So what probable reason a boy can try to woo a girl?
May be he need some sexual favours, sexual pleasure is always a dear and costly entity especially when prostitution is not allowed by the law.
Or may be, the boy is emotionally attached with the girl, appreciates her physical beauty and her personal behaviour, attitude and skills, hence want her to be his life mate, wife.
Or may be he simply is wooing the girl for some romantic flirting for a while with no intentions of sexual intimacy or marriage.
He may very well be trying to woo the girl because the girl belongs to a rich family and if tied with her, he will get financial security/boost.
There can be various reasons for a boy trying to woo a girl.
Our government is worried that one of such reason can be the religious conspiracy of Muslim boys to woo the Hindu girls specifically, in order to increase the population of Muslim community.
To counterattack and regulate any chances of such conspiracy, Maharastra government has directed CID to check whether Muslim boys are enticing Hindu girls as part of a ‘conspiracy’.
Obviously, in the state where the government police and investigating bureau failed to protect the civilians against regular terrorist attacks anytime, in a state where Mafia and criminals got ultimate opportunities, the state police can do nothing better than looking and intervening for the internal matters of the individuals and their love affairs.
After all that is the actual social security for which we pay our taxes, isn't it?
Funny thing is, the Ministry announced this government step during the budget session of
Judge: The defence may proceed.
Roark: (to judge) Your honour, I shall call no witnesses. This will be my testimony and my summation.
Judge: Take the oath.
Court clerk: Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Roark: (to clerk) I do. (to the jury) Thousands of years ago the first man discovered how to make fire. He was probably burnt at the stake he'd taught his brothers to light. But he left them a gift they had not conceived. And he lifted darkness off the earth. Throughout the centuries there were men who took first steps down new roads armed with nothing but their own vision.
The great creators, the thinkers, the artists, the scientists, the inventors stood alone against the men of their time. Every new thought was opposed, every new invention was denounced. But the men of unborrowed vision went ahead. They fought, they suffered and they paid, but they won. No creator was prompted by a desire to please his brothers. His brothers hated the gift he offered. His truth was his only motive. His work was his only goal. His work - not those who used it. His creation - not the benefits others derived from it. The creation which gave form to his truth.
He held his truth above all things and against all men. He went ahead whether others agreed with him or not. With his integrity as his only banner. He served nothing and no one. He lived for himself and only by living for himself was he able to achieve the things which are the glory of mankind. Such is the nature of achievement. Man cannot survive except through his mind. He comes on earth unarmed. His brain is his only weapon. But the mind is an attribute of the individual. There is no such thing as a collective brain. The man who thinks must think and act on his own. The reasoning mind cannot work under any form of compulsion. It cannot be subordinated to the needs, opinions or wishes of others. It is not an object of sacrifice.
The creator stands on his own judgment. The parasite follows the opinions of others. The creator thinks, the parasite copies. The creator produces, the parasite loots. The creator's concern is the conquest of nature. The parasite's concern is the conquest of Man. The creator requires independence - he neither serves nor rules. He deals with men by free exchange and voluntary choice. The parasite seeks power. He wants to bind all men together in common action and common slavery.
He..(the prosecuting attorney)...He claims that Man is only a tool for the use of others. That he must think as they think, act as they act, and live in selfless, joyless servitude to any need but his own. Look at history - Everything we have, every great achievement has come from the independent work of some independent mind. Every horror and destruction came from attempts to force men into a herd of brainless, soulless robots; without personal rights, without personal ambition, without will, hope or dignity. It is an ancient conflict. It has another name - the individual against the collective.
Our country, the noblest country in the history of men, was based on the principle of individualism. The principle of Man's inalienable rights. It was a country where a man was free to seek his own happiness. To gain and produce, not to give up and renounce. To prosper, not to starve. To achieve, not to plunder. To hold as his highest possession, a sense of his personal value. And as his highest virtue, his self-respect. Look at the result. That is what the collectivists are now asking you to destroy. As much of the earth has been destroyed. I am an architect. I know what is to come by the principle on which it is built.
We are approaching a world in which I cannot permit myself to live. My ideas are my property. They were taken from me by force, by breach of contract. No appeal was left to me. It was believed that my work belonged to others - to do with as they pleased. But they had a claim upon me, without my consent. That it was my duty to serve them, without choice or reward. Now you know why I dynamited Cortlandt. I designed Cortlandt. I made it possible. I destroyed it. I agreed to design it for the purpose of seeing it built as I wished. That was the price I set for my work. I was not paid.
My building was disfigured at the whim of others who took all the benefits of my work and gave me nothing in return. I came here to say that I do not recognize anyone's right to one minute of my life. Nor to any part of my energy, nor to any achievement of mine. No matter who makes the claim! It had to be said. The world is perishing from an orgy of self-sacrificing. I came here to be heard. In the name of every man of independence still left in the world. I wanted to state my terms. I do not care to work or live on any others. My terms are: a man's right to exist for his own sake. (Roark sits down)
He was found not guilty by the jury on the criminal charges.
(original link-- The Fountainhead)
After the terrorist attack on Srilanka cricket team,
A retired ISI official Rt. General Hameed Gul said that
This is not the first time when
Conspiracy has become cliché, too much overused.
Yet all these incidents significantly shows one reality and that is, governments are seriously unable to protect common citizens, even they cannot protect a foreign delegate. Now since in a government ruled state, there is monopoly of government over the security system, they seriously lack any competitive check for their own failures and blaming the other countries becomes a hide out for them.
The common man in the absence of any better alternative find himself forced to believe such blames and that further infuriates the environment, creating further grounds of discontent, disbelief and hatred.
It is not hard to realize that the terrorist attack on the Sri Lankan team simply suggest that the security net was thoroughly breached by terrorists, they had information about the route through which team will be headed to the Gaddaffi cricket ground, they exactly knew how much security guards will be there with the Sri Lankan team. Anyone can surmise that the terrorists has all prior knowledge and hence they were able to plan the attack in such a managed way, that is, the terrorists have connections within the security services of Pakistan too.
In case of Hotel Taj attack also, we simply cannot rule out the possibilities of help for the terrorists to implement their attacking plan from within Indian borders. Furthermore, just like
The way Indian and
If the neighbouring states of
The very basic and simple idea of cumulative progress is the environment of peace, justice, individual liberty and security within whole of the Indian sub-continent and adjoining states. A failure of
Yet, the states are unable to provide any secure, peaceful friendly and trustworthy environment and that aborts any try to improve the human life and its standards.
It is very easy to claim that certain brutal minds cause such havoc. Some may blame fundamentalist nature of Islam Taliban and other insurgent groups and to insure safety against such insurgent groups, they will claim strong government is necessary.
So can we say that
Often people ignore the fact that the real cause of such fissures in intelligence and security system actually signifies the failure of the government system.
Furthermore, when there are inklings that the terrorist have some links in the inner realms of security departments, we cannot expect a proper investigation and a justified trial for the real conspirators and criminals behind the crime.
Overall, the situation is fuzzed up.
The security lapses although can be rectified, yet can any government monopoly provide a proper security system progressive and competitive enough?
With whom will they compete and on what grounds.
Obviously, when they have no solution for the existing problems, they will keep blaming each other in hope of gaining some sort of relief.
Ultimately, it would be the individuals who will need to give up their subjective view point and will have to realize the sanctity of life; they will have to realize the importance of peace, freedom, happiness and they will have to realize the importance to defend themselves too.
Let us hope that apart from engaging in blame games, and announcing restrictive laws on common innocent citizens, these governments will take some positive steps to solve out the problem of terrorism and militancy.
Speech before the US House of Representatives, 02/12/09
Madam Speaker,
I have a few questions for my colleagues.
What if our foreign policy of the past century is deeply flawed and has not served our national security interests?
What if we wake up one day and realize that the terrorist threat is a predictable consequence of our meddling in the affairs of others and has nothing to do with us being free and prosperous?
What if propping up repressive regimes in the Middle East endangers both the United States and Israel?
What if occupying countries like Iraq and Afghanistan - and bombing Pakistan - is directly related to the hatred directed toward us?
What if someday it dawns on us that losing over 5,000 American military personnel in the Middle East since 9/11 is not a fair trade-off for the loss of nearly 3,000 American citizens, no matter how many Iraqi, Pakistani, and Afghan people are killed or displaced?
What if we finally decide that torture, even if called "enhanced interrogation techniques," is self-destructive and produces no useful information - and that contracting it out to a third world nation is just as evil?
What if it is finally realized that war and military spending is always destructive to the economy?
What if all wartime spending is paid for through the deceitful and evil process of inflating and borrowing?
What if we finally see that wartime conditions always undermine personal liberty?
What if conservatives, who preach small government, wake up and realize that our interventionist foreign policy provides the greatest incentive to expand the government?
What if conservatives understood once again that their only logical position is to reject military intervention and managing an empire throughout the world?
What if the American people woke up and understood that the official reasons for going to war are almost always based on lies and promoted by war propaganda in order to serve special interests?
What if we as a nation came to realize that the quest for empire eventually destroys all great nations?
What if Obama has no intention of leaving Iraq?
What if a military draft is being planned for the wars that will spread if our foreign policy is not changed?
What if the American people learn the truth: that our foreign policy has nothing to do with national security and that it never changes from one administration to the next?
What if war and preparation for war is a racket serving the special interests?
What if President Obama is completely wrong about Afghanistan and it turns out worse than Iraq and Vietnam put together?
What if Christianity actually teaches peace and not preventive wars of aggression?
What if diplomacy is found to be superior to bombs and bribes in protecting America?
What happens if my concerns are completely unfounded - nothing!
What happens if my concerns are justified and ignored - nothing good!
Ron Paul is a republican member of congress from Texas.
Such protectionist moves will further force
Yet, my question is, Is Indian government morally right to raise such issue?
First of all let me clear out, I am not at all supporting Obama's protectionist tactics.
What Obama is trying to do is to encourage American companies to employ the American workers as the unemployment is increasing sharply in US.
To avoid that, Obama is now trying to reduce the profits a company can gain by outsourcing, so that the company may protect the jobs for US citizens.
We can say that it is nothing different the reservation for Americans. That is, although US companies are free to employ workers from other nations and outsource jobs too, they will not get tax reliefs if they do so and that will decrease their profits.
When Indian Commerce and Industry minister Kamal Nath, who is a bigwig of congress, says that
If Indian government really feel that such protectionist moves are wrong and reservation should not be there, why do Indian government support reservations in
Just some months ago, Congress lead UPA government was trying to enforce quotas and reservation for schedule tribe, schedule caste, OBC's and others in private sector too, was not that wrong?
How logical it is to force a private company and intervene in its internal matter about whom it should employ and whom it should not?
Sincerely, before opposing Obama, Kamal Nath and whole congress party should mull about and look inside their own pockets, they hold no moral ground to oppose Obama's move. In Fact, Indian government is much more culprit and misplaced with its irrational schemes of reservation.
Obama is hell bent to declare himself as the new Avtar of Robin Hood.
He is seeking some $1 trillion tax increase in budget plan. He is establishing socialism in US, ending any relief for the hopes of freedom and capitalism.
To pay for permanent tax breaks for the lower income group, Obama has proposed $1 trillion to be confiscated from the highest earning
Now, the lower income group obviously is huge in number, and hence it is potential vote bank too. Thus, looting the rich and distributing it in poor will help Obama in his political career.
I wonder why people cannot understand that by punishing the Job creators, no one can help job seekers. That $1 trillion, which can be used by the rich to create jobs, will be wasted on non-productive-activities again and that will further create ground for the next cycle of recession. Anyways,
Tax is monetary punishment for being rich, for being able to earn an opulent life. Tax is an enforcement which states that you cannot live happily if some other person is not happy, that is, you are allowed to be happy only if the other person who cannot earn as much as you is also happy. Tax is socialism and obviously anti-human.
A rich man can create and provide jobs because he has potential he has money to invest. If government takes that potential out of his hands to distribute it in poor, he looses his potential to create jobs and hence further wealth.
Blogging is not an art, it is rather an expression of freedom, and it is a power to let you realize yourself. On his page, the bloggers expresses himself uninhibitedly about anything he prefers to express about freely.
Now Indian bloggers can not do so, they may blog, yet they cannot blog freely.
They need to limit themselves about what they are talking about and how they are expressing themselves because Supreme Court of India says that the blogger may face libel charges and even prosecution for their blog content. Bloggers can be nailed for views.
Not only that, the bloggers needs to look for the content of the commenter on their blog as the blogger will be considered responsible for all the raunchy, caustic or abusive comments on any issue.
The Supreme Court refused to protect a 19 year old boy named Ajith D against the summons from
Totalitarianism is official now, you may have the ways to express but you cannot express and if you do, be prepared to face the consequences.
Some months ago, when a blogger expressed his views against NDTV's live coverage of Mumbai terrorist attacks, he also faced warnings of libel and he had to remove and apologize for his post.
This case is a step forward. Ajith D is facing a criminal charge, the FIR against him is registered under Sections 506 and 295A pertaining to hurting public sentiments.
So here is the efficiency of Indian judiciary system. We cannot say for how long the kid will suffer now.
The issue of hurting public sentiments is a bit crap idea. What will not hurt the public sentiments?
If someone raises the issue of legalizing prostitution, it hurts public sentiments, if someone raises issue of legalizing alcohol, drugs or even abortions it hurts public sentiments. If someone opposes taxes and governmental policies, bail outs and economic stimulus, that also hurts public sentiments. Say anything and that will hurt public sentiment because public has no face.
Thus, remain dumb and numb and do not speak out, otherwise, someone will nail you down officially.
Ohh well you have freedom of speech and expression, so what is someone complains and file an FIR against you? You should go to court and explain your conduct, explain how you were not committing any crime but just trying to exercise your fundamental right of expression, fight for your right you may win.
Fundamental right of expression! What a cliché.
One needs to understand the humour behind the idea of fundamental rights.
Often people engages in highly raucous arguments about free-market or free-society.
If a person supports free-market or free-society, what actually he want to express, whose freedom is he really talking about?
Market and society both are human constructs they actually do not exist.
What exists is Individual, and since he exists, he has a fundamental right, right to exist, right to live.
These entire human construct like society or market (both are same with NO DIFFERENCE) are nothing but result of human endeavour to live free.
Freedom here means freedom of man from men, Individual freedom from group or other man. His freedom his individual right need to be secured and protected and that is the basic principle of any market any society.
If this is not the basic idea basic logic, and basic aim of market or society, than it is a crap market or society and it is deemed to fail and suffer.
About need of contract, society or market and its recognition, it is a contract, a well defined contract.
If the man is alone in this universe, he does not need to define any right; he does not need to construct any idea like society or market.
However, solipsism is not possible, man is not alone, there are other men, and the acceptance of each man to live free, is the contract base of any market any society.
The market or society, which does not recognize this fundamental principle of right to live free and hence other consequential rights, can surely not be free.
That is, if the market is not well regulated with the thread of this basic individual right, then it is neither free nor market nor society nor civilization, it is brutes world!
Since the US government and senators started imposing a ban on H-1 B hiring for companies looking for revival through bail outs, every Indian reporter, columnist, economist and even common bloggers started criticizing the protectionist move.
I find myself locked in a prison,
Recently, Indian government announced a proceeding in making of a new fund to provide economic stimulus to those Indian workers who were working outside
Ok, how good it feels to help the Indian brothers who went away for making big millions of dollars and now are coming back as their jobs are no more.
MOIA, (The Ministry of Overseas Indian Affairs), is planning to ponder over an amount of Rs10 crores every year to help such workers. "ET News"
It is just a form of economic stimulus by
Not only those who went away in search of big money better jobs are loosing money, but the Indian compatriots who are dependent on production industry are loosing jobs, to say clearly, India is in huge economic crisis, yet government supported Indian new channels keep showing some fake Osama stories and economic crisis of USA, and other nations, as if India is untouched by any such crisis, and ohh yea why not, after all India is well-regulated mixed economy, how can it crumble. Yet that is not the fact. Indian government has already provided economic stimulus for Indian markets and we have shown that such stimulus will only increase the tenure of crisis.
When compared with huge amounts like Rs2000 crores, these Rs10 crores per year may seem nothing, but ultimately the Indian citizens have to pay these Rs10 crores too, it is a burden on Indian citizens as it will increase Fiscal deficit and put further debt on Indians.
Now let us discuss about Unemployment.
Unemployment is a situation when a worker is not working because either he is not getting any work, or he considers the available works not apt for him, as he is much better than doing those jobs.
It is simply not possible to not get any work, as there always remains a situation to do some work or other to gain an honest living that is what entrepreneurship is.
Yet, if a person is not working because all the available jobs he considers of low standards than what he is capable of, then it is a voluntary unemployment. That is, the worker is not working by his choice.
Consider this, a software engineer who was working in
He was working at a salary of Rs 1 lakh per month, now he do not want to work for an annual package of Rs 2 lakh 40 thousand per annum, that is Rs15,000 per months.
Since he does not want to work at this lower salary, he is not working it is his own choice. Can we say that he is Unemployed? Yes, well he is voluntary unemployed.
Do we need to help him by any economic plan of say Rs 10 crores per annum (As MOIA is thinking about)? No, when he is not even ready to work for Rs15,000 per annum, why will he agree to beg, and if he really feel that he is in dire situation and he needs money any how, he will start working for Rs15,000 per month or even less.
A poor will be more than enough happy about getting a job of Rs2,000 per month too.
So, why providing any stimulus plan for such workers, who are returning to
Someday ago, when Air India announced that it is planning to send about 15,000 workers on pay-less salaries, political parties opposed the move, but when there is no money to keep those high profile rich salary jobs, how is it possible to keep maintaining those jobs? It is simply a bad investment or "Non-Productive-Asset".
Only such Malinvestment and "Non-productive assets" actually increases economic burden and causes economic crisis.
Thus, MOIA is not planning to "help" some returnees from foreign, but it is planning to sustain economic crisis, and why is it doing so? To gain some emotional vote bank?
I will be writing more on Unemployment on ReasonForLiberty soon.
ET while reporting Obama's stimulus plan says "Much of the money would go for victims of the recession in the form of food stamps, unemployment compensation and health care."
(Economic Times)
Ok, so it is the proof of governments in influence of Keynesianism. First of all, the question is, why will a person opt to go for work if he is getting free health care, and unemployment compensation?
Now, some of the workers were getting huge salaries, can government provide them same salaries? No, it will provide some money based on minimum possible need program.
If it is not provided, may a person go for looking job of some other kind, he may innovate ways to cope with new situations, but government do not want him to think.
Now the question is, when Obama is proposing $819 billion stimulus plan, which may well go to 1 trillion, from where is all this money coming from?
1> government will publish new currency notes/Dollars.
In that case, government is not making any wealth, it will again increase inflation and things will remain as it is. No improvement.
2> Government may tax more on those who are yet working and earning. Ahh so what will it make? More poor, More hungry? How will a poor hungry man provide job to another hungry/poor man?
By doing so, Obama will just decrease the potential of Americans to provide jobs for fellow Americans.
Now the thing is, US is already in huge fiscal deficits, and debt. With new stimulus plan, Americans will be indebted with further huge deficits, which they will have to pay back somehow, otherwise more world tensions, and wars will take place, more terrorism will spread its wings.
In anyways, Obama's stimulus plan is going to take US further downhill to the oblivions of mystery, loot, slavery and socialism.
By the way, I heard a bill to be passed which suggests that American companies should remove foreign workers first rather than removing American workers, now that is protectionism, the American Patriot Economic plan. The thing is, by removing cheaper and better workers first, the entrepreneurs will not get any savings, and they will have to keep bearing the costlier and less productive American workers, that will further deplete American economy, a further blow towards the down hill.
Further read: threat of protectionism
