Energy is no different from a river, it flows or it is stored. We obtain all the required energy from the stored energy resources, otherwise we construct dams to capture the flowing energy and hence make it usable.
The fake term “renewable energy” often used and advertised by environmentalist is nothing but the stored energy of the sun.
In reality, there is nothing like “renewable energy”, every energy resource including the sun is limited.
Environmentalists often shout against the use of Fossil fuel energy. Fossil fuels are also nothing but stored solar energy. The capturing of solar energy in form of fossil takes millions of years and fossil fuels are highly concentrated source of energy, almost 10 times more concentrated than wood. The wind energy or raw solar energy the flow of energy is too weak to be used. Solar energy is 10 to 50 times less concentrated than fossil fuel. There is no technology to concentrate solar or wind energy and hence, to harvest any significant amount of energy directly from flowing solar or wind energy, the only way is to use more and more land, but land space is limited and that limits the use of both solar and wind energy.
According to T. Boone Pickens’s famous wind energy drive,¹ a single wind energy power station would require some 12,000 square miles of land area. That is too much when compared with the land space required for a Nuclear power plant.
Another natural store of energy is coal that is extremely abundant in nature. We may never run out of coal no matter how much we use it. Coal is a concentrated store of energy, much concentrated than wood.
Octane molecules of gasoline are further dense source of energy; they are densest form of all resources of carbon energy. Carbon energy itself is nothing but a natural dam of solar energy that is carbon energy is solar energy.
Yet, environmentalists want to reduce world’s carbon footprints; hence, they want to ban usage of carbon energy resources. On the contrary, they support the use of solar energy, wind energy in crude, and dilute form.
Nuclear energy is very different from any of the above discussed energy resources.
Nuclear energy is not a form of solar energy; the Sun is not the source of nuclear energy. People in general know less about nuclear energy.
A pinch of uranium contains more energy than 100 full trucks of coal. Despite the governments throughout the world providing support to solar and wind energy power plants by means of government subsidies (regulators forces utility companies to but renewable energy), the solar and wind energy plants produces only about 0.9% of the total electricity we consume.
The most effective solar panels (used on the space stations) are expensive and their conversion efficiency is only about 20%, which is too less. We cannot support the idea of using those much expensive solar panels with such less efficiency rate to be adopted on earth. Twelve miles of solar reflectors generate a meager 300 megawatt of energy, we can not rely on them, also, the reflectors must be kept exceptionally clean and maintained to the hilt, and otherwise they will not work. At the stage of current technological knowledge, no conceivable mix of solar, wind, sea or wave energy can fulfil even half of our demand for energy.
Environmentalists are against carbon energy resources, one may think they are right, but they are against nuclear energy resource too and they support only the crude form of solar, wind and water energy. Obviously, they want to push us back to the dark ages² .
The wind, solar and wave energy can be made more efficient with improving science and technology, not by forcing all of us to go without electricity.
The environmentalists call for massive subsidization for wind and solar energy, while they want to abort usage of carbon energy by applying carbon taxes.
Subsidies for wind and solar energy along with ethanol, recycling and many other similar issues clarifies that they are not efficient, because if they are efficient, why do they need to be subsidized? They need to be subsidized because they are not efficient.
Energy resources for which the environmentalist cries for are those, which benefit no one. The only reason environmentalist want them to be subsidized is the fact that they cannot compete in the market. No one will opt for wind or solar energy in a free market because it is inefficient very less, causes loss. In order to force people to opt for solar and wind energy, environmentalists suggest carbon taxes.
All this clarifies solar and wind energy is not good enough yet.
When the technology will improve and with that improve the efficiency of solar and wind energy, the free market will adopt them freely.
Wind will still fail to be any major source of energy because of the difficulty of transmitting the wind energy power. Wind is also unpredictable and hence the production of energy will also remain unpredictable.
Energy through nuclear fission is the proper alternative to any form solar energy that may solve out all the genuine environmental concerns, and they will ensure that we keep progressing in the future rather than being pushed backward to dark ages.
Uranium produces enormous amount of energy in a very little place that wind and solar energy together can not come close to.
Those who oppose nuclear energy are simply against any realistic way towards sustaining and improvement of technological advancement and our life in turn.
Uranium is abundant, clean and safe to use, furthermore, the residual of the nuclear reactors, that is, the “nuclear waste” can also be re-used after enriching plutonium.
The environmental geeks show their concern about the safety of nuclear reactors.
One of such nuclear accident happened at Chernobyl,³ every green geek puts up that case, what they do not tell us is the fact that, that mishap happened just because that US government run reactor was highly unsafe.
The greatest scientific feat of 20th century was the discovery of neutron and the knowledge about the highly concentrated nuclear energy. We discovered that the energy concentrated in nucleus of atom is 2 million times as more as the energy concentrated in the shell of atom.
The energy in the shell of atom is known as the chemical energy. Everything from wood to coal, from crude oil to gasoline is the play of chemical energy. Using chemical energy thus does not necessarily decreases the carbon footprints. The only way to successfully decrease our carbon footprints without pushing us backward to dark ages is the Nuclear energy.
The danger of nuclear waste is false because in reality, there remains nothing like “nuclear waste”; the waste of nuclear reactor can be used for further production of energy without hurting the environment by any means.
That so-called nuclear waste is also being used as the medical isotopes. About 40% of advanced medicines now are Nuclear medicine.
Conclusion: Nuclear energy is the safest, cleanest and most effective and efficient way we have, to not only to fulfil our current requirements but to meet all futuristic demands without leaving any carbon footprints.
Anyone who opposes Nuclear energy is whole out wrong and is against human progress and prosperity.

1. T Boon Pickens, Pickens plan
2. The Catastrophic Lovers want to return to Dark Ages, Reason for Liberty
3. The Chernobyl Disaster, wikipedia

After all the ruckus of Parliament, the women’s reservation bill was passed on 9th of March. The brouhahas of the dramatic parliamentary debate over the women’s reservation and the consequential voting over it was no less dramatic than the fake emotional ‘atyachar’ so commonly used and seen in various reality TV channels shows. All seemed to be pre-planned and directed and well-executed, and the result was huge TRP coverage for the ongoing Parliamentary debate over the women’s reservation bill and every news coverage related to it. News channels declared the passing of the bill as a historical milestone in the Indian political arena. Every person was forced to get involved with the issue of reservation for the women and literary was forced to accept that reservation actually is a noble idea that may provide equality and will improve the society by any means. Those who opposed the bill were wilfully shown as villains and those who supported it were shown as the heroes for the women cause, and the main leader was obviously the bigwig of Congress Mrs. Sonia Gandhi.
The process of entitlements, reservations, and special privileges was shown as the process of liberty and hence the freedom of individual was virtually brutalized by means of the whip of reservation. More than 100 blue commandos were called to bundle out the villainous MP’s who were trying to offset and oppose the voting for the support of WRB (women’s reservation bill) in Rajyasabha, and in planned way, the opponents applied the most illogical and irrational way of opposition, their opposition was no less than ‘violent’. Nobody actually opposed the idea of reservation nor they supported the idea of empowerment of women, what all of the MP’s of Indian parliament were doing was an act to influence a particular voting sect or the other, and the winner came out to be the ruling party which facilitate the women’s reservation bill. Now Congress party may dream of getting most of the fairer votes in the upcoming elections, after all, they bribed the women of India by providing them special privileges over their male counterparts.
Is the Women’s Reservation Bill of any Worth?
Women’s reservation bill assures 33% seats of MP’s in the parliament to be reserved for the women, i.e., at least 33% of MP’s would be women from now on. Will that change the scenario of politics, will that make Indian parliament look better or say ‘more beautiful’? The reservation for women may soon be enforced in public sector services of India too and then it may be enforced in the private sector too while enforcing a law on private sector to make it compulsory that every genuine company or enterprise must provide at least 33% of their jobs to females.
Will that improve the society? As a matter of fact, such entitlements, special privileges and reservations divide and weaken the society, but this time, the attack is not on the society alone, it is directly an attack on the families of India. The reservation is not going to increase the employment but with the compulsion of at least 33% of jobs to be provided for women, the government will virtually force 33% of women of India to be the soul bread earners of their families. What will their husband do? Well they may choose to be house-husbands, or may choose to try for entrepreneurship. Will that provide equality of men and women in the society?
More importantly, is the equality a virtue.

“Women who seek to be equal with men lack ambition.”¹

Consequences: All this political drama of reservation and special privileges for women will weaken Indian society and Indian women. It will increase further egoistic clashes between the two genders and will decrease the familial harmony. The reservation for anyone itself is a curse to society but reservation for women will start cursing the families. There will be more divorces, more cases of unsatisfied, sad and deranged couples applying for divorces. It is not a good trend although it may increase the voting account of the political parties. When Indians must oppose reservation based on Caste, religion and birth, the politicians of India has forced Indians to think about reservation based on gender too.
The major humanitarian idea of no differentiation based on caste, creed, sex, religion, colour, ethnicity has been abused and the trend of specific privileges and entitlements for the gain of political vote banks has been enhanced. It is the process of weakening of Indian Individuals and the Indian society as whole, but the major victims will prove to be women alone. A woman full of ambition does not need any reservation to prove that she is able. By providing her reservation, it has been virtually proved that she is not able and she lacks ambitions.

Although feminism speaks the language of liberation, self-fulfillment, options, and the removal of barriers, these phrases invariably mean their opposites and disguise an agenda at variance with the ideals of a free society.
Michael Levin

1. Timothy Leary, Timothy Leary Wikipedia

I, a libertine, was very much interested in the communist politics in my young adulthood, as that appeared to be the only party which was addressing the real issues and moving away from cast and religion. Many of our friends came to join the party, but soon became disillusioned not because the party was proposing communism, which we did not like, rather because, it was going in the same direction as the others. But all those people from the previous generation, who wanted to vote on economic basis, had no option but to vote for them, and it is sad, for their demise proves that the field for true libertine philosophies is almost non-existent and is violently opposed by the present parties.
Now, the Indian Nation identity is very much limited to that of being born in this country to a mother and father who are Indians. And hence, the rate of emergence of separatist movement is increasing every year, and the government has to bribe to keep the nation integrated. Perhaps, someday, the identity shall be established on economic and philosophical terms, and citizenship by birth be abolished in favour of citizenship by choice. But then, what would limit the boundaries of such a state? A global mega state brought about without the use of arms, perhaps!

While accepting “Noble Peace Prize” at Oslo, Obama did not forget to mention his recent decision to escalate conflict in Afghanistan soil. He further argued that his decision to increase 30,000 some more US troops in Afghanistan is justified to protect the world from terrorism and extremism and to maintain peace.
In short, Obama declared that wars are essential for the establishment of peace. He also paid his tribute to his “Heroes” Mahatma Gandhi and civil rights leader Martin Luther King.
Some will say that Obama wrongly mentioned Mahatma Gandhi as his ideal; Mahatma Gandhi obviously is known as apostle of peace and pacifism. How could a Gandhian support wars? Could Gandhi be a supporter of wars? Are not wars the ultimate and most excruciating form of violence?
It is a well known fact that wars ultimately causes violence, wastage and poverty. Yet, if some nation is all set to attack you and threat other nation, than the nation under the threat of attack would presumably try to defend itself. Self-defence is a natural right, no one can argue against it. Self-defence cannot be termed as violence. Yet, what about pre-emptive wars?
Is it right to attack a nation just because it may or may not attack you in future?
Does self-defence includes pre-emptive wars to be staged in order to dishevel and destroy the other nations. Is it necessary to destroy and defeat all in order to establish peace? Are wars necessary to sustain peace?

Mahatma Gandhi on Wars

As Obama reverberates himself as being a disciple of Gandhi, we should look at Gandhi’s attitude about Wars. Gandhi ji was obviously against staging any war, he was a supporter of Non-violence, yet there was not a war that he did not support. He supported all the wars in his life time. The apostle of peace Gandhi himself supported British in the Boer War, Zulu War, WW1, WW2.
In 1914, Gandhi himself joined British army as volunteer for the Ambulance corp. to serve the injured Indian and British soldiers at Zulu war. One may understand his compassion for the suffering of soldiers; he was not taking part in active violence.
Yet, in April 1918, Mahatma Gandhi urged Indian youth to take part in British army as war recruits. Perhaps to show his support for the Empire and help his case for India’s independence, he deemed it necessary to take part in the war.² He might have considered it as pacifist way of non-violence, that is rather than fighting against the British rulers, let the Indian youth fight for the British Empire and in turn demand or beg independence as reward. It should be mentioned that while he openly demanded Indian youths to help British army in World War1, he felt aghast when some Indian youth tried to protest against British brutality on Indians “violently” and because of that, he took his Non-cooperation movement back in 1922.³ Obviously, Gandhi was strictly against any form of violence against British Empire by Indians, yet he was ready to recruit Indian youths to kill enemies of British empire, including the Zulu protesters. For Gandhi, the most necessary peace was, peace of Indians against British Empire.
For Gandhi, the pacifist form of war in order to establish and sustain peace was non-violent, hence although he urged Indian youths to fight and die in battle grounds for British Empire, he also maintained that Indian youths must not fight against British rulers in India, because that would be direct violence, and that was not acceptable to Gandhi. Why was Gandhi ready to recruit Indian youths to “co-operate” with British Army in Imperial wars, while he himself was launching the Non-cooperation movement?
During the WW2 again, Pacifist Mahatma Gandhi again favored offering Indian moral support to British army in 1939 when Nazi Germany invaded Poland. Obviously, it seemed right decision as Nazi Germany obviously was violent. Yet, when other leaders of India objected Indian youth’s inclusion in British war, Gandhi declared that India could not be party to a war ostensibly being fought for democratic freedom, while that freedom was denied to India itself. As the war progressed, Gandhi drafted a resolution demanding for British to Quit India. Obviously, his pacifist support for British army during the wars became the saddle of deal for Indian independence. Gandhi realized that British Empire would be exhausted after the two consecutive world wars and hence he declared that even if some Indians directly fight violently against British Empire, he would not take his Quit India demand this time as he did after the World War1.⁴
He knew it was the ripe time to force exhausted British Empire to Quit India.
Thus, it can be seen that if Obama mentions that he took his inspirations from Mahatma Gandhi, he does not sound hypocrite or wrong.

Changing standards of Noble peace prize community

Mahatma Gandhi was nominated for Noble Peace prize many a times, but he was rejected every time. The last time Gandhi was nominated, the Noble prize committee rejected Gandhi because of his known support for Indo-Pak war.
Based on a telegram from Reuters, The Times, on September 27, 1947, under the headline “Mr. Gandhi on ‘war’ with Pakistan” reported:

“Mr. Gandhi told his prayer meeting to-night that, though he had always opposed all warfare, if there was no other way of securing justice from Pakistan and if Pakistan persistently refused to see its proved error and continued to minimise it, the Indian Union Government would have to go to war against it. No one wanted war, but he could never advise anyone to put up with injustice. If all Hindus were annihilated for a just cause, he would not mind. If there was war, the Hindus in Pakistan could not be fifth columnists. If their loyalty lay not with Pakistan, they should leave it. Similarly Muslims whose loyalty was with Pakistan should not stay in the Indian Union.”⁵

That became the reason for Gandhi’s rejection for Noble price of peace.
Yet now, when every body is familiar with Obama’s support for Afghanistan war, when Obama himself argues and justifies his decision to escalate combat against Afghanistan on the platform while receiving the Noble price, nobody really think that he should not get a Noble because his support to wars.
Maybe now, the Noble Committee agrees that War is necessary for maintaining peace and that preventive war are a part of establishment of peace. Obviously, this is a change in the attitude. Gandhi was rejected the Noble for his support to war against Pakistan in order to keep peace, while Obama has been given Noble despite of his support to war at Afghanistan to keep peace.

How Gandhian Idea would help Afghanistan Situation?

Pacifism of Gandhi suggest that the native Afghans should openly help US troops in order to fight against Taliban and Osama Bin Laden and after the end of Taliban and Osama Bin Laden, the Afghans should peaceful demand evacuation of US troops from Afghanistan. That is the appropriate way and it will ensure the non-violence of Afghans supporting US army against Taliban. Gandhi might have urged Afghan youth to recruit themselves along with US troops to fight against Taliban. A Gandhian may request Indian government too, to help US army to fight against Taliban as a “pre-emptive non-violent measure to maintain peace.”

Libertarian Idea on Pre-emptive Wars

Unlike Pacifists, a libertarian does not believe in preventive wars. A libertarian cannot support an attack on a nation or a person on the name of defensive necessity. The right to self-defense does not mean to attack first in order to remove any chances of being under attack. Libertarian sense of Self-Defense necessarily means No use of Violence at first but full right to defend yourself within your limits if you are being attacked. An Indian libertarian might not have thought of fighting for British Empire and than to argue for his own independence. Rather he would have preferred to fight against the British Empire, as they were the invaders, attackers because self-defense is not a right, it is basically a duty of a freedom lover, a Libertarian, or a Libertarian might have simply adopted non-cooperation in all accounts, including no-operation for British Empire in their wars too.
Unlike a pacifist Gandhian, a libertarian will oppose Obama’s decision to increase troops in Afghanistan and will demand a sudden end to all war fronts, just like Ron Paul did during his famous Libertarian speech “What If” in assembly–

1. Obama :War has a role in Peace, Times of India
2. Role of Mahatma Gandhi in WW1, Wikipedia
3. Mahatma Gandhi, Non-cooperation, Wikipedia
4. World War2 and Quit India, Wikipedia
5. Mahatma Gandhi, the Missing Laureate, Nobleprize.org

1. IPL and Election dates may clash, Yahoo news
2. Impasse of Democracy, Reason for Liberty
3. IM man puts ATS in black spot, Times of India
4. 86% service companies are self-sufficient, Times of India
5. What are Taxes, Reason for Liberty

1. Surrogate Mothers:Renting the Womb, world reports

1. SRK dropped the term barber, ET News
2. India in search of Freedom, Equality and Justice, Reason for Liberty
3. Pak girl beaten up for sporting a tattoo in Urdu by Indian Muslim women, Mumbai Mirror

1. Pinky Anand a Senior Supreme Court Lawyer, Times of India
2. Age Of Consent, Reason For Liberty
3. Drugs: Legal or Illegal, Reason For Liberty
4. an IHM, Blog
5. Mirren slammed for date-rape comment, TOI
6. Pinky Anand a Senior Supreme Court Lawyer, Times of India

“High rates of taxation on cigarettes are forcing consumers to shift to cheaper and alternate forms of tobacco consumption. As a result, overall tobacco consumption is increasing, as the price of other tobacco products is very low,”³

Thus, by banning or increasing taxes on cigarette companies, government not only increases the rates of lung cancer, it increases the consumption of tobacco too making it a decision causing double disaster.
What if government increase hyper-taxes on tobacco, will it help?
Banning or restricting any thing never helps anybody, yet it increases black-marketing, it increases smuggling, and to counter all that, government will need a new force to control smuggling and black-marketing of Tobacco. In addition, black-marketing always increases consumption because it provides the demanded goods at much less price than the governmental prices.
Thus, even if government announces extreme high tobacco taxes, making even the Bidis too much expensive, it will not help anybody.
Yet it will make many people die of hunger and starvation in poverty.
According to reports, 25% families in and around Mangalore city are dependent on Bidi making⁴)
In India, 34 per cent of tobacco consumption is in the form of bidi. Snuff and chewing tobacco account for 35 per cent whereas 22 per cent of tobacco use is in the form of cigarettes. Bidi making is a large Industry in India, 1.5 million workers were employed in bidi making in 1990. According to the data on the number of workers in the bidi industry released by the Ministry of Labour, Government of India, the number of bidi workers in the middle of 1997 was 4.4 million. Therefore, between 1990 and end of 1997, the number of workers in the bidi industry grew almost threefold.⁵
Can government force this large Industry and the people involved to go out of business and employment? How logical it is?
Is it the case that by increasing taxes on Cigarette making companies, Indian government is promoting Bidi making Industry of India?
Let us check the validity of such move by government. In order to help national small scale industry of India, it bans or increases taxes on cigarette making companies. It will make smokers to opt for smoking bidis using gutkhas and other local cheap tobacco products which are much more dangerous than Bidis, furthermore it will also force people to keep increasing involvement in vibrant Bidi making industry which itself is hazardous.
Thus, any such move by government is anti-poor, anti-Indian.
In addition, one another move by government is to ban smoking on public places like trains, bus, etc. In general, such bans never help public, although these bans become a way for police to grab money from poor. It provides an incentive for police to catch poor person smoking in general compartment of trains, or on roads etc and harassing him, robbing him some Rs 5/- or Rs10/-.
What if government bans smoking in private property too. If you smoke in your home, you get jailed or pay a fine of Rs1000/-
Overall study shows that any sort of intervention in the tobacco market by government will cause havoc alone and will increase the rate of cancer.
On the principle of individual freedom, those who are worried about the perils of smoking have every right to work to persuade–but not force–others to choose not to smoke. Yet, the anti-smoking movement run by the government is anti-liberty, it is against the principle of Individual freedom, and that is why, in any case, it will never work but will worsen the situations.
May be that is the reason why The Delhi High Court on Friday⁶ struck down the Center’s October 2006 notification banning smoking scenes in films, saying onscreen
Smoking was part of an artist’s creative license. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul strike down the rules framed by the Center saying-

“Director of films should not have multifarious authorities breathing down their necks when indulging in creative act.”

I say, if government gets over its useless drive against cigarettes and cigarette making companies, it will reduce the dangers of Lung Cancer in India. Government must not intervene in Market.

“I like to think of fire held in a man’s hand. Fire, a dangerous force, tamed at his fingertips. I often wonder about the hours when a man sits alone, watching the smoke of a cigarette, thinking. I wonder what great things have come from such hours. When a man thinks, there is a spot of fire alive in his mind–and it is proper that he should have the burning point of a cigarette as his one expression.”
Ayn Rand Atlas Shrugged

1. The Fag End, Editorial Times of India
2. The Fag End, Editorial Times of India
3. Express India
4. Bidi Rolling in Rural Development, Study conducted in Karnataka
5. Ministry of Labour Report on Bidi workers
6. “Smoking in films allowed Delhi High Court rules” Times of India, 23rd of January 2009

For decades, secretaries of defense helped to justify their gargantuan budget requests by claiming that high levels of military spending would be “good for the economy” and that reduced military spending would cause recession. So common did this argument become that Marxist critics gave it the apt name military Keynesianism. On both the right and the left, people believed that huge military spending propped up an economy that, lacking this support, would collapse into depression. Such thinking played an important part in the political process that directed about $15 trillion (in today’s dollars) into Cold War military spending⁶ between 1948 and 1990. Nor did the argument disappear even after the Soviet Union unsportingly left the playing field.
Military Keynesianism has enough surface plausibility that it garnered a substantial following in certain quarters even before Keynes’s General Theory gave it apparent intellectual respectability. In his 1944 book As We Go Marching⁷ John T. Flynn noted as a fact “this devotion of the conservative elements to military might,” and he emphasized that “militarism is the one great glamorous public-works project upon which a variety of elements in the community can be brought into agreement.” He understood, however, that military public-works spending has far graver consequences than ordinary Keynesian pyramid building. “Inevitably, having surrendered to militarism as an economic device, we will do what other countries have done: we will keep alive the fears of our people of the aggressive ambitions of other countries and we will ourselves embark upon imperialistic enterprises of our own.” Flynn deserves high marks as a prophet.

Thus, it shows why it is possible for Pakistan to support terrorism, wars and havoc even in a situation when it is economically devastated. Just before Mumbai attacks, Pakistan was begging money from international communities to pay for its charges.
As the general thinking of Mixed economy governments is that government spending helps economy, it is quite possible that Pakistan planned it all.
Now one may say that Pakistan was already spending allot on Afghanistan border along-with America. We all know that Pakistani people just do not support US and its anti-terror strikes. In order to gain public confidence and gather the military power properly devoted for an aim, Pakistan needed to create a situation. After Mumbai attacks, Indian government got enraged and started making international pressure on Pakistan, and Pakistan got a chance to move its forces towards Indian borders. Now public has more important issue to handle for instead of opposing and criticizing Pakistani government. Against India, they are all united, and that brings confidence in government. Thus, more than anything, the reason behind all Pakistani military efforts since long past is the Keynesian mixed Economy, government regulated economy based on Military Keynesianism.
Is India immune to this Keynesian mixed economy madness?
We all know Indian government and politicians like our Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is staunch Keynesian economist. As he said in his interview.⁸

It clarifies that in any recession or downturn, a government, be it Indian, or Pakistanis, or Chinese, or US government, may go for wars and mass murders, and what would be the reason? Just to bring economy out of recession or depression or deflation.
Such is the effect of Mixed economy government controlled economy.
In His article, Higgs clarifies that these entire Keynesian hypothesis is nothing but a myth. Austrian economists have been opposing all this madness since always, yet American government almost always followed the Military Keynesianism idea and so is Indian government is hell bent to do it. The recent tension on borders and Media are just phase of it. Just some days ago, Indian government announced the draconian UAPA law which is no better than the Patriot act. India is demanding missiles from US. How logical it is to go for an Arm’s race? Should government waste tax-payers money in such infertile activities?
Does spending on worthless unproductive things help anybody?
After 9/11 attacks, Paul Krugman⁹ suggested that there will be favorable effects of the terrorist attack.
Yet that is how almost all government’s act. After 2001 recession in USA, US troops engaged in severe attacks on Iraq. Was it Keynesian Mixed economy effect?

The U.S. is likely to increase further spending on defense and on rebuilding the infrastructure that has been destroyed. This would ultimately create a positive sentiment in an already lethargic American economy, says Oommen A. Ninan¹⁰ .

Again there is recession, and Obama is a Keynesian. He knows he cannot keep US military fighting in Iraq, thus, he has announced stronger troops in Afghanistan.
In such a situation, is there possibility for Indian government to waste money on such needless wars? While discussing Indian Reserve Bank Dilemma, we showed how fear of recession is senseless as it clears out all “non-productive-activities” and helps the market to revamp and gain stability. We further discussed that injecting money in market would be a wrong cause as it would further increase the percentage of bad assets. We discussed how “Bail Outs” never help an economy but further increase the burden. We, the citizens of India and Pakistan do want peace, yet is it possible?
It is quite obvious that any governmental intervention in economics causes harm alone. Yet, the biggest harm to human kind can be wars terrorism and Military Keynesianism.

1. Military Keynesianism, Wikipedia Link
2. Keynesian economics, Wikipedia Link
3. Robert Higgs, Independent.org
4. Military Keynesianism was refuted in 1945-47, Independent.org
5. Higgs,Independent.org
6. Cold War military spending between 1948 and 1990, Independent.org
7. As We Go Marching, John T. Flynn
8. he says here,sikhtimes.com
9. Paul KrugmanHis article
10. Oommen A. Ninan, The Hindu

Some of the feminist may start shouting against the decision. After all, how can a government controlled body like Air India discriminate girls for a job based on weight?
Actually, there is nothing wrong with the decision.
This is the freedom of the employer to employ that worker which will provide maximum profits and will suit for the development of enterprise, it is employee’s liberty,either to accept that criteria or to deny it.
So, if the management of Air India think that the overweight Air Hostesses are not apt for the job, and if there was a mentioned clause about weight criteria before the girls were appointed as air hostesses, then Air India has freedom to sack them on the issue of being overweight than the prescribed norm.
Now this may cause sort of worries in some girls, they may find themselves oppressed by the slim girls. So, should there be a “reservation” for the overweight girls?
Some feminists even claims that the cosmetic products and advertises are also wrong and oppressive. Like for example, Fair & Lovely fairness cream advocates fair skin girls are superior to dark-skin girls and hence it is oppression. So, justice would be, if dark skin girls get some reservation, or if no girl be allowed to be fairer than others?
A chilling dystopian novel Facial Justice by the British writer L.P. Hartley was published in 1960.
The novel dealt with the wrong assertion of the egalitarians that Equality is Just, and Egalitarianism is Justice. The story extrapolates the egalitarian drive as, after the Third World War, “Justice had made great strides.” Economic Justice, Social Justice and other forms of justice had been achieved, but there were still facets of life to triumph over and bring equality. In particular, Facial Justice had not yet been attained, since pretty girls had an unfair advantage over ugly ones. Hence, under the direction of the Ministry of Face Equality, all Alpha (pretty) girls and all Gamma (ugly) girls were required to undergo operations at the “Equalization (Faces) Center” so as all to attain Beta (pleasantly average) faces.
It is a common trend going on these days. School children commit suicides because of the “oppressive school system”. It is “Oppression” that some students get higher marks while some fails. Thus, there should be a grading system. Anybody getting 80% and above, should be graded A+. Alas! So, there is no incentive for a student to master a subject and gain 100% marks. Even if he gets 80%, he will be at the top. In addition, he can never fail. It is the making of mediocre.
So what would be facial justice? To not to let anybody be beautiful.
Every person should have average equally attractive face and body. Every person should have an average mind, with an average sense and taste of all skills. No person should be Superior to others, no person should be a Beethoven, Mozart, Galileo, Einstien, Shakespeare, or Da Vinci.
Every person should have equal economic sense too; there should not be any D.B Ambani, or Vikram Akula, there should not be a Ratan Tata.
What more? No man should be braver than others are. All should be equal. There should not be a Prithvi Raj Chauhan or Shivaji or Maha Rana Pratap, the bravest of all, all should be equally brave or average coward.
There should not be any difference between your husband or boyfriend and the other males. You should love them equally. And so on.
As a matter of fact, Equality does not mean Justice, and to be equal is not just.

In the beginning when men were obviously not organized and were more or less by themselves, hunting and moving around in search of food. The diversity at this stage between men would have been limited, for all had to almost same kind of work to survive. Civilization however was amidst humans were quite some time now. So long as to have its effects percolated into our genes. First distinct role differentiation would have occurred between men and women. Men were traditionally hunters and women were collectors or gatherers. Everyone would agree that women are instinctively better at searching a key or a purse that is lost in a room; they have an amazing knack of finding a needle in a hay stack. As for men they were as I said hunters, and that gifted them with a better sense of direction. You would find that men are better at finding their way back home if lost. More noticeably in no other specie would you find such high variation in characteristics especially body strength. It is perhaps because no one hunts for lioness but herself, while in case of humans the ingress of civility allowed these role diversification.

It is also so in case among men, society has allowed varied kind of genes to survive, because there were very many diversified options to survive in a society. This being the better part, it has allowed parasitism too, men feeding on goods produced by others. To start with it must not have been so; men would have come together form a symbiotic association in which they helped each other to hunt and fend. This initial anarchic form would not have survived for very long, for natural variation between men would have led to emergence of alpha males amongst them. Ones those were natural leaders, ones who were followed most willingly by rest of men. It was natural and for the good part of it being the leader was not exempted from the process of hunting for food and other vital activities that ensured survival. I would call these stages miniarchic in nature, for leaders did not dictate their terms in every walk of life but those were collective efforts were required to ensure safety and improvised hunting techniques.

With advent of agriculture and men settling down at one place, and production of food per say becoming a low key and systematic affair, men ventured into more diverse activities and some took on loot and plunder as their means of survival, almost simultaneously some took providing security as theirs. Both faces of same coin, men however chose to be fed by one vulture than be ransacked by many, thus giving rise to monarchic and feudalistic systems one master or to say one predator who is the king all powerful and to one whom all show their allegiance by paying a part of what they produce. The concept of taxation thus came into picture for ensuring safety and security against external aggressors, who too were mostly funded in almost similar manner.

With time it gave rise to really powerful empires which waged wars on those expenses and afforded really lavish life styles. It had its good influences too on the civilization. Those were the time when productions were limited to very few products such as food articles, utensils clothing etc. Since there was no concept of mass production or industrialization, no individual could have amassed wealth as emperors did by their coercive techniques, it is thus these emperors who financed and supported different fine arts and architecture of medieval ages. Poetry and scholastic endeavors which otherwise could not have become a full time profession in those ages. Men would have at the best practiced these things as hobbies, but would have had to work in fields to earn their living. Yes indeed the age of Monarchy did change the face of the earth, gave us beautiful monuments recorded history, wealth to undertake expedition and exploration and so to name a few.

One thing that almost simultaneously came into being was organized religion. I call it organized because God as a concept must not have been new to humanity. Men would have worshiped from time immemorial, forces and phenomenon’s that they don’t understand. Human consciousness awareness of time, a chain of memories and thought that makes possible for it to remember their past and differentiate their present, also interpolate from thereof the concept of future. Future which they are not aware in its nature but definitely aware in its being, this unknown future again pushes humanity towards need of supernatural, one that will ensure well being for them in the times to come. Though a very harmless concept, a soothing pill for the worrisome mind, it is however this concept that was extensively used in weaving religious institutions in human society. Mostly in conjunction with the existing monarchies either supported or propagated by the kings, in return they gave kings divine rights to rule (read exploit) mankind.

The era kings stretched all through the face of earth without very many exception, popular rule of Greece and Roman empire where masses did have some say in the state of affair for brief periods. What brought down these empires were not masses as popularly assumed. The age of industrialization had opened very many diverse options of enterprise, more so it had allowed possibilities of mass production and generation of wealth and resources as it had not been possible by any one individual in the past. Power does not essentially flow through though the barrel of a gun; there are forms in which power manifest, chiefly military economic and intellectual. With enterprise there rose a lot of people among the masses who were generating money equivalent to what state generated by taxation, and this rising economic power along with the power of intellectuals came together to bring down the rule of monarchies.
Kingdoms were however simultaneously replaced by idea of nationality. It existed as natural barriers and language identity at places others it was simply a transition from colonial rule to nations. It takes not much to build nations, few fiery speeches, and a flag and of course strong military might to crush all elements which are anti nationalistic, we have what we call as nations. It was perhaps the need of the hour, dissolving states was far from an option that existed then and perhaps even now. To replace kings who by now have had got bestowed on them both natural and divine rights to rule, they went ahead with populist rule, it brought in what we call democracy, it had its own fallacy too termed at times as the tyranny of Masses. Majority deciding the fate of things irrespective of their qualification or ability to do so, it however definitely a better option than monarchies and dictatorships so to count.

On the economic front two systems that came forth were capitalism and socialism. Capitalism was a natural outcome of the new era. The way men would have naturally gone ahead to take on the agriculture and other activities like wise in the yester years, men ventured into various kinds of enterprise which opened up its way with industrialization. The major difference being man power which was quintessential in any kind of activity in earlier days was not reduced to simply a very vital resource.

This one phenomenon was not very well understood and thus came about the ideology of socialism, one that deliberated upon equitable distribution of the product all enterprise activities among the people involved. The theory neglected importance of capital and idea of enterprise itself. When it was applied in states, states automatically assumed responsibility of all enterprise. This kind of system still works with variable amount of success in different part of the world, most places it has led to either dictatorial or military leadership taking over to maintain the state led mechanisms.

Capitalism too did not get implemented in its natural laissez faire form, democratic systems too being as mentioned earlier being run by masses with no real clue of what is right and wrong opted for induction of certain socialistic principles into the system that supposedly benefited them. What it actually did again was consolidation and empowering state to interfere in matter that should have been left to individuals.

We today live in this era, and this story is story in making, where we move on from here is yet to be decided. I have a faith that what is just and what is right would prevail. As only that can survive the test of time. I believe an era would come when boundaries will dissolve and states slowly become nonexistent. The way euro has united the whole of Europe in many a ways, economies will merge world into one big society or rather one big market. Where men would be free to indulge in enterprise of their choice, and trade or exchange their products as they desire. But at this moment it is still an uncertain future…a happily ever after presumably.

Imagination is very powerful indeed, and it is one talent which is an absolute must for creation of any kind. Many would argue that it is the most important attribute required to create, but introspection would reveal that a man must be rational first, to be able to create anything that would exist in this world. We might say that imagination gives us directions, but, it is in fact reason that leads us to having such sort of imagination.
Reason is dogmatic. Yes. Its existence requires it to be so. If there is nothing better than this place, then, I am staying here. most often mystiques have argued that the rational lack imagination, that is, they fail to notice anything new, because they have limited imagination.
It is totally baseless assertion, and it will be found through out religious scriptures when they are trying to tackle the atheistic belief.
The necessity of a God in society and the origin of him, has been expressed in many books and articles. We would just try to discuss the relation of Monotheistic God and an individual.
There are some attributes of animals which still exist with human, and one of the most potent one of them is man’s fascination with groups. Men like to form groups, like to discuss groups interests, like to serve the group, and sometimes, would give up his life for the glory of the group. Now, this has human part in it to. Man would give up his life or belongings for a group he totally identifies with, such as religion or language without much requirement of an uprising. National groupism is a refined form of this, but a man can not naturally identify with such a big and diverse group without presence of a provoking factor. This can be seen in cases of war and natural disaster.
But, as the man becomes more and more refined, he goes on understanding that he is different, different from all the rest. That everything else exists to him just because he exists. And he feels alone.
One attribute of man is that he is happy to serve. He is happy to belong, he is happy to be a part of something. Awakening leads to discovery of the fact that he, in this world is alone. And nobody likes it when it suddenly strikes them. This is what Mayavadis told everyone. That the world outside is a hoax. But that is only a part of it. No matter how much awakened one is, he can not negate the presence of himself, and that of the world. But he can say that he is free from all the rest.
How free is a man? The world is a process of rewarding and punishing. A man is accountable for his actions. So will he be free if there is no action from his side? No again, for the world has some pre-requisites for life, and everyone must fulfil them. Hence, men’s heaven dreams are always an inconsequential world and an eternal life. Man has tried, tried to negate the very requirement, the basic truth of his living.
Man serves God. Man found God in his hour of loneliness’, when he found that all of his actions were directed to nobody’s gain, he tried to find an identity by asserting, he is doing God’s work. Finding flaws in everything, he tried to find a flawless love in God. Finding his ego not letting him submit to any earthly flawed thing, he submitted to God. Submission is an essential human trait.
Man loves. Most of his loves stem from him being with things or people for a long time. The love of man is most often a consequence, rather than a decision, or submission. But, man does submit. Man submits to his fellow man when he finds those godly traits in another. When the word love stems without the proverb “despite of”. When man can search and find nothing he can criticise, he says, I am fulfilled.
But it is true that human have faults discovered sometimes or the other. And then, the temporal factor becomes the deciding one. Does a man move on fro his beloved? Should he move on from his beloved? These questions storm his mind, and he becomes lost. Most often, he makes a compromise.
But how it should be? Should a man not proceed from a place the ends of which he has found, and found them to be inferior to what he seeks for himself? Can a man not proceed to a higher goal? You would often hear this question, “Would you leave me if you found somebody better?” What do you say when asked so?
Sometimes, we find some people who would choose to walk with us, and we would agree despite knowing that he deserves better than me, or despite finding out he would soon overshadow me. Many people have jealously tried to guard such man and stagnate them to themselves, but, that bird which has found freedom, and knows the fruitless existence of a cage would be hard to tame. The cage must go. A better self must emerge. It is through journeys such, that we find movement points; we have our own search of God.
One thing to remember is God loves you. God cares for you. God that you may find and you may please will always be satisfied by what you offer and not whatever you offer.
coming back to submissive nature of human, his desires to find somebody to whom he can submit would never go away. Otherwise, he would be tormented to decay. The pleasure that submission is overshadows the pleasure of owning, pleasure of saying I am yours is much more than you are mine. To say I am yours, a man requires to own himself. To own something, he does not.
Again, love follows reason. Love would check out all the despite off features. You might ask, why there is so much of falling of there then? And the answer would be, the word eternal stinks, and your traits change and so does your demands. You would say, to find a God do we wait a lifetime?
Let me answer it. Most people exist to do things in life. They never understand what life is or what its capacities are. They die as good as any man. A few though exist, to do things with life. And finding a God and being good enough may be one of it.
Submission is bliss.

“Every morning the two ravens Hugin and Munin, are loosed and fly over Midgard; I always fear that Thought may not wing his way home, but my fear for Memory is greater.” (Translation of Grimnismal)
Thought is realization, experience, of a new situation/observation, while Memory is recurring of and old thought by virtue of observation of similar situation.
“The memory of old thought of the hidden impression is return memory of old thought of objects, which has been experienced or known.” (Translation of Sanskrit Sloka)
Are Memory and Thought are same?
Is it right to say that memory is thought?
Hugin and Munin cannot be one. Memory of Old Thoughts is Return Memory. Every cell has its structure of compressing memories. Memory of old thought of the concealed impression is return memory of old thought of objects which has been experienced or known with words. Return memory of old thought is caused by reproduction of the previous impression of an object without adding anything from other sources. However, there is always a chance for new thoughts, which is embedded in memory lane as new memory.
Hugin and Munin are two closely related entities, not the same though. Yet one can say that Memory is reminiscence, and thought is creation, or discovery of new experience to be embedded in memory lane.
In memory thought of the hidden impression, there is no tress passing beyond the object that has been thought. Return memory of thought is the memory of “seeds of deeds” which are embedded in the living beings operative system. That “program” helps the living being in developing/creating/discovering/inventing thoughts; it decides the thought pattern of the individual. The memory includes pattern of one’s language, memory of the thought blueprint of the lexis/signs that one uses and memory of one’s thought pattern of mental power.
The memory of desires/basic instinct which come up in the state of intellect of a living and non-living being and which put together ones innate inclinations also embrace memory thought of the hidden impression. The memory of persistent impressions of past continuously hang around in the mind and that decides the person’s result-oriented activities.
The basic fact is, human is incapable of having true memory of the old thought and neither he is able to reproduce his thought from memory lane in pure form. There always remains a difference between a biography and a live experience. Even while watching a cricket match live, the new impressions felt, cannot be achieved exactly same, by watching repeat of the same match. Thus, the memory of thought is not true but a false, very near to truth.
Individual’s natural proclivity is vague on the present memory of old thought. He keeps on hovering around the focus by remembering the past or daydreaming about the future recurrence of the memory of thought.
However, return of the old memory of thought or its interpretation in future is not true memory of the thought. The memory of thought, which is inconceivable with full truth and purity, not only brings unhappiness, but also brings agitation and apprehension by its effect. The incessant and cataleptic recurrence of countless memory of thought by most of human being reinforces the human being’s false appearance, biased behavior, hypocrisy, deceit, and duplicity. These phony insignia keep on changing their manner.
As long as, an individual does not manage reasonably true memory of thought about these old thought and does not vigilantly scrutinize and rationalize each memory of thought for that reason, he will persist to think and it is impracticable for him to come out of the restraints of these old memory of thought. He will become consistent to having memory of thought recur in his state of mind, which is flux. In meditation, the first step is to remove this flux and achieve a consistent unchanging non-hypocritical, unbiased reasonable true memory of thought. This memory of thought is not achievable by force, but by continuous rationalization of false-impressions of the old memory of thoughts and gaining the true memory of thought by virtue of reasoning and evidences. An individual must become cognizant of the memory of old thought, which are responsible for creating mendacity and suspicion/skepticism along with blind faith and hallucination in his flux. The vagueness that veils the truth about this memory of old thought is then to be refined and finally removed. What will remain, will be the pure thought or true memory of thought, which will be reasonable, rationale and focused. It will not be a flux, but a constant unchanging truth without any skepticism.
The false-impressions of memory of old thought of flux is refined and removed by reasonable and rationalized thinking of memory of old thought and not by any material object or power. That is, only the individual can remove that flux by introspection and reasoning. Other individual, book, or power or material cannot help him in achieving that.
Once the flux of the Impermanence State is refined and removed, the Individual achieves the true memory of thought. Then the Individual on the firm ground of non-hypocritical, unbiased, reasonable and rationale memory of thought becomes able to see further to create, develop, discover or invent new thoughts and enrich his memory lane with new experiences and set further true memory of thought.

“There’s no way Paris Hilton could have found me,” Moses quoted God as saying on his ABC television program ‘Stone Tablet News’ on Monday. “I am Almighty and I don’t just move in mysterious ways, I’m darn good at playing hide-and-seek!”

Moses said God, who sounded in fine spirits despite dwindling numbers of believers, thinks Hilton had Him confused with His only begotten son, Jesus.

 

“When Jesus was young, He was a very crafty hide-and-seek player,” God said. “Anybody who has read My book will recall the time he managed to hide from Mary and Joseph for three days and nights in a temple of all places!”

When questioned by Moses as to Jesus’ whereabouts from the age of twelve to thirty-three, God replied, “Not telling! But I will say it was rather foolish of him to have come out of hiding. We all know what that folly led to!”

God then claimed that Hilton may even have Him confused with the Virgin Mary.

“Think of it this way,” God said unto Moses. “Paris Hilton probably has never even seen a grilled cheese sandwich in her life. Prison food like that can make people see all sorts of strange things but when was the last time anybody ever saw Me burned into a grilled cheese sandwich?”

Independent sources confirm that manifestations of God have never taken any anthropormorphic form and that it’s only ever been the Virgin Mary and her Son Jesus, who have ever been seen in this form.

When asked by Moses why Paris Hilton should claim to have found Him, God replied, “Bless her, her heart’s probably in the right place but she isn’t one of My brightest creatures. Obviously, the publicity is good for Me too and goes to show that repentent sinners invariably turn to My religion when they get sent to jail and not one of those kooky new-age ones they all flock to on the outside world.”

God then scoffed at suggestions that Paris Hilton intended to give up her lifestyle of endless VIP parties, red carpets and pursuing the limelight upon her release.

“She’s obviously forgotten My omnipresence if she thinks she can tell such porkies and not get smited. Besides, the whole Rupert Murdoch empire would crumble if it wasn’t for the bubble-headed antics of celebutantes like Hilton.”

When Moses asked if this would be such a bad thing, God replied, “Of course! Rupert is the embodiment of evil on earth and without evil, there can be no free will and without free will, there can be no salvation. The whole darn Christian industry would collapse if something like that ever happened!”

 

In summarizing, Moses asked whether God believed Hilton found Jesus or the Virgin Mary to which He replied, “My money is on Mary. Hilton is, afterall, not exactly on death row. If she was, she’d have a better chance of finding Jesus but she still wouldn’t find Me — especially after just three days looking!”

Meanwhile, God took time to speak with Pope Benedict XVI after his interview with Moses.

Pope Benedict asked, “Holy Father, who do you think will win the soccer World Cup this year?”

God merely smiled and tsk-tsked the pontiff and, amid a fury of thunder and lightning, ascended back up to Heaven.

(I enjoy writing humorous pieces as much as any other kind of fiction. A style I particularly like is the fake news item, such as this.)

On the 7th May this year, it was noted that the Universe had had another orgasm. These orgasms are cataclysmic. I say that the orgasm was noted on the 7th May, but there is a wee problem. The Universe has been expanding for about 15 thousand million years; the faster parts of the big bang explosion going at close to speed of light. So any light coming from those far off reaches, can take up to 15 thousand million years to get here. The Universe has beeen orgasmating for millions of years and information is still reaching us about most of them.

These orgasms take place in stars. Even if the nearest star to us, Proxima Centauri, had an orgasm, it would take 4 years and 73 days before we knew it, because the information about the orgasm (e.g. visible light and neutrinos) takes that long to get here. As it happens, Proxima Centauri is not likely to have an orgasm, it is the gall bladder of our Galaxy. But there are stars in our Galaxy that ought to be called Ultima Clitori because they are shuddering on the brink of a humungous orgasm. If the nearest one of these actually had an orgasm, we would never, ever know about it, because the blast would vaporise the Earth before we even had time to utter the famous words:
What the fuck was that?

The orgasm that was noted last Monday, 7th May was first observed last October, but only now have the data been evaluated. Orgasm experts the world over are unanimous about this one:

“This was a truly monstrous orgasm, a hundred times more energetic than a typical one.”

“Of all orgasms ever observed, this was the Queen.”

“We were astonished to see how bright it got, and how long it lasted.”

“This was not your run-of-the-mill orgasm.”

“Gargantuan.”

“Freakishly massive.”

So when did this orgasm actually take place and how far away was it? It happened about 240 million years ago, about the time we now call the transition from the Permian to Triassic Period. Yup, dinosaur time. How far away? I could give you a big number with lots of noughts. But let me force you to imagine the scale: to some extent. The light took 240 million years to get here. Light travels at 186,000 miles per second. There are about 10 times pi million seconds in a year. Work it out. God, my brain hurts. Where is she?

If you want to know more about these orgasms, and find out how much they resemble our orgasms, then leave a tick here and I’ll tell you more. Otherwise I’ll shut up. I’ll take you through the process using language like this and hope you will share my wonder. I know of nothing in the whole Universe to compare with one of these orgasms, or rather, supernovae, as the orgasm watchers call them, except of course, my own.

The image here is of a famous supernova from 1987. Although it looks beautiful, its name is rather dull: SN 1987A. The first supernova observed in 1987 was called SN 1987A, the second SN1987B and so on. My orgasms this year have been called ORG 2007A, ORG 2007B and so on. I confidently expect, and I will explain shortly how to spot a pending orgasm, that I will very soon experience ORG 2007EA which will be:

Gargantuan.

Not my run-of-the-mill orgasm.

because . . . . . .