Politics Explained

FEUDALISM: You have two cows. Your lord takes some of the milk.

PURE SOCIALISM: You have two cows. The government takes them and puts them in a barn with everyone else's cows. You have to take care of all of the cows. The government gives you as much milk as you need.

BUREAUCRATIC SOCIALISM: You have two cows. The government takes them and put them in a barn with everyone else's cows. They are cared for by ex-chicken farmers. You have to take care of the chickens the government took from the chicken farmers. The government gives you as much milk and eggs as the regulations say you need.

FASCISM: You have two cows. The government takes both, hires you to take care of them and sells you the milk.

PURE COMMUNISM: You have two cows. Your neighbors help you take care of them, and you all share the milk.

RUSSIAN COMMUNISM: You have two cows. You have to take care of them, but the government takes all the milk.

CAMBODIAN COMMUNISM: You have two cows. The government takes both of them and shoots you.

DICTATORSHIP: You have two cows. The government takes both and drafts you.

PURE DEMOCRACY: You have two cows. Your neighbors decide who gets the milk.

REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY: You have two cows. Your neighbors pick someone to tell you who gets the milk.

BUREAUCRACY: You have two cows. At first the government regulates what you can feed them and when you can milk them. Then it pays you not to milk them. Then it takes both, shoots one, milks the other and pours the milk down the drain. Then it requires you to fill out forms accounting for the missing cows.

PURE ANARCHY: You have two cows. Either you sell the milk at a fair price or your neighbors try to take the cows and kill you.

LIBERTARIAN/ANARCHO-CAPITALISM: You have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull.

SURREALISM: You have two giraffes. The government requires you to take harmonica lessons.

(Original source unknown . . )

Warning Labels

Came across these warning lebels in a blog somewhere and thought that it will help those who wish to persue their career in marketing or systems.
In case you needed further proof that the Human Race is doomed through stupidity, here are some actual label instructions on consumer products:

1. On a blanket from Taiwan:- NOT TO BE USED AS PROTECTION FROM A TORNADO.
2. On a helmet mounted mirror used by US cyclists:- REMEMBER, OBJECTS IN THE MIRROR ARE ACTUALLY BEHIND YOU.
3. On a Taiwanese shampoo:- USE REPEATEDLY FOR SEVERE DAMAGE.
4. On the bottle-top of a (UK) flavored milk drink:- AFTER OPENING, KEEP UPRIGHT.
5. On a New Zealand insect spray:- THIS PRODUCT NOT TESTED ON ANIMALS.
6. In a US guide to setting up a new computer:- TO AVOID CONDENSATION FORMING, ALLOW THE BOXES TO WARM UP TO ROOM TEMPERATURE BEFORE OPENING. (Sensible, but the instruction was INSIDE the box.)
7. In some countries, on the bottom of Coke bottles:-OPEN OTHER END.
8. On a packet of Sunmaid raisins:- WHY NOT TRY TOSSING OVER YOUR FAVORITE BREAKFAST CEREAL?
9. On a Sears hairdryer:- DO NOT USE WHILE SLEEPING.
10. On a bag of Fritos:- YOU COULD BE A WINNER! NO PURCHASE NECESSARY. DETAILS INSIDE.
11. On a bar of Dial soap:- DIRECTIONS - USE LIKE REGULAR SOAP.
12. On Tesco's Tiramisu dessert (printed on bottom of the box):- DO NOT TURN UPSIDE DOWN (oops too late)
13. On Marks & Spencer Bread Pudding:- PRODUCT WILL BE HOT AFTER HEATING.
14. On a Korean kitchen knife:- WARNING: KEEP OUT OF CHILDREN.
15. On a string of Chinese-made Christmas lights:- FOR INDOOR OR OUTDOOR USE ONLY.
16. On a Japanese food processor:-NOT TO BE USED FOR THE OTHER USE.
17. On Sainsbury's peanuts:-WARNING - CONTAINS NUTS.
18. On an American Airlines packet of nuts:- INSTRUCTIONS - OPEN PACKET, EAT NUTS.
19. On a child's superman costume:- WEARING OF THIS GARMENT DOES NOT ENABLE YOU TO FLY.
20. On some frozen dinners:- SERVING SUGGESTION: DEFROST.
21. On a hotel provided shower cap in a box:- FITS ONE HEAD.
22. On packaging for a Rowenta iron:- DO NOT IRON CLOTHES ON BODY.
23. On Boot's Children's cough medicine:- DO NOT DRIVE CAR OR OPERATE MACHINERY.
24. On Nytol sleep aid:- WARNING: MAY CAUSE DROWSINESS.
25. On a bottle of a Aquafina water bottle:- NUTRITION FACTS (all of which are rated at 0%).

Similarity in Diversity

Few days back I was having a walk in the night with Chintamani and Bihadi near Hira-Nandani we started discussing the topic, which only few psychomaniacs of our age could discuss on that pleasant place, and it was underworld. During discussion Chintamani told me that Mumbai Police is much better than other cities and was solely responsible to eliminate underworld. It was really shocking for me to hear that statement. Mumbai police is different from other cities. How’s that possible. All my past learning went into vain. The small chapter on “Discovery of India” written by Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru in our CBSE text books was looming in front of my eyes, in which he clearly mentioned “kos kos pe badle paani, chaar cos pe badle waani” but still there is some thing that holds this nation together, that is the way Indians think. He wrote, we Indian however different we may look, whatever be the number of languages we may speak (its surprising that we have around 1600 languages and dialects) or whatever religion we may follow but the basic nature is same. We are still the same but if it is to be true than what trash Chintamani was speaking. Mumbai Police is different from other cities. I was really shocked to see that a particular city police is behaving in a way, which is not the characteristic of we Indians. My perception about India was under question. How can a group of people in a particular city have different attitude for work, so different that people start saying that these people are different from others as if they are not part of our great Indian tradition?
Though I was shocked at my recent discovery about the vast diversity, even in terms of work culture we have, I wasn’t sad. After all may be Chintamani might have proved my notion wrong at some place but why be sad if it is for good. So I acceded to Chintamani’s
Statement but I was anguished over the nature’s injustice for other parts of the country which desperately need good police force to bring law and order into the place. But this anguish didn’t last long as the very next day circumstances forced me to visit the police station for that first time in my life and that too the police station of most highly efficient police of our nation. Reason of the visit was some one flicked a cell phone from the Bihadi’s pocket and he was able to catch this person. So we had the culprit but he managed to pass the cell he flicked to his daughter who got down in the running bus. We tried our best to get the stolen cell from him but failed, so finally we took him to the nearest police station. We told our whole story, they listened meticulously each and every event and I was impressed and remembered Chintamani’s great words about the police here. Then came the a question which brought me back to this world and that was where this incident occurred and we told them that it happened near Powai lake and by the time we could think of what to do, we were already at a place where this was the nearest police station. Then came the most unexpected and wise answer from the other side and that was that since he flicked in that area it is under Powai’s jurisdiction. I told him that why he care about jurisdiction, we have the culprit with us, somehow get our mobile out of him but who cares and he sent us to Powai Police station, where I found equally learned and devoted SI who told us that though you have the culprit also it highly unlikely that you will get your mobile back. Everyday 8-10 cells are stolen in Mumbai and they are never found again he said in a sense of great pride as well grief (actually I am confused what he was really trying to convey, our stupidity that we went to police station or his helplessness) Even someone stole my mobile few days back and could not recover it till now, was his statement of wisdom that sent a jerk across my nerves. We tried to register the complaint but that required even more documents and proofs than what is required to get the passport in the country. Finally I gave up and came out of the station and hired the same bus (bus no. 396) and moved on to work but all the time I was thinking of one thing, how right was Nehru realizing that all the Indians are same irrespective of their region, religion and culture.

SOMEWHERE OUT THERE

Came across this romantic poem somewhere and felt like putting it here, so here it is:


Somewhere out there
Beneath the pale moonlight
Someone's thinking of me
And loving me tonight

Somewhere out there
Someone's saying a prayer
That we'll find one another
In that big somewhere out there

And even though I know
How very far apart we are
It helps to think we might be wishing
On the same bright star

And when the night wind
Starts to sing a lonesome lullaby
It helps to think we're sleeping
Underneath the same big sky

Somewhere out there
If love can see us through
Then we'll be together
Somewhere out there
Out where dreams come true

We get what we deserve

Yesterday on the dinning table I was sitting with my friends and suddenly a topic started on India's present condition, where you can't find even a few national leaders without any corruption or criminal charges. As usual, I and kullu were of the extreme opinion that for this only masses of biggest and most successful democracy are responsible. They are the one who lie in the root of the problem. Take the case of corrupt leaders. We see that all this leaders are elected by the people and they are the ones who are sending them. We find people sitting in jail and having charges of murder and rape winning the elections by huge majority just because either they belong to some specific caste or religion or region etc etc and the list of all these crapy reasons goes on. In India, I feel its really very difficult to get votes on the basis of issues like development etc. and it is proved time and again. Take the case of the last year's assembly elections when all the results were dictated by sentimental issues and all the CMs ,who were the face of development, lost their chair just bcoz their opponents raised some sentimental issues and the public got swayed by that. So this really raise a question i.e. are the Indian Citizens mature enough to decide who should be ruling the nation. I know this is a tough and arrogant question to ask but a genuine one.
Now Ghalib came up with possible reason of this behavior of Indian public which predominantly focus on illiteracy and lack of education etc. Now my point is, how does a higher degree helps you to decide what's right or wrong. It’s a simple discretion power given to every one by the nature. Take the case of cat, it doesn't have any educational degree but it still knows that it has to stay away from Dog or a deer without any degree knows that it should stay away from a Lion. So why can't this apply to human beings. Why can’t they simply reject the politician who is distributing money openly or asking for all those crapy reasons? Why can’t they figure out that if a person is raising sentimental issues and asking votes on the name of these crapy reasons doesn't deserve to win?

The situation becomes even worse when the people who understands that things are going wrong takes a very apathetic attitude and don't even go out to vote. The lame excuse being what difference one vote will make. Still the worst part is that you will find every Indian citizen cribbing about the corruption and anarchy prevailing in the society and holding politicians responsible for that but this is the attitude which I hate the most. They can litter anywhere they want, they throw garbage in middle of the road, and they will not vote or vote stupidly for some crapy reasons, spoil the public property and still hold politicians responsible for this. To me it seems that citizens of independent, democratic sovereign republic of India are mostly concerned about the fundamental right but fundamental duties, ah! Who cares?

So now it’s clear as I already mentioned "you get what you deserve" and leaders are one of them. So stop cribbing about them and start thinking what you are contributing for the improvement of situation.

(Don’t get hurt just because I have written something harsh about Indians (I am also a proud Indian). I have limited my comments to Indians only because I don’t know much about the behavior of other nationals. So my comments are not restricted to Indians and may be applicable to others too. )

"EQAULITY IS NOT THE ESSENCE OF NATURE"

Throughout my life, I have been hearing the word equality, though at different places. The very first time I came this word was in algebra when I was a kid but never realized the importance of this word until I read my civics book which told me right to equality is our fundamental right. I was really impressed by the statement but still didn't know how to react because i was sure of only one thing and that was that it is impossible in this real world to do anything to bring equality. I am saying this not because I am a pessimist or something but the only reason is that I feel "EQAULITY IS NOT THE ESSENCE OF NATURE" and I have enough arguments to support this statement. First of all when I look around our solar system I find that not all the planets are made equal. As we always say that our earth is unique planet to have life. So still no equality. Now look in the earth it self, we find there are places which have very high mineral contents etc. but on the other hand there are places which don't have even sufficient amount of water to survive the vegetation. So still no equality. Now coming to various species living on the planet, I still find that there is no equality and we will have to accept the very fact that Homo sapiens are definitely more privileged then any other species. Now in the Homo sapiens it self we don't find equality and some are born with extra ordinary talent etc. whereas there are people born with congenital diseases. So still no equality. So now the question is how real this concept of equality is in practical life . Is it really possible to achieve equality?

Most of people will call me passimist but still I feel that this concept is really good on paper but bringing it to reality is seriously a difficult task, where difficult means almost impossible.

"Reservation in Private Sector"

"Merit is not the only criterion for employment" these are the words of our great visionary prime minister Man Mohan Singh, who is supposed to be the visionary who brought India to present state we are daring to challenge the whole world then, how can he change so much within few months of attaining power, so much so that he has decided to pull back India to the same state what it was 15 years back. Now before discussing the impacts of Reservation on country’s growth first of all let us see the concept of this greater equality among equals. It says that few seats (few can be as many as 65% of total) in every job opportunity should be reserved for socially and economically deprived people. I don't have problem with the very concept but let us analyze what is a socially deprived. Does that mean that a person carrying a particular surname is socially deprived? Does that mean a well to do man whose ancestors were not allowed to enter a temple or wasn't allowed to take water from a village well 300 years ago should be given preference over a poor Brahmin who don't have enough to have two time meals in the present? Should he be punished throughout his life for what his ancestors did? Is it wise to reserve some seats in medical/engineering/civil services etc. on the basis of caste, when we know that the socially and economically person whom we are portraying in our mind to give reservation, can never reach to that stage, where he can enjoy the benefits of reservation? One more flaw i find with this system of "greater equality among equals" is that if this system was so successful that it needed to extend to private sector also than why couldn't it produce results in past 54 years of its existence?

Now some of my friends will definitely ask what it has to do with country's growth, so let’s think over the reasons which forced us to move towards disinvestment. The biggest reason was definitely the inefficiency present in the PSUs and suddenly all those PSUs which are privatized has started producing profits. So its clear that quality of management and work force definitely has a very strong impact on the performance of the organization, then how can we compromise with the quality of man power and even force those private players to do the same. Now some peoples keep raising question of social responsibility of the private players, but does that mean in the name of social responsibility they should compromise with their basic business values and pay those from a reserved class an equal amount what they would have paid a more deserving candidate.

The main essence of our constitution was to give a right to equality and eliminate all these caste-ism and differences in our society by giving them equal opportunity but it seems those things are already forgotten amidst all this bull's fight for power and in pursuit to please the minorities. A person can't contest from a particular constituency from where he belongs just because this constituency is reserved for a particular section of the community (or for a particular sex, as the case may be in the years to come) then what happened to the fundamental right of "right to elect" (which is already lost in present day's booth capturing etc.) and "get elected". So this means that we are doing discrimination in reverse direction in the name of social justice. The arrangement of reservation was meant for 10 years only but still it’s continuing because political parties don't want to loose their minority votes especially those so called secular forces, though they are the ones who force the constitution to differentiate between an upper caste and lower caste. So the obvious question is what should be the criterion for reservation. So as far as the essence of constitution is concerned it’s not wrong to be liberal for the downtrodden but the criterion has to such that it doesn't become a puppet in the hands of politicians. It’s quite obvious that we can't say that if a person carries a particular surname he is the needy. So the only solution that seems viable is to fix some seats on the basis of economical status and give free primary education etc. to every one so that their are no difference in the opportunity for anyone.

Nobody will do it?

Once there were three Indians Everybody, Somebody and Nobody. Out of those three only Nobody was a bit serious and righteous person devoted to his duty. One day all of them got a piece of work to do. But Everbody said that he wont do it because it won't make any difference even if he don't do the work because Somebody will definitely do it. So as it turned out to be, Somebody was also not very dedicated so finally Nobody did that. Finally as always happens, once Nobody does a work Somebody will raise the issue and Everybody will start fighting for the cause, but the question is Everybody is so concerned about that work why don't he himself do it but still Nobody knew the answer. Everybody knows that in India, whatever may happen Nobody will do the work but still he will wait Somebody to do that work . That is the main hinderance to country's progress but Nobody cares. So who will take India on the path to glory,answer is still Nobody because EverybodySomebody will atleast give the solution than also you are wrong because as I told you Nobody will give the solution.So what's the solution to the problem. Its simple stop looking for somebody (especially if you consider me in to be somebody :) ) to work, start working yourself.

Survival of the fittest

When Charles Darwin had proposed the theory of survival of fittest, it is highly unlikely that he might had thought about its implications in philosophy. When he proposed the theory the only thing he intended was to study the anthropology but that theory not only solved the mistery of human evolution but the behaviour of human. The human was more apt for the conditions of that time so he survived the challanges amongst all those species of that time but i don't know if we can call the success of some human being in the society where as the failure of others as the sequel to the same theory. In the present day world just see around, the only thing you will find is the immense competition amongst the same species homosapiens over the others. Take the case of anything from day to day life to something very specific like education or business, it seems the only aim of the man is to prove himself superior over the others. He will do almost anything to prove that, I have always had a doubt that if a person can perform well at a specific time that proves that he is a better huaman being. If human survived the drastic changes of climate at that time where as few reptiles could not, does that make huaman being a superior species. I do have some reservations about that conclusion because that only indicates that man was good enough to face the changes of climate but that doesn't prove that he is superior in every aspect. So coming back to competitions prevailing in the society I will say that the better performance of a man in a perticular moment only indicates that he is better in that particular field at that particular instant but saying that he is better than the others who could not perform equally well in that test will be wrong. So we do need to change the notion " survival of fittest". Its not correct to say that only fittest survives because we can't define fittest without taking one more dimension i.e. time into accout. So if we want to apply Darwin's theory in the real world, we will have to remember great Albert Einstein also, to reach at any conclusion. So the more apt version would be to say that only those who are fittest at a particular time when they are tested will determine their survival not their absolute strengths.

The Confession of an American

As far as I can think I don't find anything wrong with my I ideas. I haven't done anything wrong till now. Its just your fault that you are not grown enough to understand my highly enlightened thoughts. If I feel that there is only one country in this whole world whats wrong with it?
I am a highly esteemed citizen of United States of America. I can afford to think so because if you claim that there are hundreds of countries across the globe and you are also living in one of them, then you are wrong. Don't forget you are not living because you or your nation deserved that. It's because of the simple reason that our greatest President wanted you to exist. So your life carries no weight in front of the life of those greatest Americans who are allowing the other countries to exist except a few, after all we are also human beings and can make small mistakes. Look at our greatness, we killed only few thousands in retaliation to the september 9/11 which killed so many Americans. After all those who died were great Americans not Kashmiris or Mumbaites or Palestinians . How could we keep quite, but still its the greatness of our nation that we only ruined two nations, after all we were capable to ruin many more.

We are the ones who are puttiing a real fight to eliminate terrorism and the seriousness of our fight is clear from the fact that to achieve it we can go to any extent, we are making alliances with the nations, our important partners in combatting terrorism are Israel and Pakistan, the countries which are the most capable of combatting the terrorism. After all you can't expect inexperianced countries like India to help us. India even could not curb the terror in its own land how it will help us. On the other hand look at Israel and Pak, they are capable of carrying on terror(and obviously why should we bother about it,they are not Americans,what will happen even if few thounsand of Indians die out of a billion), so they can help us well to eliminate it also.

Now, I am sure you people must be saying all sort of things when it comes to trade practices and subsidy policies i.e is the subsidy our Govt'. is giving to farmers in US while opposing it when other nations do the same but what is wrong with it, after all that farmer belongs to the great nation of America. The great America which is helping out all other nation of world, freeing then from the claws of the dictators and giving them a stable rule under the flag of USA in exchange of almost negligible materialistic gains like crude etc.

I hope I have been quite successful in proving myself correct, why I voted for George Bush and I hope you will understand my stand. Anyways even if you don't agree with it, I don't care, after all I am a great citizen of a great nation, why should i care for you. This is my greatness that I am still reasoning with you to explain my stand otherwise everyone knows that for me you people doesn't exist because for me there is only one nation in this world, USA.

THE PURPOSE

.

A question has always been hovering in my mind that "What is the purpose of all this chaos around me?" I see people running blindly to achieve something which they don't posses right now. If they get that they start running for the other, so it has just become a never ending wild goose chase. Now some of the, what so called progressive people, will start questioning my vary concept and definitely the only counter view they can produce is that this helps the human being in achieving the progress. I know I am trying to prove a point which is definitely difficult one to assimilate but still the fact remains that progress is a relative term. I want to ask what is the perception of progress? Is there any definite answers like everybody having car or may be every body having all the materialistic things required to lead a comfortable life. But definitely this not the complete answer.What is the use of having all that stuff if we are mantally unsatisfied and unable to use that? This is the case for every contestant of this wild goose chase contest. Through out their life they think that if they will have this thing they will be happy but after some time they realize that they could achieve that thing but still couldn't get that happiness because now they need the other thing.

If having materialistic things was the last thing that could give happiness than our forefathers wouldn't have spend a moment in their life happily.Take for example someone may think that having a Merc or having a big banglow will give him great happiness but this is not the case because our forefathers didn't have all these things but still they were happy reason being that they didn't know what is a Car or even they didn't know what is fan. So the point is that materialistic things can't be a scale of happiness, its just that they are capable of making you unhappy if you keep thinking about them all the day. So the message I want to give is, not that we should give up working harld to achieve all those materialistic things, but instead i suggest that we should realize that these things are need for human being but not the gateway to happiness. So if we can get all those things we should feel happy but we should not regret if we don't have them.