:Arial;">"And here lay the heart of my difference of opinion with Mahatma Gandhi and his followers. Like Papa before me, I am, have always been and shall always be, a "machine man". I see the machine as the friend and helper of man, not as a demon devised for man's economic and spiritual destruction, which is the way Gandhians regard it. Our own experience had conclusively proved the benefits which thousands of farmers derived from our ploughs, our pumps, our crushers and shellers and other labour-saving devices. Were we now to scrap all these benefits and revert to the traditional reliance on human and animal muscle-power, with all its slowness and inefficiency? No. a hundred time No! On the contrary I was convinced that India needed machines and prime movers in thousands. And what applied to agriculture, I would equally apply to textiles. If pumps and cane-crushers and groundnut-shellers were good for our economy could spinning-frames and power-looms be bad? I could find no virtue in the slow and tedious spinning of yarn by human finger-power."<br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family:Arial;">Personally, Gandhi has never had any influence on my thinking whatsoever. Call it blasphemy, but I really do think his philosophy is pretty nasty. I do not think that one should offer another cheek when one is slapped right across the face. I think evil should be labeled as evil and <em>fought</em> every step along the way. Imagine the absurdity of telling the Jews during WWII to surrender to Hitler, have their lives wrecked on the hope that Hitler the monster would feel any remorse and based on that remorse would stop the war and leave the Jews alone. Would anybody make such an insane claim? Well, the answer to that question is a resounding "Yes" and the man who offered that advice was unsurprisingly -- Gandhi himself. He <a href="http://khartoum-khartoum.blogspot.com/2009/09/todays-random-thought.html">said:</a><br /> </span></p><p><span style="font-family:Arial;">"I would like you to lay down the arms you have as being useless for saving you or humanity. You will invite Herr Hitler and Signor Mussolini to take what they want of the countries you call your possessions...If these gentlemen choose to occupy your homes, you will vacate them. If they do not give you free passage out, you will allow yourselves, man, woman, and child, to be slaughtered, but you will refuse to owe allegiance to them."<br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family:Arial;">Here is what <a href="http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=media_america_at_war_morality_and_civilian_casualties">Ayn Rand had to say</a> about dealing with force and tyranny:<br /></span></p><p style="text-align: center"><span style="font-family:Arial;">"When someone comes at you with a gun, if you have an ounce of self-esteem, you answer with force, never mind who he is or who's standing behind him. If he's out to destroy you, you owe it to your own life to defend yourself."<br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family:Arial;">If Indians view the occasion of Gandhi Jayanthi with respect and hope – if it represents everything good Indians would like to see their country achieve, one should not only take the time to really get to know the <em>facts</em> about Gandhi but also take the time to understand and put in place a philosophy for living one's own life. My recommendation in the marketplace for a philosophy is definitely Ayn Rand. Pick up <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Atlas-Shrugged-Ayn-Rand/dp/0451191145">Atlas Shrugged</a> and see what you think about it. (For sources on introduction to Ayn Rand's philosophy, <a href="http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog/2007/10/opposite-of-googling-for-objectivism.html">go here</a>.)<br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family:Arial;">Without an understanding of the framework of moral principles grounded in reality, there is no way on earth to determine what is good or bad for <em>you</em>, let alone the whole nation. It is philosophy that we need the most today because if we default on that critical issue, there will be a million more Gandhi's on the way offering the same kind of advice they did the last time around. So, on Gandhi Jayanti, as ironic it may seem, do take the time to <em>think </em>who is right – Gandhi or Kirloskar. Do take the time to <em>think</em> as to what makes a thing or an ideology good or bad because in the long run – human life depends on it.</span></p></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com30tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-430082373937434184.post-27074203838109840152009-09-21T19:57:00.007+05:302009-09-21T20:11:51.292+05:30Today's Random ThoughtMahatma Gandhi is known the father of India. In accordance with his philosophy, politicians have <a href="http://khartoum-khartoum.blogspot.com/2009/08/gujarats-prohibition.html">banned liquor</a> in the State he was born. The man called for non-violence even in the face of evil. I think his claim amounts to, "Don't defend the good, don't kill for any cause even if barbarians initiate force."<div><br /></div><div><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohandas_Karamchand_Gandhi#Gandhi.27s_principles">Here</a> is what Gandhi had to say to the British people when an invasion from Nazi Germany looked imminent:</div><div><br /></div><div>"I would like you to lay down the arms you have as being useless for saving you or humanity. You will invite Herr Hitler and Signor Mussolini to take what they want of the countries you call your possessions...If these gentlemen choose to occupy your homes, you will vacate them. If they do not give you free passage out, you will allow yourselves, man, woman, and child, to be slaughtered, but you will refuse to owe allegiance to them."</div><div><br /></div><div>Yeah right!</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com10tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-430082373937434184.post-13249053530860058632009-09-07T00:48:00.002+05:302009-09-07T00:49:21.701+05:30The BCCI bans galli cricket.<span xmlns=""><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family:Arial;">Cricket is the most loved and followed game in India. It is probably the only sport that most Indian kids play after school. Many players who made it to the national team started out playing on narrow streets [gallis] in India. In this format, the game is usually played with a tennis ball so that people can play without using pads and gloves for safety. Even kids in my college play with a tennis ball. Just get a bat and a ball and we are good to go.<br /></span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family:Arial;">Here is the cracker: the Board of Cricket Control in India (BCCI) has decided to ban all forms of galli, indoor games played by kids and adults alike with tennis, hockey or plastic balls!<br /></span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family:Arial;">An official <a href="http://oratorgreat.blogspot.com/2009/09/bcci-bans-tennis-ball-and-galli-cricket.html">said</a>, ""We are specially warning children playing cricket without wearing shoes, pads and gloves, or using tennis balls or any non-cricket ball — stop it or face our fury, which will be unleashed ruthlessly, by placing a life ban on you, preventing you from watching any IPL matches, having your thumbs cut off if you persist, or your TV cables blocked out of all cricket telecasts,"<br /></span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family:Arial;">Somebody <a href="http://oratorgreat.blogspot.com/2009/09/bcci-bans-tennis-ball-and-galli-cricket.html">remarked</a> a little while earlier that "It was always there openly in front of the public. The alphabet 'C' in BCCI stands for control…why cricket or cricketers need control, no one questioned. This is the logical end of it." I fully agree.<br /></span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family:Arial;">This is without reservation – crazy! Who the heck are they to tell me how to play a game cricket with a couple of my friends by setting rules none of players accept in the first place? Is it not total lunacy to hijack a game and use nothing but force to implement ones arbitrary wishes? What is even more surprising is the long line celebrities and cricketers endorsing such an absurd view. If somebody would have told me a few years ago that people -- and I mean the elite could defend such a preposterous view – I would have laughed hysterically at the speaker that it was impossible for so many people to give into such absurdities. After watching the global warming hysteria, I have come to see that most people have no limit for stupidity. Even by that account, banning galli cricket is a far cry.<br /></span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family:Arial;">It really is a mad, mad, mad, mad world!</span></p></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-430082373937434184.post-4502181871554402962009-09-06T23:47:00.002+05:302009-09-06T23:52:17.736+05:30It happened to me.<span xmlns=""><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family:Arial;">I am really, really proud to announce that I have been accepted for the four year undergraduate program for Objectivism at the <a href="http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=education_academic_index">Objectivist Academic Center</a>. It is "is currently the only academic institution to offer systematic instruction in Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism." I was not accepted last year or even during this year's early application process. I was informed that I would be reconsidered for the regular deadline but I was pretty skeptical. The chances seemed slim when I was weighing it then but I think applying early was the one thing that really helped. Like most students, I have received a tuition waiver and a phone scholarship to cover my costs. I've told a few people at home about my acceptance and they don't really know what to make of it yet. I am not sure I do at this point!<br /></span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family:Arial;">On a different note, I was actually prepared to write the entrance for the next decade if I had to in order to gain that kind of necessary understanding. The course is really that good.<br /></span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family:Arial;">I am a pleasantly shocked with my acceptance. I read <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Atlas-Shrugged-Ayn-Rand/dp/0452011876">Atlas Shrugged</a> in my first year of college when a friend told me that it was ranked second most influential book and that it was fiction. Who would imagine I would come this far! It is ironic that I read the book in Sector 24, Gandhinagar in the state of Gujarat in India where nobody would ever imagine a guy going nuts reading Atlas. Or maybe it is not so ironic because I read it in my first year of college wherever the college was. It really depends on which way you look at it. Another contextual absolute.<br /></span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family:Arial;">I am overjoyed with the prospect of working the staff at the OAC when I go to law school in the US next year. It is kind of hard to digest the fact that I don't have wonder about what courses to take next or whether I will chew on the material presented to integrate challenging ideas. Moreover, if college class rooms are filled with ideas such as "right to food" and whatnot, one has to ask: if I don't get to hear the truth in class, then where the heck am I supposed to go? Happily for me, I simply have to go class and report back to the faculty at the OAC with a remark to the effect of "Here is what happened in class" and they will help me integrate all the cool stuff. Is that awesome or what!<br /></span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family:Arial;">I still do have my doubts about how well I'll do in the course itself. I don't think I have ever taken a course which required me to do stuff like assess the viewpoints of major philosophies and then defend my view on the subject. Hell, most of my education consisted of memorizing stuff that was way too soporific. I am mildly tensed how the training will turn out to be and insanely happy for the opportunity provided. I will, without a doubt, do my very best in this course.<br /></span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family:Arial;">Overall, I am really glad to make it and am also looking forward to improve my writing and sharpen my skills on Objectivism. It's a rare opportunity to study with the leading and <em>rational</em> intellectuals of our time. To put it another way, Objectivism is being served on a platter – if you are thinking of applying, DO IT!<br /></span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family:Arial;">Here is a video by the Ayn Rand Institute outlining the basic structure of the course –<br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family:Arial;"><object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/wePH4PTgL_U&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/wePH4PTgL_U&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br /></span></p></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-430082373937434184.post-6157686939823371322009-08-30T19:13:00.003+05:302009-08-30T19:22:59.484+05:30Gujarat’s Prohibition.<span xmlns=""><p><span style="font-family:Arial;">I have been schooling in the state of Gujarat in India for the last four years. It is one of the few places in India that still has a prohibition on consuming liquor. If you are wondering whether liquor is available contrary to established laws then yes – it is available and it is <a href="http://www.rediff.com/election/2002/dec/11guj4.htm">no secret</a>. Historically, the ban was in place before India's independence and has continued to stay in place in an attempt to uphold the "values" of Mahatma Gandhi's. The man also wanted to ban beef and whatnot.<br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family:Arial;">After consuming illicit liquor, about <a href="http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/gujarat/Ahmedabad-liquor-death-toll-rises-to-136/431152/Article1-431098.aspx">136 people had died last month</a> in the State's capital city. Critics have zeroed the cause of death to the prohibition imposed by the State. The prohibition outlaws the manufacture and sale of liquor in the State. Those who cannot afford the smuggled liquor fall back on illicit liquor which is literally speaking – the highway to hell. Smuggles don't face competition on a free market and as a consequence don't face bankruptcy. Competition absent, they have little or no thought for their reputation when they end up killing people with adulterated liquor. Most people who would have otherwise provided quality booze disappear because smuggling liquor is illegal and even face a <a href="http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/india-news/gujarat-assembly-passes-bill-for-stringent-punishment-in-illicit-liquor-trade_100224334.html">death penalty for bootlegging</a>. At least two commissions, one headed by Justice M N Miabhoy and another later by Justice A A Dave had said that prohibition has not worked well.<br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family:Arial;">Undeterred, the ministers are coming up with twisted arguments to still <a href="http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/politics/gujarat-committed-to-liquor-prohibition-asserts-minister_100217820.html">keep the prohibition</a>. For instance, the Ministers have stated repeatedly that deaths by illicit liquor have occurred in other parts of the country and are not exclusive to Gujarat. However, this does not provide any indication as to why the deaths happened in the first place. I think most people consume illicit liquor in other parts of the country for the same reason they consume it in Gujarat where there is a prohibition. In the case of Gujarat, it is smuggled liquor and in the case of the rest of the country its taxed liquor. In most cases, the taxes imposed on liquor are prohibitively high for the purpose of "constructive social change" or whatnot resulting in the fact that not many can afford safe liquor and end up drinking illicit liquor which is available for a cheaper price.<br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family:Arial;">I think the minister's observation that people elsewhere [not living under prohibition] are also dying from consuming illicit liquor has profound significance – just not in the way he would like us see. The prohibition in Gujarat <em>forces</em> people to consume adulterated liquor if they wish to have a drink by eliminating competition while taxes in other States <em>force </em>people to resort to adulterated liquor which would not have been the case in the absence of taxes. In both the cases, the principle that the government shouldn't dictate the way I choose to live my life is conceded. The only real difference between both the cases is that of measurement or of how much intrusion by the government is acceptable.<br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family:Arial;">The question debated is not whether the government should violate both the rights of the seller and the buyer by making it impossible for them to agree to a certain price but what is being debated is how to curb the deaths by illicit liquor while ignoring the cause that led to the deaths itself: government intervention. Without the prohibition and the taxes, buyers would be left free to buy safe liquor provided by sellers. If the seller sold adulterated stuff, he would be held liable and charged accordingly in a Court of law. Cheaper prices means buyers would have more money left to invest or spend elsewhere entailing more jobs and more wealth for all.<br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family:Arial;">Any of this doesn't mean that one should associate themselves with alcoholics and their likes in a free society. To the contrary, one is free not to associate with or not finance their booze. But when the government steps in enacting laws prohibiting trade in liquor – the field is left open for all sorts of twisted individuals to sell illicit liquor without any regard to reputation of their product nor to human life.<br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family:Arial;">The only real alternative to death is the path of freedom. The path where people are left free to think and then act accordingly to one's highest judgment. Man doesn't live by means fangs, claws or the legs of a cheetah. His sole means of survival is thought followed up by action. The government can choose to ban the liberty to think and act on it but it cannot choose to escape the consequences of its policies. Man is man and if one ignores the requirements of human life then death necessarily follows.<br /></span></p></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-430082373937434184.post-44087232907266842782009-08-22T03:10:00.003+05:302009-09-07T00:51:20.036+05:30The Nature of Miracles.<span xmlns=""><p>Every time I discuss the issue of religion with any non-Objectivist, I usually cover all the bases I understand best: identity, causality, the "super" natural and mans means of knowledge – revelations v. reason. However, my favorite ground for disqualification of the notion of a god lies in the nature of miracles.<br /></p><p>Most people confuse miracles with magic tricks. They confuse illusory tricks with metaphysical impossibility. Could magicians really get a <em>normal</em> rose to speak? Could Jesus really break a <em>normal </em>piece of bread and break into a thousand parts? No, the discussion here is not about whether they have found a special rose that could speak or special bread that would break itself into a thousand different pieces. If there was really something special about the thing, then why would such an act even qualify as a miracle? It doesn't. And it doesn't because there is nothing "miraculous" about things acting the way they are supposed to act. In essence, a miracle has to this: It has to make a thing act in violation of its properties, its identity, its nature. In technical terms, it has to violate causality. It has to make a thing act against its nature – it would require that a normal rose speak instead of blooming and that a regular piece of bread break into a thousand parts.<br /></p><p>As Greg Perkins puts it in his <a href="http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog/2008/05/why-new-atheists-cant-even-beat-dsouza_28.shtml?nc">great essay</a>, "In short, a genuine miracle requires a thing to act against its own identity—to have a contradictory identity—to literally <em>not be what it is</em>, which is incoherent."<br /></p><p>As far as the magicians go, any successful magician will tell you that magicians have to closely conform to the identity of things to perform a trick. If he expects a heavy rock to fly in spite of gravity expecting a miracle in the course of a trick, he will without doubt end up making an ass of himself.</p><p>Update: A few corrections.<br /></p></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-430082373937434184.post-50812430467478750692009-08-16T01:23:00.002+05:302009-08-16T01:25:37.564+05:30An Awesome Commercial.I've always been a sucker for creative commercials and this one by BMW definitely makes the cut.<div><br /></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10px; white-space: pre; "><object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/plxNfU-PA2c&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/plxNfU-PA2c&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object></span></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-430082373937434184.post-58692191251131135002009-08-16T00:51:00.004+05:302009-08-16T01:05:09.687+05:30The Cheapest Car In The World.Enter the cheapest car in the world. TATA Motors has recently announced the release of its car, the TATA Nano which has caused quite a flutter among the middle class families in India. It costs roughly about $2500. The great news for most of them is that people will now switch from using motorbikes to cars. Unlike Western countries a lot of folks drive around on bikes in India because it is cheap and gets you from point A to point B. It's great news for them.<div><br /></div><div>Also, the Nano is quickly becoming the symbol for progress. A few hate it because it will cause even more global warming and a larger group hates it becuase it will end up clogging already overcrowded roads owned by the government. A friend of mine had a sharp retort for the later complaint -- "Would you privatize regulated roads or regulate private car companies -- how would you roll?" A no-brainer by all means!</div><div><br /></div><div>Here is a review by Autocar</div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10px; white-space: pre; "><object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/3sZitve3SUw&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/3sZitve3SUw&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object></span></div><div><br /></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-430082373937434184.post-5401237812062637162009-08-05T19:18:00.002+05:302009-08-05T19:22:23.669+05:30The bizarre airlines “bailout”.<span xmlns=""><p><span style="font-family:Arial;">There have been a series of bizarre events over the past few days in the Indian domestic airline sector. What triggered it off though was not. The government owned airline, Air India which was facing dire losses <a href="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/NEWS/Business/India-Business/Air-India-asks-for-Rs-20000-crore-bailout/articleshow/4821103.cms">asked the government for a bailout</a> for about Rs 20,000 crores. The government was aware of the losses and the finance ministry <a href="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/NEWS-India-Govt-makes-it-mandatory-for-babus-to-fly-Air-India/articleshow/4774526.cms">made it mandatory for all government officials to fly Air India</a> while travelling on work, on both domestic and international sectors. A couple of days later the airlines popped the big question – "Could we get some of that booty you stashed away from the taxpayers?" The aviation minister, Praful Patel went to the extent of saying that a <a href="http://www.indianexpress.com/news/govt-bailout-on-cards-for-air-india-praful/489139/">government bailout was on the cards</a> for Air India with the only condition being that the government would only dole out a fraction of the requested amount.<br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family:Arial;">Watching this trend, the domestic private airlines jumped in and apparently asked to be bailed out with the ultimatum <a href="http://www.mynews.in/fullstory.aspx?storyid=22771">that if the government failed to bail them out</a> – all services were slated tp be terminated on August 18<sup>th</sup> or worse – even indefinitely if the government refused. Barely a day after the airline chiefs announced that they wouldn't fly on August 18, Delhi based low-cost carrier Indigo withdrew from the industrial action. The government flatly refused to yield and even cut Air India's bailout "which was on the cards" and the other airlines gave in.<br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family:Arial;">In my opinion, the airlines demand does not even constitute a bailout in the first place. Responding to a question <a href="http://www.moneycontrol.com/india/news/business/its-aboutlevel-playing-field-not-bailout-airlines/409287">in an interview</a> Ajay Singh, Director, Spice Jet said,<br /></span></p><p style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family:Arial;">"Let me just clarify. You said when introduced the story that the airlines were looking for a bailout. The airlines are not looking for a bailout. Essentially, what the airlines are saying is that let us create an environment for aviation in which the cost of aviation in India is comparable to the cost of aviation anywhere in the world. Today, airlines in India are paying 60-70% higher tariff on aviation turbine fuel (ATF). Sales tax is averaging 26-30% and we are requesting that this sales tax be put in a level of which is sustainable and which is comparative to any other airline in any other part of the world. Similarly, airport charges landing and parking fees are very high. There is a new ground handling policy, which increases the cost of aviation further. We believe that we should be in terms of cost put at the same level as airlines in other parts of the world."<br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family:Arial;">The private airlines are not asking for a positive – i.e. a sum of money from the government but on the other hand are asking for a negative – to cut back breaking taxes which are making it impossible for the aviation industry to stay in business. <a href="http://profit.ndtv.com/2009/08/03230144/Why-did-the-airline-strike-fai.html">Praful Patel, Minister of State for Civil Aviation said</a>, "The government understands the difficulties of the sector and also would see whichever way we can be of help. We understand aviation is very important to the economic development of the country but to say we will cause inconvenience to the passengers and to the people, I think, that is not acceptable." If the government really understands the difficulties of the sector and would like to be of service, why don't they simply roll back all the crushing taxes they have enacted in the first place?<br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family:Arial;">The answer to that would most likely be that government needs the revenue from taxes to fund all the programs that they would enact in favor of the "public good". Even speaking only in terms of free market economics and "public good", one could point out that taxes have the seen and the unseen effects as illustrated by <a title="Frédéric Bastiat" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fr%C3%A9d%C3%A9ric_Bastiat">Frédéric Bastiat</a> in the <a href="http://freedomkeys.com/window.htm">Broken Window fallacy</a>. Were the money from the airlines not snatched away then they could have more money to spend on building their business which would result in creation of more jobs, cheaper air fares and more "public good" than any government program could ever attain. If anyone ever doubted the efficacy of freedom in a market, one simply has to look at India before and after 1991 – and what's more, all the fruits were a result of only <em>partial</em> freedom that was allowed to seep in.<br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family:Arial;">But the good as the minister puts is that the individuals in the airlines industry should self-sacrificially work themselves and run a business that is hardly profitable but what's "unacceptable" in the whole matter is that they may "cause inconvenience to the passengers and to the people". Mr. Minister, could we please ask how do you expect any good if you pursue policies that are contrary to man's life such as the initiation of force against private individuals who decide to sell their product at a particular price? What is "unacceptable" then is for people to ask the question: "What's in it for me?" As long as the airline industry is willing to slave away, devoid of any profit to their own selves, for the general public – they are moral and good and to the extent that they would like benefit from their own actions, they are immoral or at best amoral. I think this is the root cause that is literally plaguing mankind on earth. All welfare programs that are eating away the freedoms of individuals eventually justify themselves that they are noble because the beneficiary of one's actions is somebody else.<br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family:Arial;">If the airlines are to stand a chance the next time around, it is the principled stand against such arbitrary power they must take. They should do precisely what they are omitting to do now – assert that the governments function is to protect <a href="http://www.blogger.com/aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/individual_rights.html">individual rights</a> from agencies that initiate force which includes the government also. If the principle is conceded that the government may initate force and collect taxes – the question then is only how much should it tax or take away. How much of taxation is permissible is only a measurement with the principle conceded. They should not employ pragmatism by conceding that such taxes are great in theory but impractical in reality. It is not merely the "non-initiation of force principle" that they should invoke but also assert that being moral consists of acting in a fashion that promotes man's life and that anything that thwarts it is evil – and deserved to be condemned to be so. As Leonard Peikoff puts it his famous essay, "<a href="http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=5123">Health Care is not a Right</a>",<br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family:Arial;">"This is not a case of noble in theory but a failure in practice; it is a case of vicious in theory and <em>therefore</em> a disaster in practice. I want to focus on the moral issue at stake. So long as people believe that socialized medicine is a noble plan, there is no way to fight it. You cannot stop a noble plan—not if it really is noble. The only way you can defeat it is to unmask it—to show that it is the very opposite of noble. Then at least you have a fighting chance."</span></p></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-430082373937434184.post-12222255138405218352009-08-05T04:22:00.004+05:302009-08-05T04:55:45.608+05:30Russell Peters is hilarious!Russel Peters, the Indian stand up comedian -- plainly speaking -- is funny as hell. He has been my favorite stand up comedian ever since I watched his show the first time. One of the greatest things he ever did, I think, was to get Indian people interested in stand up comedy. At least I do not recall most Indians interested in comedy before they watched him. Yeah, Chris Rock is pretty funny and was around for a while but does not make the cut in India by a far cry.<br /><br />He is especially great with the Asian and Indian people -- and he is frickkin hilarious. Here are a few. Enjoy!<br /><br /><object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/4TS1KNpMsXQ&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/4TS1KNpMsXQ&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br /><br /><br /><object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/-qtrAMK7_Qk&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/-qtrAMK7_Qk&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br /><br /><br /><object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/UJWcrRgQse4&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/UJWcrRgQse4&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-430082373937434184.post-44724329069130656802009-08-01T19:10:00.004+05:302009-08-01T19:21:43.107+05:30Group or Arrange?<span xmlns=""><p><span style="font-family:Arial;">I have been working for my LSAT's from the <a href="http://www.amazon.com/PowerScore-LSAT-Logic-Games-Bible/dp/097212960X">Logic Games Bible</a> lately and found something interesting I thought I would share. When a problem discusses <strong>linearity</strong> [arranging or ordering given variables into fixed positions] and <strong>grouping</strong> [which sets rules as to which variables can go together and which cannot or which variables can be chosen and which cannot be chosen with a given variable], do you first order the variables in accordance with the linear rules or group with the grouping rules?<br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family:Arial;">The answer to that is one has to group before arranging the variables. Taking an example from the book – if I win ten tickets to the Super Bowl I don't start off by putting people in the second, the fifth or the tenth seat. Instead I would first select the <em>group</em> that I intend to invite and then <em>arrange</em> if necessary. Thus, one always groups before starting out with the linear component of the game.<br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family:Arial;">Explaining such an abstract principles with reference to a simple example is really, really smart.<br /></span></p></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-430082373937434184.post-42661895927644115702009-07-31T04:45:00.003+05:302009-07-31T05:23:48.868+05:30Saint Joe's Magic.The solo by Joe Satriani in his song, "Flying in a blue dream" is right on. He makes it seems like the guitar is a part of his body -- he is just so comfortable with it!<br /><br />One of the reason I love this song is not only because it consists of many amazing guitar solos but also because it has an overall tune to it. There is a relatively slower "chorus solo" that he keeps reverting back to after each fast one. The mix makes the music all the more amazing.<br /><br />Enjoy!<br /><br /><object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/U-zjnVmuTzs&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/U-zjnVmuTzs&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-430082373937434184.post-9714866374577931652009-07-30T19:39:00.005+05:302009-07-31T03:26:29.763+05:30A Great Review<span xmlns=""><p><span style="font-family:Arial;">The article, <a href="http://theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2006-winter/property-and-principle.asp">"Property and Principle: A Review Essay on Bernard H. Siegan's <em>Economic Liberties and the Constitution"</em></a><em> </em>by Larry Salzman totally kicks ass.<br /></span></p><p> <span style="font-family:Arial;">Check it out!</span></p><p><span style="font-family:Arial;">Update: If anyone is interested in property rights and legal history, do take a moment to check out the footnotes -- there are some great recommendations out there.<br /></span></p></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-430082373937434184.post-20699550077961382742009-07-26T20:04:00.005+05:302009-07-26T20:13:42.741+05:30Genda PhoolI usually don't listen to Bollywood music but the song, Genda Phool from <a href="http://www.blogger.com/www.imdb.com/title/tt1043451/">Delhi-6</a> is pretty awesome. The song is originally a folk song from the Chhattisgarh region in India and was improvised for the movie. <a href="http://www.cuckooscosmos.com/Musings/2009/03/02/secret-of-genda-phool/">As this author puts it</a>, it is "a well known Chhattisgarhi folk song, performed in almost all Chhattisgrahi marriages. The pains of a newly wed daughter-in-law is being depicted through this song."<br /><br />Enjoy!<br /><br /><a style="left: 0px ! important; top: 0px ! important;" title="Click here to block this object with Adblock Plus" class="abp-objtab-09955941785236088 visible ontop" href="http://www.youtube.com/v/d0RCVX1Wgw4&hl=en&fs=1&"></a><a style="left: 0px ! important; top: 0px ! important;" title="Click here to block this object with Adblock Plus" class="abp-objtab-09955941785236088 visible ontop" href="http://www.youtube.com/v/d0RCVX1Wgw4&hl=en&fs=1&"></a><object height="344" width="425"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/d0RCVX1Wgw4&hl=en&fs=1&"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/d0RCVX1Wgw4&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" height="344" width="425"></embed></object>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-430082373937434184.post-91478482380472635702009-07-22T16:19:00.008+05:302009-07-22T18:13:26.477+05:30Hilarious Stuff in the Mail.Sardar Jokes are very common in India. They are the equivalent of Blonde Jokes in the United States.<br /><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sardar_jokes#cite_note-Vir_Sanghvi_free_speech-7">Wikipedia states</a>, "Many of the Sardarji jokes are variations of other <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_jokes" title="Ethnic jokes" class="mw-redirect">ethnic jokes</a> or stereotype jokes. Some of them also depict Sardarjis as witty. Researcher Jawaharlal Handoo associates some traits of the Sardarji jokes with the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereotype" title="Stereotype">stereotype</a> of Sikhs being associated with jobs where physical fitness is more important than knowledge of the English language or intellect.<br /><br />Although such jokes have come under criticism from the Sikh community, it was said that the jokes were best said by Sardar's themselves presenting <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khushwant_Singh" title="Khushwant Singh">Khushwant Singh</a> as an example . As Vir Sanghvi writes, "The Sardarji joke, like all ethnic humour, is part of a good-natured Indian tradition and hardly an example of any kind of anti-minority feeling."<br /><br />I received a couple of great Sardar jokes in the mail and couldn't resist posting them. For the record, I obviously don't see any merit in the claim that Sardar's are of low intellect and whatnot. I have known many of them who are intelligent and confident people.<br /><br />Here are a few:<br /><br /><span>A Teacher lecturing on population - "In India after every 10 seconds a women gives birth to a kid."<br />A Sardar stands up- "We must find her and stop her!."<br /><br /></span><span><span>Teacher: "I killed a person" convert this sentence into future tense.<br />Sardar: The future tense is "You will go to jail".<br /><br /></span></span>A Sardarji is travelling for the first time in a plane, headed for Bombay. While the plane is landing, he starts shouting "Bombay, Bombay!".<br />The air hostess says, "Be silent".<br />Sardaji says, "OK", and starts shouting "ombay, ombay".<br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgyVTHh2iwvvYOxNIz0fuJKagfdYPvr_BgPqaV0HYvQDSk5J2YnD_iEQay_6o-GBwEg39BxM1RMDYGz7e2drm07Y-_cT9F6a7G0vu1EFW6VeNUELlmi44H4k8Y61Mgt1wxIlRjfSyaDF8Q/s1600-h/noname.jpeg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 400px; height: 241px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgyVTHh2iwvvYOxNIz0fuJKagfdYPvr_BgPqaV0HYvQDSk5J2YnD_iEQay_6o-GBwEg39BxM1RMDYGz7e2drm07Y-_cT9F6a7G0vu1EFW6VeNUELlmi44H4k8Y61Mgt1wxIlRjfSyaDF8Q/s400/noname.jpeg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5361258243025700130" border="0" /></a><span><br /></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-430082373937434184.post-88029313566509785082009-07-20T21:14:00.002+05:302009-07-20T21:16:45.024+05:30Books On Islam In India.<span xmlns=""><p><span style="font-family:Arial;">Every once in awhile, people encounter works of art or new knowledge which makes them pause, think and admire. One of the symptoms of such an encounter is when a person can't stop talking about it or literally lecturing friends about the profound effect of new knowledge and the anticipation of all such effects it may have on man's life. My first such encounter without doubt was when I borrowed a copy of <a href="http://www.blogger.com/atlasshrugged.com">Atlas Shrugged</a> from one of my seniors. I couldn't contain myself, let alone telling my friends of how great the experience was. I was thrilled, exalted and found tears running down my cheeks in the college library out of all the places in the world. I obviously wouldn't say that I understood the whole book the first time around but even the inkling that such knowledge existed gave me great joy. Ever since, there have always been such pauses; the difference has only been in the <em>intensity</em> or the <em>measurement</em> of such pauses – but the essential principle of furthering human life was always present.<br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family:Arial;">I bring all of this up only because I've been encountering such a phase since last night. I can't stop recommending a couple of books to all and any Indian who wants to protect a semblance of a civilized society which is at great stake today – from Islamic totalitarianism. However, there are many Muslims and non- Muslims around us who would like to challenge the facts itself and proclaim that Islam is a peaceful religion and that Prophet Muhammed is a great man. If you've gotten into an argument with any Muslim about the nature of Islam, you would notice that he will inevitably allege that any verse in the Quran which propagates violence against non-believers is read "out of context" or is taken from some sort of Zionist sites. The argument in most cases gets personal and name-calling is often resorted to. John David Lewis has written an <a href="http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=5137">excellent piece</a> on one such onslaught he encountered. While one is debating the need to attack Islamist Iran, the Muslim stops his opponent and tells him that he does not know the nature of Islam or Islamic theology. According to his version, Islam is a peaceful creed and Prophet Muhammed was a virtuous man. To any objection you raise you will be told that you are quoting the passage out of context and misrepresenting a peaceful religion. If you tell him about the slaughter of <em>Bani</em> Quraidha tribe where 900 Jews were killed in broad daylight, he will teIl you that the Prophet only did it because the tribe engaged in mutiny by negotiating with the enemies. If you cite a verse that says do not take non-beleivers as friends, he will say that the Prophet only meant "do not take them as allies" and not "do not take them as friends". If you tell him the doctrine of Taqqiya -- the order that one can lie to further Islam -- he will tell you that only the Shia's engage in Taqqiya and that Sunnis don't. I for one am not prepared for a strident defense of Islamic jihad and Sharia law. From the material I have read, I understand that the Prophet killed non-Muslims if they refused conversion. I see Muslim women everyday wearing <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burqa">burqas</a> which cover their body from head to toe. But no matter what objection you raise, you are always quoting the passage "out of context" and sometimes the even worse "You are not a Muslim so you don't know".<br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family:Arial;">I think the same trend occurs in the global warming propaganda. Mainstream media is full of the "science" behind the global warming theories and how certain it is that we are going to die if we continue to progress. Such claims give it the semblance of genuine facts.<br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family:Arial;">Although it's impossible to become a philosopher, climatologist and a scholar in Islamic theology in a specialized society, I think one needs to spend at least sometime evaluating these claims for one selfish reason only: self-defense. Our culture is full of nonsensical ideas and weeding such ideas out requires that one seek out facts that one has to <em>process </em>to ascertain the truth of such claims. One can do as John David Lewis did. "In answer," to an angry questioner <a href="http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=5137">Mr. Lewis writes</a>, "I re-read a series of quotes in which Islamic leaders—as well as a <a target="_blank" href="http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/18.htm">young girl on Lebanese television</a>—call for jihad, war, and death; and I pointed out to the monologist that he must be quite angry at these Muslims for their incorrect view of jihad. But instead of being angry at those who give his presumably peaceful religion a bad name, he condemned <em>me</em> for reading their quotes. This is evasion par excellence—to condemn those who raise Islam's violent past and present rather than have to face the fact that the vision of idyllic peace that one associates with one's religion has no basis in reality." On the issue of global warming, <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YyFyGUHxOdk&feature=channel_page">Yaron Brook</a> does a great job.<br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family:Arial;">Of course, if one finds a field to be of particular interest, he can delve into the issue. I think the real challenge is to identify, narrow down one's interests and then really nail those issues down. As for me, I have lived in India and had many, many Muslim friends as a kid. <a href="http://www.blogger.com/video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3047031400466157880">This documentary</a> opened my eyes to Islamic totalitarianism and was a rude shock – to say at best. Ever since, I have been following people like Robert Spencer and Ayaan Hirsi Ali. I have been thinking about pursuing and investigating Islam and it has been quickly developing into a hobby of mine. I have decided that apart from studying Objectivism I would also like to study Islamic theology and history to the extent that I can. <br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family:Arial;">Last night, after a few Google searches, I found <a href="http://www.islamfreepakistan.com/Home/free-books-online">this page</a> which hosts free e-books on the nature of Islam. It piqued my attention because a few of the books which are offered are about the Jihad in India. Although our first Prime Minister, Jawahar Lal Nehru, was adamant that after the Muslim invasion, Hindus were treated properly and that the Mughal rulers were peaceful, there was a blood bath in India. Two of the authors I had wanted to read – K.S Lal and Seetha Ram Goel – were among the e-books. Here are a few I plan to read in the next couple of days:<br /></span></p><ul><li><span style="font-family:Arial;">The Calcutta Quran Petition by Sita Ram Goel<br /></span></li><li><span style="font-family:Arial;">Indian Muslims – Who Are They by K.S. Lal<br /></span></li><li><span style="font-family:Arial;">The Legacy Of Muslim Rule in India by K.S Lal<br /></span></li><li><span style="font-family:Arial;">Muslim Slave System In Medieval India by K.S Lal<br /></span></li></ul><p><span style="font-family:Arial;">I think my real education in Islamic history will come from Scott Powell in his <a href="http://www.powellhistory.com/ie/">A First History For Adults</a> which I plan to take in the next year. In the meantime, I am going to do what I can to further my values. I think these books should be compulsory reading to any Indian if he wishes to understand the Kashmir issue or the string of bombings in the name of Allah because such issues can be sanely understood only when one looks into the theory that's behind such atrocious acts: Islam.<br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family:Arial;">I welcome any book or course suggestions for beginners in the study of Islam.<br /></span></p></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-430082373937434184.post-27852805575389407702009-07-18T03:19:00.003+05:302009-07-18T03:25:31.028+05:30Rock N' Roll Queen.Here's a fast number that has been buzzing in my head for the past few days. It's from the movie <a href="http://www.blogger.com/www.imdb.com/title/tt1032755/">RocknRolla</a>.<br /><br /><object height="344" width="425"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/8oLoE5SPnh0&hl=en&fs=1&"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/8oLoE5SPnh0&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" height="344" width="425"></embed></object>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-430082373937434184.post-59080580388978445852009-07-17T17:19:00.005+05:302009-07-17T17:37:58.749+05:30The Man With A Beer.Here's a picture of me drinking beer from a couple of months ago.<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgv63FWpdJU-dKE1E-rm55OKXNGv9Uu-de9ETZe1lRTzZYIxBFVF5dF9hkuQyy423kNisE-uCosyAEpaGDb9dVtX9nUxPAn_UnMRDAVw9u9OpA-LuF5g7RjgLgIpECBjQxcMSlTT3NhVXQ/s1600-h/21112008745.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 300px; height: 400px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgv63FWpdJU-dKE1E-rm55OKXNGv9Uu-de9ETZe1lRTzZYIxBFVF5dF9hkuQyy423kNisE-uCosyAEpaGDb9dVtX9nUxPAn_UnMRDAVw9u9OpA-LuF5g7RjgLgIpECBjQxcMSlTT3NhVXQ/s400/21112008745.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5359398688264526930" border="0" /></a>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2