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?