What followed the carnage followed a pattern that is so unique to India. Statements, investigations, resignations, finger pointing, condolences, promises, visits from foreign diplomats (from a country that refused to accept terrorism as an international threat till September 11, 2001), condemnations, threat of yet another war with a neighbour (who is all the time busy in affairs outside of his own country) and more importantly assurances from world super powers that those responsible for these attacks will not be spared. Everything seems too rehearsed. Everything seems to follow a very strange pattern.

What’s even more hurting were the irresponsible statements from our beloved politicians. Yes! As if the shock, loss of life and the shame India face was not enough, the politicians rubbed salt with their statements. The Chief Minister of Kerala, V S Achuthanandan dared to insult the family of a slain NSG Commando Major Sandeep Unnikrishnan. And here is what he said “Not even a dog would have looked that way had it not been Sandeep’s house”. Shocked? Now watch him say that…

And here is the vice-President of a national party – BJP (should I not mention names?), Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi’s statement on the protestors in Mumbai. “Why do some women, wearing lipsticks and powders are protesting against the politicians on the streets of Mumbai?” he asked. He thinks that women wearing lipsticks and powders can’t be responsible and sensitive to issues regarding their (read national) security. Perhaps!

There is more. Here is what the Deputy Chief Minister and the Home Minister of the State of Maharashtra (Mumbai is the capital city of Maharashtra) has to say when he was asked if the terror strike was an intelligence failure, “It is not like that. In big cities like this, small incidents do happen. It’s is not a total failure”. It’s a small incident according to him. Do you wonder what then a big incident according to him is? Keep wondering. Plus, it’s not a total failure for him. Does that mean there is more to come?

It’s hard to think of a time when the Government of India looked so shamefully like a wretched bunch of wimps than today, when strong leadership is so needed. These politicians were elected by you and me. Is it time to feel ashamed? Yes indeed. But let’s also think again. Better late than never.

Major Blunders in the world according to Mahatma Gandhi

1. Wealth without work
2. Pleasure without conscience
3. Knowledge without character
4. Commerce without morality
5. Science without humanity
6. Worship without sacrifice
7. Politics without principle

Gandhi called these imbalances “passive violence“, which fuels the active violence of crime, rebellion, and war. He said, “We could work ’til doomsday to achieve peace and would get nowhere as long as we ignore passive violence in our world”.

Arun, the grandson of Gandhi, later added an eighth blunder: Rights without responsibilities. Gandhi gave the list to Arun in 1947.

Today, these blunders are a part of our society. Of our day-to-day life. These are no longer considered blunders and no longer are we embarrassed by them. We in fact actively practice them even take pride in some of them.

From Wall Street to state lotteries, we entice ourselves with the promise of wealth without work. Whole sectors of the economy offer pleasure without conscience.

Many scientists believe their greatest strength is their ability to separate their knowledge from their character and their science from their souls.

Advocate serious morality in a commercial context (away from the PR department) and you will be laughed out of a job. Morality? It might be nice to take the high road, but our competitors won’t. So forget it!

Insiders in Washington and other capitals speak openly of their ability to cut political deals in a world totally without principle. That’s how it works in this town, they say, and they’re not apologizing or regretting; they’re boasting.

Religious movements seem to support possessiveness and self-righteousness, never noticing the passages that urge sacrifice, sharing, compassion, humility, forgiveness.

Somehow our public discussion has become dominated by either-or simplicities. If you complain about commerce without morality, you are accused of being against commerce. Suggest bringing humanity back into science, and you’re anti-scientific. Say there’s something wrong with wealth without work, and you’re class-jealous, a hater of rich people, an underminer of capitalism. Murmur that worship might require sacrifice, and you are suddenly an enemy of religion.

Simplistic thinking seems incapable of embracing the idea of BALANCE, which was Gandhi’s central point. He wasn’t calling for work without wealth or humanity without science, he was calling for work AND wealth. Science AND humanity. Commerce AND morality. Pleasure AND conscience.

Listen to our public debates about health care, crime, taxation, regulation. You will hear the Gandhian blunders. There’s no point in taking sides in these debates. There’s only an opportunity to point out that balance, discovered through love, is what we should be seeking — and what we will always have to be seeking.

As many have observed, the global order that is emerging has a distinct Asian tilt because of the rise of China and India as geopolitical forces. The two countries’ growing power may stimulate an “Eastphalian” order that challenges the Western-led approaches that dominated the Age of Imperialism, the Cold War and the post-Cold War period.

The term “Eastphalian” plays off the description of the international system as “Westphalian,” a moniker traced back to the Peace of Westphalia in 1648 that established the modern state system. Through Western imperialism, populations in the Americas, Africa and Asia were incorporated into the Westphalian system, a brutal process that labeled non-European societies as “uncivilized” as long as they had societies that did not resemble what prevailed in Europe and North America.

The idea of “Eastphalia” communicates that conditions have emerged in which Asian countries have a say in world affairs not dictated by, or subordinated to, Western ideas and interests. Hints of an Asian perspective emerged in the immediate post-Cold War years in the “Asian values” debate. Even though this debate faded, the growth in the power and importance of China, India and Asia as a region draws attention to how Asian countries would use their power to influence global affairs.

The power of India and China in international relations is increasingly palpable, as demonstrated at the World Trade Organization in climate change negotiations, in controversies about humanitarian intervention and in responses to security threats such as North Korea, Pakistan and the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

Asia’s rise creates worries for some in the West, particularly in the U.S., over intensified competition for power and influence. But Asia’s prominence also creates competition in the world of ideas–the norms and principles that should guide global governance in the 21st century.

Ideas for world politics are something the West had in abundance, as revealed by the post-Cold War, U.S.-led agenda of promoting democracy, protecting civil and political rights, pushing free market economics and expanding the rationales for using military force (e.g., humanitarian intervention, self-defense in response to terrorist attacks and pre-emptive self-defense against WMD threats).

At present, the normative content of an Eastphalian perspective appears underdeveloped. In the post-Cold War period, from Asia has come emphasis on the principles of sovereignty and non-intervention in the domestic affairs of states. These principles oppose broad notions of the right to use force in self-defense, favor pluralism in political and economic regimes and reject the homogenizing zeal of democracy promotion; prioritizing civil and political rights; and advancing the “Washington consensus.”

Stressing sovereignty and non-intervention is, however, largely defensive, reactive and negative in nature, more befitting poor, vulnerable countries emerging from imperialism than rising great powers with global interests and influence. China and India’s support for alternative frameworks during the Cold War, such as the Non-Aligned Movement and the New International Economic Order, provide no basis on which to ground an Eastphalian perspective in the early 21st century.

If Western leadership is declining, more is required of India and China than nationalistic policies to increase material power. What, in addition to this power, will China and India bring to the new global order? How India and China answer this question will determine whether Eastphalia represents warmed-over bits of the Westphalian system, or emerges as a distinct vision that serves the interests and values of people globally.

Obama was born (August 4, 1961) at a time when African Americans were still battling segregationist policies in the South and his dramatic rise could help the United States bury its long history of racial tensions. Raucous street celebrations erupted across the country.

Barack Obama rode a wave of voter discontent to a historic White House victory on Tuesday, promising change as the first Black US President but constrained by a deep economic crisis and two lingering wars.

Barack Obama is a graduate of Columbia University and Harvard Law School, where he was the first African American to serve as president of the Harvard Law Review. Obama worked as a community organizer and practiced as a civil rights attorney before serving three terms in the Illinois Senate from 1997 to 2004. He taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School from 1992 to 2004. Following an unsuccessful bid for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives in 2000, he announced his campaign for the U.S. Senate in January 2003. After a primary victory in March 2004, Obama delivered the keynote address at the Democratic National Convention in July 2004. He was elected to the Senate in November 2004 with 70 percent of the vote.

As a member of the Democratic minority in the 109th Congress, he helped create legislation to control conventional weapons and to promote greater public accountability in the use of federal funds. He also made official trips to Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. During the 110th Congress, he helped create legislation regarding lobbying and electoral fraud, climate change, nuclear terrorism, and care for returned U.S. military personnel.

Obama was an early opponent of the Bush administration’s policies on Iraq. On October 2, 2002, the day President George W. Bush and Congress agreed on the joint resolution authorizing the Iraq War, Obama addressed the first high-profile Chicago anti-Iraq War rally in Federal Plaza, speaking out against the war On March 16, 2003, the day President Bush issued his 48-hour ultimatum to Saddam Hussein to leave Iraq before the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Obama addressed the largest Chicago anti-Iraq War rally to date in Daley Plaza and told the crowd that “it’s not too late” to stop the war.

Obama stated that if elected he would enact budget cuts in the range of tens of billions of dollars, stop investing in “unproven” missile defense systems, not “weaponize” space, “slow development of Future Combat Systems,” and work towards eliminating all nuclear weapons. Obama favors ending development of new nuclear weapons, reducing the current U.S. nuclear stockpile, enacting a global ban on production of fissile material, and seeking negotiations with Russia in order to take ICBMs off high alert status.

In November 2006, Obama called for a “phased redeployment of U.S. troops from Iraq” and an opening of diplomatic dialogue with Syria and Iran. In a March 2007 speech to AIPAC, a pro-Israel lobby, he said that the primary way to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons is through talks and diplomacy, although he did not rule out military action. Obama has indicated that he would engage in “direct presidential diplomacy” with Iran without preconditions. Detailing his strategy for fighting global terrorism in August 2007, Obama said “it was a terrible mistake to fail to act” against a 2005 meeting of al-Qaeda leaders that U.S. intelligence had confirmed to be taking place in Pakistan’s Federally Administered Tribal Areas. He said that as president he would not miss a similar opportunity, even without the support of the Pakistani government.

In a December 2005, Washington Post opinion column, and at the Save Darfur rally in April 2006, Obama called for more assertive action to oppose genocide in the Darfur region of Sudan. He has divested $180,000 in personal holdings of Sudan-related stock, and has urged divestment from companies doing business in Iran. In the July–August 2007 issue of Foreign Affairs, Obama called for an outward looking post-Iraq War foreign policy and the renewal of American military, diplomatic, and moral leadership in the world. Saying “we can neither retreat from the world nor try to bully it into submission,” he called on Americans to “lead the world, by deed and by example.”

In economic affairs, in April 2005, he defended the New Deal social welfare policies of Franklin D. Roosevelt and opposed Republican proposals to establish private accounts for Social Security. In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, Obama spoke out against government indifference to growing economic class divisions, calling on both political parties to take action to restore the social safety net for the poor. Shortly before announcing his presidential campaign, Obama said he supports universal healthcare in the United States. Obama proposes to reward teachers for performance from traditional merit pay systems, assuring unions that changes would be pursued through the collective bargaining process.

In September 2007, he blamed special interests for distorting the U.S. tax code. His plan would eliminate taxes for senior citizens with incomes of less than $50,000 a year, repeal income tax cuts for those making over $250,000 as well as the capital gains and dividends tax cut, close corporate tax loopholes, lift the income cap on Social Security taxes, restrict offshore tax havens, and simplify filing of income tax returns by pre-filling wage and bank information already collected by the IRS. Announcing his presidential campaign’s energy plan in October 2007, Obama proposed a cap and trade auction system to restrict carbon emissions and a ten year program of investments in new energy sources to reduce U.S. dependence on imported oil. Obama proposed that all pollution credits must be auctioned, with no grandfathering of credits for oil and gas companies, and the spending of the revenue obtained on energy development and economic transition costs.

A new study by UCLA neuroscientist Gary Small says that technology change our brains. And according to Small’s new book, “iBRAIN: Surviving the Technological Alteration of the Modern Mind,” he writes. “As the brain evolves and shifts its focus towards new technological skills, it drifts away from fundamental social skills.”

The more time you devote to a specific activity, the stronger the neural pathways responsible for executing that activity become. So it makes sense that people who process a constant stream of digital information would have more neurons dedicated to filtering that information.

To see how the Internet might be rewiring us, Small and colleagues monitored the brains of 24 adults as they performed a simulated Web search, and again as they read a page of text. During the Web search, those who reported using the Internet regularly in their everyday lives showed twice as much signaling in brain regions responsible for decision-making and complex reasoning, compared with those who had limited Internet exposure. The findings, to be published in the American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, suggest that Internet use enhances the brain’s capacity to be stimulated, and that Internet reading activates more brain regions than printed words. The research adds to previous studies that have shown that the tech-savvy among us possess greater working memory (meaning they can store and retrieve more bits of information in the short term), are more adept at perceptual learning (that is, adjusting their perception of the world in response to changing information), and have better motor skills.

Small says these differences are likely to be even more profound across generations, because younger people are exposed to more technology from an earlier age than older people. He refers to this as the brain gap. On one side, what he calls digital natives—those who have never known a world without e-mail and text messaging—use their superior cognitive abilities to make snap decisions and juggle multiple sources of sensory input. On the other side, digital immigrants—those who witnessed the advent of modern technology long after their brains had been hardwired—are better at reading facial expressions than they are at navigating cyberspace. “The typical immigrant’s brain was trained in completely different ways of socializing and learning, taking things step-by-step and addressing one task at a time,” he says. “Immigrants learn more methodically and tend to execute tasks more precisely.”

But whether natural selection will favor one skill set over the other remains to be seen. For starters, there’s no reason to believe the two behaviors are mutually exclusive. In fact, a 2005 Kaiser study found that young people who spent the most time engaged with high-technology also spent the most time interacting face-to-face, with friends and family. And as Small himself points out, digital natives and digital immigrants can direct their own neural circuitry—reaping the cognitive benefits of modern technology while preserving traditional social skills—simply by making time for both.

In the meantime, modern technology, and the skills it fosters, is evolving even faster than we are. There’s no telling whether future iterations of computer games, online communities and the like will require more or less of the traditional social skills and learning strategies that we’ve spent so many eons cultivating. “Too many people write about this as if kids are in one country and adults are in another,” says James Gee, a linguistics professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. What the future brain will look like is still anybody’s guess.

But before you read any further, I would like to add a word or two about myself. If you think I am writing this to propagate Hinduism, no I am not. In fact, I do not belong or rather do not want myself to be associated to any religion or sect or whatever. And I do not follow any ‘God’ for that matter. I am a proud atheist and what you will be reading now are some interesting observations that I came across. And it has nothing to do with religion. Now. Read further.

Darwin’s Theory of Evolution

The Theory of Evolution was originally introduced by the early thinkers and it was further emphasized by Darwin when he first produced his book called the “Origin of Species” in 1859. Later on some more people added their theories to the evolution theory of mankind.

General concept of the evolution theory says that about three and a half billion years ago microorganisms like bacteria originated and took the shape of amoeba (microscopic unicellular protozoa), and from that all the plants, trees, worms and animals were evolved. Mammals, birds, fish and reptiles were all evolved from aquatic worms about 600 million years ago.

The theorists use certain terms to express their process of evolution, like: natural selection, adaptation, recombination (of genes), genetic drift and mutation.

According to this theory, from the invertebrates came the fishes. From the fishes the Amphibians and from the Amphibians the Reptiles. The Reptiles in turn gave rise to two separate classes the Aves (or the birds) and the Mammals. And of course in mammals the final step in evolution was Man.

This theory was based on the principle of the survival of the fittest. So by those Amphibians had greater chances of survival than the Fishes, Reptiles had greater chances over the Amphibians and finally Man had the best chances of survival among all the beings.

So what are the similarities that we are talking about?

In the study of the manifestations of Lord Vishnu, better known as the Dasha (means Ten) Avatars, we find that the theory of evolution has been explained in a very subtle manner. They are

1. As we are given to believe, life first started in the great oceans and the first entry was made as The Fish (Macha-avatara).

2. There was then a progression and life that was in the oceans evolved and started moving towards land. This had to happen as the oceans that covered the entire face of earth slowly started to recede. Now came a life sustaining not only in water but also progressed to land to some extent. This is called the Koorma-avatara or a Terrapin (tortoise)

3. This gradual moment towards the land masses had to continue, while at the same time retaining the original support of water. And what we had at this stage was an animal in swamp and slush - a Boar or the Varaha-avatara.

The evolution of man is depicted in discrete steps. The first man was short, and then he evolved into something like the Stone Age man and then reached perfection. As the saying goes, “everything that rises has to fall back to the Earth” and so does Man too.

4. The progression led to a half-human half-animal which is called the Narasimha-avatara. The Narashima avatara, is seen as a half lion half human figure and this just denotes that stage in evolution where man was more ‘animal’. One may note here that there is general acceptance that man evolved from Chimpanzees.

5. Evolution, the path of progress took the half human to full human shape. The next avatar was that of a Dwarf (Vamana).

6. It is natural that Dwarf will progress to a full human… But with a wavering mind, uncontrollable, and acting without reasons - man with more ‘animal’ in him. Some one like a Stone Age man. This avatar was called Parasurama.

7. Slowly the man became perfect. A man who was in full control of his senses, dutiful, responsible, so on. He was Rama.

8. And then the perfect human form evolved with cleverness and ability to think and win. A person of intelligence, wits, taking decisions to suit the situation. He was Krishna. Ready to fight. Ready to mediate, and ready to love and ready to be loved. This avatar is more like the man of today.

9. Tranquility, submission, passion for peace is the next step from achieving everything. He was Buddha.

10. The cycle has to end, so that it can start again. Kalki, they say will come to destroy the world. So that evolution can take place again.

So are these similarities just a coincidence?

What one must know here is that, there is always a thought behind a thought. This might be called the Sponsoring Thought. So therefore, if you beg and plead, there seems much smaller chance that you will experience or get as a result of your (or what you think as) prayer. The real problem here is, the Sponsoring Thought behind every plea of yours says that, you do not (now) have what you wish. And that Sponsoring Thought becomes a reality. This simply means you do not get what you want or in your words, your prayers go unanswered.

But there is one Sponsoring Thought that could override this – the thought that God will grant whatever is asked without fail. But how many people have such faith. Very few.

This is how people ending up doing all sorts of things - from sacrifice to fasting to just about everthing. All this done in the name of god. (Article not complete)