The new currency of busyness

Material goods: The souped up car, the rolex, the designer shirts, branded minutae etc. All quite affordable and not quite unreachable in this age of large disposable incomes of young professionals in the 22-35 age bracket. Generation celebrity has us flooded constantly with targeted images of the latest, greatest and trendiest at (seemingly) the best price point. This on the one hand will grab the attention of the mindless who want, and on the other to desensitize people as to the 'exclusivity' of an item. So what is it then that people use to differentiate themselves from their rat racing peers, when the large majoriy of material possessions are ho-hum (s/he saved up for it, got a good deal, knew someone who knew someone - many methods of aquisition)?.

Trying to catch up with friends nowadays involves about 5 phone calls, and it is for all intents and purposes, like a sales process. There is the initial guaging of interest (call 1) - 'Lets meet up sometime' 'Yea that would be great'. Next is the inevitable gap in communicae, lets label the absence of a call an event in itself (call 2). Following this would be facebook message (call 3) with a suggestion of time/day, then the renegotiation of said time/day (call 4) after which both members will check their outlook calendars. Finally there is the close/sell (call 5), which is the confirmation call. Both/all parties will then meet up at the specified place 10 mins late and spend a bit of introductory time explaining how busy they all were.

We all fill up our proverbial plates with activities which, were we to be of any decent level in ALL of them, would require significantly more than the 24 hours per day we have been granted by the great nothing (insert your preferred deity) and those responsible for calendar invention (who's more powerful?). Granted none of us should feel terribly guilty about this as we are of the age where forming a solid sense of self is paramount - lets open ourselves up to every opportunity given. However, the downside is that being busy has been equated to success. If money talks, busy-ness is the tone of superiorty behind the speech, the swagger in M.Jagger.

The confound? success is neither tethered to nor completely disconnected from being busy, but could in fact be a function of what one is busy doing, and importantly the person themselves. Bill Gates has his days scheduled in 15 minute increments for the next 3 years. Warren Buffett turns up to work every morning and places a blank page of paper on his desk, and this is his diary for today. Need I describe in another long winded sentence what this implies.

Tell me you're busy and I wont immediately conclude you're on the path to happiness, so we might have to probe further. Maybe we should have coffee to discuss that. But I'm only free between 6 and 7pm on Thursday, how's does that work for you?

A first in Sri Lanka

"Sala Ek General"

Since the bloodless coup d'etat in 1999, I've never really known what to think about Pervez Musharaff. Now, though, his last ditch grab for power has gone too far. The Haneef case showed us all what happens when there is too much power in the hands of one person. Then it was Kevin Andrews playing with our justice system. Now, I give you General Musharraf in all his glory:

Pakistan police arrested scores of school students, the youngest being a 12-year-old, who participated in a silent rally in Islamabad to protest against the emergency imposed by President Pervez Musharraf.

With silver and black tape stuck on their mouths and holding placards with slogans like "Justice for justices" and "Free the media", about 100 students braved police batons near the upmarket Jinnah Super market in Islamabad on Monday.

I stumbled on this great dissenting voice. The pictures are clear enough:

Seneca, perhaps a translation is in order? Our cluster map ain't exactly showing a rollicking readership in Pakistan. Maybe the General, inspired by his military ruler buddies in Myanmar, has decided to disconnect the Internet?

The Post without Direction (Alternate title - Where is the post?)

So, just a short gripe I've been holding for a week or so. The Sydney train fare has increased by approximately 5% and one may see not a word spoken in the news, and not an adjective printed in the press. The apathetic nature of Australian society persists. If this had happened in France, there would be a riot, walls torn down, banners harking back to the days of French Revolution, and perhaps the dropping of the name Charles De Gaulle. But in Australia, and 'she'll be alright'. I've held back thus far without expletives, so i'll end it there. Moving on now, and we're back.

Yesterday, a festive time was had by all present. Hattori Hanzo was off to the land of the saints for a month, and we found this to be a suitable enough reason to get together, and naturally invite a common friend of hours, Mr. Jug O. Beer (BSc, B.A, MBA, RSA, MB BS, FCUK). Perhaps the idea lay dormant in my subconscious, or perhaps i'm not quite ahead of the curve so much as bringing up the tail from a mental aptitude perspective, but a few points about social interaction in the 2000's came to light. In an odd subversion of the social networking phenomenon, which has obviously been widely criticised for the devaluing of 'real' human relationships among our generation, I was surprised that the trashbagging of social networking sites served as an excellent entry point for real life conversation (I was guilty of this particular brand of introductory conversation on at least 3 occasions - with 3 different people).

There's an initial irony of being disillusioned by social networking websites (SNW's) and then using it as not only an entry point but a large framework of discussion with strangers. Then theres a rollover effect where following a successful introductory conversation at the expense of SNW's, where you meet someone new, one may continue to traverse these SNW's to find flaws to again bring up in actual life conversation. Everybody wins - Zuckerman, MySpace, Murdoch, you, me and the stranger who shared my disgust of false 'friendships', who I will will get a friendship request for on facebook, and probably worse, whom I will accept. Truly, the new age of social interaction is the exchange between the physical and cyber worlds.

On a different note, I'm glad that there are 1 or 2 more people besides us contributors who are reading this blog. Although they are friends of ours, I am still glad to have a readership outside the authorship, and for further notice all ships are invited. Some members of the readership thought we were turning into a male version of the show 'Sex and the City'.

I can't say i've ever sat through a complete episode of it, but thanks to some thoroughly brilliant marketing (and marketability) even those of us not privy to lives of 4 professional female New Yorkers, are aware of the style of each character. I've certainly babbled alot just there to get to my point that I got labelled as the Samantha (who is more of a pro than a professional - wink wink) of the Six Million Rupee Men. I thank those for their opinion, however somehow I feel my reputation precedes me. It does however bring up an interesting topic for which I would like to open up a discussion forum. Perhaps, like snakes on a plane, only better, we can take contributors, put up a script (or a pilot) and do something with it - and if nothing happens, we can leave this post as a nice reminder of ideas squashed at first hurdle. So heres some questions for those who can be bothered to place their input (and for which I will be forever thankful towards) - What would a male sex and the city be like, has it been done in another form (Entourage perhaps?), character names, location? All welcome. Just don't make a group about it on facebook, we shall instead potentially brood over this with an old friend, Prof. Jug O. Beer.

Oh no! Not again...

If there ever was a case of a picture saying a thousand words:

The secret to removing The Great Man has been revealed: let him get to 95. I think - don't quote me on this - he's been dismissed almost half a dozen times in the nervous nineties over the last year. Mohan, you fancy a statsguru of his ODI scores since the bilateral series with South Africa in the UK before the Test tour of England? The one they won 2-1? Perhaps you could it append it to this post.

Postscript - 23 November 2007
Some flowing prose from a favourite cricket writer, Rohit Brijnath in The Hindu:

Tendulkar’s body may have healed and allowed him a fuller expression of strokes, but it is his confidence in himself, confidence that was shaken and rattled surely but never extinguished, that carried him on. He still gets beaten some days, but he is also more fluent, too, astonishing no less in his ability to rack up scores of 99, 93, 8, 17, 99, 8, 55, 71, 94, 30, 0, 16, 43, 79, 47, 72, 21, 4, 99, 29, 97 in his last 21 one-day innings.

What does Tendulkar play for? Team, himself, pride, records? Maybe he plays because part of him is just a boy who finds himself when bat meets ball. Maybe he plays because of a boy agog in the stands. Maybe he has summoned this last reservoir of energy to show a kid, now old enough to understand, why, for 18 years, the world has made such a fuss about his father.

No action left in your keyboard?

Mr Charity happens to be in the market for a new keyboard. Discussion of his search bought on memories of this moment from The Blues Brothers movie of 1980 - wikipedia synopsis:

"a tale of redemption for the paroled convict Jake Blues and his brother Elwood as they decide to take on a "mission from God" and reform their blues band in order to raise funds to save the Roman Catholic orphanage where they grew up."

I have included this quote because of the wikipedia links, an opportunity to explore The Art of Wikigroaning, no doubt. Back to the matter at hand. Elwood and Jake catch up with an old friend at Ray's Music Exchange:

Michael Jackson - Prince - Justin Timberlake (?)

It's like that question they often place in the literacy component of aptitude tests: Which is the odd one out? Increasingly, the opinion is being built that Justin (JT) is very much in line for induction into the pantheon of solo male popstars, MJ and the artist formely known as (but now known as such) amongst the groups finest. Some of the evidence is quite strong: teen star of N*Sync turned glamour boy thanks largely to the brilliant production of the Neptunes on his debut album, then popstar with (minimal) musical cred thanks to the arguably even more brilliant production of the current studio king Timbaland. So the faithful ask..why doesn't he deserve his place among the greats?

I have had the great fortune of seeing MJ in concert (1997 SCG 70,000 sold out crowd) and Prince (2002 Sydney Entertainment Centre), and last week I went to JT to see if he was the one to make the holy trinity. He was not.

The boys talent, nobody is doubting. The dancing - spectacular. The voice (i'll get to that later). The musician (well..sort of, but not really), but the general showmanship was better than any other solo artist touring today. This however, I would argue, is thanks largely to the strength of the pop/dance tracks produced by Timbaland. As a spectacle, with the lighting and sound effects, the show was a success.

Although in many ways pop music is self indulgent by nature, JT's constant posing throughout his gig doesn't allow for any real connection to be made with the audience - it's all about him. This might not seem to faze the 13 yr old girl, a concert first timer, and her friends sitting in the row below as they are enthralled to simply see his face projected onto large screens (omg he's real!). He is obsessed with showing us, his lowly audience, that he can do everything. So he dance, sings in his painfully thin falsetto voice, and takes any opportunity to strum out chords on guitars, synths, piano - then the 13 yr old girl said 'I didnt know he could play so many instruments'. The magic trick worked, and for most people playing chords = virtuosity = musician. Evidently, and I will spell this out - he is not the Princely musician he wishes to become - Eric Clapton said Prince was the best guitarist he'd ever seen.

The greatness of MJ and Prince (just examples - there are others) lies in their ability to never let their artistic superiority get in the way of losing their connection with the audience. In their shows there is elements of the spectacular, lighting, sound, explosions, the posing (and what is a pop-star without the 'hey look at me' element) but there was also honesty and humanity. Watching Prince sing purple rain, or MJ sing 'shes out of my life', and no matter how large the audience, pindrop silence ensues, and for the girls out come the tissues (and some of the guys - ok yes maybe it was me). Timberlakes 'Prince imitation' falsetto really is false - rather than communicating the song it feels like he's singing just so he can show us his wafter thin high notes.

Even with a band as great as i've ever seen, I can only really recall one 2 minute window where I saw such honesty from JT. Part of it isnt completely his fault. Although his pop/dance tracks are among the best pop songs of the last 10 years, a glaring weakness in his repertoire is his ballads. MJ had great ballads, Prince had the sort of ballads that hit you straight in the gut (think 'Adore'). JT's ballads are not only poor songs, but in the wake of his paper thin voice he is drowned out by his band, so theres almost no articulation..what is he singing about? Probably some kind of love, so the girls scream anyway 'he's amazing!'. If only you knew, what a superstar was. Timberlake is a somebody, a megastar in the youtube 'everybody can be a star' era, but dont put his name amongst the others. MJ - Prince - ? we're still waiting, and i'm hopeful, but perhaps it'll have to wait till the next generation.

So after leaving the concert, I felt entertained, but not amazed and not with the feeling that you were the presence of greatness. It wasnt all his fault, it was Just-him.

Mutterings in 07'

An older gentleman sits next to me at the office in St Leonards. Currently in the most stable time his life, he is part of a substantial yet fading population - the old caucasian Australian male. A man of decorum, charming and funny in the most inoffensive manner possible, he has earnt his place as the most lovable fellow in the office, and he's brilliant at what he does. He is a local North Shore boy, shielded by a life of prosperity and distance from the inner suburb experience. He speaks earnestly (and without any sense of superiority or haughtiness) of holiday houses, frequent flyer miles, stocks, bonds, and various financial securities which make me drift off to my happy place. He has lived through the conversion from imperial to metric systems, and through at least 15 governments from Menzies to Howard (the last bastion of hope for his generation). He is, with the watered down profile provided, a liberal voter.

Slightly out of touch with the complexities of modern Australia, he turned and said to me with the innocence and sincerity of tone he has become well known for, 'I wonder why Howard is dropping so much in the polls when he's done such a good job'. This is the group which the Howard government has known all along would support them thanks to economic luck and a healthy tax cut for their end of the spectrum. For the most part blunders such as Tampa, Cornelia Rau's wrongful detention, hesitation to sign the Kyoto protocol, and the farce that was the Dr.Haneef debacle (among other incidents) slip through their collective consciousness. It's the same conservative mentality that believes the Howard governments' arguement against the development of nuclear power plants. They mustve forgotten how far nuclear technology (and safety) has come since Chernobyl.

However it's also true to a large extent that they are not to blame, that they are a product of their generation and their environment: one of prosperity and a much more homogenous population, perhaps that which it seemed the Coalition strived for in its later years. The point is, scathing and hissing at liberal voters is useless, better instead to opt for a silently patronising tone and recognising the irony of what they stand for: Howards 'better Australia'. Multimillion dollar tax-payer funded campaigns advertising a new 'citizenship test', funded largely by people who wouldnt pass it themselves. Call an election, then call a tax cut, people imagine Costello standing on the corner of George st handing out $34 million. Part of the coalitions success then, is appealing to individuals' base attractiveness to money and the undeniable appeal of seeing a few more dollars next to their name. This makes it extremely difficult for the layman to see through and realise the ironically conservative nature of the current government. The prosperity they promise cannot come from holding onto our old ideas, pass strict laws on immigration (read: terrorism), regress from current trends in nuclear and environmental policy, and generally not move in the direction of the rest of the world.

The Liberal government, by and large, is like the old man sitting next to me, just without the charm. They stand defensive, eyes weary and ragged, legs shoulder width and palms stretched outwards in 'stop position', in the hope that time somehow runs counterclockwise. They speak dreamily of material prosperity without actually noticing that the rest of the world speaks another language. So i'll continue to enjoy the company of the silvertail next to me, and hope that with a new government both our generations will be better off, only he might not know why.

Racism in Cricket

There is absolutely no excuse for racism in sport. Although this is somewhat a narrow minded view in the global context of equality and fairness the issue only seems to attract any media attention when presented on the sporting field. Recently, Andrew Symonds complained that he was the subject of racial abuse on the cricket field during the fifth one day cricket International against India in Vadodhara. Symonds complained that he was subject to “monkey chants” from the Indian crowd who constantly tormented him whilst he was fielding at the boundary rope.

Let me ask you: how is a monkey chant racial abuse? Does Symonds believe that he is cross bred with a gorilla and a human; maybe two gorillas? If not, then he should not be affected by such claims. Now, any slur can be taken offensive especially whilst under the pressure of a tightly contested sporting event. However, India was thrashed by Australia by nine wickets. Where is the pressure? Mr Symonds, you are softer than a kindergarten girl who cries after being teased for wearing pigtails to school.

This incident is being compared to other instances of racial abuse. For example, during the Australia – South Africa game at the WACA ground in Perth South African players were racially abused as ‘kaffirs’ whilst fielding on the boundary rope. Such taunts are several degrees more severe than a ‘monkey’ chant. Although the Symonds event in Vadodhara is rather trivial in comparison to other instances of racism in cricket, it does highlight an important issue.

In the global context, racial abuse is regarded as a terrible offence and much is done to abolish it. However, in places such as the sub-continent racism is common. People often refer to another’s caste, class, birth, status etc in a derogatory manner as a method of slight. In Australia, such actions are regarded as outrageous and so the media condemn the crowd. But in India, the slander which Australian cricketers torment the Indian cricketers with is regarded as outrageous in India in the same way Symond’s monkey chants are taken to be offensive here. If the same slander that Australian players use on other International teams were used in a local Australian state game it would not affect the local players. That is, the manner in which sledging affects a player is simply due to a clash of cultures.

What was it that caused Harbhajan Singh to confront the entire Australian team after he was dismissed in the second ODI at Eden Gardens? India was also losing at that point and it would seem rather silly to confront a side that is thrashing you to all corners of the cricket field. Nevertheless, Singh stood up to the Australian side and had to be pulled away from the umpire. This was regarded as comical by the Australian media. When Singh complained of inappropriate sledging, the media portrayed the Indians as sore losers. Obviously, something terrible was said (if you were an Indian with Indian values as opposed to Australian cultural values). So, to an Australian player it is mild offence; to an Indian player it is terrible slander.

The simple fact is that the content of Australian sledging is insensitive to other cultures. This is simply ignored because Australia keeps winning and so the complaints of the other team are simply taken as poor sportsmanship. Now the attention is shifted towards the Indians: no doubt there will be an investigation and consequences. But the simple fact is that Australian players are sore losers. If they are going to sledge in whatever manner they wish then they should accept sledging in whatever manner the opposition wishes. Given that the content of sledging cannot be monitored if sledging is allowed, then action must be taken to police what is said on the field.

Much of the sledging occurs at the crease around the batsmen and so it is a simple task for the umpire to judge whether sledges are inappropriate. Psychological games are part of cricket but it should not be interpreted to use issues irrelevant to the game of cricket to upset the batsman. Umpires should therefore be given the power to award penalties or fines to players who sledge inappropriately. Such a practice is logical since they are at the centre of the playing field and can hear all that is said to the batsman.

Once the players clean up their act all this media attention can focus on crowd behaviour. The idiots who taunt players in any manner should be harshly dealt with after being banned from cricket games. Usually, much of what fuels the crowd is what is either said or observed by the crowd. Singh’s confrontational stance to the Australian players during the second ODI obviously fuelled ideas of unfair abuse amongst the Indian public. Put simply, if we are to remove racism from sport it must begin with the players. In cricket, this begins with policing the content of sledging.

Dress

If Adam and Eve had not eaten the forbidden fruit then we would never have to face the everyday dilemma of deciding what to wear. We would all be naked and content, happy that we are free from those prison bars that form the fibres of the clothing that we wear. However, frolicking through our urban jungle with nothing but a smile is merely a fleeting thought. The dilemma of deciding what to wear still hangs over us like a grey storm cloud.

Every day is faced with the daunting task of compiling an outfit. Often this decision is made after having carefully considered a number of prerequisites. Where is it that we are going? What is the occasion? Who will be present? What are they likely to wear? Have I worn this combination before? It would seem sane to consider the weather or look at what is comfortable or at what is not dirty. Yet we still ask those relatively simple questions which also prove somewhat difficult to answer. This leaves us staring at the mirror, digressing into a more dangerous topic – the faults that the mirror reveals.

The fact is that in today’s society, dress plays an important role. Firstly, there are the obvious social consequences. These namely include image, status and expressions of individuality or culture. Secondly, there are political consequences. That is, the dress we wear will help us to pose as confident, intelligent, respectable and trustworthy. Often we would employ such tactics in both the interview room and the court chambers. In such cases, the dress makes that ‘silent recommendation’. When it seems that people these days often judge a book by its cover, it adds more stress to that every day dress decision.

Nevertheless, clothes are only a ‘title page’ to your identity, character and person. Although it is important to edge out competition to win over either the opposite sex, boss or judge by dressing well what is more important is the substance that the clothes encase. If we lived in a world where our judgement was based purely on visual consideration, then ‘clothes make the man’, however this is not the case. Dress may divert another’s attention away from our faults but the minute we open our mouths they can gauge who we truly are. Dress only provides a good starting point and plays no further part in the development of a relationship.

We often regard our dress as the key to success when it comes to developing relationships. Yet if we are truly confident with ourselves, then the dress plays only the practical role and not the political one. More often than not, those who are confident with themselves often find that they are not faced with the daily dress dilemma but also never find themselves analysing their reflection. This confidence stems from a simple belief: the person sees in himself what he wants others to see in him. Armed with this ideal, the dress chooses itself.

FYI

From the Desk of:
Mr.Alfred Waled Ubani

With great pleasure I Mr.Alfred Waled Ubani, working with a bank here in Nigeria as a Manager. I am writing you in respect of a foreign customer (an Oil consultant/contractor with our National Oil & Liquidified Gas Sector) whom made a US$25M depository for an investment program that has remained dormant for years now. Hence, I have decided to contact you due to the urgency of this transaction.

On my personal investigation, I discovered that the account holder died on December 2002 in the Ukrainian aircraft crash. I made further investigation and discovered that the customer died without making a WILL on the depository.

It may interest you to know that I am only contacting you as a foreigner because this money cannot be approved to a local Bank account here,but can only be approved to a foreigner with an account since the money is in US Dollars. I have decided as a matter of urgency upon this discovery now seek your permission to have you stand as next of kin to the fund as No one has ever come forward to claim this fund. It may also interest you to know that I have secured from the probate an ORDER OF MADAMUS to locate any of deceased beneficiary. In accordance to Nigerian Law, fund deposited for over a period of Six (6) years without claim will be reverted to the Government treasury, if nobody applies to claim this fund.

I will like you to provide immediately your full Names and Address,Date of Birth, Occupation, Tel & Fax Numbers so that an Attorney will be able to prepare the necessary documents and affidavit which will put you in place as the next of kin. The Attorney will draft and carry out the notarization of the WILL and also obtain the necessary documents and letter of probate/administration in your favour for the transfer.

At the successful conclusion of this business, your goodself shall be entitled to have 40% that is, USD$10M of the total money while I will have 55% that is USD$13.750M and 5% that is SD$1.250M for communications and other expenses. I am ready to invest a reasonable percentage of mine into any viable business you suggest as a joint partner. Your percentage will also be a source of upliftment. You have absolutely nothing to LOSE in assisting me instead, you have so much to GAIN. Be rest assured that this transaction would be most profitable for both of us.

Your response is highly imperative as this is a TWO-man business deal transaction as I shall then provide you with more details and relevant documents that will help you understand the transaction. I need your assistance and co-operation to this reality as I have done my Home-work and fine tune the best way to create you as the beneficiary while I would use my connection and money to secure almost all the paperwork for this transaction which will be done by the Attorney and my position as the Branch Manager guarantees the successful execution of this transaction with you as the beneficiary to this fund.

I will appreciate your early reply for commencement of business.Contact me for acknowledgment by E-mail and whereby you are not interested,please indicate in your reply so that I can seek for the assistance of someone else.

If this proposal is acceptable by you, I expect that you will not take undue advantage of the trust I Will bestow in you. I await your urgent response.

Thanks with great regards.

Mr.Alfred Waled Ubani

Food poisoning your career?

A recent story on www.chow.com for you amusement.

Leftovers: The Career Killer
Does bringing your lunch hurt your chances for success?

By Helena Echlin

Dear Helena,

This coworker of mine, who is above me in the company hierarchy, usually brings her lunch to work—leftovers in Tupperware. The other day she asked me, somewhat seriously, whether it didn’t make her look less “successful” to bring her lunch, and whether it might hurt her in climbing the corporate ladder. I’d never thought about it before that moment, but then I wondered—did it? Don’t you have to look successful to be successful? —Concerned About My Friend’s Climb Through Middle Management

Dear Concerned About My Friend,

Bringing leftovers in Tupperware is like wearing an old cardigan to work: There’s nothing wrong with it, but it doesn’t project power and success. What you eat can send a subliminal message about who you are, just as much as what you wear. As Beverly Langford, author of The Etiquette Edge: The Unspoken Rules for Business Success, says: “Your lunch is part of your nonverbal communication, just like your jewelry.”

So what kind of meal says “management material”? The ideal lunch is expensive. “Having sushi delivered to the office reeks of power—and wasabi,” says Stan McElrae, creative director in a San Antonio advertising firm. By contrast, a Tupperware of last night’s lasagne makes it look like you’re struggling. “Those who pack a lunch are … typically crunched for cash,” claims Rupert, a legislative aide to a senator in Washington, DC, who did not want his real name used.

Your lunch should also be easy to consume. Langford recommends a sandwich, explaining: “You can eat it quickly; it makes you look like you’re a go-getter and you want to save time.” You shouldn’t bring lunch, because that could suggest you’re not completely focused on your work. People will know that you chose to spoon chicken fricassee into a container rather than get to the office five minutes earlier. Says McElrae: “I don’t think about that kind of thing when I get up in the morning; I’m thinking about whether I’ll get to Starbucks and what work I have to do that day.”

Another reason not to bring your own lunch is that it sets you apart. “It means you can never go to lunch with anyone,” Langford says. “It sends a signal: ‘Don’t invite me to go out with you.’” Even if your colleagues bring their food back and eat with you in the office, you’re still isolating yourself by eating separate food. Langford remembers: “I had a colleague once who was vegetarian and always brought her lunch. It was like a statement, ‘I’m different.’ It was tiresome.”

Most important of all, never bring anything smelly. Langford says, “One of the biggest complaints about working together is smells.” Sam, a legislative aide in Washington, DC, who asked that his last name not be used, particularly cautions against nuking fish leftovers in the microwave. “How do you contain the stench? If you close the kitchen door, the room will be foul for days.”

Put simply, if you bring the rest of last night’s fish curry, you risk losing the position to the guy who’s using pizza as a networking tool. As McElrae says, “There is nothing like ordering a pizza to unite everyone in the office.”

While I agree that home-packed-lunch might send off subliminal messages in the minds of your colleagues, the idea that you are just not cut to be a senior manager because of what you eat sounded absurd to me.

Ofcourse what you eat might dictate how you eat it. For example trying to eat 'chapati salan' at your desk might not make up for the tidiest meal thus reflecting poorly on your table manners etc.

Secondly, if you are really that self-conscious about how others might perceive you when eating left-overs from last night and thus susceptible to peer pressure, you just might not be senior-management material anyways.

I say, eat what you want and set a trend! Be a leader if you want that Director's position!

Link to Original story

Slinging Shit

This evening on National Nine News the headline read “the Naked Truth – Kevin Rudd visits a Strip club in New York”. Kevin Rudd has recently admitted visiting a New York strip joint after a conference in 2003 after “too many drinks”. In the wake of an election announcement, the timing is extraordinary. Recently it seems that Team Howard is trying to sling as much dirt as they can on the Rudd Train to see how much of it can stick.

A couple of days ago, the Australian stock market fell markedly reflected by the fall in the dollar. Team Howard subsequently stated that the opposition does not have the skills nor the experience to manage such a situation. But how does the Government control short term effects on the stock market? I am sure policies passed by the government have an effect on trading yet these are only seen in the long term. What sort of skills and experience are you talking about Mr Howard? The same economic skills that kept interest rates low? Perhaps Mr Howard called the US Federal Reserve and told them to start playing with their figures. Good work, Jonny.

If the Anti-Christ had a tattoo...

It would have to be this...
Yes, that's right, someone has actually tatooed the dreaded Blue Screen of Death error message on his arm. The link is here.

Invasion, what invasion?

In the weeks after 911, I remember hearing about the threat to American national security posed by the lack secret agents in the field. But I suppose the CIA wouldn’t compromise their agents by talking about where they are. Next time you're at the airport and there’s a man reading a newspaper, it could be Agent 56 from Control watching out for Siegfried…

It’s good to know that incompetence like this doesn’t just happen in the movies. It seems like real spies are more like Austin Powers than Jason Bourne.

In 1953 the CIA sent its first officer to Moscow, but he was so inept that he was seduced by his Russian housemaid - really a KGB colonel - photographed in flagrante and blackmailed.

During the Korean War, none of the CIA's 200 officers in the capital, Seoul, spoke Korean and many were accused of having fabricated their reports.

The CIA's difficulties in the Middle East are part of a long and undistinguished history. When Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, Robert Gates, then the agency's head and now the US Defence Secretary, was at a family picnic.

A friend asked him: "What are you doing here?" Mr Gates said: "What are you talking about?" She replied: "The invasion." Mr Gates responded: "What invasion?"

LIC positive

Make sure you don't take this pill...

Bass Harmonics

This is Victor Wooten on the Bass - something truly inspirational

Chess is more complete than life?

In my rather poor attempts to understand the finer points of professional chess, I came across an article I think will interest anyone who has a thought. http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3985

FIG JAM and rightfully so

12th Man - Ashes 2006

Reservations on War

War is spoken of as something that can be avoided. It is either ‘morally impossible’ or that one can attain ‘supreme excellence’ by subduing the armies of your enemies without even having to fight them. The truth is however, that war cannot be prevented. It can only be postponed. Fact of the matter is that it is in our own nature to feel that one has been wronged and it is within our own nature to be told to believe that we have been wronged and thus be spurred into belligerent action. Hence, it is only a matter of time before war breaks out between two nations no matter how hard the previous generation has fought to maintain peace.

Many an example in history has told us that a War was fought in the interest of border security. In the ancient world, many a clan has ‘secured’ its borders by fighting a weaker clan thereby securing its old border, establishing a new border and then repeating the process except for a new border. This sort of border maintenance is classed as uniting the clans or establishing nationalism. Ancient Greece was made up of several clans that continuously fought one another over domestic disputes. Agamemnon, a ruthless tyrant was one of the first to establish the Greek nation by subduing most of clans. This is not the only example. The clans of China have fought viciously with one another, which eventually led to the establishment of a Chinese nation. Even today, the process continues. Although there may be other motives, one of the reasons for sending Australian troops to Iraq was in the interests of national security. Thousands of years have passed since the Nationalistic Wars of Ancient China took place. Yet ‘border security’ remains as a justifiable motive to wage war.

Another motive and one of the more popular causes that has spurred a nation to war is the quest for resources. During world war two, the war between the United States and Japan was the result of an oil embargo. Paralysed without oil, Japan saw the only way to secure its future was to attack the United States. The bombing of Pearl Harbour eventually resulted in the start of the War in the Pacific. It is interesting to note that the war in this theatre was ended with the ‘unbelievable’ use of atomic weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. However, we have seen today that the resource motive still prevails. The American conquests in both Africa and Iraq are seen by many as a method of securing oil for the future of the United States. Resources are essential for the survival of any independent country. Therefore, when a nation is lacking it will do anything to ensure the survival of its people. This is only human nature. No amount of diplomacy can stop a war based on a resource conquest.

In addition, War is also fought in the interests of a political ideal. This motive is seen in almost any war. The political ideal behind ‘border security’ is in fact Nationalism. Today, the political ideal is ironically the reverse of nationalism – self determination. The various clans of Iraq are displeased with the Shiite majority in the newly elected democratic parliament and hence the insurgency continues. However, we all know the racial political motives of Adolf Hitler in his military conquest of Europe. His policies of racial cleansing spurred the whole World into War. The war in Vietnam was fought to stop the spread of communism. The tyranny of Mugabe in Africa is all to uphold a political ideal. These are just to name a few examples in the space of fifty years and it would be naive to suggest that such people will fail to return in the future. To remove them and to ensure the safety of the lives of millions of innocent people, governments will take the gamble in sacrificing a few of their own. Hence, we see yet again that war on this instance cannot be avoided.

Therefore, we can easily conclude that War is an activity that cannot be prevented. It has been thousands of years since the first war has been fought and yet still today in the timeline of human progress we are yet to reach the ‘morally impossible’ state. Peace can be prolonged insofar as the ‘pinpricks’ are prevented; however nobody can prevent the return of a ruthless tyrant or replenish the world’s resources. As a result, a war will be fought based upon such motives. Therefore, war will never be impossible.

Inspiring Words

The first of many posts on the same theme, I hope. Today I post here Paul Keating's famous Redfern Address - which placed third on ABC Radio National's Unforgettable Speeches poll. The full transcript is here



I re-post the quotation I stuck in the comments for the last post:

Ever so gradually we are learning how to see Australia through Aboriginal eyes, beginning to recognise the wisdom contained in their epic story.

I think we are beginning to see how much we owe the indigenous Australians and how much we have lost by living so apart.

I said we non-indigenous Australians should try to imagine the Aboriginal view. It can't be too hard. Someone imagined this event today, and it is now a marvellous reality and a great reason for hope.

There is one thing today we cannot imagine. We cannot imagine that the descendants of people whose genius and resilience maintained a culture here through 50 000 years or more, through cataclysmic changes to the climate and environment, and who then survived two centuries of dispossession and abuse, will be denied their place in the modern Australian nation.

We cannot imagine that. We cannot imagine that we will fail.

Short, uncomplicated language. A very Australian feel. If this doesn't make you stand up and take notice of the big fat elephant in your closet, I don't know what will.

Who can you fight for?

Remember this classic sequence from 'A Few Good Men'

On the charge of conduct unbecoming a US Marine, - the members find the accused guilty as charged. You are sentenced to time already served, - and to be dishonourably discharged from the Marines. This court-martial is adjourned.

What did that mean? Hal? What did that mean? Colonel Jessep said he ordered the Code Red. What did we do wrong?

It's not that simple.

We did nothing wrong!

Yeah, we did. We're supposed to fight for people who can't fight for themselves. We were supposed to fight for Willy.

Followed by another Amitabh Bachchan moment from Tom Cruise

You don't need a patch on your arm to have honour.

It raises some interesting questions. In the last few days I've thought of 'fighting for people who can't fight for themselves' as some sort of goal that I can follow in life. In the Australian context, fighting for rights of the indigenous communities, refugees or any other disadvantaged group, entails some kind of implicit criticism of Australian society - and thus of Western values and the concept of a liberal democracy (see this post)

In doing so, you're considered un-Australian and you're boxed in as some kind of rogue, subversive element by the media and eventually by society. One thing I can never understand is how people question why the terrorists always seem to from 'educated, privileged' backgrounds. Isn't it obvious? Weren't they just fighting for people who couldn't fight for themselves, standing up for 'Willy.'

The last three generations of Palestinians grew up in refugee camps. Iraqis have lived under sanctions for how many years now? The powerful entered their country under some guise of 'justice' but surely the injustice of North Korea and Zimbabwe - from breadbasket to basket case of Southern Africa in 20 years - is just as bad. Why mix metaphors? Energy security is not the same as justice.

There has been a serious twisting of the moral compass - on both sides. Did not David Hicks go into Afghanistan because he thought he was 'fighting for people who couldn't fight for themselves?' For centuries there have been mercenaries the world over, finding causes they believe in and fighting for them. 50 years of posturing in Camp David and on White House lawns and where does Middle East peace stand today? The Arab states have never been an adequate voice for the Palestinians - from the very beginning.

So we end up with beliefs that aren't compatible. Yassir Arafat dropped his olive branch and picked up his freedom fighter's gun years ago. You can't pick it up again with helicopter gunships and energy security. These guys probably just think that a few casualties in a rich country is just collateral damage in some wider struggle. Is it really any different to the state sponsored conflict so prevalent today?

FIGJAM

A good friend told me yesterday that this was the acronym the Aussies use as a nickname for Kevin Pieterson. It stands for 'F*ck I'm Good, Just Ask Me.' I've always called him "The Ego,' but his performance last night was simply awesome.

He has been accused, and one suspects always will be, of showmanship and a singular devotion to himself, but as long as he can produce match-turning innings as he did at Lord's on the fourth day, his team-mates will be mad to complain.

I suppose the same descriptor could be given to Shane Warne as well, but few batsmen can change the course of a game, with such minimal support and under such trying conditions:

England were in danger of being bowled out for under 200 today. The Indian bowlers did themselves credit in the morning session. The sun was shining and the conditions were not helpful to swing bowling as they were on the first three days but the Indian medium pacers stuck to a run-denying line, and RP Singh combined some sharp balls with the knack of picking up wickets to reduce England to 132 for five a few minutes before lunch. Considering that England had lost six for 26 in the first innings, India were in with a chance.

As it happened, England lost their last five for 31. In between, though, Matt Prior stayed with Pietersen long enough after lunch for England to add 120 runs in 25 overs. Prior wasn't a spectator, but the session after lunch bore Pietersen's stamp. His game is based far more on calculation than on instinct and he picked his spots surgically.

I suppose India still have a chance - since rain is a chance event. Thank god I learnt about influence diagrams last semester. Remember anything in an oval is a uncertain event. Let's hope the gods of managerial decision science smile down on the Indians tonight - failing that, let's hope someone makes a big hundred.

The Winter Fog, Part II

A dream can often be described as the expression of a suppressed desire. Perhaps this is a mechanism to emulate a particular desire so that the desire no longer lingers. Sometimes this expression becomes a nuisance, especially to those who vividly remember their dreams. Remembering the dream, which was a fulfilment of a desire, simply adds fuel to a burning fire. The desire lingers as the person recollects events of an imaginary world leaving a lasting impression of what could have been.

This adds further to the attachment and the longing for an actual fulfilment of the desire. This can be a problem as strong attachment to anything can be poisonous. This is especially true in the instance where the desire is towards something that you do not have control over. Consequently, you are left waiting for something to happen: waiting for the control to change the situation comes to you. Till then, all that is left is the dream. Somehow, you want this fog over your rationale to pass. The winter cold continues to keep you huddled in a corner, wishing for the sun to bring some warmth and resolution.

Favourite ad campaigns

If it's anygood, then darn it has to be on youtube. Here's good one I stumbled on just now. Sky Sports advertising their schedule of golf and cricket in the current UK summer:
A real shame you can't post video in the comments. The next best thing is a simple web link, I suppose. SMRM, If you feel it's genuinely post-worthy, then fire away by all means.

Another engineer changing the world

An interesting article from cricinfo about The Mont. Some nice issues about the immigrant experience in Britain.

It's certainly hard to imagine Panesar would find the time these days to do anything as lofty as the "Mathematical Modelling of Physical Systems", which was the title of his final-year dissertation. "Basically you have to simulate a pendulum, using a java programme - an applet." He enthusiastically simulates a pendulum, using his precious spinning finger. "The user sets the settings: the speed of the pendulum, and the time and the distance. And speed equals distance over time." By now he's a daze of gesticulations. "It'll oscillate to whatever time is set. If it's a short time, it oscillates quicker."

His delightfully hyperactive explanation reveals once again Monty's child-like awe for, well, pretty much everything. But in the grand spectrum of all things awesome, there was one moment in his life that will never, surely, be matched. That came on March 2, 2006, in the 18th over of his first spell in Test cricket. Panesar leans forward and his voice drops to a reverential hush.

"It's crazy. Think about it, someone from my background, who'd basically come from a park pitch, and there I was, bowling to my hero, Sachin Tendulkar, who I'd seen all the time on TV. It was like - well, I'm playing Test cricket now, but let's look at the opposition ... Sachin ... Dravid ... Sehwag ... Laxman ... Dhoni. And you just hold your breath and think 'Oh ... my ... god'. That's when it hits you. I used to play cricket in the park, and now I'm here. In India."

What happened next has already passed into folklore. "I was just lucky it hit his pad before his bat," says Panesar. The ball pitched, bit, straightened, and Tendulkar was on his way, lbw for 16. The dream debut wicket. After the match, Tendulkar signed the ball which is now "preciously" locked away in Monty's bedroom. On it, Tendulkar added: "Once in a blue moon, mate, never again."

A stirring fightback from india today... faaaatta-faaaat!

Gladiators, Biggest Loser and that poor friend of ours

"To gain happiness from the misfortune of others". Guilty as we all are of schadenfreude at one point in our lives or the other, we refuse to accept the reality of our own natures.
Ancient Romans are often loathed at their uncivilized means of entertainment whereupon wild beasts were set free on defenseless human beings. However a closer look at our modern life style reveals the same principle at play only at what now passes as "civilized".
TV shows like The Biggest Loser, Survivor, South Park and might I add Funniest Home Videos are some examples off the top of my head.
Lets step away from looking at schadenfreude from an entertainment perspective. Let us look closely at are basic human need to be financially superior to our friends. Owning a bigger and better car for example is not merely for one's own financial security and peace of mind but rather to see the look on the face of one who is less fortunate. This in my opinion is a more humble version of schadenfreude. Envy and jealousy work in one direction, schadenfreude in the other.

Pretentious economists

An article in the Sydney Morning Herald (20/07/07) entitled 'When you weigh it up, it can be smart to be dumb' makes the rather tenuous arguement that blondes are in fact , contrary to popular speculation, smarter than the rest of us minions of other follicular shades. The piece itself is written by Jessica Irvine, who rather boastfully includes a disclaimer at the end of the article outlining the fact that she has an honours degree in Economics, and you guessed it, is herself a blonde.

Taking into account the possibility that since the article is published on the back page of the Herald, and thus may not be serious by intention (indeed, im all for the trashing of stereotypes), its hard to shake the feeling that Irvine truly believes in her simplistic, unidimensional, 'economic market' view of the world. As succinctly as I can put it, the jist of her arguement is as follows: In the 'flesh market', inteligent men 'innately prefer' attractive women (evidently some sort of pseudo evolutionary assumption) and that as blondes are characterised in many Western societies as being attractive, the biproduct of this union is, yes thats right..the smart blonde. This insight is supported by the New York Times economist Robert Frank, and both writer and referee come across as being completely oblivious to the complexity of human interaction, particularly that of courtship (although many patterns do exist). Add to that the neglect of empirical evidence and the contentious application of economic principles to human behaviour and you have what i like to call the economists syllogism: economics explains the world, the world is composed of people, therefore economics explains people.

Irvine further attests that blondes are more susceptible to problems associated with 'opportunity costs' (the benefits you concede from not doing the best of your other alternatives). This is apparently so because of the fact that they are attractive, and thus have more alternatives from which to choose. They therefore do not invest in university education, as the opportunity cost is 'higher than for a non-blonde'. It is thus supposed that blondes make a rational choice to be dumb, or as Irvine says 'sometimes it is smart to be dumb'. Its difficult to know where the faulty logic begins, so everything seems plausible for a while in this mumbo-jumbo explanation of life through the economists lens.

Confused yet? Well ill end this rant here, and at the risk of stooping to perhaps a similar base level of faulty logic and pretentious assumptions, heres some evidence that perhaps not all blondes can be considered attractive (base assumption of aforementioned article). I apologise in advance for any resultant damage to a readers vision.

'A great video - take 2'

This a continuation of the post titled 'A great video'

The Winter Fog, Part I

Do you sometimes feel that something has left you even though you never had it? The complex boundaries between reality and imagination often leaves the distinguishing marks of awake and sleep state as blurry as a winter fog that envelopes the weary traveller who is looking for a place to stay. This fog wraps around your conscience fooling your logic into believing that reality is a dream and that a dream was reality. You awaken from slumber and then question whether the last few synapses were a memory or something less real. Sometimes you are thankful that it was just a dream. Other times you are grateful and content that it was a memory. The problems start when you wish that a dream is a memory.

A great video

An award winning video from the Eye Bank Association of India:

I've decided to edit this post again. Haven't been able to embed the video within the post. Here is the youtube link.

For now, it is in the video bar up the top. The video bar seems to be some kind of silly youtube/Google gimmick that posts all the videos corresponding to a particular combination of specified tags. The four up there now correspond to the tag 'Eye Bank Association of India.' Only the first two are relevant.

Update: the video has been posted properly in the post 'A great video - take 2' above

India's cultural relationship with China

Following on from MC's last two posts, I post this great link I found while doing a google search for something else - serendipity for me i suppose!

India sent missionaries, China sending back pilgrims. It is a striking fact that in all relations between the two civilizations, the Chinese were always the recipient and the Indian the donor. Indian influence prevailed over the Chinese, and for evident reasons: an undoubted cultural superiority owing to much greater philosophic and religious insight, and also to a far more flexible script. India conquered and dominated China culturally for two thousand years without ever having to send a single soldier across her border. India never imposed her ideas or culture on any nation by military force, not even on the small countries in her neighborhood, and in the case of China, it would have been virtually impossible to do so since China has been the more powerful of the two. So the expansion of Indian culture into China is a monument to human understanding and cultural co-operation - the outcome of a voluntary quest for learning. While China almost completely suppressed other foreign religions, such as Zoranstrianism, Nestorian Christianity, and to some extent Manichaeanism, she could not uproot Buddhism. At times, Buddhism was persecuted, but for two thousand years it continued to Indianize Chinese life even after it had ceased to be a vital force in the homeland and long after it had lost its place as the dominant religion of China.

I think that says a lot.

A Non Conformer is not always the Enemy

It is very satisfying and fulfilling to take the moral high ground and proclaim that the level of freedom in a country is a direct consequence of the amount of ‘security’ enjoyed by the minorities. Fact of the matter is that there are too many minorities to be satisfied according to their own definitions of ‘security’ and hence this equation is inadequate. A country can be considered ‘free’ if it is able to accommodate minorities through either compromise or, in some instances, reform whilst still maintaining its foundational framework.

To grant all the wants of the minority is to ensure the destruction of a country. A minority will only feel secure if they are able to essentially do whatever they desire. This in their opinion will allow them to be free however it is obvious that this could in fact endanger the freedom of another group. If this level of ‘security’ were granted to each minority group within a society, a society and hence a state or country will no longer exist. Therefore, although it may seem morally correct to allow minorities to practice their definition of freedom, it only redefines the current way of life of a country to align with the beliefs of a minority. This is impractical.

At the same time, the majority must not ardently adhere to their system of beliefs and practices, ignorant of the existence and needs of the minorities. A majority must respect its minorities firstly because they live together and therefore to ensure some social harmony. The majority defines a framework within which everyone must live in but these boundaries must also be flexible enough to accommodate the needs of the minority. That is, the needs of the minorities must be placed in context with the current system of the majority and then assessed in terms of its suitability. For example, voting is compulsory in Australia yet people may be engaged in religious activities on election day. This society has come to a compromise by allowing such people to place a postal vote. Here a compromise is reached so that both the needs of the minority and the rest are satisfies.

Nevertheless, a minority can truly be called ‘free’ if they have a say in how these boundaries are established. Surely it is practical to reach a compromise in most issues however they are still based upon the beliefs and practices of the majority. When a society is open to both legal and moral reform based upon need and the security of that society, then and only then can it be labelled as free. A strong society will know what it needs and is therefore also strong enough to know when certain aspects of its functional policies need to be changed. That is, the people of that country can recognise when certain needs of the minority need to be officially accepted and also when they need to be totally rejected. Allowing reform at this level not only creates social harmony but also political and, in some cases, economic balance.

Therefore, granting every single need of each and every minority with the morally inclined hope gaining the title of a free country is an impractical approach. Rather, a country needs to be firm in how it defines itself but at the same time accommodating so that it can accept certain minorities and their practices. This type of concession can only be practical if such a state allows the possibility of reform to accommodate what it deems as necessary changes whilst at the same time strongly upholding its foundational principles.

Human Weakness and the System of Faith

One thing that I find most irritating is when people tell me that my beliefs are wrong. For example, we would often come across the instance where we believe that our youth is a time to have fun and experience new things whereas our parents believe that we should just study. This often leads to much distress as we struggle to convince our elders that going out and socializing is essential to ensure fruitful and productive study. Or perhaps we study too much and our parents believe that we should get out more. Whatever the belief, a conflict between the two defeats the purpose of holding a belief and thereby living by it. That is, our belief might be “having fun” but we spend a lot of time defending that belief rather than living it.

In a religious sense, this is what most people do when it comes to religious philosophy. Hinduism is rich in ancient and modern sources of knowledge and therefore numerous commentaries of various interpretations of those texts. Furthermore, Hindus are numerous in number and therefore there are many who follow one of the many paths that this religion has to offer. There are extremists that insist that a certain path will lead to salvation and there are generalists who would follow any path to avoid any sort of commitment. Even so, there are also atheists who don’t care for religion. The major conflicts that arise are when two people with differing thoughts try to impose their beliefs on one another.

Hinduism is plagued by this disease. People try to convince, perhaps even convert another into their line of thinking. Suppose one has the stomach and intellect to defend his own claims. Chances are that he or she may be excluded from certain social circles.

At a recent festival we had just finished celebrating the birthday of a certain deity. It was cleanup time and everyone was eager to help pack up and tidy the hall that we were using. I went up to the altar to pack away the puja items. The offerings were placed in one container, the pictures in another. Then I turned to extinguish the lamp. As soon as I had done so, there was a big gasp from a couple of those who were helping. Apparently, it is bad to turn out a diya (lamp) without letting it to burn out completely. Why I asked? That’s just the way things are. On top of this, apart from a couple of ‘death stares’, one individual even said that I was cursed and the deepest abscesses of hell were reserved for me.

I was now genuinely worried. As crazy as it might sound, I really did feel that I was going to hell. I talked to a couple of people and spent much time thinking of the matter and soon I realized that such notions of religion are mindless and in some ways time wasting. Religion is not about wondering whether turning the lamp out or leaving it to burn is the ‘proper’ method. That day, we were celebrating the birth of a deity. The purpose was to use that time as an opportunity to reflect on how we could improve ourselves and live our beliefs. If the day is reduced to just bickering over little rituals, the whole purpose is lost.

Perhaps we tend to regress into such antics because by finding others who think like us, the more reason there is to confirm our beliefs. Perhaps this is one way of following a religion. But we all must realize that our way is not the only way.

United States of Florida - In Fake Tans We Trust

From EconLog comes this interesting quote from an interview with Jeremy Siegel about the long run future for investors.

In 50 years the United States will be more aged than all of Florida is today, but we will be, existing in a younger world. So, what I see is exactly the same pattern. We will be selling assets into the world market. They will be buying, they will be absorbing, they will be saving, and they will be producing the goods that we will be importing to satisfy our retirement needs. And, I think that is the only way that we could have an ever-increasing retirement period with the shrinkage of workers and the extension of life expectancy.

The post with link in it is here.

'Western Values'

Recent posts just re-iterate the present issues the world is going through. There are a whole set of exceedingly abused terms that fundamentally arise from Western, Judeo-Christian ethics - terms like ‘un-Australian,’ ‘Western values’ … even to an extent, ‘democracy.

From the set of values that bought the world imperialism, colonial plunder, slavery, pogroms in Europe, genocide the world over, religious totalitarianism …oh, let’s not forget the burning of books… arises the concept of ‘Western values.’ What does it mean, anyway? The colonisers and colonies of the last 50 years are gradually all heading towards Western-style democracy. If the most prosperous country in the world uses it then ‘Hey, it must be THE way.’

Overly simplistic – monetarily rich, morally bankrupt - as a lot of people in India think of the West. Greek thinkers bought us democracy, but look at all the places in the world they invaded. The Foucaldian view is quite contrarian, but I think it has some juice: justice is just a fabrication by the privileged to hold on to power by keeping the less privileged satisfied. Perhaps the same can be said about the ‘right’ to vote.

Justice is so important, that basic human rights are simply the play things of government. From Arundhati Roy’s 2004 Sydney Peace Prize lecture:

Today, it is not merely justice itself, but the idea of justice that is under attack. The assault on vulnerable, fragile sections of society is at once so complete, so cruel and so clever - all encompassing and yet specifically targeted, blatantly brutal and yet unbelievably insidious - that its sheer audacity has eroded our definition of justice. It has forced us to lower our sights, and curtail our expectations. Even among the well-intentioned, the expansive, magnificent concept of justice is gradually being substituted with the reduced, far more fragile discourse of 'human rights'.

If you think about it, this is an alarming shift of paradigm. The difference is that notions of equality, of parity have been pried loose and eased out of the equation. It's a process of attrition. Almost unconsciously, we begin to think of justice for the rich and human rights for the poor. Justice for the corporate world, human rights for its victims. Justice for Americans, human rights for Afghans and Iraqis. Justice for the Indian upper castes, human rights for Dalits and Adivasis (if that.) Justice for white Australians, human rights for Aboriginals and immigrants (most times, not even that.)

It is becoming more than clear that violating human rights is an inherent and necessary part of the process of implementing a coercive and unjust political and economic structure on the world. Without the violation of human rights on an enormous scale, the neo-liberal project would remain in the dreamy realm of policy. But increasingly Human Rights violations are being portrayed as the unfortunate, almost accidental fallout of an otherwise acceptable political and economic system. As though they're a small problem that can be mopped up with a little extra attention from some NGOs. This is why in areas of heightened conflict - in Kashmir and in Iraq for example - Human Rights Professionals are regarded with a degree of suspicion. Many resistance movements in poor countries which are fighting huge injustice and questioning the underlying principles of what constitutes "liberation" and "development", view Human Rights NGOs as modern day missionaries who've come to take the ugly edge off Imperialism. To defuse political anger and to maintain the status quo.

A step closer to Totalitariansim

Dr Haneef had his visa cancelled. The law could not pin him down on anything. The judge said to the AFP that he would not stand trial unless he was charged. Instead they terminated his visa and then sent him off to Villawood. What will they do next under these Anti Terrorist Acts? Cancel our citizenship?

It is a very worrying day when the Government can just do whatever they please. Such is the nature of these anti terrorist Laws. Under the new laws, the police can enter whatever house they want and search it "for the security of the nation". This sort of action, on a superficial level, is acceptable however it robs us of our privacy, peace of mind and just simply adds to the aura of terrorism. Who should we be afraid of now?

When the terrorists strikes, panic settles in and the Government uses this opportunity to pass laws that will be approved given the current circumstances. These hasty actions often bear their ugly heads once the dust has settled. You might be peacefully sleeping one morning and suddenly be awoken by the sounds of police dogs and battering rams. They will break into your home, turn everything upside down and then leave with a simple apology. I am sure that today the Police will not storm into just anyone's home, but that day is not too far away. Where is this freedom that democracy brings?

Out of human weakness one craves power, and once obtained it transforms into an insatiable lust. This can now be seen by the Western conquests abroad. Their "boys" are fighting to "give those people democracy". It seems as if we have once again slipt into the ages where we mercilessly killed all those who did not accept the views of the Church. The question remains as to whether it is really a battle between the Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq or a battle between beleivers and non beleivers of democracy.

Democracy now seems like a buttress root that slowly envelopes a giant tree eventually choking it off and standing in place of it. This ugly vine is like a cancer slowly spreading across the world and will one day dominate the planet unless something is done. But what can we do? We live in a democracy and yet we find that the very power and freedom that is given to us is slowly but surely being taken away.

Rubin Carter all over again

The Mohammad Haneef situation is almost a mirror image of Bob Dylan and Jacques Levy's 'Hurricane,' based on the Rubin Carter story and the subject of the Denzel Washington film of the same name. The full lyrics are here. Instead of a black boxer, of world championship potential, we have a successful Indian doctor with a wife and kids.

Pistol shots ring out in the barroom night / Enter Patty Valentine from the upper hall. / She sees the bartender in a pool of blood, / Cries out, "My God, they killed them all!"
Here comes the story of the Hurricane, / The man the authorities came to blame / For somethin' that he never done. / Put in a prison cell, but one time he could-a been / The champion of the world.

Three bodies lyin' there does Patty see / And anotherman named Bello, movin' around mysteriously. / "I didn't do it," he says, and he throws up his hands / "I was only robbin' the register, I hope you understand. / I saw them leavin'," he says, and he stops / "One of us had better call up the cops." / And so Patty calls the cops / And they arrive on the scene with their red lights flashin' / In the hot New Jersey night.

Meanwhile, far away in another part of town / Rubin Carter and a couple of friends are drivin' around. / Number one contender for the middleweight crown / Had no idea what kinda shit was about to go down / When a cop pulled him over to the side of the road / Just like the time before and the time before that. / In Paterson that's just the way things go. / If you're black you might as well not show up on the street / 'Less you wanna draw the heat.

I think you get the idea. This later part has even more resonance:

Rubin could take a man out with just one punch / But he never did like to talk about it all that much. / It's my work, he'd say, and I do it for pay / And when it's over I'd just as soon go on my way / Up to some paradise / Where the trout streams flow and the air is nice / And ride a horse along a trail. / But then they took him to the jailhouse / Where they try to turn a man into a mouse.

All of Rubin's cards were marked in advance / The trial was a pig-circus, he never had a chance. / The judge made Rubin's witnesses drunkards from the slums / To the white folks who watched he was a revolutionary bum /And to the black folks he was just a crazy nigger. / No one doubted that he pulled the trigger. / And though they could not produce the gun, / The D.A. said he was the one who did the deed /
And the all-white jury agreed.

Rubin Carter was falsely tried. / The crime was murder "one," guess who testified? / Bello and Bradley and they both baldly lied / And the newspapers, they all went along for the ride. / How can the life of such a man /
Be in the palm of some fool's hand? / To see him obviously framed / Couldn't help but make me feel ashamed to live in a land / Where justice is a game.

Now all the criminals in their coats and their ties / Are free to drink martinis and watch the sun rise / While Rubin sits like Buddha in a ten-foot cell / An innocent man in a living hell. / That's the story of the Hurricane, / But it won't be over till they clear his name / And give him back the time he's done. / Put in a prison cell, but one time he could-a been / The champion of the world.

In the spirit of democracy...

Let's respect everyone's right to express an opinion. But surely this - from Amit Varma's blog at India Uncut - is utterly ridiculous. The sad thing is many in India would probably agree - the rural poor who rightfully felt insulted by the BJP's "India is Shining" campaign at the last general election, come to mind.
Of all the places in the world, I can't think of any place where sex education and family planning would be more necessary than in India. This is a country that, despite its well-documented problems, has managed to be somewhat of a leader in the provision of cheap AIDS (among others) drugs. Let's hope people like Murli Manohar Joshi are dismissed for the quacks they really are.

The Athens Affair

This month's cover story in IEEE Spectrum is about a bunch of engo's that have taken fraud to a whole new level, hacking into the mobile phone conversations of such high profile victims as the Prime Minister of Greece and high ranking military officials. It seems that it was an inside job - the head of network operations for Vodafone Greece took his own life - but the exact details are anyone's guess.

"A study of the Athens affair, surely the most bizarre and embarrassing scandal ever to engulf a major cellphone service provider, sheds considerable light on the measures networks can and should take to reduce their vulnerability to hackers and moles.

It's also a rare opportunity to get a glimpse of one of the most elusive of cybercrimes. Major network penetrations of any kind are exceedingly uncommon. They are hard to pull off, and equally hard to investigate.

Even among major criminal infiltrations, the Athens affair stands out because it may have involved state secrets, and it targeted individuals—a combination that, if it had ever occurred before, was not disclosed publicly. The most notorious penetration to compromise state secrets was that of the “Cuckoo's Egg,” a name bestowed by the wily network administrator who successfully pursued a German programmer in 1986. The programmer had been selling secrets about the U.S. Strategic Defense Initiative (“Star Wars”) to the Soviet KGB."

Think of the things that could have been heard/recorded - love affairs, corruption, other illicit activity. Maybe these guys were using their programming skills for good, instead of evil?