Wednesday, December 01, 2004

all about the power

U cannot hurt me
I won’t grant u that
Power.


I am in control
I am master of
Myself.

denials

Denials make hollow facts

We deny the truth

Afraid of reality

Children fear the dark,

But adults fear light.

Leave me by candlelight

So I can at least delude

Myself.

i did it

I stopped crying

U thought I was happy

I had reached beyond the bottom

Was 5.5 feet under.

I wanted to keep you

But when u left

I realised that

I needed u not

I rose up and out

On my own.

~reality is a bracket~

One day,
My prince will come.

(prince of hades
feeling sympathetic that day)

Sweep me away,
On a pink palomino.

(horses are never pink
and cannot sweep)

take me to a rose garden
build me an arbour.

(im allergic to pollen
and arbours let in rain)

we’ll have a lil
prince and princess.

(monsters more like
yelling all day)

I’ll maintain my figure
And wear icy-pink ball-dresses.

(hairnets and bathrobes,
with morning coffee stains)

I’ll be gracious and cordial
A married Diana.

(snapping all day long
a true-blue fishwife)

if i loved a married man

Everywhere I turn,
I see her face.
You’re my husband,
But she’s your wife.

Can you ever be mine?
I daily wonder.
Will I ever,
Carry your name?

What am I really?
The love of your life?
Or
Your hidden shame?

Babies, a home,
Cooking dinner,
Doing laundry and ironing,
These are pleasures destined not for me.

Daily arguments over kids’ school,
Their undone homework,
Her indecent dressing,
His soccer practice.

Why Why Why?
Why does she get these privileges,
I’m the one who loves you,
‘tis indeed an unjust world.

Every thought of mine,
Revolves around you,
My every breath is yours,
But you are Hers.

Friday, October 29, 2004

capitalism

I've seen the best minds of my generation destroyed by capitalism,

no longer starving, hysterical, naked,

but portly, Prozac fed, Armani clad,
 

dragging themselves through neon shopping malls at dawn looking for a

cashflow fix,

angelheaded hype-stars burning for a brand name connection - Victoria's

Secret, maybe, or Starbucks - to open up another outlet, to milk the

sacred cow of commerce and make things predictable, tedious, subject to

a national marketing strategy;

WHO once in poverty and tatters, hollow-eyed and high, sat up smoking in

the supernatural darkness...

WHO were expelled from the academies for craziness & publishing obscene

odes on the windows of the skull, and

 

WHO are now engaged in the most mammoth dumbing down of culture the

world has ever seen,

WHO wringing their hands in car retrieval lobbies of Intercontinentals,

after six hour feasts, impatient for the stretch Rolls, sing madrigals

to global consumerism, sternly reminding me of Soviet horrors, Tianamen

Square, famines, secret police ...

and anyway, the entire population of China deserves to be shod in Nike,

with their distinctive polyurethane airbag cushions,

containing sulphur hexafluoride,

 

the world's most lethal greenhouse gas,

 

with a global warming hit 22,000 times greater than

 

carbon dioxide,

and which hangs in the atmosphere for 500 years;

yes, produced by girls in Indonesia for five bucks,

strikes outlawed, overtime compulsory, 20 cents an hour,

 

Nike's inflate on-the-shelf to $200.

 

Asked about onerous conditions,

the area manager shrugs:

"I don't know that I need to know".

Bliss.

 

Shimmering on Fortune's list of fabulous

 

rates of return to investors, (46.9%),

 

Nike is a Shareholder Superstar,

to the best minds of my generation,

not a Sweatshop Slavelord.

 

 

These are the minds

WHO manipulate, degrade and exploit the ass end of pop culture in all

its forms, using tabloid sadism, salivating weeklies, splatter-trash

cinema ("it's art! it's art!"), footie fetishism, and gluttony elevated

to haute cuisine,

WHO justify intellectual slumming, star-fucking-then-crushing, fad

promotions, supergossip, with the

 

ineluctable logic of economic rationalism,

 

the most odious of opiates,

the cruellest of illusions,

WHO, knowing the decline of health & happiness outside their elite

zones, persist in formenting the great Dumbing Down (including their own

minds, once finegazing at starry nights with radiant cool eyes, poetry

on their lips and no thought of material excess), yes, subsidising the

hip vulgarity of media scams with ads, promos and "tie-ins" for

 

objects objects objects

of destruction,

 

either of self,

or the swirling backyard we 5.6 billion inhabit, and

 

WHO, by fostering commercial falsehoods,

shield us from the truth,

 

and each other,

either in small matters, like wrinkle banishing lotions or

big myths, like multi millionaires being good for the planet because

gold trickles down to the peasants in Brazil, ha!

(and to avoid too many cliches you'll notice I haven't mentioned

 

resource depletion);

WHO don't know that they need to know, these growth-rate trippers

hallucinating Sydney 2000 real estate,

WHO provoke the scandalised descendants of Victor Hugo to call for "a

halt to the pillage of Disney", after their ancestor's story was stolen

and his name excluded from posters plastering the planet, nor honoured

in the merchandised debauch of fluffy toys, CD's & video nasties;

WHO so excessively reward the chairman of Disney

that it would take a Mickey Mouse pyjama seamstress in Haiti

three lifetimes

to earn what Michael Eisner makes in a day,

WHO pride themselves on stretching the frontiers of youth marketing,

even beyond alco-pop, "the most important teen drinking trend in

decades", to the irresistable alchemy of ...

 

alco-milk;

WHO, because of soaring US profits of the female shaving industry,

 

Target Europe with a $20 million campaign to render women uncouth &

smelly unless they reach for a

 

plastic pink handled Lady Protector,

every day,

WHO once screamed out of windows in despair until rescued by throngs of

songsters dreaming gleaming impossible utopias, for the hell of it, for

the high of it, and now, looking back, plan to sanitize & bastardize it

as

a 1000 acre Woodstock Theme Park

 

of museums, train rides, theatres, and jelly vats writhing with

skinny-dipping hippie robots,

 

a Hard Rock cafe franchise and,

to promote Mega Virgin Global,

 

a sky-flying inflatable Jimi Hendrix;

(Why not?

 

Che Guevara is already a Swatch watch);

as the likelihood of real political change recedes,

we are told,

people need symbols of resistance -

it makes them feel better;

WHO in everyday seeming unimportant ways

connive in their own dumbing down -

 

as did John Travolta, recently on David Letterman worldwide, (isn't

everything?) hugging, schmoozing, drivel-drooling, playing to the

 

brain dead gallery,

 

anything to stop futon spuds channel drifting,

never to say anything of import, or even for a moment

think aloud

in case it unleashes the wrath of an unseen ratings god

 

and crush a career,

(Maybe they're right.

It's why Dennis Potter called his cancer

Rupert),

WHO realise that outside their gilded enclaves are gridlocked

slumblocks,

cars cars cars,

exeeding 500 million this year

airports airports airports ,

annual release of carbon dioxide 23 bilion tonnes,

casinos multiplying, like youth suicides, tides of landless, jobless,

homeless, swarming citywards,

 

trees felled, salt rising, heat rising, cancer rising, coasts wrecked -

a strip of Bali three McDonalds already - everywhere mangroves uprooted

for hotels, dugongs gutted,

countless mammal species,

 

168 bird species judged critically endangered,

goodbye, goodbye,

who know in their hearts of this hellshock, yes, these best minds of my

generation, who control & mould the global brainbox and cannot bear to

recognise the most obvious connections between what they do

and don't do

 

and the destiny of this toxic orb.

 

In my dreams you walk dripping from a lost journey on the superhighway

in tears

 

to my clifftop door in the Western night.

 

Write an essay on 'the movement for Pakistan'. How would you evaluate Muhammad Ali Jinnah's leadership of that 'movement'?

Introduction and Stand:

The purpose of this essay is to evaluate and analyse the contributions of Mohamed Ali Jinnah to the creation of Pakistan as a sovereign state. It also aims to criticise his aims and ambitions in doing so. With the aim of depicting M.A. Jinnah as a man who led the movement for Pakistan with personal power as one of his motivating factors, this essay will prove the aforesaid hypothesis and yet go on to show that despite his own motivations, M.A. Jinnah led the movement in a highly admirable manner.

Jinnah's Beginning:

To begin at the beginning, the idea of a separate state for Muslims was not an idea that Jinnah liked or supported. Being a highly secular man, trained in British law and practicing constitutional, democratic politics, the idea of a separate state was not something he encouraged until his return to India after his self-imposed exile in Britain (1937). When the idea of a separate Muslim state was first conceptualised by the Islamic poet, Mohamed Iqbal and a nationalistic minded student in Britain told Jinnah of the plan, he slapped the student in outrage . He resented being typecast as a 'Muslim', according to his good friend, “He was very very British” . Being a member of both the Muslim League and Indian National Congress, he spent his early political career working to bring them together. It was due to Jinnah's leadership and liaison role that the 1915 session of the Muslim League coincided with that of Congress, and at that session, Jinnah played a significant role in negotiations, which resulted in the Lucknow pact of 1916. This pact was one of the first formal Hindu-Muslim agreements granting rights to Muslims, and it was the only time that the Muslim League and Congress came to a voluntary agreement about India. The Lucknow Pact granted Indian Muslims a separate electorate, and 'weightage' in legislative councils that had a Muslim minority. It had but a temporary effect on Hindu-Muslim relations as it represented only the agreement of a 'tiny political elite' of the two communities. There were many reasons that resulted in the most dramatic change in a man that history has ever seen; religious, personal and otherwise. The aim of the question is to 'evaluate' Jinnah's 'leadership' of the 'movement' for Pakistan, as such, before analysing his work, we must first analyse the situations before and after his 'policies' were put into action.

His 'Transformation':

The main reason for the increasing sense of nationalism among the Indian Muslims at that time was due to a growing fear of their increasing marginalisation, and not just in India.
It is often suspected that Jinnah's sudden change from secular constitutional leader to a pro-Islam figure had a lot to do with his disillusionment of the non-constitutional and increasingly Hindu-oriented policies practiced by his fellow congress leader and good friend Mohandas K. Gandhi. It was Gandhi's 'Civil Disobedience Campaign' that Jinnah was ill-at-ease with and he resigned soon after Gandhi gained control of the Congress party in 1920. There was in India at that time, a growing fear of the 'British Raj' being replaced by 'Ram Raj' . Jinnah was shrewd enough to realise that Hindu extremists could make life difficult for Muslims in India.
Increasing this fear was the marginalizing of minorities in Germany under Adolf Hitler's Nazi regime. Golwalkar's 'We Or Our Nationhood Defined' (1938), which argued that, if German Jews could be exterminated by Hitler, so could Indian Muslims by Hindus. Jinnah commented in relation to the increasingly tense situation of Indian Hindus and Muslims that, “Hitler's attempt at purity was a good lesson for us in Hindustan to learn and profit by” . The sheer enormity of his linking the German genocide to India showed his growing concern, and that of the masses of Muslims in South Asia about the growing threat of Hindu extremism.
Another factor frequently attributed to the growing fear of being sidelined among the Muslims was the collapse of Ottoman Caliphate Empire. This was the loss of one of the biggest Islamic powers in the world. However, although Jinnah sympathized with his fellow Muslims, he was not convinced that Muslims should march out of British India and migrate to Muslim states like Afghanistan.
Another reason often attributed to Jinnah's sudden departure to England was the Montagu-Chelmsford reforms of 1919. These reforms posed a significant setback to Jinnah's career; education, public works and local self-governance were all transferred to the control of local ministers in a diarchal system. This was a good opportunity for politicians with strong local support which Jinnah lacked as he had always seen himself representing India in its entirety and lacked a landed or tribal powerbase. Although he tried to carry on in his previous role as a Hindu-Muslim negotiator, he was not on the best terms with Nehru and many of his proposal were often rejected , and his mediatory role was taken over by Mian Fazl-I-Husain who had a much stronger provincial base and thus greater authority in negotiating on the behalf of Muslims in India.

His return and alliances formed:

One of the biographers of M. A. Jinnah, Stanley Wolpert of UCLA said: "Few individuals significantly alter the course of history. Fewer still modify the map of the world. Hardly anyone can be credited with creating a nation-state. Mohammad Ali Jinnah did all three. Hailed as 'Great Leader' (Quaid-I-Azam) of Pakistan and its first governor-general, Jinnah virtually conjured that country into statehood by the force of his indomitable will. His place of primacy in Pakistan's history looms like a minaret over the achievements of all his contemporaries in the Muslim League." "We are a nation," Jinnah said, three years before Partition, "with our own distinctive culture and civilization, language and literature, art and architecture, names and nomenclature, sense of values and proportion, legal laws and moral codes, customs and calendar, history and tradition, aptitude and ambitions - in short, we have our own distinctive outlook on life." When in 1934 the Muslims of India elected Jinnah as their representative to the Central Legislative Assembly, in his absence, and the 1935 Government of India Act gave him an opportunity to regain his former influence, Jinnah returned to India and worked towards the creation of a separate state for Muslims by uniting the various disparate Muslim groups scattered throughout India
Jinnah knew exactly what he was doing throughout his leadership of the Pakistan movement. He was “an able, single-minded political tactician who took full advantage of the dramatic political changes which occurred after India's entry into the Second World War” . However, even before the advent of the Second World War, Jinnah made his alliances and manipulated them to benefit his cause. His alliance with Sikander Hayat Khan, after the 1937 elections where the Unionist Party won the majority of Muslim votes, was a recognition of the latter's power and the need for the support of rural landowners who controlled the majority of rural votes. In exchange for Khan's support in National politics, Jinnah allowed him control over the organisation of the Muslim League. By 1939, the Muslim League had greatly increased their influence; this was largely due to the blunders of Congress. After the 1937 elections, Congress had won the mandate to form ministries in 7 out of 11 provinces, which put many Muslims under Congress (largely Hindu) rule. This would have been an apt opportunity for Congress to establish itself as an all-India party and shed its 'Hindu' mantle, however, the reality was quite the opposite. Congress made no effort to empathize with or respect Muslim culture and religion . This boosted the Muslim League's rhectoric that it alone could safeguard Islamic interests in India. It was after this period that the demand for Pakistan intensified. Even the British agreed with this viewpoint, in 1939, Linlithgow dubbed Congress 'a Hindu organisation', implicitly accepting the right of the Muslim League to speak for all Indian Muslims.

It could be said that the outbreak of World War Two was a watershed in the movement for Pakistan. World War Two served to firstly accelerate British departure and also to put Muslim League and Congress on the same platform. The 1942 Crippes Mission, which was a British attempt to garner wartime support from India in exchange for self-government, conceded the theory of partition. “The British could not contemplate the transfer of their present responsibility for the peace and welfare of India to any system of government whose authority is directly denied by large and powerful elements in India's national life.”

The Psychological Game:

Jinnah's creation of a 'modern Muslim persona' was the binding force that brought about the uniting of the Muslims in India. The main divisions among them at that time were a common dress, language, political organization, sect and territory. Jinnah brought together the various factions with his vociferous talk for a 'common land' - Pakistan. In this 'Muslim utopia', Urdu would be the common language; the Muslim League a central political organisation and Jinnah's own dress sense and lack of any particular sect the common practices. Just as Nehru and Gandhi used clothes to unite and bring together the majority of Hindus, Jinnah amalgamated the various forms of Islamic dress to form a common attire that would appeal to all sects of Muslim society. By dressing in an Islamic fashion, he managed to completely divide himself from his previous counterparts, Gandhi, Nehru and the largely Hindu Congress party. When he was once asked for his sect (Sunni or Shia), he responded by asking what was the prophet . This again brought about a sense of unity among the Muslims of India, divided among themselves on the basis of their Islamisation. Some were Hindu converts from the time of the Mughal empire, others were of Arab or Turkish descent. Jinnah's answer, radical as it might have been for that time, united all of them as Muslims.

Also, Jinnah made all Muslims feel an affinity with this new 'dream nation', which would have a place for all Muslims, and thus served to unite the people of the future Pakistan. Professor Ziauddin Ahmad, the biographer of “Quaid-e-Azam”, commented, "When he defined Muslim nationhood in such tangible terms, every Muslim found himself testifying to the justice of this claim, and subscribing to the logical corollary of the fact and recognition of separate Muslim nationhood, viz., the demand for a Muslim homeland."

There are many factors that go to show that Mohamed Ali Jinnah did ensure that the newly created nation of Pakistan would be a fair and just nation for all its citizens, regardless of sect or gender. In a social system where women were, more often than not, oppressed, Jinnah brought about woman's rights, human rights and minority rights.

Was it all for power?

His sincerity in ensuring the creation of a land for his followers could be seen in his repeated rejection of the offer to be the first Indian prime minister in exchange for giving up the idea of Pakistan and maintaining a united India. There is a common misconception that Jinnah wanted a separate state for Muslims, even if it was at the expense of many innocent lives. However, Jinnah did actually accept the Cabinet Mission plan for a united India with Muslim-majority areas to be under Muslim rule. The Cabinet Mission plan advocated a union of India comprising both British India and the Indian States, with a central government to deal with foreign affairs, defence and communications. The union would have an Executive and a Legislature. Each province would maintain power over all other areas. The provinces were also to be divided into three sections. Provinces could opt out of any group after the first general elections. Lastly, there would be an interim government having the support of the major political parties. It was only when Nehru rejected the plan as a 'stop-gap' , after Congress had first accepted it on 24th May 1946, that Jinnah, for the first time in his political career, turned to a non-constitutional move and called for a communal mobilisation among the Muslims, resulting in rapidly spreading horrific violence, starting in Calcutta, India seemed to be on the brink of a civil war . It was only when Viceroy Wavell invited the League to join Congress in forming the interim government that the violence decreased.

Conclusion:

Jinnah began his leadership of the Pakistan movement around the time he turned 40, the age Muslims believe is a turning point in life. The death of his wife ended his family commitments and his children were grown. Repeated appeals to return to India to guide the Muslims could have been a way for him to get back with God and Islam. Whatever his motivations, Jinnah was indeed a leader who despite his personal motives, served to unite the Islamic people of India and give them a land to call their own.
By analysing his motives however, we can see that he seemed to be motivated largely by both a quest for personal power and to a desire to carry out his politics in the diplomatic manner he saw fit as opposed to Gandhi's anti-British movements, and to perhaps prove the superiority of constitutional politics as opposed to anti-constitutional means.
His psychological method of using himself as an example in terms of dress, religion and politics to unite the Muslims was an extraordinary. His inclusion of minority and women's rights made him a politician with support on all sides and a very wide base to work with. He realised after the 1937 elections and the poor showing of the Muslim League that theories were good but grassroots participation was needed to establish power.
He was shrewd in his dealings with his opponents and made use of the unionists to garner support crucial for the Muslim league in 1936 and then moved to essentially put them down in 1944
Jinnah leadership of the moment was impeccable for the uniting of the disparate Muslim factions but it was lacking in that there was no 'successor' capable of replacing Jinnah's place after his death. Knowing that his death was close, Jinnah ought to have groomed a successor to prevent Pakistan from falling into the quagmire it did. However his quest for power could have stood in the way of that. The other factor that could have possibly influenced his decision not to 'share' his power and leadership could have been that at that stage, Pakistan needed one strong leader and power could not have been shared. As such, as Lord Mouthbatten called Jinnah, a “psychopathic case ” or otherwise, Mohamed Ali Jinnah used the Pakistan demand to hoist himself to power and succeeded remarkably at the same time managing to create a nation-state which was, for a short time, the dream of many an Indian Muslim.

Feminism -should feminist politics aim to establish gender equality or difference

Introduction:
The aim of this essay is to prove the impossibility of achieving equality and the futility of aiming to establish equality in feminist politics. In feminist politics, equality and difference have been understood to be alternative concepts; difference has become the reverse side of equality. Over the years, one of these terms has gained the laurel of being a positive term and the other a negative term. Before analysing whether or not equality is indeed possible, a brief overview of feminism and equality is needed. There are three schools of feminist thought, which are namely Liberalist, Marxist and Radicalist.

The Liberal school of thought believes that 'gender equality can be brought about through incremental reform' . They believe that all of society has the ability to govern itself, including women and they need to be elevated to power in order to use their governing abilities, this elevation can be brought about by reforms. This is in significant contrast to the Radical feminists' viewpoint, where a significantly more negative view of the order of things exists. This branch of feminism sees 'gender divisions to be the most politically significant of social cleavages, and believes that they are rooted in the structure of domestic life' . Basically, radical feminists see the world as 'run by men… for men' . Their point of view is not completely different from that of Marxist feminists, who believe in much the same thing but see things from a more economic point of view as opposed to the gender inequality point of view of radical feminists. Thus, it is apparent, that despite the differences in the different branches of feminism, the quest for equality, albeit in different forms, is a common thread among them.

Stand:
Equality is in itself a word with many connotations. It could mean parity or sameness, among other meanings. Now, to be 'same' would be impossible in this context given the biological differences between males and females. Parity, however, is what feminists seek to implement when gender equality is mentioned. Seeking similar levels of opportunities in careers, a level ratio in political representation, and in some countries, namely strongly Islamic states, levels of freedom that are on par with that received by males.

Equality and difference theories both aim to establish women in a better position in society, the end in similar, just the method that is different. The option that feminists face is to pursue either 'gender neutrality' - equality, or 'gender visibility' - difference. This essay takes the stand that gender difference ought to be established instead of gender equality due to the differing concerns of men and women in society and politics. After all, gender-neutrality would mean to imply that women lose the right to leave and continued job security when having babies. This would definitely be unacceptable because in the rapidly aging populations of many developed nations, childbirth is counted as socially necessary work, and women at this stage have unique needs which must be fulfilled for the better good and continuation of society.

Differences between Masculine and Feminine peoples:
In a study conducted to find the differences between political inclinations and interests of masculine and feminine people, it was seen that masculine people expressed greater interest in the generic term 'politics' whereas feminine people expressed more interest in particular issues such as women as candidates and public officials, abortion and the equal rights amendment. This study goes to prove that men focus on generalities and women on particularities.
In the highly general aspect of the world, society at large and politics, it is then apparent why men have been dominant in this realm, thus far. With women focusing largely on personal and domestic politics, it does not make sense to put them in charge of volatile international affairs or national defence arenas, which could be a possibility if complete gender equality was somehow achieved. As such, feminist politics, ought definitely to aim to establish gender visibility as opposed to gender neutrality.
To bring out the best in each gender instead of ignoring sex and gender differences, not just in the area of politics, but also in terms of career opportunities and domestic issues. Specialisation of labour according to one's strong points is definitely preferable to trying one's hand at something with the possibility of failure.

Probability of Gender Equality:
Other than the previous argument regarding the possibility of aiming for gender equality decreasing the quality of output produced, by men or women in society, there is another important argument; which is that achieving gender equality is a nigh impossible task, which should not even be attempted. As Mackinnon said,

to require that one be the same as those who set the standard - those which one is already socially different from - simply means that sex equality is designed never to be achieved. Those who most need equal treatment will be the least similar, socially, to those whose situation sets the standard as against which one's entitlement to be equally treated is measured. Doctrinally speaking, the deepest problem of sex inequality will not find women 'similarly situated' to men. Far less will practices of sex inequality require that acts be intentionally discriminatory.

In fact, some feminists themselves agree that the 'struggle' against gender inequality and the establishment of feminist politics requires the dropping of 'equality' for 'autonomy' .

“Equality… implies a measurement according to a given standard.”
“Autonomy… implies the right to accept or reject such norms or standards according to their appropriateness to one's self-definition. Struggles for equality… imply an acceptance of given standards and a conformity to their expectations and requirements. Struggles for autonomy, on the other hand, imply the right to reject such standards and create new ones.”

As such, to aim for equality would not just be to agree that the actions of men today are right but would also be to 'become the enemy', to do what you have fought against. As such, the stand of this essay is reaffirmed, that feminist politics ought to aim for gender difference as opposed to gender equality. If women want to be free to redefine social roles, as they please to suit the modern woman of today, then autonomy and not equality should be their rallying cry and aim in mind.

Autonomy:
If autonomy were to be the aim of feminists, then some of the policies they would suggest would include the right to represent themselves in sectors of government that directly affect their interests, including abortion, human rights legislation, women's charter, domestic violence, etc. These are some of the areas of particular interest to feminine peoples.7 The right to choose areas of governance to involve themselves in, would certainly drive home their rejection of the 'male-stream' values of today's society and state.
Policies regarding childcare benefits and maternity leave ought to be restructured so as to better suit women's job schedules and allow them greater opportunities in applying for jobs.
A major obstacle in the employment of women in today's workforce is their domestic 'duties'. It has come to a stage where employers do not wish to employ newly married women or those who are at an age where their biological clock is ticking loudly, for fear that they would soon apply for maternity leave and childcare and medical benefits, which would not contribute to the company's profits in any way.
Merits of Equality (Flipside):

It must however be mentioned that equality, despite the many complications it does present, has proved to be more than efficient over the years. It is through the concept of equality that women gained the legislation to vote and managed to prevent (at least to some extent) the arbitrary treatment of women. It is only, that as mentioned above, the main problems with the notion of equality is that they not only cause women to become more 'masculine' but also that they ruin the specialised balance of labour and power that biological and physiological differences in men and women have wrought in society over the years. Equality is based on the premise that en and women are essentially similar and as such, women can be compared by the same yardstick that applies to men. This however, completely ignores the nurturing process that girls go through that makes them completely unsuitable for male tasks. Men better understand defence issues due to conscription and armed forces service, whereas women learn to abhor war due to massive loss of loved ones. Men are trained to be physically more able than women and thus are better equipped for certain jobs and gender equality can simply never be achieved because physically, women are and will always be disadvantaged.


Conclusion:

Thus, women could only make a more significant impact in the workforce and political arenas by playing up their skills in jobs that require the 'human touch' and greater 'emotions' as opposed to trying to 'compete' with men; competition being a 'masculine' obsession anyway . In the political scene, they ought to campaign for offices that focus on areas that particularly interest them. It is on this basis that women can then propel themselves further and into other realms of politics and careers, based on the success they first achieve in these areas. As such the establishment of differences between the 2 genders would serve the purposes of feminist politics far more than the aim to establish equality ever

Authoritarian and Totalitarian Experiments in Europe - The Bolshevik Seizure of Power (November - December 1917) - Lenin's relevance to today's world

The aim of this essay is to link Lenin and the early Bolshevik era of Russia to Asia and the modern world. It also aims to explain how Lenin's policies regarding internationalism bear weight in today's world and how his actions had repercussions on the world at large and how these effects live on today.

The document covers four main areas, World War 1 and the ensuing Bolshevik revolution and overthrow of the provisional government in Russia; followed by the effects and policies implemented by the new Bolshevik government, including a government that was meant to be one of the people and for the people, a secret police force and stringent censorship laws. The last two points went completely against the communist and Bolshevik pre-revolution rhetoric which could have been a significant reason in communism being relatively short lived in most parts of Asia with the exceptions of China and Vietnam, and even then being practiced in an altered manner.

Lenin, otherwise known as Vladimir Ilich Ulyanov was the 'germ' that the Germans secreted into Russia towards the end of World War 1 to topple the existing political scene. The leader of the Bolshevik party spent the majority of his time in exile until 1917 when he was secreted back to Russia from Switzerland. Russia had overthrown the Czarist system in February 1917 and a provisional government of liberal Duma leaders, led by Alexender Kerensky had been installed. However this government was still rooted in the 'mindset' of war and supported one 'last' offensive in the summer of 1917, the failure of this offensive toppled the government. With his rhetoric of “land, bread and peace”, Lenin reached the masses and addressed their most basic needs instead of espousing Marxist theories to them. This united the people and with 'generally brief' fighting, the 'never strong' grip of the provisional government was broken. The Bolshevik revolutionaries, led by Lenin, formed the new government.

The bulk of Lenin's time in power was spent battling bloody wars with various factions all trying to topple the communist Lenin government. As one American journalist commented, “it took more like five years than then days” for the Bolsheviks to master Russia but “it was the retention rather than the seizing of power that earned the Bolsheviks their place in history”. By Lenin's demise in 1924, the communists were finally in control of Russia.

Communism preached a classless society and equality, however in practice, Lenin's rule of Russia was far from classless and equal. The document very clearly shows how he ruled Russia with an iron fist. Nonetheless, in one of his speeches on Marxism, Lenin had justified that before a classless society could be formed, in the transition from a capitalist society, there had to be a period of authoritarianism to restore stability after the workers' revolution.

However, invoking a secret police and enforcing extreme censorship was not in his rhetoric. It created on the world outside Russia a warped view of communism that today is called Leninism. In most parts of Asia, communism took off very well because it posed a way of managing a very large and divided country very well, with complete power in the hands of one leader. China, Vietnam and Laos are some examples that succumbed to communism whereas Malaya, Indonesia and others fought hard to prevent it.

Lenin used Marx's ideals as a base but he changed his concept slightly in that he while he did believe the workers had to rise up against the government in order to overthrow it, he also felt that the 'educated' had to play a leadership role in the bringing about of the revolution. Lenin himself was the son of a school administrator and began his political career as a student demonstrator, being one of the relatively well educated. Lenin saw communism as something all countries would have to resort to eventually, which is something that has relevance even in today's context as Francis Fukuyama mentioned in his “The End of History”, communism being the last major political change the world would see. "Experience has proved," Lenin wrote in 1920, in speaking of both the Russian revolution and the post-October development of the world revolutionary process. ''That, on certain very important questions of the proletarian revolution, all countries will inevitably have to do what Russia has done." In his book 'Left-wing' Communism - an Infantile Disorder' Lenin examined the Russian experience from the standpoint of the pressing problems relating to international Communist tactics, and of applying to the work and the policies of the Communist Parties of other countries "whatever is universally practicable, significant and relevant in the history and the present-day tactics of Bolshevism." In Lenin's writings one finds the most profound analyses of the economic, social and political development and the revolutionary movement in such countries as the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Italy and Japan. Many of his articles deal with the national liberation and revolutionary movements in China, India, Indonesia and the Middle East. In his writings, Lenin did not just focus on the political scene of the Soviet Union but also devoted a large part of his writings to drawing up a number of important, often programmatic, documents for the international working-class and communist movement.

One of the greatest divides in post-Lenin Russia ensued between Lenin's real right-hand man, Trotsky and Stalin, who made out that he was Lenin-s right0hand man. Stalin wanted Russia to focus on building itself up whereas Trotsky wanted to continue Lenin's work of looking at the world and working towards global communism. That Lenin wanted to influence world politics and bring up communism was indisputable looking at his writings and speeches that focused on world issues. Lenin saw Russia to be the base of world communism and wanted to extend aid to nations fighting to establish communism, namely china and Vietnam at that time. The Socialist Revolution in Russia had opened up a new era in the worldwide proletarian struggle for emancipation. Soviet Russia did indeed become the base and stronghold and a catalyst of the world revolutionary process. "Our socialist Republic of Soviets," Lenin said with fervour in one of his speeches, "will stand secure, as a torch of international socialism and as an example to all the working people.

It was Lenin who set up the Third Communist International (Comintern) which played an important role in promoting the liberation movement of the working masses, in facilitating the forming and strengthening of Communist Parties, in evolving working-class tactics and strategies, and in bringing to the fore and training outstanding leaders of the communist movement.

Ho Chih Minh of Vietnam and Mao Zedong of China were both avid participants of the Comintern and received significant amounts of aid to pursue the proletarian revolutions in their own countries. The Malayan communist party and Indonesian communist party also worked very closely with the Comintern. Before and after Comintern congresses, Lenin would take the time to interact with individual leaders of various communist parties and learn about their problems. These interactions aided the world communist movement greatly and provided a window for non-soviet communists to feel closer to the 'comradeship' of communism.

At a time when many nations were waging nationalistic battles, Lenin's suggestions, such as those in his book “Left-Wing Communism - an Infantile Disorder”, and his success in the formation of a communist republic in one of the largest European countries spurred on the eastern nationalists and also provided them with a model to work towards, however skewed that model might have been in terms of economic and social practices. It was on the model of the Soviet Union that communist China was founded, picking up many of its policies, including severe censorship of the press, even attempting in later years to censor the Internet. The formation of secret police forces in Russia and later in China went against the basic communist theory of classlessness. The secret police were endowed with unchallenged power and could arrest and censure without trial or justification other than mere suspicion of being a defector or planning to defect.

Communism has spread like wildfire throughout the world and largely so in Asia. Even in 'democratic' nations , the control practiced by Lenin in terms of censorship and economy is practiced. To take Singapore as an example, the press is under stringent controls as is the economy. However, the growing power of America is affecting the world at large and economies everywhere, including
China are opening up.

Lenin's set up of a communist country that wielded significant power in the world is a lasting legacy that still has repercussions on the world today, especially because of the way he chose to control that state. Russia being under Lenin's authoritarian rule not only affected Russia but true to Lenin's dream, his actions affected the modern world, including Asia at large.

Tuesday, October 19, 2004

Singapore's capitalism myth By Gary LaMoshi

HONG KONG - When people talk about Japan Inc or the US military-industrial complex, they're referring to a metaphorical representation of a perceived phenomenon. But when they talk about Singapore Inc, they mean Temasek Holdings.
Temasek is the Singapore government's S$70 billion (US$40 billion) investment vehicle with major stakes in Singapore's key sectors, in line with its mission: "To contribute to Singapore's economic growth by nurturing world-class companies through effective stewardship and commercially driven [sic] strategic investments." Temasek's only shareholder is the Singapore Ministry of Finance, from which it was spun off in 1974.
So when Temasek and the Singapore government disagree, as they do over quarterly corporate reporting, it's news. Even bigger news, in this age of deregulation, free-marketeer calls for bureaucrats to get out of the way of capitalism, and knee-jerk condescension toward Singapore's nannyism: the government is right on this matter.
Marx to Lenin to Lee
The Heritage Foundation, a leading US conservative think-tank, touts Singapore as one of the world's two freest economies, but that's just a myth. In fact, Singapore is the world's most successful socialist state.
More than 80 percent of Singapore's population lives in public housing, sheltered from the harsh realities of the government-controlled property market. While Singapore has the trappings of a democracy, the ruling People's Action Party is living proof that the one-party state survives outside the dustbin of history. Rather than the sharp-elbowed unabashed capitalism of Wall Street, Singapore's economic philosophy more closely mirrors that of another tropical island with a signature rum cocktail: Cuba.
Temasek is Exhibit A in Singapore's blatant, and largely profitable, government intervention in the economy. Buying a computer? Temasek owns 70 percent of Chartered Semiconductor. Chatting on the phone? Temasek owns 67 percent of Singapore Telecom. Taking a vacation? Temasek owns 57 percent of Singapore Airlines.
There's nothing wrong with any of that, other than the blatant lies about unbridled capitalism. (Since when was veracity among Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew's vaunted Asian values, or the Heritage Foundation's?) In its charter, Temasek adopts an ideal major investor's stance: "Temasek will exercise its shareholder rights to influence the strategic directions of its companies. But it does not involve itself in their day-to-day commercial decisions." In another document, it elaborates, "Temasek's guiding philosophy is to 'put the right people in charge, make sure that the decision-making process is transparent, and then let them carry on with the business'."
Information, please
Financial reports are the main way for Temasek and other investors to exercise their rights and responsibilities, and the more timely and complete the information the better. The Singapore government, in its drive to make Singapore's capital markets a more attractive destination for overseas investment, recognizes that and declared quarterly reporting mandatory starting next year.
But in his keynote address to the Asian Business Dialogue on Corporate Governance last Thursday, Temasek chairman S Dhanabalan slammed quarterly reports, a world standard for nearly 70 years but still an anomaly in Asia. "I am dismayed that we in Singapore have decided to impose this practice on listed companies," Dhanabalan lamented. Decrying management and market focus on quarterly earnings, he added, "We seem to have tilted in favor of traders in stocks rather than investors in stocks."
Dhanabalan is also the chairman of government-controlled banking group DBS. Two of those letters pretty much sum up the merits of his position. His basic premise that quarterly reporting causes volatility is wrong, and the thinking behind his argument shows that, despite differences with the government on this issue, Dhanabalan hasn't strayed far from the Singapore-think we all know and mock. But don't take my word for it; listen to experts from opposite ends of the globe.
"It is lack of information, not too much information, that causes short-termism," Deborah Pastor, director of shareholder advocacy website eRaider.com, said from New York. "Annual disclosure, like pro forma earnings, forces investors to guess how a company is doing. When investors do not have fresh, reliable information, they have no choice but to trade on rumor. Solid information leads to solid trading."
Five-year plan
"In finance and in weather, longer-range forecasts are inherently less accurate than short-range forecasts, and a company is more likely to miss a six-month forecast than a three-month forecast, so the market is in fact much more vulnerable to shocks when data are only released twice yearly," said David Webb, editor of Hong Kong corporate governance watchdog Webb-site.com.
"Taking [Dhanabalan's] argument to the extreme, perhaps companies should only report every five years, in line with the supposed business cycle, to avoid management behaving in a 'short-term fashion'," Webb suggested. "Then minority shareholders would just have to speculate in the intervening years about what is really going on inside their company. Clearly that does not make for an efficient market."
Lack of information hardly makes for efficient investing either, so it seems ridiculous for Temasek to oppose increased information. Webb, a former investment banker, unraveled the mystery: "Controlling shareholders, through their board seats, have access to corporate data on a real-time basis. Within the limits of what is practical, there is no reason to withhold such information from outside shareholders, as it creates information asymmetry between shareholders."
In other words, Temasek gets its information and, naturally, uses it responsibly, but Dhanabalan doesn't trust you to have it. That's a dose of Singapore paternalism that's too strong for Singapore's government to spoon up these days.
It's bad enough that investors who want to play the game in Asia have to buy companies with controlling shareholders in markets that offer few protections for minority interests, but a controlling shareholder that's also the government poses special dangers. Dhanabalan spent the bulk of his keynote address assuring investors that Singapore Inc leads the fight to build shareholder value for all investors.
The character issue
"The character of Temasek derives from the character of the political leadership in Singapore with the qualities of honesty, probity, meritocracy, focus on the right rather than the popular decision and transparency being the main features. Temasek has defined for itself a proactive stewardship role. Being an involved, interested and informed owner, and with enough clout, it can help prevent the types of excesses seen in the US."
However, the Temasek way can lead to some uniquely Singaporean excesses. Dhanabalan ought to know, since he was in the middle of one last year.
To face overseas competitors at home and in the region better, Singapore's government encouraged mergers among its banks. Small banks resisted the call. Luckily for the government, Dhanabalan's DBS launched a lowball bid to gobble up Overseas Union Bank (OUB), which failed to find a white knight. United Overseas Bank (UOB) came to the rescue with a higher bid and promised to merge the two banks' boards of directors. DBS was big enough already, and the government was delighted to see second-place UOB grow.
Unfortunately, DBS's investment banker Goldman Sachs took its client's takeover bid seriously. Its analysis of the bids lambasted the UOB offer and its unwieldy merged board, saying "this combination is designed to keep family control intact without regard for shareholder value". The government considered Goldman's analysis a rude intrusion that threatened to scuttle its preferred union. After a chat with a reportedly enraged Lee Kuan Yew, DBS in effect abandoned its bid, published newspaper ads featuring a retraction of the previously obscure Goldman report, and agreed to pay UOB and OUB S$1 million each as a wedding present. Goldman chairman Henry Paulson jetted in to kowtow to the banks and regulators and paid the hong bao to the two banks, plus expenses to DBS.
In his speech last week, Dhanabalan assured, "There is no divergence between Temasek's interests and those of other shareholders since its aim is to ensure that TLCs [Temasek-linked companies] are well managed and create value for the benefit of all shareholders." As long as those investors share Temasek's stated mission "to contribute to Singapore's economic growth", that is. Judging from Dhanabalan's words and deeds, when the mission conflicts with the quest for shareholder value, it's easy to guess which side gets the nod.
(©2002 Asia Times Online Co, Ltd.

Thursday, October 14, 2004

Marxism

It makes me so so angry! The language of war pits working class soldiers of 2 different countries against each other, to try to kill each other. Marx would be crying in his grave, men, especially the working class were meant to work with, not against each other
Capitalism will result in the end of mankind altogether!
The affluent in Singapore are not half as happy as the dirt poor in India who at least have freedom to think. With all the money in the world, we cannot buy time! Time to live life and see the world. We even travel on nicely organised package tours! Every aspect of our lives is well organised.
I sometimes wonder if capitalist governments sit down and plan the lives of newborns down to the last day of their lives.
Where is the point in living a life for everything except oneself?

Saturday, October 09, 2004

Main Hoon Na (Sonu Nigam, Shreya Ghosal)

Kiska Hai Yeh Tumko Inetzaar Main Hoon Na
Who are you waiting for, I am here
Dekhlo Idhar To Ek Baar Main Hoon Na
Look this way once, (for) I am here
Kiska Hai Yeh Tumko Intezaar Main Hoon Na
Who are you waiting for, I am here
Dekhlo Idhar To Ek Baar Main Hoon Na
Look this way once, (for) I am here
Khamosh Kyon Ho Jo Bhi Kehna Hai Kaho
Why are you silent, speak your heart out
Dil Chahe Jitna Pyar Utna Maang Lo
Ask as much love as your heart yearns for
Ho, Tumko Milega Utna Pyar Main Hoon Na
You will be given that love (as) I am here
Kiska Hai Yeh Tumko Inetzaar Main Hoon Na
Who are you waiting for, I am here
Dekhlo Idhar To Ek Baar Main Hoon Na
Look this way once, (for) I am here

Kabhi Jo Tum Socho Ke Tum Yeh Dekho
If you happen to wonder or find out
Are Kitna Mujhko Tumse Pyar Hai
How much I love you
To Chup Mat Rahna Yeh Mujhse Kehna
Then don’t be silent, tell me
Are Koi Kya Aisa Bhi Yaar Hai
Where will you such a lover (like me)
Dil Hi Nahi De Jaan Bhi De Jo Tumhe
Who gives not just his heart but also his life
Dil Hi Nahi De Jaan Bhi De Jo Tumhe
Who gives not just his heart but also his life
Ho, To Main Kahoonga Sarkar Main Hoon Na
Then I shall say I am here Highness!

Kiska Hai Yeh Tumko Inetzaar Main Hoon Na
Who are you waiting for, I am here
Dekhlo Idhar To Ek Baar Main Hoon Na
Look this way once, (for) I am here
Kiska Hai Yeh Tumko Intezaar Main Hoon Na
Who are you waiting for, I am here
Dekhlo Idhar To Ek Baar Main Hoon Na
>Look this way once, (for) I am here
Khamosh Kyon Ho Jo Bhi Kehna Hai Kaho
Why are you silent, speak your heart out
Dil Chahe Jitna Pyar Utna Maang Lo
Ask as much love as your heart yearns for
Ho, Tumko Milega Utna Pyar Main Hoon Na
You will be given that love (as) I am here
Kiska Hai Yeh Tumko Inetzaar Main Hoon Na
Who are you waiting for, I am here
Dekhlo Idhar To Ek Baar Main Hoon Na
Look this way once, (for) I am here

Kehni Ki Ho Dil Mein Koi Baat Mujhse Kaho
If you need someone to tell your feelings, tell me
Koi Pal Ho Din Ho Ya Ho Raat Mujhse Kaho
Be it day or night, tell me
Koi Mushkil Koi Pareshaani Aaye
Whatever trouble or anxiety that may come
Tumhe Lage Kuch Theek Nahi Halaat Mujhse Kaho
If you feel something is wrong do tell me
Koi Ho Tamanna Ya Ho Koi Arzoo
Be it any wish or desire
Koi Ho Tamanna Ya Ho Koi Arzoo
Be it any wish or desire
Ho, Rehna Kabhi Na Bekaraar Main Hoon Na
Don’t ever be anxious (for) I am here
Kiska Hai Yeh Tumko Inetzaar Main Hoon Na
Who are you waiting for, I am here
Dekhlo Idhar To Ek Baar Main Hoon Na
Look this way once, (for) I am here
Kiska Hai Yeh Tumko Intezaar Main Hoon Na
Who are you waiting for, I am here
Dekhlo Idhar To Ek Baar Main Hoon Na
Look this way once, (for) I am here
Khamosh Kyon Ho Jo Bhi Kehna Hai Kaho
Why are you silent, speak your heart out
Dil Chahe Jitna Pyar Utna Maang Lo
Ask as much love as your heart yearns for
Ho, Tumko Milega Utna Pyar Main Hoon Na
You will be given that love (as) I am here
Kiska Hai Yeh Tumko Inetzaar Main Hoon Na
Who are you waiting for, I am here
Dekhlo Idhar To Ek Baar Main Hoon Na
Look this way once, (for) I am here

MAKE THE PIE HIGHER - G.W.Bush

I think we all agree, the past is over.
This is still a dangerous world.
It's a world of madmen and uncertainty and potential mental losses.
Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning?
Will the highways of the Internet become more few?
How many hands have I shaked?

They misunderestimate me.
I am a pitbull on the pantleg of opportunity.
I know that the human being and the fish can coexist.
Families is where our nation finds hope, where our wings take dream.
Put food on your family!
Knock down the tollbooth!
Vulcanize Society!
Make the pie higher! Make the pie higher!

More George W. fumbles:
I think we agree, the past is over.--President George W. Bush, Dallas Morning News, May 10, 2000
I think if you know what you believe, it makes it a lot easier to answer questions. I can't answer your question—President George W. Bush, Reynoldsburg, Ohio, October 4, 2000
They misunderestimated me. –President George W. Bush, Bentonville, Ark., Nov. 6, 2000

And a political classic:
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.--Robert McCloskey, State Department spokesman.

HOW (NOT) TO USE ENGLISH PROPERLY

A writer must not shift your point of view.
Also too, never, ever use repetitive redundancies.
Also, always avoid annoying alliteration.
Always pick on the correct idiom.
Analogies in writing are like feathers on a snake.
And don't start a sentence with a conjunction.
Avoid clichés like the plague. (They're old hat)
Be more or less specific.
Comparisons are as bad as cliches.
Contractions aren't necessary and shouldn't be used.
Do not be redundant; do not use more words than necessary; it's highly superfluous.
Don’t over-use exclamation points!!!!!
Eliminate commas, that are, not necessary. Parenthetical words however should be enclosed in commas.
Eliminate quotations. As Ralph Waldo Emerson said, "I hate quotations. Tell me what you know."
Employ the vernacular.
Eschew ampersands & abbreviations, etc.
Even IF a mixed metaphor sings, it should be derailed.
Everyone should be careful to use a singular pronoun with singular nouns in their writing.
Exaggeration is a billion times worse than under-statement.
Foreign words and phrases are not apropos.
Go around the barn at high noon to avoid colloquialisms.
If any word is improper at the end of a sentence, a linking verb is.
If you reread your work, you can find on rereading a great deal of repetition can be avoided by rereading and editing.
If you've heard it once, you've heard it a thousand times: Resist hyperbole; not one writer in a million can use it correctly.
It is wrong to ever split an infinitive.
Never use a big word when a diminutive one would suffice.
No sentence fragments.
One should NEVER generalize.
One-word sentences? Eliminate.
Parenthetical remarks (however relevant) are (usually) unnecessary.
Place pronouns as close as possible, especially in long sentences, as of 10 or more words, to their antecedents.
Prepositions are not words to end sentences with.
Puns are for children, not groan readers.
Take the bull by the hand and avoid mixing metaphors.
The adverb always follows the verb.
The passive voice is to be ignored.
Understatement is always the absolute best way to put forth earth-shaking ideas.
Use words correctly, irregardless of how others use them.
Who needs rhetorical questions?
Writing carefully, dangling participles must be avoided.
Verbs HAS to agree with their subjects.

(And the last one...)
Proofread carefully to see if you any words out.

Sunday, September 26, 2004

forever

someday
one day
far away

you'll realise
wat i was
wat u lost

too late
i'm gone
forever

~Ratna Tiwary

Friday, September 24, 2004

"All Things In Parenthesis Are Meant (To Be Ignored.)"

So he says to me, he says:



"I

(want to get in your pants,

don't want to commit to you,

don't really think you're pretty enough for me,

wish you had bigger boobs and a smaller waist,

can't wait to go home,

can't wait till YOU go home,

always think of my ex-girlfirend when we kiss,

wish you didn't talk so much,

am embarassed to be seen with you,

will never really)

love you"



And I was, like, totally floored.

The faithful wife

Since im a literature-ish mood today. Lemme post another poem, this one i got for my A' level prelim literature paper, Poetry Appriciation and Criticism or something... oh, Practical Criticism. Basically, critisising an unseen poem. I was sooo in love with the pome on my first reading of it that i read and reread it repeatedly, anyway, i did well for that question in the end. i read this to my then BF - Mizra and he said it sounds like me. he must've been in a particularly sweet mood when he said that, but i agree. this poem is almost like i wrote it! thats a gramatically wrong sentence but well!
Anyway, this poem describes my attitude towards men and relationships and love! what i've experienced so far with the various shits (men) in my life... see if u get the gist of it...

~~~

The faithful wife:
---------------
But if I were to have a lover, it would be someone
who could take nothing from you. I would, in conscience,
not dishonor you. He and I would eat at Howard Johnson's

which you enjoy and I do not enjoy. With his I would go
fishing because it is not your sport. He would wear blue
which is your worst color; he would have none of your virtues.

Not strong, not proud, not just, not provident, my lover
would blame me for his heart's distress, which you would never
think to do. He and I would drink too much and weep together

and I would bruise his face as I would not bruise your face
even in my dreams. Yes I would dance with him, but to a music
you and I would never choose to hear, and in a place

where you and I would never wish to be. He and I would speak
Spanish, which is not your tongue, and we would take
long walks in fields of burdock, to which you are allergic.

We would make love only in the morning. It would be
altogether different. I would know him with my other body,
the one that you have never asked to see.
                           

                                                                        - Barbara L. Greenberg
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dunno if u see the hopes and dreams, disappointments and deep abiding love in the poem... maybe its jus me... well.. haf an amazing day!

Red Roses Were Her Favorites

Red roses were her favorites, her name was also Rose.
And every year her husband sent them, tied with pretty bows.
The year he died, the roses were delivered to her door.
The card said, "Be my Valentine," like all the years before.

Each year he sent her roses, and the note would always say,
"I love you even more this year, than last year on this day."
"My love for you will always grow, with every passing year."
She knew this was the last time that the roses would appear.

She thought, he ordered roses in advance before this day.
Her loving husband did not know, that he would pass away.
He always liked to do things early, way before the time.
Then, if he got too busy, everything would work out fine.

She trimmed the stems, and placed them in a very special vase.
Then, sat the vase beside the portrait of his smiling face.
She would sit for hours, in her husband's favorite chair.
While staring at his picture, and the roses sitting there.

A year went by, and it was hard to live without her mate.
With loneliness and solitude, that had become her fate.
Then, the very hour, as on Valentines before,
The doorbell rang, and there were roses, sitting by her door.

She brought the roses in, and then just looked at them in shock.
Then, went to get the telephone, to call the florist shop.
The owner answered, and she asked him, if he would explain,
Why would someone do this to her, causing her such pain?

"I know your husband passed away, more than a year ago,"
The owner said, "I knew you'd call, and you would want to know."
"The flowers you received today, were paid for in advance."
"Your husband always planned ahead, he left nothing to chance."

"There is a standing order, that I have on file down here,
And he has paid, well in advance, you'll get them every year.
There also is another thing, that I think you should know,
He wrote a special little card...he did this years ago."

"Then, should ever, I find out that he's no longer here,
That's the card...that should be sent, to you the following year."
She thanked him and hung up the phone, her tears now flowing hard.
Her fingers shaking, as she slowly reached to get the card.

Inside the card, she saw that he had written her a note.
Then, as she stared in total silence, this is what he wrote...
"Hello my love, I know it's been a year since I've been gone,
I hope it hasn't been too hard for you to overcome."

"I know it must be lonely, and the pain is very real.
For if it was the other way, I know how I would feel.
The love we shared made everything so beautiful in life.
I loved you more than words can say, you were the perfect wife."

"You were my friend and lover, you fulfilled my every need.
I know it's only been a year, but please try not to grieve.
I want you to be happy, even when you shed your tears.
That is why the roses will be sent to you for years."

"When you get these roses, think of all the happiness,
That we had together, and how both of us were blessed.
I have always loved you and I know I always will.
But, my love, you must go on, you have some living still."

"Please...try to find happiness, while living out your days.
I know it is not easy, but I hope you find some ways.
The roses will come every year, and they will only stop,
When your door's not answered, when the florist stops to knock."

"He will come five times that day, in case you have gone out.
But after his last visit, he will know without a doubt,
To take the roses to the place, where I've instructed him,
And place the roses where we are, together once again."

~Author unknown
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
HOW SWEET IS THAT? to care for someone so much that u even bother about their feelings even after you're gone! we would all like to receive such love, but how many can claim to be capable to giving such love? its a world of give and take, not you give, i take, but mutual giving and receiving. we often fail to see that. the world has become so damn fixated with capitalism that the little things in life that make it worth living have been lost, thats why suicide rates are ever increasing!

Sunday, September 19, 2004

What i say about sayings...

They say No man is worth your tears, and the one who is won't make you cry. But what do you do when the only person who can make you stop crying is the person who made you cry?

They say love hides behind every corner, I think in that case; I must be walking in circles.

I knew that when I looked back at the tears shed, I would laugh.
I never knew that looking back at the laughs we had would make me cry.

Its simply unfair, it takes but a minute to find a special
person, an hour to appreciate them, a day to love them, but a whole lifetime to forget them!

Sunday, September 12, 2004

WHY I HATE REALITY TV!

As USA Today reporter, Gary Levin aptly described it; “reality TV suggests an unrehearsed, documentary-style look at a group of people thrust into unfamiliar surroundings. But many of the shows, including Survivor, The Mole and Temptation Island, are more like unscripted dramas, with soap-opera story lines, swelling music and corny visual touches” (adapted from USA Today (2001), Gary Levin, How real is reality TV?). According to Chris Cowan, the co-creator and executive producer of Fox’s Temptation Island, reality TV does not exist, this is because once the editors and producers of the show begin cutting down the show to fit the broadcast time of less than an hour, the show loses its realism and becomes a controlled form of reality. All the producers can do, according to Chris Cowan, is tell the tale of what happened originally as accurately as possible, its all ‘storytelling’, according to him. Erik Nelson, producer of ‘Redhanded’ and ‘Busted on the Job’ as well as other Producers of Reality TV shows make one very considerable and vital assumption about their audiences, that ‘Audiences are sophisticated enough to appreciate that these shows are crafted”. However, according to our survey findings, almost 9% of those surveyed, believe reality TV shows to be broadcasted in their purest form, almost 24% feel that these shows are 80% pure, 45% think they are somewhat edited, but mostly pure and 30% feel they are 80% fake, and a small 15% feel that reality TV shows are entirely crafted. These findings show that
audiences are apparently not ‘sophisticated enough’ to realize that these shows are ‘crafted’, which goes against the assumptions made by the producers (Yahoo News, Ray Richmond, Unscripted TV: Real or Phoney? (Year of work not available)).

Many of the participants of reality TV shows have themselves criticized the shows as being unrealistic and manipulated by the producers and directors. Stacy Stillman of the first Survivor claims that the producers of the show wanted to keep another participant, Rudy Boesch on the show so much that, they schemed to have her voted off the show instead. The show Big Brother started off rather slow and was not engaging to the audience, the producers then decided to ‘break their own rules’. Although the show rules clearly stated that the contestants were not to have any form of contact with other people, the producers brought back one of the contestants who was earlier voted off the show and even tried to offer money to other contestants in order to induce them to leave the show. Another example, was at Fox’s special ‘Who Wants To Marry A Multimillionaire’ taping, the groom Rick Rockwell was guided away from certain prospective brides.

As an avid reality TV show viewer, Shad Hernandez of Arcadia, California said, “I don’t see how anything can be real when there’s a cameraman with a sandwich sitting next to you (adapted from USA Today (2001), Gary Levin, How real is reality TV?).” The filming of Survivor, includes a crew 400, the question to ask ourselves is how much ‘surviving’ can a person be doing with an entourage of 400? The crew obviously has their food along with them, and while the contestants of the show are wondering where to get their next meal, the crew is calmly sitting right behind them, conveniently out of sight of the TV audience, eating their nicely packaged food. The participants of Survivor also apparently have their own medical kit, which contains tampons, sunscreen, prescribed drugs and contact lens supplies, they are also given the liberty to call on the in-house doctor at any point of time! These luxuries are not shown on screen and just add to our hypothesis that reality TV is fake! Another fact that will shock avid Survivor viewers is that the contestants on Survivor do not walk to tribal council, as is popularly believed, but instead are driven there and only walk the last fifteen minutes or so, the fifteen minutes that is broadcasted. Another survivor participant, Sean Keniff, a neurologist, claimed that his character was given a ‘one sided’ portrayal on the show, according to him, he said a lot of ‘smart, fun things, but it was edited out”. “I guess it was better television to make the neurologist a doofus than a genius (USA Today (2001), Gary Levin, How real is reality TV?).” Chris Cowen said, “as soon as you start pulling those seconds out, you change the context, you change the reality. Some people on the show will say they weren’t fairly represented and that’s a truth of this format. This is not reality. This is entertainment.”
With the producers themselves decrying the realism content of these shows, our hypothesis that reality TV is actually fake seems to have proved itself. The next step is to examine how this information will be useful to “a group, enterprise, agency, society or country”. Reality TV shows have been gaining in extremism, lately. A new show, called Danger Island proves that. Basically, 12 convicted criminals are put on an isolated island with some of the best man hunters in the world and the man hunters try to catch these criminals, the criminals also get to vote off one of their friends at the end of each day. The reward of one million dollars goes to the victim of the winning criminal and the child of the criminal is given a fifty thousand-dollar study grant so as to help the child stay away from the route his parent took. 38% of the people interviewed in our survey felt that reality TV shows have become too risky and 45% felt that they were too unbelievable.Also, because of the glut of new reality TV shows ,television channels and reality TV show producers are trying harder and harder to garner viewership numbers and increase the ratings for their shows, so much so that they have resorted to using dangerous plots and storylines to attract audiences.

Reality TV shows also portray a twisted view of life, it shows the audiences that one must connive and backstab in order to survive, although it emphasizes the theory of the survival of the fittest, it also emphasizes cheating and being sly. The young, who are very open to influence as it is, will learn from these shows things and principles which will go against the values of honesty and such that they have been always taught by their parents. The choice may be theirs to make as to which group of people to listen to, their ‘boring’ parents or the interesting TV shows which everyone seems to be watching, but we all know that the young often fall for peer pressure and may feel compelled to lie and cheat in order to ‘survive’ and always be the best in everything.

These shows also emphasize the lust for money. Survivor, Amazing Race, Fear Factor as well as many others offer large sums of money to the winners of the show, or at least to the person who is the last remaining. This teaches the young that one should do anything for money and that ‘money makes the world go round”. Their mindset is if, these mature grown ups can embarrass themselves on national TV for some money and then they definitely can steal or join gangs and extort money just to satisfy their craving for material wants. Reality TV has placed money and material wants over the other, more important values of life, like honesty. Also, children will always look for the easy way out to succeed. Instead of studying hard to get into the university, they will think that just by joining a reality TV show, they can make their first million, as well as gain fame and popularity. Many of the female participants of shows like Survivor have gone on to become models and have even been offered roles in movies and other TV shows, young teenage girls longing for people to admire their beauty will definitely be attracted to these shows. Young teenage boys dying to show off their bravery and how macho they are will do just about anything to get on a reality TV show and show the whole world, on national TV just how big their biceps and how daring they are. Of the people we surveyed, 35% said they would like to be on a reality TV show and the majority of them said that they would join these shows mainly for the money, thrill, fame and experience.

Reality TV shows are somewhat like television serials, they continue, week after week. Teenagers are mostly students, and have homework and school. Reality TV shows enrapture the students so much that they sometimes even skip school and neglect their homework just to religiously follow the shows. When it is time for the final episode of each season, where they decide upon the winner, students have been known to skip school in order to watch the finale! This obviously shows what values matter more to the youth of today. The popular culture of Reality TV shows.
Thus, we can see how reality TV shows play a huge role in the lives of the youth today, and one that has few, if any good points. Reality TV has taken the world by storm, the entire irony lying in the fact, that reality TV is not real at all! What the viewers see on TV is actually very different from what was actually filmed at first. Some common misconceptions like survivors walking to tribal council and there being no doctor on hand, have since been cleared up. Perhaps, the name of the entire genre of shows should be changed to “highly edited reality TV”. These shows not only influence to youth of today very much, but they also create a bogus world for the youth to immerse themselves in, this encourages voyeurism. These shows greatly distort the moral values that most youth have been taught by their parents, to put kindness and honesty above all else, etc. Reality TV shows exhibit the need for survival of the fittest, the competitors often choose winning the game and money over things like honesty and friendships. The youth enjoy watching other people suffer and this gives them a sadistic kick, which keeps them hooked on the shows. “The reason reality TV is so popular is because to observe human behavior is fascinating (Stanford University (2001), Betsy Mason, Psychologist puts the ‘real’ into reality TV).” Of the people we surveyed, almost 10% said they watch reality TV shows because they like the backstabbing and cheating in the shows, and another 15% said they like to watch the participants embarrass themselves. Comparing their own safe and comfortable lives to those that the contestants of these shows seem to be living, it makes the viewers feel very good. However, these shows create a fool’s paradise, they make people think that whatever is happening on the television is real, but as the producers themselves said, due to the heavy editing of the ‘boring’ parts of the original video, the outcome is all just “entertainment”, basically reality TV shows are just “storytelling”.

Friday, September 10, 2004

Masks...

Masks

We all hide under a layer of covering,
Not wanting to get hurt,
Looking for love.

Some advice us to strip right down,
Show ourselves to the world,
Not to be afraid.

People should either love us as we are,
Or not at all,
Love is unconditional.

But few of us have the guts to let it all go,
Just be ourselves,
No matter what the cost.

So afraid to lose, to have nobody,
We cling on to our many selves,
But we'll get it someday.

All of us.

Ratna Tiwary

Copyright ©2004 Ratna Tiwary
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I wrote that at the grand old age of fifteen, must've been one depressed teenager! Anyway, just had an interesting thought, (inspired by Amit)... when ur depressed/sad/negative mood... you generally create a facade of happiness/optimism/positive mood... and somehow on some level it actually makes us feel a little better, why? Well, probably because we are such good actors that we fool ourselves with out 'acting'! We know how to act so as to con ourselves into believing our own show/facade! amazing!

The article regarding which i wrote to Today about...

Apple's control-freak tendencies could crush iPod:


The past couple of years, Apple Computer CEO Steve Jobs has gotten nothing but roses and kisses from the public and the media.

But a feud between Apple and RealNetworks over music downloads is exposing Jobs' tragic flaw. Amazingly, he seems to be making the same devastating mistakes with the iPod that he made with the Mac 20 years ago.

Given the subject, it's only fitting to put the situation to music, so here's part of the story to the tune of the old hit American Pie:

Long, long time ago/ I can still remember how Steve Jobs made us smile

He knew the Mac was truly great;/ it trumped that DOS made by Bill Gates

And dominated PCs for a while.

But '85 in retrospect/ looks like a case of gross neglect

Bad news of a crisis;/ the Mac, Jobs wouldn't license

I can't remember if I cried/ as I watched Apple's business slide

Too bad those lessons weren't applied/ The day the iPod died

So bye, bye to the Pod with an i

We'll use Real or just steal, swapping files on the fly

The Apple faithful might continue to buy

Singing, iPod has such elegant lines.

But iPod has such elegant lines.

The iPod has half the digital music player market, and iTunes sells 70% of all legitimate music downloads. Jobs practically willed the digital music business into being. (Jobs, by the way, just had cancer surgery. He says he is OK and expects to fully recover. He also says he'll be back to work in September.)

But Jobs has blown it before — and, boy, does it look like he's blowing it again. It's like some Shakespearean drama where the lead character both triumphs and is undone by the same powerful characteristic — in Jobs' case, his evangelical fervor about his technology.

Go back, for a moment, to 1984. While hard to imagine now, Jobs was so powerful, he could call Gates and order him to come to Apple's headquarters so Jobs could yell at the Microsoft co-founder — and Gates would go! Apple had the best technology in personal computing and a major market share.

But around 1985, Jobs and his executives decided not to license Apple's technology or operating system to any other company. Apple wanted total control. It wanted to sell all the products itself. It wanted no competitors.

This was a yawning opening for Microsoft, Intel and the PC. Since anyone could buy the licenses and components to make a Windows-based PC, that technology took wing.

"Apple could have reaped the benefits of having dozens, even hundreds of imitators all adding their own unique value to the Mac," wrote Jim Carlton in his 1997 book, Apple: The Inside Story of Intrigue, Egomania, and Business Blunders. "Legions of suppliers would have sprung up all around the world to furnish components such as disk drives and memory. And since the software was light-years ahead of everybody else's, the Mac's, not Windows, might have come to dominate the personal computer market."

Instead, the opposite happened for Apple, and the PC crowd took advantage of those kinds of economics. This year, Apple is left with less than 4% of the market for personal computers — basically a cult following.

More recently, Jobs has done for digital music what he once did for personal computing: He's made it appealing to non-techies. Once again, his design sets the pace. No device is as good as the iPod; no software solution works better than iTunes.

But like the Mac of 1985, it's a closed system. Other than open-source MP3 files, only music downloaded through iTunes will play on iPods, and iTunes music won't play on any portable device except an iPod. Apple refuses to license the technology to third parties. Instead of setting a standard for all, Apple wants to own it all. When Microsoft behaves that way, everybody screams antitrust.

Last week, Real publicly exposed Apple's obduracy. Real announced that it has a way for people to legally download and play songs that work on both Apple's products and Windows-based products. It's the kind of flexibility consumers want. But Apple doesn't seem to care.

"Consumers are not in the end going to put up with being locked in," says Josh Bernoff, consumer tech analyst at Forrester Research.

Music has a long history of competing standards in new technology, but the split never lasts. In 1950, it was RCA Victor's 45 rpm record vs. Columbia's 33, and eventually all record players accommodated both. In 1970, it was Philips' audio cassette vs. the eight-track — invented by William Powell Lear, who also created the Learjet. The eight-track soon disappeared.

Apple can't win by keeping its music technology to itself.

"Apple is behaving stupidly as usual with regard to allowing other companies to add value to its products," says Avram Miller, a tech investor and former vice president at Intel, which benefited greatly from Jobs' past mistakes. "It can only lead to reducing (Apple's) share of the market it helped create."

Just as it happened with PCs, other digital music products will narrow Apple's technology lead. Maybe those products will never be as good as Apple's, but they'll become good enough — and they'll be based on broader standards that don't lock in users, and they'll probably be cheaper.

If history is any guide, when that happens Apple's share of digital music will leach away.

Miller, also an accomplished musician, goes on to call Apple "the Singapore of computing."

You know Singapore: autocratic, insular, elegantly engineered, repressively controlled — and destined to never amount to more than a small but interesting dot on the world map.

Kevin Maney has covered technology for USA TODAY since 1985. His column appears Wednesdays. Click here for an index of Technology columns. E-mail him at: kmaney@usatoday.com.

Saturday, September 04, 2004

The namelessly wonderful date

Random searches,
a chance email sent.
Quick repsonses,
thats how it all began.

First date,
both safely clad in black.
Dressed up,
an intrinsic need to impress.

Fancy dining,
"but no wine tonight".
Slow stroll,
"have you been on a bumboat"?

Salt-scented air,
the lingering stench of petrol.
Flying hair,
"the moon is made of cheese".

Special arrangements,
to pander a 'chai-ish' whim.
Proffered hand,
for support up wet stairs.

Warm drinks,
life, politics, jokes and love.
Laughter and chatter,
a carefree evening.

Taxi queues,
sharing a cab ride.
Sweet ending,
to a pretty perfectg evening.

Myraid Smses,
a lingering conversation.
Wide spanning,
'cabbages, kings and sealing wax'.

Complete strangers,
similar backgrounds and ideas.
Wildly different,
yet on the same wavelength...

... For now.