emergency in pakistan

I havent blogged for a while, but this is something I simply HAVE to write about!
Emergency... the constitution is dissolved ... the supreme court is dismissed ... theres not law and order system in the country ??
What I am really wondering is, was it all necessary ??? Or was it just a political move by Musharaf. Clearly in case of a democratic election, he didnt have the necessary support. He does not enjoy the support of the whole army either nowadays. Most generals back the supreme court. US which gave him more on intelligence and monetary support, dont actually mind Benazir in his place. Whoever lets them inside their province near the Afahan/Baluchistan border. What the fuck is happening here man ? This shit is too bad for us, because you can never know what the people will rise up to! Extremists already have funding from Saudi Arabia (US ally btw) and will try to move in fast. I just hope that the democratic process had enough crusaders to move in before the fanatics.
I still believe that Mussahraf was good for Pakistan. Though a Islamic state he didnt take shit from extremists. The Lal Masjid incident is an example, which also in some ways is a catalyst imo. But plainly put, even though he was a dictator, he wasnt a tyrant! This shit was boiling since a long time I think, and in some ways could be orchestrated by Intelligence Bureau. But the breaking point was when Nawaz Sharif suddenly decided to return to Pakistan and shit started going down. Mussharaf is the only person imo who can stop both militants and the american troops from entering the country and restore whatever shred of sovereignty thats left of this godforsaken country. India-Pakistan is a classic example of democracy working at least in terms of security. More on this later.

capitalism is evil

Americans are bloody protected !!! I understand that it is the only country which allows "free thinking" in the most true sense. But I think the culture of protecting individual life has somehow percolated in government policy making. To plainly put it, Americans might be the most pampered people in the world who are not asked to make tough decisions and are expected to immerse themselves in the most non profound of commonplace things in life and just exist. Its not that Americans are assholes or want to be assholes. Just that they are not allowed to be anything other than assholes ! And this I say in spite of the great universities and places of education in the USA. Of course most of this post is a generalization, but to study a culture and society, I think it is important to make generalizations.

How does one make relationships work? how can one guarantee that everything will turn out fine in the end? can anyone be sure that everything will work out? if one is always sure then is it a good thing or bad?
Recently one of my friends and his girl friend broke up. They parted ways with the words "its not your fault, its both our faults. we both have changed now"! She found someone else I guess. But come onnnn. I do not believe for once that people change in these kinds of things. I mean yeah I will definitely change in a few years as in I could start liking japanese food, or I will start hating Robert De Niro cause enough is enough. But how can I start not loving a person I loved so very much! With whom I dreamt of spending my life together and make babies with. How is that possible. Maybe I am too much in love right now to understand how that might be happening. But still I dont get it how it could happen. If anything does happen, I will feel betrayed and broken and devastated and washed out ! I must admit that I am not a strong person, if that qualifies as a quality for being a person, and I dont think I will hide behind the sheath of strength of character. I will cry and feel like shit and curse her. I dont think there is anything wrong with that. But coming back to the topic of this post, i.e. parting ways the british-india style "not anyones mistake" etc. etc. horse poo, i think is ridiculous and completely unnatural. If you can handle the break up like a matured person that means you didnt have the innocence of the child to believe in something in the first place. And if you didnt believe in something right from the start then maybe it wasnt supposed to happen anyways.
My girlfriend and I dont get any further than second base. I dont see anything wrong with the fact that she doesnt. But what bothers me is that she might be thinking that she is saving herself for mr.right. That makes me wonder, here I am deeply madly in love with this girl and she is thinking that this might not work out and I should play my cards right. I know she loves me, but here again she might lack the childs innocence of believing in something without a shred of doubt. I want her to believe. Please let her believe. Not that I badly want to get to second base or something, not that I dont want to either, but the knowledge that if I want to, its there for me is very reassuring. If she just tells me that I want to (i know she wants to) but I cannot let you do that because I wont before we get married, it will relax. Otherwise be respectful and tell me truthfully that she doesnt think as yet that I am important enough to sacrifice her her virginity on.

back

Hi , im back after a looong time, feels good i guess...lot of things have transpired and i think I am a changed man now. I am definately in love for one. Yes, I am in love.

Ahmedinejad rules

Iran will let go off the captured sailors as a gift to UK. This is an ingenious move. Free your captured diplomats from Iraq and instead let go of these fools and claim the upper hand that you are giving the gift. I always knew Ahmedinejad was a great politician.
You know I realize that capitalism is corrupt because it brings out the worst qualities in humans. It is not liberalism that is corrupt as always believed. It is capitalism. The capitalism have only somehow found a way to blame moral corruption on liberalism. Liberalism can lead to individualism, but there is no proof that it conclusively leads to moral corruption. And moral corruption is a totally relative term by the way. For example in America, it is immoral to have an abortion, but not that bad to have sex with 50 people. Coming back to the point, the Shah's rule in Iran would have fucked it up and Iran would have ended by being a dummy nation with American values. Not that religious extremism is the way out. Religious extremism is the anti thesis of liberalism, but man has yet to find out the antidote for capitalism. China is doing just that, and thats why it is such a super power. And Iran is much better than Ahmedinejad.

hostage crisis

Iran has taken 15 brit marines and soldiers as hostages for wandering in Iranian waters. Britan is saying that they were in Iraqi waters.

Iran should just go ahead and kill those fools who had no right to be there. Even if they were no spying (not proved yet) they engaged in stealing. They should have been finished off without trace.

George Carlin

George Carlin The Ten Commandments | Send To Friends | Funny Pictures at JibJab

Obama asked...

How to involve the people in the Democratic Process?

People should know exactly what they get when they vote for someone. Promises made to the people should be technically sound and on paper. A promise, even though only of little improvement, if kept, carries more weight than a broken promise. The constitution should be made more 'public accessible' in the sense it should be put in simple language and made available in schools. After all what is it but a set or rules? If people are educated about the constitution, they will realize that more rests in their hand than they ever thought.
Campaigns nowadays are nothing but schemes for gaining financial support. Candidates should give DETAILED plans of how they will implement policies. It is imperative that the technical details be specified. Candidates should be made accountable for what they say and therefore each and every promise should be in writing. Justifications for broken promises should be left to judge with Congress as well as the Senate.

End of America and Democracy.

The end of America will come because it lets lesser men lead. What is the test for president? How can you say that a democratically elected person is indeed a good man/woman to lead a whole country! A elected representative is sympathetic to a majority of people, but that doesn't mean that the rest of the people are wrong! Democracy cannot guarantee the right person will be in office, because it is as someone said 'a glorified popularity contest'. There will always be someone who does not agree with the elected representative.
So what exactly is democracy? I my view what democracy really means is that everyone is equal. Everyone has right to live a good life, fight for it, speak freely, want anything, dream anything, like anyone! It is a liberal statement, and that is what makes it flawed. Don't get me wrong, I am liberal myself. However when you let people choose anyone they like, more often that not people will end up choosing the more likable than the more competent. The core of democracy is based on liberal beliefs. And liberalism gives rise to individualism. So what democratic election then boils down to is to be likable and make people like you. And that is where controlling people comes in. So on one hand you are trying make people like you and on the other you are asking them to make a unbiased choice! How can this be democracy?
Making people like you opens doors to infinite philosophical and political debates. What do people really want? What do majority of people really care for and sympathize with? Do you really think that people care if gay people can get married and adopt children? Would they care if Terri Chaivo is put down or let live? Or if abortion should be made legal or not? NO. People have opinions but does anyone really CARE unless it happens to themselves personally. NO. All these issues are made up issues by the people who want you to like them. And trivial issues like these will keep on being invented by politicians in pursuit of this popularity contest.
So democracy is the most successful form of government right now, because not all form of government have been tried.

Fred Thompson

Do you guys know who Fred Thompson is? Well he is (soon) on of the next Republican Presidential Candidate for 2008. He also is an actor in series like 'Law and Order'. If that didn't make you laugh then you don't have a sense of humour. He is a professional actor, who is also a professional politician.
Anyways this post is about a comment he made. He wrote on a right-wing blog called National review that 'Gandhi's way isn't the American way'. He argues that the democratic party and the liberals want to run the war in Gandhi's way and wonders 'what would Gandhi do'? (in a situation like Iraq). He says that according to Gandhi when the British (unlawfully in India by the way) were sending Indian troops to fight against the Nazis in WW2, they should have surrendered before the Nazis and probably get killed, so should have the Jews. Interesting he compares George Bush's war on terror with WW2:). He says that 'When American’s think of heroism, we think of the young American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, risking their lives to prevent another Adolph Hitler or Saddam Hussein.'

I am not even going to argue or write what a dumb fuck he is. Forget that, it is proven from what he posted. But lets talk about what he means by 'Gandhi's way isn't the American way'. Gandhi is revered all over the world for a reason. The reason is that his philosophy of non violence which made sense to a lot of intelligent people in the world. Apparently Fred Thompson is not one of them. But when he says that 'it is not the American way' he is essentially brandishing that the American way is bringing good using ---> violence (or rather any means necessary)!!! You have to understand that Gandhi wasn't much of a diplomatic person himself. Gandhi did not believe in sitting down with a panel and a commission and then talk with people over several years to come up with a common solution which would just be a compromise of justice. NO. Gandhi was never a diplomat. BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN HE WAS PHYSICALLY VIOLENT. He was sympathetically violent. He did not believe in getting rid of the Britishers with violence. India was a country of around 500-600 million people with more than 50% of its population commanded by Gandhi (not even congress) and there were not more than 100,000 Britishers in India at any point of time. How much time do you think it would have taken to clean up those Britts? Gandhi called for the stopping the 'Quit India' movement (which was going really well politically) when violence broke out. Now why would he do that???
So when Fred Thompson says that according to him 'Gandhi's way isn't the American way' what he is essentially saying is that 'compassion', 'humility' and 'sympathy' is not really the American way. It is not American to sympathize with Iraq. It is not American to be humane to any Muslim. It is American to be a 'hero' and slay them all for peace. Amen.

The unsaid agreement?

Why does the media always ask the wrong questions? Why is it that the ones who ask the right questions have no platform? Its not just the right wingers but even the left media. Why can these people not ask what everyone wants to know! Alberto Gonazales appologied and accepted that 'some mistakes were committed' and everyone was happy and gay. WHY DIDNT ANYONE ASK HIM WHY WERE THE ATTORNEYS FIRED? IF IT WAS A CLEANUP MOVE THEN WHAT ABOUT THE OTHER NON PERFORMING ATTORNEYS?
There seems to a unsaid agreement between the media that no one will ask the other partys important people the questions that need to be answered. Democrats are in on it too. Democratic congressman Waxman has set up a committee to investigate white house and congress involvement in the Libby fiasco. Let see what comes out of this.

Ousting Musharraf

US might look at a plan to oust Musharraf. It seems that Musharraf is not doing enough to help the US with its godly mission to 'free the world of terrorism'. This may well have the capacity to create more disruption in the peace talks between India and Pakistan and general stability in the Northwest frontier region. The generals in Islamabad seem to be planning a coup d'etat against Musharraf for which they will require military and political assistance which they will get from the US. Inspite of the fact that Musharraf has done more for his country than her previous leaders. He has helped put Pakistan develop nuclear power and sustain peace talks and diplomatic relations.
I suppose this will spell really bad news for India. Musharraf is a moderate Islamist, and Pakistan is a Islamic state. Musharraf leaving can only mean more radical people coming to power and also corrupt one's as they will not be ashamed to seek help from the US for political reasons. US is inadvertently going to create chaos in my part of the world!
Why should I not think that this is somehow related to Dick Cheneys recent surprise visit to Pakistan?

American media

Oh how the media spins news! I am just appalled by the coverage of the Libby trial. Forget Fox, even the so called liberal channels have begun to spin news with their perspective. Firstly for the facts. Libby lied! There is no doubt about that. Libby lied that he did not leak the identity of Plame who was a covert CIA operative because he wanted to discredit the reputation of Wilson, Plames husband, who was the ambassador to Iraq prior to war and he was going to say that Saddam had no intention of getting 'yellow cake' from Niger to make nuclear weapons which would potentially had stopped the war. But that is not the point. Libby is a criminal. A war criminal, along with Cheney, Rove etc. entourage.
The media is clearly divided into the so called liberal and conservative biases. The conservatives are constantly trying to cover up for the wrong doings of their god fathers and blaming the other half of the media. While the liberals are constantly trying to blame the conservatives and unearthing the inaccuracies and wrong doings of the conservative god fathers and their media minions. To give them the benefit of the doubt the liberal media are at least doing something relevant to the truth. However the fact remains that both the media cabals are nothing but catering to their respective audience! The conservatives are happy and content from what they hear and the liberals rejoice in the victories of the liberals. ITS LIKE NEWS, THE WAY YOU WANT TO HEAR IT! But where is the news? American news media is filth, a product of pure capitalism. All the more reason how capitalism will not work in the longer run, just like AMERICA.

Wht the hell is BALANCED NEWS anyways? Doesn't news MEAN balanced.

Richard Dawkins

This man is a genius. I have seen many of his documentaries. I admittedly haven't read any of his books, so I cannot talk about his work with surety. But the passion he has for his work is amazing. In this video he talks about the theory called "shifting moral zeitgeist". Basically what it means is that over the years the moral indicator if you will, is slowly shifting towards more liberal views. What could have been considered as highly liberal say 100 years back, is increasingly being considered more and more right or conservative nowadays. He gives racist prejudiced quotes of Abe Lincoln and H.G.Wells who were considered very liberal in their day, but now which would have been considered downright repugnant. He argues that science progresses, the shifting moral zeitgeist will keep on shifting towards the liberal side, rejecting religious beliefs. Implying that, if science is progressing and the moral zeitgeist is shifting towards the left, it means that the essential moral are not obtained from religion in the first place! From what/where are these morals obtained from is an open research question.

Being a liberal myself I tend to agree with what he says. However, from the analytical point of view, it is necessary to first consider, why was religion initiated in the first place? If a scientific conjecture is to be made, then I think it is essential to ask this question. Religion is a pretty new theory in comparison with man. Man had lived in civilizations before there was religion. So why was there a need for theorize religion in the first place. It is important to analytically consider this question simply because I think that it holds the key to understanding the most fundamental aspects of sustaining a society. From what I've seen and read so far of Richard Dawkins, which admittedly is very little, all his effort seems to be directed at proving religious belief is a deterrent in scientific progress which is the true calling of seemingly everyone with life. I agree with Dawkins on most of the points. The man is brilliant.

Another criticism I can think of to the theory of shifting moral zeitgeist is, how can it explain the libertarian culture of the 17th century Europe especially France. No doubt that was the most productive time with respect to art, mathematics and science. How does shifting moral zeitgeist explain the dips in the curve with respect to the 'overall liberty' axis along the 'time' axis? What unit of time is considered for the shifting moral zeitgeist?

Wassup

Finally 2 1/2 years after creating this blog I get myself to write something. I often wondered why I didnt write anything. It was because I didnt realize the importance of writing and penning down whatever was cooking-- for myself. So now that I do, I will slowly but surely start to blog often. I hope its like a habit you just get yourself to do. This blog is primarily for myself, however I be glad to receive any sort of comments, from anyone, encouraging, appreciative, rude, critical, what ever.