Two things drive human motion: evolution and revolution. I am not so much worried about human evolution, but I am worried about human revolution. It seems to unfold slowly but steadily. Signs and symptoms of people acting revolutionaries in pre-historic times and post-historical times, against dictators, kings and rulers, can be identified. It all has come to change the status quo, with hopes of a better future, hopefully.
As Darwin had pointed out, we are all evolving creatures. And, to my mind we all are revolutionary creatures as well. No, it is not ridiculous to think so. If you were an addictive newsreader (like me), you would know of global events like the Egyptian revolution, and Mubarak quitting. Of course, Tunisian event preceded that. Now, Libya, Bahrain, Yemen, Oman and Iran are facing the same crisis. Dictatorship is NOT going to work in tech-savvy, social media bound twittering world. I personally believe that people have more power than politicians or leaders in today’s digital workspace. It had always been the people power, not the political power, running any great nation or territory. A mandate for common rule or protocols is only possible if the majority of the people vote for it democratically, peacefully.
Today, if all Nepalese citizens gather to fight for their basic rights such as food, electricity, clothes, jobs, social security, and privacy, nobody can stop them. The people have proved themselves many times in the past, so the political bosses must act sincerely taking them into consideration.
With the world population hitting the seven billion milestone, problems are bound to multiply the world over. I envision a world where there would be less value for art, words and self-respect. There would be more value for oil, food, technology, safety, security, and balance. As a young scientist, ‘balance’ is not to be worried about as Nature wouldl balance herself in some ways (climate change, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, meteor strikes etc).
If the people’s needs are unfulfilled, a revolution will simply begin at any point in time. Nothing remains forever, as everything is finite.
As the wise man said, “Every beginning has an end and every end has a new beginning.” This is what makes the human beings look forward to something better.
Source: The Himalyan Times
Published: 02-March-2011
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
Monday, February 21, 2011
Benazir Bhutto Speech
Benazir Bhutto Speech - Male Domination Of Women
Benazir Bhutto, Prime Minister of Pakistan
Beijing, 4 September 1995
Beijing, 4 September 1995
As the first woman ever elected to head an Islamic nation, I feel a special responsibility about issues that relate to women. In addressing the new exigencies of the new century, we must translate dynamic religion into a living reality. We must live by the true spirit of Islam, not only by its rituals. And for those of you who may be ignorant of Islam, cast aside your preconceptions about the role of women in our religion.
Contrary to what many of you may have come to believe, Islam embraces a rich variety of political, social and cultural traditions. The fundamental ethos of Islam is tolerance, dialogue, and democracy.
Just as in Christianity and Judaism, we must always be on guard for those who will exploit and manipulate the Holy Book for their own narrow political ends, who will distort the essence of pluralism and tolerance for their own extremist agendas.
To those who claim to speak for Islam but who would deny to women our place in society, I say:
The ethos of Islam is equality, equality between the sexes. There is no religion on earth that, in its writing and teachings, is more respectful of the role of women in society than Islam.
My presence here, as the elected woman prime minister of a great Muslim country, is testament to the commitment of Islam to the role of women in society.
It is this tradition of Islam that has empowered me, has strengthened me, has emboldened me.
It was this heritage that sustained me during the most difficult points in my life, for Islam forbids injustice; injustice against people, against nations, against women.
It denounces inequality as the gravest form of injustice.
It enjoins its followers to combat oppression and tyranny.
It enshrines piety as the sole criteria for judging humankind.
It shuns race, colour, and gender as a basis of distinction amongst fellowmen.
When the human spirit was immersed in the darkness of the Middle Ages, Islam proclaimed equality between men and women. When women were viewed as inferior members of the human family, Islam gave them respect and dignity.
When women were treated as chattels, the Prophet of Islam (Peace Be Upon Him) accepted them as equal partners.
Islam codified the rights of women. The Koran elected their status to that of men. It guaranteed their civic, economic, and political rights. It recognised their participative role in nation building.
Sadly, the Islamic tenets regarding women were soon discarded. In Islamic society, as in other parts of the world, their rights were denied. Women were maltreated, discriminated against, and subjected to violence and oppression, their dignity injured and their role denied.
Women became the victims of a culture of exclusion and male dominance. Today more women than men suffer from poverty, deprivation, and discrimination. Half a billion women are illiterate. Seventy percent of the children who are denied elementary education are girls.
The plight of women in the developing countries is unspeakable. Hunger, disease, and unremitting toil is their fate. Weak economic growth and inadequate social support systems affect them most seriously and directly.
They are the primary victims of structural adjustment processes which necessitate reduced state funding for health, education, medical care, and nutrition. Curtailed resource flows to these vital areas impact most severely on the vulnerable groups, particularly women and children.
This, Madam Chairperson, is not acceptable. It offends my religion. It offends my sense of justice and equity. Above all, it offends common sense.
That is why Pakistan, the women of Pakistan, and I personally have been fully engaged in recent international efforts to uphold women’s rights. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights enjoins the elimination of discrimination against women.
The Nairobi Forward Looking Strategies provide a solid framework for advancing women’s rights around the world. But the goal of equality, development, and peace still eludes us.
Sporadic efforts in this direction have failed. We are satisfied that the Beijing Platform of Action encompasses a comprehensive approach toward the empowerment of women. This is the right approach and should be fully supported.
Women cannot be expected to struggle alone against the forces of discrimination and exploitation. I recall the words of Dante, who reminded us that "The hottest place in Hell is reserved for those who remain neutral in times of moral crisis."
Today in this world, in the fight for the liberation of women, there can be no neutrality.
My spirit carries many a scar of a long and lonely battle against dictatorship and tyranny. I witnessed, at a young age, the overthrow of democracy, the assassination of an elected prime minister, and a systematic assault against the very foundations of a free society.
But our faith in democracy was not broken. The great Pakistani poet and philosopher Dr. Allama Iqbal says, "Tyranny cannot endure forever." It did not. The will of our people prevailed against the forces of dictatorship
But, my dear sisters, we have learned that democracy alone is not enough.
Freedom of choice alone does not guarantee justice.
Equal rights are not defined only by political values.
Social justice is a triad of freedom, an equation of liberty:
Justice is political liberty.
Justice is economic independence.
Justice is social equality.
Delegated, sisters, the child who is starving has no human rights.
The girl who is illiterate has no future.
The woman who cannot plan her life, plan her family, plan a career, is fundamentally not free….
I am determined to change the plight of women in my country. More than sixty million of our women are largely sidelined.
It is a personal tragedy for them. It is a national catastrophe for my nation. I am determined to harness their potential to the gigantic task of nation building….
I dream of a Pakistan in which women contribute to their full potential. I am conscious of the struggle that lies ahead. But, with your help, we shall persevere. Allah willing, we shall succeed.
Contrary to what many of you may have come to believe, Islam embraces a rich variety of political, social and cultural traditions. The fundamental ethos of Islam is tolerance, dialogue, and democracy.
Just as in Christianity and Judaism, we must always be on guard for those who will exploit and manipulate the Holy Book for their own narrow political ends, who will distort the essence of pluralism and tolerance for their own extremist agendas.
To those who claim to speak for Islam but who would deny to women our place in society, I say:
The ethos of Islam is equality, equality between the sexes. There is no religion on earth that, in its writing and teachings, is more respectful of the role of women in society than Islam.
My presence here, as the elected woman prime minister of a great Muslim country, is testament to the commitment of Islam to the role of women in society.
It is this tradition of Islam that has empowered me, has strengthened me, has emboldened me.
It was this heritage that sustained me during the most difficult points in my life, for Islam forbids injustice; injustice against people, against nations, against women.
It denounces inequality as the gravest form of injustice.
It enjoins its followers to combat oppression and tyranny.
It enshrines piety as the sole criteria for judging humankind.
It shuns race, colour, and gender as a basis of distinction amongst fellowmen.
When the human spirit was immersed in the darkness of the Middle Ages, Islam proclaimed equality between men and women. When women were viewed as inferior members of the human family, Islam gave them respect and dignity.
When women were treated as chattels, the Prophet of Islam (Peace Be Upon Him) accepted them as equal partners.
Islam codified the rights of women. The Koran elected their status to that of men. It guaranteed their civic, economic, and political rights. It recognised their participative role in nation building.
Sadly, the Islamic tenets regarding women were soon discarded. In Islamic society, as in other parts of the world, their rights were denied. Women were maltreated, discriminated against, and subjected to violence and oppression, their dignity injured and their role denied.
Women became the victims of a culture of exclusion and male dominance. Today more women than men suffer from poverty, deprivation, and discrimination. Half a billion women are illiterate. Seventy percent of the children who are denied elementary education are girls.
The plight of women in the developing countries is unspeakable. Hunger, disease, and unremitting toil is their fate. Weak economic growth and inadequate social support systems affect them most seriously and directly.
They are the primary victims of structural adjustment processes which necessitate reduced state funding for health, education, medical care, and nutrition. Curtailed resource flows to these vital areas impact most severely on the vulnerable groups, particularly women and children.
This, Madam Chairperson, is not acceptable. It offends my religion. It offends my sense of justice and equity. Above all, it offends common sense.
That is why Pakistan, the women of Pakistan, and I personally have been fully engaged in recent international efforts to uphold women’s rights. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights enjoins the elimination of discrimination against women.
The Nairobi Forward Looking Strategies provide a solid framework for advancing women’s rights around the world. But the goal of equality, development, and peace still eludes us.
Sporadic efforts in this direction have failed. We are satisfied that the Beijing Platform of Action encompasses a comprehensive approach toward the empowerment of women. This is the right approach and should be fully supported.
Women cannot be expected to struggle alone against the forces of discrimination and exploitation. I recall the words of Dante, who reminded us that "The hottest place in Hell is reserved for those who remain neutral in times of moral crisis."
Today in this world, in the fight for the liberation of women, there can be no neutrality.
My spirit carries many a scar of a long and lonely battle against dictatorship and tyranny. I witnessed, at a young age, the overthrow of democracy, the assassination of an elected prime minister, and a systematic assault against the very foundations of a free society.
But our faith in democracy was not broken. The great Pakistani poet and philosopher Dr. Allama Iqbal says, "Tyranny cannot endure forever." It did not. The will of our people prevailed against the forces of dictatorship
But, my dear sisters, we have learned that democracy alone is not enough.
Freedom of choice alone does not guarantee justice.
Equal rights are not defined only by political values.
Social justice is a triad of freedom, an equation of liberty:
Justice is political liberty.
Justice is economic independence.
Justice is social equality.
Delegated, sisters, the child who is starving has no human rights.
The girl who is illiterate has no future.
The woman who cannot plan her life, plan her family, plan a career, is fundamentally not free….
I am determined to change the plight of women in my country. More than sixty million of our women are largely sidelined.
It is a personal tragedy for them. It is a national catastrophe for my nation. I am determined to harness their potential to the gigantic task of nation building….
I dream of a Pakistan in which women contribute to their full potential. I am conscious of the struggle that lies ahead. But, with your help, we shall persevere. Allah willing, we shall succeed.
Saturday, February 19, 2011
Quote Me Everyday --a quote
Here is one video created by friend of mine who has great video company Sesam Production Oy in Lappeenranta, Finalnd... you may visit his webpage at http://www.sesamproduction.fi/
This video is simple presentation of a quote from book, Quote Me Everyday, see Jaunary 6th in the book...
The book is available at Amazon
This video is simple presentation of a quote from book, Quote Me Everyday, see Jaunary 6th in the book...
The book is available at Amazon
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
Featured poem on Mad Swirl
One poem accepted and published by 'Mad Swirl Poetry' Journal entitled, "Tell". You may read a poem here:http://www.madswirl.com/content/poetryfo
Now, I am also one of the Contributing Poets here on Mad Swirl. Check out my new page at: http://www.madswirl.com/content/poetry/S
Sunday, January 30, 2011
Aldous Huxley: The Ultimate Revolution, March 20, 1962
Berkeley Language Center | November 6, 2006
"There will be, in the next generation or so, a pharmacological method of making people love their
servitude, and producing dictatorship without tears, so to speak, producing a kind of painless
concentration camp for entire societies, so that people will in fact have their liberties taken away
from them, but will rather enjoy it, because they will be distracted from any desire to rebel by
propaganda or brainwashing, or brainwashing enhanced by pharmacological methods. And this
seems to be the final revolution."
Aldous Huxley, Tavistock Group, California Medical School, 1961
Program
Questions / Answers
Transcript - The Ultimate Revolution
March 20, 1962 Berkeley Language Center - Speech Archive SA 0269
Moderator:
{garbled}Aldous Huxley, a renowned Essayist and Novelist who during the spring semester is
residing at the university in his capacity of a Ford research professor. Mr Huxley has recently
returned from a conference at the Institute for the study of Democratic Institutions in Santa Barbara
where the discussion focused on the development of new techniques by which to control and direct
human behavior. Traditionally it has been possible to suppress individual freedom through the
application of physical coercion through the appeal of ideologies through the manipulation of
man's physical and social environment and more recently through the techniques, the cruder
techniques of psychological conditioning. The Ultimate Revolution, about which Mr. Huxley will
speak today, concerns itself with the development of new behavioral controls, which operate
directly on the psycho-physiological organisms of man. That is the capacity to replace external
constraint by internal compulsions. As those of us who are familiar with Mr. Huxley's works will
know, this is a subject of which he has been concerned for quite a period of time. Mr. Huxley
will make a presentation of approximately half an hour followed by some brief discussions and
questions by the two panelists sitting to my left, Mrs. Lillian {garbled} and Mr. John Post. Now Mr.
Huxley
Huxley:
Thank You.
{Applause}
Uh, First of all, the, I'd like to say, that the conference at Santa Barbara was not directly concerned
with the control of the mind. That was a conference, there have been two of them now, at the
University of California Medical center in San Francisco, one this year which I didn't attend, and
one two years ago where there was a considerable discussion on this subject. At Santa Barbara we
were talking about technology in general and the effects it's likely to have on society and the
problems related to technological transplanting of technology into underdeveloped countries.
Well now in regard to this problem of the ultimate revolution, this has been very well summed up
by the moderator. In the past we can say that all revolutions have essentially aimed at changing the
environment in order to change the individual. I mean there's been the political revolution, the
economic revolution, in the time of the reformation, the religious revolution. All these aimed, not
directly at the human being, but at his surroundings. So that by modifying the surroundings you did
achieve, did one remove the effect of the human being.
Today we are faced, I think, with the approach of what may be called the ultimate revolution, thefinal revolution, where man can act directly on the mind-body of his fellows. Well needless to saysome kind of direct action on human mind-bodies has been going on since the beginning of time.But this has generally been of a violent nature. The Techniques of terrorism have been known fromtime immemorial and people have employed them with more or less ingenuity sometimes with theutmost cruelty, sometimes with a good deal of skill acquired by a process of trial and error findingout what the best ways of using torture, imprisonment, constraints of various kinds.
But, as, I think it was (sounds like Mettenicht) said many years ago, you can do everything with
{garbled} except sit on them. If you are going to control any population for any length of time, you
must have some measure of consent, it's exceedingly difficult to see how pure terrorism can
function indefinitely. It can function for a fairly long time, but I think sooner or later you have to
bring in an element of persuasion an element of getting people to consent to what is happening to
them.
It seems to me that the nature of the ultimate revolution with which we are now faced is precisely
this: That we are in process of developing a whole series of techniques which will enable the
controlling oligarchy who have always existed and presumably will always exist to get people to
love their servitude. This is the, it seems to me, the ultimate in malevolent revolutions shall we say,
and this is a problem which has interested me many years and about which I wrote thirty years ago,
a fable, Brave New World, which is an account of society making use of all the devices available
and some of the devices which I imagined to be possible making use of them in order to, first of all,
to standardize the population, to iron out inconvenient human differences, to create, to say, mass
produced models of human beings arranged in some sort of scientific caste system. Since then, I
have continued to be extremely interested in this problem and I have noticed with increasing dismay
a number of the predictions which were purely fantastic when I made them thirty years ago have
come true or seem in process of coming true.
A number of techniques about which I talked seem to be here already. And there seems to be a
general movement in the direction of this kind of ultimate revolution, a method of control by which
a people can be made to enjoy a state of affairs by which any decent standard they ought not to
enjoy. This, the enjoyment of servitude, Well this process is, as I say, has gone on for over the years,
and I have become more and more interested in what is happening.
And here I would like briefly to compare the parable of Brave New World with another parable
which was put forth more recently in George Orwell's book, Nineteen Eighty- Four. Orwell wrote
his book between, I think between 45 and 48 at the time when the Stalinist terror regime was still in
Full swing and just after the collapse of the Hitlerian terror regime. And his book which I admire
greatly, it's a book of very great talent and extraordinary ingenuity, shows, so to say, a projection
into the future of the immediate past, of what for him was the immediate past, and the immediate
present, it was a projection into the future of a society where control was exercised wholly by
terrorism and violent attacks upon the mind-body of individuals.
Whereas my own book which was written in 1932 when there was only a mild dictatorship in the
form of Mussolini in existence, was not overshadowed by the idea of terrorism, and I was therefore
free in a way in which Orwell was not free, to think about these other methods of control, these
non-violent methods and my, I'm inclined to think that the scientific dictatorships of the future,
and I think there are going to be scientific dictatorships in many parts of the world, will be probably
a good deal nearer to the brave new world pattern than to the 1984 pattern, they will a good deal
nearer not because of any humanitarian qualms of the scientific dictators but simply because the
BNW pattern is probably a good deal more efficient than the other.
That if you can get people to consent to the state of affairs in which they're living. The state of
servitude, the state of being, having their differences ironed out, and being made amenable to mass
production methods on the social level, if you can do this, then you have, you are likely, to have a
much more stable and lasting society. Much more easily controllable society than you would if
you were relying wholly on clubs and firing squads and concentration camps. So that my own
feeling is that the 1984 picture was tinged of course by the immediate past and present in which
Orwell was living, but the past and present of those years does not reflect, I feel, the likely trend of
what is going to happen, needless to say we shall never get rid of terrorism, it will always find its
way to the surface.
But I think that insofar as dictators become more and more scientific, more and more concerned
with the technically perfect, perfectly running society, they will be more and more interested in the
kind of techniques which I imagined and described from existing realities in BNW. So that, it seems
to me then, that this ultimate revolution is not really very far away, that we, already a number of
techniques for bringing about this kind of control are here, and it remains to be seen when and
where and by whom they will first be applied in any large scale.
And first let me talk about the, a little bit about the, improvement in the techniques of
terrorism. I think there have been improvements. Pavlov after all made some extremely profound
observations both on animals and on human beings. And he found among other things that
conditioning techniques applied to animals or humans in a state either of psychological or physical
stress sank in so to say, very deeply into the mind-body of the creature, and were extremely difficult
to get rid of. That they seemed to be embedded more deeply than other forms of conditioning.
And this of course, this fact was discovered empirically in the past. People did make use of many of
these techniques, but the difference between the old empirical intuitive methods and our own
methods is the difference between the, a sort of, hit and miss craftsman's point of view and the
genuinely scientific point of view. I think there is a real difference between ourselves and say the
inquisitors of the 16th century. We know much more precisely what we are doing, than they knew
and we can extend because of our theoretical knowledge, we can extend what we are doing over a
wider area with a greater assurance of being producing something that really works.
In this context I would like to mention the extremely interesting chapters in Dr. William (sounds
like Seargent's) Battle for the Mind where he points out how intuitively some of the great religious
teachers/leaders of the past hit on the Pavlovian method, he speaks specifically of Wesley's method
of producing conversions which were essentially based on the technique of heightening
psychological stress to the limit by talking about hellfire and so making people extremely
vulnerable to suggestion and then suddenly releasing this stress by offering hopes of heaven
and this is a very interesting chapter of showing how completely on purely intuitive and empirical
grounds a skilled natural psychologist, as Wesley was, could discover these Pavlovian methods.
Well, as I say, we now know the reason why these techniques worked and there's no doubt at all that
we can if we wanted to, carry them much further than was possible in the past. And of course in the
history of, recent history of brainwashing, both as applied to prisoners of war and to the lower
personnel within the communist party in China, we see that the pavlovian methods have been
applied systematically and with evidently with extraordinary efficacy. I think there can be no doubt
that by the application of these methods a very large army of totally devoted people has been …
"There will be, in the next generation or so, a pharmacological method of making people love their
servitude, and producing dictatorship without tears, so to speak, producing a kind of painless
concentration camp for entire societies, so that people will in fact have their liberties taken away
from them, but will rather enjoy it, because they will be distracted from any desire to rebel by
propaganda or brainwashing, or brainwashing enhanced by pharmacological methods. And this
seems to be the final revolution."
Aldous Huxley, Tavistock Group, California Medical School, 1961
Program
Questions / Answers
Transcript - The Ultimate Revolution
March 20, 1962 Berkeley Language Center - Speech Archive SA 0269
Moderator:
{garbled}Aldous Huxley, a renowned Essayist and Novelist who during the spring semester is
residing at the university in his capacity of a Ford research professor. Mr Huxley has recently
returned from a conference at the Institute for the study of Democratic Institutions in Santa Barbara
where the discussion focused on the development of new techniques by which to control and direct
human behavior. Traditionally it has been possible to suppress individual freedom through the
application of physical coercion through the appeal of ideologies through the manipulation of
man's physical and social environment and more recently through the techniques, the cruder
techniques of psychological conditioning. The Ultimate Revolution, about which Mr. Huxley will
speak today, concerns itself with the development of new behavioral controls, which operate
directly on the psycho-physiological organisms of man. That is the capacity to replace external
constraint by internal compulsions. As those of us who are familiar with Mr. Huxley's works will
know, this is a subject of which he has been concerned for quite a period of time. Mr. Huxley
will make a presentation of approximately half an hour followed by some brief discussions and
questions by the two panelists sitting to my left, Mrs. Lillian {garbled} and Mr. John Post. Now Mr.
Huxley
Huxley:
Thank You.
{Applause}
Uh, First of all, the, I'd like to say, that the conference at Santa Barbara was not directly concerned
with the control of the mind. That was a conference, there have been two of them now, at the
University of California Medical center in San Francisco, one this year which I didn't attend, and
one two years ago where there was a considerable discussion on this subject. At Santa Barbara we
were talking about technology in general and the effects it's likely to have on society and the
problems related to technological transplanting of technology into underdeveloped countries.
Well now in regard to this problem of the ultimate revolution, this has been very well summed up
by the moderator. In the past we can say that all revolutions have essentially aimed at changing the
environment in order to change the individual. I mean there's been the political revolution, the
economic revolution, in the time of the reformation, the religious revolution. All these aimed, not
directly at the human being, but at his surroundings. So that by modifying the surroundings you did
achieve, did one remove the effect of the human being.
Today we are faced, I think, with the approach of what may be called the ultimate revolution, thefinal revolution, where man can act directly on the mind-body of his fellows. Well needless to saysome kind of direct action on human mind-bodies has been going on since the beginning of time.But this has generally been of a violent nature. The Techniques of terrorism have been known fromtime immemorial and people have employed them with more or less ingenuity sometimes with theutmost cruelty, sometimes with a good deal of skill acquired by a process of trial and error findingout what the best ways of using torture, imprisonment, constraints of various kinds.
But, as, I think it was (sounds like Mettenicht) said many years ago, you can do everything with
{garbled} except sit on them. If you are going to control any population for any length of time, you
must have some measure of consent, it's exceedingly difficult to see how pure terrorism can
function indefinitely. It can function for a fairly long time, but I think sooner or later you have to
bring in an element of persuasion an element of getting people to consent to what is happening to
them.
It seems to me that the nature of the ultimate revolution with which we are now faced is precisely
this: That we are in process of developing a whole series of techniques which will enable the
controlling oligarchy who have always existed and presumably will always exist to get people to
love their servitude. This is the, it seems to me, the ultimate in malevolent revolutions shall we say,
and this is a problem which has interested me many years and about which I wrote thirty years ago,
a fable, Brave New World, which is an account of society making use of all the devices available
and some of the devices which I imagined to be possible making use of them in order to, first of all,
to standardize the population, to iron out inconvenient human differences, to create, to say, mass
produced models of human beings arranged in some sort of scientific caste system. Since then, I
have continued to be extremely interested in this problem and I have noticed with increasing dismay
a number of the predictions which were purely fantastic when I made them thirty years ago have
come true or seem in process of coming true.
A number of techniques about which I talked seem to be here already. And there seems to be a
general movement in the direction of this kind of ultimate revolution, a method of control by which
a people can be made to enjoy a state of affairs by which any decent standard they ought not to
enjoy. This, the enjoyment of servitude, Well this process is, as I say, has gone on for over the years,
and I have become more and more interested in what is happening.
And here I would like briefly to compare the parable of Brave New World with another parable
which was put forth more recently in George Orwell's book, Nineteen Eighty- Four. Orwell wrote
his book between, I think between 45 and 48 at the time when the Stalinist terror regime was still in
Full swing and just after the collapse of the Hitlerian terror regime. And his book which I admire
greatly, it's a book of very great talent and extraordinary ingenuity, shows, so to say, a projection
into the future of the immediate past, of what for him was the immediate past, and the immediate
present, it was a projection into the future of a society where control was exercised wholly by
terrorism and violent attacks upon the mind-body of individuals.
Whereas my own book which was written in 1932 when there was only a mild dictatorship in the
form of Mussolini in existence, was not overshadowed by the idea of terrorism, and I was therefore
free in a way in which Orwell was not free, to think about these other methods of control, these
non-violent methods and my, I'm inclined to think that the scientific dictatorships of the future,
and I think there are going to be scientific dictatorships in many parts of the world, will be probably
a good deal nearer to the brave new world pattern than to the 1984 pattern, they will a good deal
nearer not because of any humanitarian qualms of the scientific dictators but simply because the
BNW pattern is probably a good deal more efficient than the other.
That if you can get people to consent to the state of affairs in which they're living. The state of
servitude, the state of being, having their differences ironed out, and being made amenable to mass
production methods on the social level, if you can do this, then you have, you are likely, to have a
much more stable and lasting society. Much more easily controllable society than you would if
you were relying wholly on clubs and firing squads and concentration camps. So that my own
feeling is that the 1984 picture was tinged of course by the immediate past and present in which
Orwell was living, but the past and present of those years does not reflect, I feel, the likely trend of
what is going to happen, needless to say we shall never get rid of terrorism, it will always find its
way to the surface.
But I think that insofar as dictators become more and more scientific, more and more concerned
with the technically perfect, perfectly running society, they will be more and more interested in the
kind of techniques which I imagined and described from existing realities in BNW. So that, it seems
to me then, that this ultimate revolution is not really very far away, that we, already a number of
techniques for bringing about this kind of control are here, and it remains to be seen when and
where and by whom they will first be applied in any large scale.
And first let me talk about the, a little bit about the, improvement in the techniques of
terrorism. I think there have been improvements. Pavlov after all made some extremely profound
observations both on animals and on human beings. And he found among other things that
conditioning techniques applied to animals or humans in a state either of psychological or physical
stress sank in so to say, very deeply into the mind-body of the creature, and were extremely difficult
to get rid of. That they seemed to be embedded more deeply than other forms of conditioning.
And this of course, this fact was discovered empirically in the past. People did make use of many of
these techniques, but the difference between the old empirical intuitive methods and our own
methods is the difference between the, a sort of, hit and miss craftsman's point of view and the
genuinely scientific point of view. I think there is a real difference between ourselves and say the
inquisitors of the 16th century. We know much more precisely what we are doing, than they knew
and we can extend because of our theoretical knowledge, we can extend what we are doing over a
wider area with a greater assurance of being producing something that really works.
In this context I would like to mention the extremely interesting chapters in Dr. William (sounds
like Seargent's) Battle for the Mind where he points out how intuitively some of the great religious
teachers/leaders of the past hit on the Pavlovian method, he speaks specifically of Wesley's method
of producing conversions which were essentially based on the technique of heightening
psychological stress to the limit by talking about hellfire and so making people extremely
vulnerable to suggestion and then suddenly releasing this stress by offering hopes of heaven
and this is a very interesting chapter of showing how completely on purely intuitive and empirical
grounds a skilled natural psychologist, as Wesley was, could discover these Pavlovian methods.
Well, as I say, we now know the reason why these techniques worked and there's no doubt at all that
we can if we wanted to, carry them much further than was possible in the past. And of course in the
history of, recent history of brainwashing, both as applied to prisoners of war and to the lower
personnel within the communist party in China, we see that the pavlovian methods have been
applied systematically and with evidently with extraordinary efficacy. I think there can be no doubt
that by the application of these methods a very large army of totally devoted people has been …
Saturday, January 15, 2011
Simple Gifts - Yo-Yo Ma and Alison Krauss
'Tis the gift to be simple, 'tis the gift to be free,
'Tis the gift to come down where we ought to be,
And when we find ourselves in the place just right,
'Twill be in the valley of love and delight.
When true simplicity is gain'd,
To bow and to bend we shan't be asham'd,
To turn, turn will be our delight,
Till by turning, turning we come round right.
'Tis the gift to come down where we ought to be,
And when we find ourselves in the place just right,
'Twill be in the valley of love and delight.
When true simplicity is gain'd,
To bow and to bend we shan't be asham'd,
To turn, turn will be our delight,
Till by turning, turning we come round right.
"Simple Gifts" by Shaker, Elder Joseph, 1848
Friday, January 14, 2011
"compromise" procedure
Thursday, January 13, 2011
What is modern
JAN 12 -
What is modernAnil Bhattarai’s latest article was a nice read and I hope he continues to write with this improved presentation (“We are all modern,” Jan. 11, Page 6). As Bhattarai wrote, we may envision New Nepal and write flowery text to highlight a modern Nepal, but the bitter truth belies us. While modernity has meant bungalows and Pajeros to some powerful people, many Nepalis are still without two square meals a day. We cannot solve Nepal’s problems with grand statements of being the next Switzerland or Singapore in ten years, but we can follow the author’s direction to initiate small and feasible improvements. We are constantly thinking about big changes, like in education, healthcare and business. But the only way to initiate any change is by doing the little things right. Being modern means different things to different people. Not only our politicians have the right to modernity. Average Nepalis can be modern by being accountable for their actions.
Santosh Kalwar
Ratnanagar, Chitwan
Source: The Kathmandu Post
Monday, January 10, 2011
Where is the milk?
There was a small village in a northern Himalaya. Every individual in the village where very intelligent and social. But they had one great problem to solve. They had scarcity of milk in the village. There were not enough cows and the problem was that not every individual could feed their children.
They decided to arrange a meeting to further discuss this matter. Thousands of villagers gathered in one common friendly place. Five of the elites were selected to make final decision; they all sat under a tree and started to discuss.
“Today, we are going to discuss about our problem, which is:
How can we solve the problem of collecting enough milk so that everyone can feed their children’s,” said one of the elite member.
“You can form a group of hundred and start the discussion, and one team member can report us your suggestion,” said another elite member.
They all started to discuss the problem. Finally, they came up with one final solution. A member from the elite group has to make final decision so he said,
“Okay, it seems that we have come up with common great idea.
The idea is that everybody will help in digging a pond and put amount of milk they have in their home.
There is no suitable solution than this one, so let us implement this idea by tonight,
Just remember that everybody has to put milk in a pond.
Therefore, tomorrow morning, we will share the milk from the pond. Now the meeting is closed and everybody should go back home and collect the milk they have and put the milk by mid-night.”
All the villagers went back to their home and started to re-think on the idea.
One villager thought, “What if I put water instead of the milk, nobody will find any difference. Besides, I will save my own share of the milk.”
Next morning, all the villagers gathered in a pond they were all expecting to collect the milk. They were all spellbound and socked; they were gazing at each other,
One villager said, “I see only the water in a pond, where is the milk?”
Saturday, January 1, 2011
Passport adventure
DEC 29 -
As technology engulfs the world, every office and organisation must become tech-centric. Recently, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MoFA) in our own country has launched the much hyped Machine Readable Passport (MRP). The good news for me was that I could apply for one of these high-tech passports for my wife. The bad news was that we still had to stand in a long line to do so.
On the first day of our passport adventure, we went to the MoFA and waited in a queue to receive a “free passport application form.” We were excited to see that the queue was quite short; it only took us five hours to reach the front. Feeling pretty good, we decided to fill out the application the next day.
On the second day, we hurried to the Ministry to get in line to submit the application form. The tail of the queue was at Narayanhiti Durbar Museum where we popped in and waited for our turn. Patiently, we waited, and waited, and waited. The sun was shining bright and the blue sky had no sign of rain. We had reached the Ministry of Education and Sports when a police officer approached and said, “Please come tomorrow, you cannot submit the application today.” Wow, a whole day lost and we hadn’t even submitted the application.
On the third day, we wised up and arrived much earlier, before sunrise, around 7 in the morning. Surely this was early enough that we would manage to submit the application—especially considering the government offices do not open before 10. Another journey in the queue had begun and we patiently waited our turn. Finally, we managed to secure a place at the window where the prized application would be submitted.
But a government officer on the other side of the window said, “You cannot write your application in ball-pen; write it in jell-pen or print it with the help of a computer and bring it again.” As we disappointedly trudged home, ordinary citizens of New Nepal, we took solace in the face that we had at least made many friends during our days of line-waiting.
On the fourth day, we arrived at the MoFA earliest yet, while the city was still sleeping, around 4 am. Our beloved queue had now become routine and we were no longer surprised to end the day without having accomplished our goal, nor to plan to return the following day.
Finally, on the fifth day, we were able to submit an application after answering a few questions asked by a government officer. Lesson learned: It is hard enough to be a V.I.P. in Nepal; it is even harder to be an ordinary person.
Posted on: 2010-12-30 09:11
Published: The Kathmandu Post
As technology engulfs the world, every office and organisation must become tech-centric. Recently, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MoFA) in our own country has launched the much hyped Machine Readable Passport (MRP). The good news for me was that I could apply for one of these high-tech passports for my wife. The bad news was that we still had to stand in a long line to do so.
On the first day of our passport adventure, we went to the MoFA and waited in a queue to receive a “free passport application form.” We were excited to see that the queue was quite short; it only took us five hours to reach the front. Feeling pretty good, we decided to fill out the application the next day.
On the second day, we hurried to the Ministry to get in line to submit the application form. The tail of the queue was at Narayanhiti Durbar Museum where we popped in and waited for our turn. Patiently, we waited, and waited, and waited. The sun was shining bright and the blue sky had no sign of rain. We had reached the Ministry of Education and Sports when a police officer approached and said, “Please come tomorrow, you cannot submit the application today.” Wow, a whole day lost and we hadn’t even submitted the application.
On the third day, we wised up and arrived much earlier, before sunrise, around 7 in the morning. Surely this was early enough that we would manage to submit the application—especially considering the government offices do not open before 10. Another journey in the queue had begun and we patiently waited our turn. Finally, we managed to secure a place at the window where the prized application would be submitted.
But a government officer on the other side of the window said, “You cannot write your application in ball-pen; write it in jell-pen or print it with the help of a computer and bring it again.” As we disappointedly trudged home, ordinary citizens of New Nepal, we took solace in the face that we had at least made many friends during our days of line-waiting.
On the fourth day, we arrived at the MoFA earliest yet, while the city was still sleeping, around 4 am. Our beloved queue had now become routine and we were no longer surprised to end the day without having accomplished our goal, nor to plan to return the following day.
Finally, on the fifth day, we were able to submit an application after answering a few questions asked by a government officer. Lesson learned: It is hard enough to be a V.I.P. in Nepal; it is even harder to be an ordinary person.
Posted on: 2010-12-30 09:11
Published: The Kathmandu Post
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Worthy of reading
NOV 17 -
Reading is regarded as a way for people to acquire knowledge. But reading just anything cannot easily provide satisfactory knowledge. I read the content that interests and fascinates me. For example, I read newspapers, essays, articles and dozens of books every month.
There are several ways to read. Some people read thousands of pages very quickly. Such type of reading technique is called skimming. When someone takes a longer time to read text then it is called scanning. However, it depends on what type of material a reader is reading. Some may prefer to scan newspaper columns and essays. Moreover, other may prefer to read or briefly reread novels, stories and poems. It is not how you read but what you read that matters.
In my opinion, in our society we lack good readers. This can be seen from the literary merit and scarce number of works published by Nepali writers. There are works of many great Western contemporary writers that are quite popular in our motherland. On the contrary, not many Nepali writers are well known or well read in the West. This leads to burgeoning questions such as how many Nepali writers have published their readings at either the national or international levels. On the other hand, how many literary critics has Nepal produced or how many people here are interested in what our nation’s own authors have written. I think this lack of interest is due in part to the lack of reading. Our literary circle does not necessarily have clear expertise.
Everybody is trying to make money out of literature. But litterateurs should rather focus on making people more literate. Some people in villages do not even have textbooks to read, a newspaper to purchase nor the Internet to surf. It wouldn’t be very surprising to find that many people from rural areas have never seen Google or Facebook. A reader therefore, would be much more interested to read the works that provides him knowledge and ideas rather than worthless information.
It seems to me that, the well-known publishers are publishing the works of well-known writers and the small faction of literary critics is promoting them. Moreover, much of
the media attention is given to those writers or publishers who are relatives of some political parties or editors
in one way or the other. Until and unless this form of nepotism is not longer prevalent in our society, it would be difficult to receive genuine criticism and review of writer’s work. Thus, a publisher should focus on publishing content that can be beneficial to society or the community in general rather than beneficial to just himself or herself.
Nothing is permanent in this world and everything changes with time but an idea always survives. In my short lifespan, I have accumulated thousands of great ideas and knowledge from the works of many known and unknown writers. My simple idea in this short column was to exemplify that I would love to spend my valuable time on worthy material rather than worthless material and I think reading is just a way to know how.
Posted on: 2010-11-18 07:38
Published: The Kathmandu Post
Reading is regarded as a way for people to acquire knowledge. But reading just anything cannot easily provide satisfactory knowledge. I read the content that interests and fascinates me. For example, I read newspapers, essays, articles and dozens of books every month.
There are several ways to read. Some people read thousands of pages very quickly. Such type of reading technique is called skimming. When someone takes a longer time to read text then it is called scanning. However, it depends on what type of material a reader is reading. Some may prefer to scan newspaper columns and essays. Moreover, other may prefer to read or briefly reread novels, stories and poems. It is not how you read but what you read that matters.
In my opinion, in our society we lack good readers. This can be seen from the literary merit and scarce number of works published by Nepali writers. There are works of many great Western contemporary writers that are quite popular in our motherland. On the contrary, not many Nepali writers are well known or well read in the West. This leads to burgeoning questions such as how many Nepali writers have published their readings at either the national or international levels. On the other hand, how many literary critics has Nepal produced or how many people here are interested in what our nation’s own authors have written. I think this lack of interest is due in part to the lack of reading. Our literary circle does not necessarily have clear expertise.
Everybody is trying to make money out of literature. But litterateurs should rather focus on making people more literate. Some people in villages do not even have textbooks to read, a newspaper to purchase nor the Internet to surf. It wouldn’t be very surprising to find that many people from rural areas have never seen Google or Facebook. A reader therefore, would be much more interested to read the works that provides him knowledge and ideas rather than worthless information.
It seems to me that, the well-known publishers are publishing the works of well-known writers and the small faction of literary critics is promoting them. Moreover, much of
the media attention is given to those writers or publishers who are relatives of some political parties or editors
in one way or the other. Until and unless this form of nepotism is not longer prevalent in our society, it would be difficult to receive genuine criticism and review of writer’s work. Thus, a publisher should focus on publishing content that can be beneficial to society or the community in general rather than beneficial to just himself or herself.
Nothing is permanent in this world and everything changes with time but an idea always survives. In my short lifespan, I have accumulated thousands of great ideas and knowledge from the works of many known and unknown writers. My simple idea in this short column was to exemplify that I would love to spend my valuable time on worthy material rather than worthless material and I think reading is just a way to know how.
Posted on: 2010-11-18 07:38
Published: The Kathmandu Post
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
A Journey
One poem accepted and published by, "Hanging Moss Journal" edited by Steve Meador.
You can kindly check the link below:
http://www.hangingmossjournal.com/guestpoet/Santosh_Kalwar11.html
I hope you will enjoy the poem and have wonderful journey of life.
May God bless you all !
You can kindly check the link below:
http://www.hangingmossjournal.com/guestpoet/Santosh_Kalwar11.html
I hope you will enjoy the poem and have wonderful journey of life.
May God bless you all !
Monday, November 15, 2010
The Farewell Speech by Queen Elizabeth I
The Farewell Speech by Queen Elizabeth I
Mr Speaker,
We have heard your declaration and perceive your care of our estate. I do assure you there is no prince that loves his subjects better, or whose love can countervail our love. There is no jewel, be it of never so rich a price, which I set before this jewel: I mean your love. For I do esteem it more than any treasure or riches; for that we know how to prize, but love and thanks I count invaluable. And, though God hath raised me high, yet this I count the glory of my Crown, that I have reigned with your loves. This makes me that I do not so much rejoice that God hath made me to be a Queen, as to be a Queen over so thankful a people. Therefore I have cause to wish nothing more than to content the subject and that is a duty which I owe. Neither do I desire to live longer days than I may see your prosperity and that is my only desire. And as I am that person still yet, under God, hath delivered you and so I trust by the almighty power of God that I shall be his instrument to preserve you from every peril, dishonour, shame, tyranny and oppression, partly by means of your intended helps which we take very acceptably because it manifesteth the largeness of your good loves and loyalties unto your sovereign.
Of myself I must say this: I never was any greedy, scraping grasper, nor a strait fast-holding Prince, nor yet a waster. My heart was never set on any worldly goods. What you bestow on me, I will not hoard it up, but receive it to bestow on you again. Therefore render unto them I beseech you Mr Speaker, such thanks as you imagine my heart yieldeth, but my tongue cannot express. Mr Speaker, I would wish you and the rest to stand up for I shall yet trouble you with longer speech. Mr Speaker, you give me thanks but I doubt me I have greater cause to give you thanks, than you me, and I charge you to thank them of the Lower House from me. For had I not received a knowledge from you, I might have fallen into the lapse of an error, only for lack of true information.
Since I was Queen, yet did I never put my pen to any grant, but that upon pretext and semblance made unto me, it was both good and beneficial to the subject in general though a private profit to some of my ancient servants, who had deserved well at my hands. But the contrary being found by experience, I am exceedingly beholden to such subjects as would move the same at first. And I am not so simple to suppose but that there be some of the Lower House whom these grievances never touched. I think they spake out of zeal to their countries and not out of spleen or malevolent affection as being parties grieved. That my grants should be grievous to my people and oppressions to be privileged under colour of our patents, our kingly dignity shall not suffer it. Yea, when I heard it, I could give no rest unto my thoughts until I had reformed it. Shall they, think you, escape unpunished that have oppressed you, and have been respectless of their duty and regardless our honour? No, I assure you, Mr Speaker, were it not more for conscience' sake than for any glory or increase of love that I desire, these errors, troubles, vexations and oppressions done by these varlets and lewd persons not worthy of the name of subjects should not escape without condign punishment. But I perceive they dealt with me like physicians who, ministering a drug, make it more acceptable by giving it a good aromatical savour, or when they give pills do gild them all over.
I have ever used to set the Last Judgement Day before mine eyes and so to rule as I shall be judged to answer before a higher judge, and now if my kingly bounties have been abused and my grants turned to the hurt of my people contrary to my will and meaning, and if any in authority under me have neglected or perverted what I have committed to them, I hope God will not lay their culps and offences in my charge. I know the title of a King is a glorious title, but assure yourself that the shining glory of princely authority hath not so dazzled the eyes of our understanding, but that we well know and remember that we also are to yield an account of our actions before the great judge. To be a king and wear a crown is a thing more glorious to them that see it than it is pleasant to them that bear it. For myself I was never so much enticed with the glorious name of a King or royal authority of a Queen as delighted that God hath made me his instrument to maintain his truth and glory and to defend his kingdom as I said from peril, dishonour, tyranny and oppression. There will never Queen sit in my seat with more zeal to my country, care to my subjects and that will sooner with willingness venture her life for your good and safety than myself. For it is my desire to live nor reign no longer than my life and reign shall be for your good. And though you have had, and may have, many princes more mighty and wise sitting in this seat, yet you never had nor shall have, any that will be more careful and loving.
'For I, oh Lord, what am I, whom practices and perils past should not fear? Or what can I do? That I should speak for any glory, God forbid.' And turning to the Speaker and her councillors she said, 'And I pray to you Mr Comptroller, Mr Secretary and you of my Council, that before these gentlemen go into their countries, you bring them all to kiss my hand.'
We have heard your declaration and perceive your care of our estate. I do assure you there is no prince that loves his subjects better, or whose love can countervail our love. There is no jewel, be it of never so rich a price, which I set before this jewel: I mean your love. For I do esteem it more than any treasure or riches; for that we know how to prize, but love and thanks I count invaluable. And, though God hath raised me high, yet this I count the glory of my Crown, that I have reigned with your loves. This makes me that I do not so much rejoice that God hath made me to be a Queen, as to be a Queen over so thankful a people. Therefore I have cause to wish nothing more than to content the subject and that is a duty which I owe. Neither do I desire to live longer days than I may see your prosperity and that is my only desire. And as I am that person still yet, under God, hath delivered you and so I trust by the almighty power of God that I shall be his instrument to preserve you from every peril, dishonour, shame, tyranny and oppression, partly by means of your intended helps which we take very acceptably because it manifesteth the largeness of your good loves and loyalties unto your sovereign.
Of myself I must say this: I never was any greedy, scraping grasper, nor a strait fast-holding Prince, nor yet a waster. My heart was never set on any worldly goods. What you bestow on me, I will not hoard it up, but receive it to bestow on you again. Therefore render unto them I beseech you Mr Speaker, such thanks as you imagine my heart yieldeth, but my tongue cannot express. Mr Speaker, I would wish you and the rest to stand up for I shall yet trouble you with longer speech. Mr Speaker, you give me thanks but I doubt me I have greater cause to give you thanks, than you me, and I charge you to thank them of the Lower House from me. For had I not received a knowledge from you, I might have fallen into the lapse of an error, only for lack of true information.
Since I was Queen, yet did I never put my pen to any grant, but that upon pretext and semblance made unto me, it was both good and beneficial to the subject in general though a private profit to some of my ancient servants, who had deserved well at my hands. But the contrary being found by experience, I am exceedingly beholden to such subjects as would move the same at first. And I am not so simple to suppose but that there be some of the Lower House whom these grievances never touched. I think they spake out of zeal to their countries and not out of spleen or malevolent affection as being parties grieved. That my grants should be grievous to my people and oppressions to be privileged under colour of our patents, our kingly dignity shall not suffer it. Yea, when I heard it, I could give no rest unto my thoughts until I had reformed it. Shall they, think you, escape unpunished that have oppressed you, and have been respectless of their duty and regardless our honour? No, I assure you, Mr Speaker, were it not more for conscience' sake than for any glory or increase of love that I desire, these errors, troubles, vexations and oppressions done by these varlets and lewd persons not worthy of the name of subjects should not escape without condign punishment. But I perceive they dealt with me like physicians who, ministering a drug, make it more acceptable by giving it a good aromatical savour, or when they give pills do gild them all over.
I have ever used to set the Last Judgement Day before mine eyes and so to rule as I shall be judged to answer before a higher judge, and now if my kingly bounties have been abused and my grants turned to the hurt of my people contrary to my will and meaning, and if any in authority under me have neglected or perverted what I have committed to them, I hope God will not lay their culps and offences in my charge. I know the title of a King is a glorious title, but assure yourself that the shining glory of princely authority hath not so dazzled the eyes of our understanding, but that we well know and remember that we also are to yield an account of our actions before the great judge. To be a king and wear a crown is a thing more glorious to them that see it than it is pleasant to them that bear it. For myself I was never so much enticed with the glorious name of a King or royal authority of a Queen as delighted that God hath made me his instrument to maintain his truth and glory and to defend his kingdom as I said from peril, dishonour, tyranny and oppression. There will never Queen sit in my seat with more zeal to my country, care to my subjects and that will sooner with willingness venture her life for your good and safety than myself. For it is my desire to live nor reign no longer than my life and reign shall be for your good. And though you have had, and may have, many princes more mighty and wise sitting in this seat, yet you never had nor shall have, any that will be more careful and loving.
'For I, oh Lord, what am I, whom practices and perils past should not fear? Or what can I do? That I should speak for any glory, God forbid.' And turning to the Speaker and her councillors she said, 'And I pray to you Mr Comptroller, Mr Secretary and you of my Council, that before these gentlemen go into their countries, you bring them all to kiss my hand.'
(The Farewell Speech by Queen Elizabeth I of England November 30th 1601 )
Saturday, November 13, 2010
Thursday, November 11, 2010
hometown
I was born in the heart of the Jungle.
I was raised in a UNESCO world heritage site.
I do not know why you asked
but I know my answers will raise many eyes.
In the world full of intellectual animals,
you will not easily find the right insight.
Because, vanity kills us
while we are awake in the sunlight.
Well, my hometown
is called “Chitwan”
And I hope you will feel delight.
a poem
Who are you to dare and not share?
Maybe you are not here to care.
Then why are you talking to me.
Because I am your clock running downhill
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Company Accused of Firing Over Facebook Post
A comment on article at Nytimes on title, "
This is not good that company or any industry has rights to "look into" their employee’s social media pages.
I do not know what the law is but the law has to be reinstated. No employer should be allowed to judge their employees on what they think about them. Moreover, they should rather put a "complaint box" or tool in their organization so that anyone can "drop in" their feedback and disuses that issue further. If that is done, then it will not only help the industry but also it might just improve the relationship between various stakeholders.
The only way to solve humanly problem is by understanding the magnitude of a problem. It is nowhere now an age of Big Brother but Collaborative Brothers. Welcome to this new world.
Source: Nytimes Online
Company Accused of Firing Over Facebook Post"...
This is not good that company or any industry has rights to "look into" their employee’s social media pages.
I do not know what the law is but the law has to be reinstated. No employer should be allowed to judge their employees on what they think about them. Moreover, they should rather put a "complaint box" or tool in their organization so that anyone can "drop in" their feedback and disuses that issue further. If that is done, then it will not only help the industry but also it might just improve the relationship between various stakeholders.
The only way to solve humanly problem is by understanding the magnitude of a problem. It is nowhere now an age of Big Brother but Collaborative Brothers. Welcome to this new world.
Source: Nytimes Online
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Policing porn
I am against the government policy to block pornographic material online (“Net effect,” Nov. 1, Page 6). The domain of the web, the most democratic of all mediums of communication, belongs to common people. The government should not be policing its content and deciding for the people what they should or should not view.
And it is also unrealistic to expect internet service providers to block certain sites; it is like trying to find a needle in a haystack. I would like to know who in the government comes up with these stupid plans when there are clearly more pressing issues to take care of.
Santosh Kalwar
By email
Published: Letter to Editor
The Kathmandu Post
And it is also unrealistic to expect internet service providers to block certain sites; it is like trying to find a needle in a haystack. I would like to know who in the government comes up with these stupid plans when there are clearly more pressing issues to take care of.
Santosh Kalwar
By email
Published: Letter to Editor
The Kathmandu Post
Monday, November 1, 2010
WHY I AM NOT A CHRISTIAN by Bertrand Russell
This lecture was delivered on March 6, 1927, at Battersea Town
Hall, under the auspices of the South London Branch of the
National Secular Society.
As your Chairman has told you, the subject about which I am
going to speak to you tonight is ‘Why I am not a Christian’.
Perhaps it would be as well, first of all, to try to make out what
one means by the word ‘Christian’. It is used these days in a very
loose sense by a great many people. Some people mean no more
by it than a person who attempts to live a good life. In that sense
I suppose there would be Christians in all sects and creeds;
but I do not think that that is the proper sense of the word,
if only because it would imply that all the people who are not
Christians—all the Buddhists, Confucians, Mohammedans, and
so on—are not trying to live a good life. I do not mean by a
Christian any person who tries to live decently according to his
lights. I think that you must have a certain amount of definite
belief before you have a right to call yourself a Christian. The
word does not have quite such a full-blooded meaning now as it
had in the times of St Augustine and St Thomas Aquinas. In those
days, if a man said that he was a Christian it was known what
he meant. You accepted a whole collection of creeds which
were set out with great precision, and every single syllable of
those creeds you believed with the whole strength of your
convictions.
Hall, under the auspices of the South London Branch of the
National Secular Society.
As your Chairman has told you, the subject about which I am
going to speak to you tonight is ‘Why I am not a Christian’.
Perhaps it would be as well, first of all, to try to make out what
one means by the word ‘Christian’. It is used these days in a very
loose sense by a great many people. Some people mean no more
by it than a person who attempts to live a good life. In that sense
I suppose there would be Christians in all sects and creeds;
but I do not think that that is the proper sense of the word,
if only because it would imply that all the people who are not
Christians—all the Buddhists, Confucians, Mohammedans, and
so on—are not trying to live a good life. I do not mean by a
Christian any person who tries to live decently according to his
lights. I think that you must have a certain amount of definite
belief before you have a right to call yourself a Christian. The
word does not have quite such a full-blooded meaning now as it
had in the times of St Augustine and St Thomas Aquinas. In those
days, if a man said that he was a Christian it was known what
he meant. You accepted a whole collection of creeds which
were set out with great precision, and every single syllable of
those creeds you believed with the whole strength of your
convictions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)