Saturday, November 23, 2013

Vote padegi Jhadu pe

Delhi elections are on 4th December. You can't imagine how much I want to be there during that time to witness the results of this historic event, (and of course, to cast my vote), but I won't be there due to some stupid reasons.
I wanted to talk to people who didn't want to vote for AAP and convince them otherwise. Since I have trouble talking, I am writing this post and giving it a try.
I'll assume that you believe that both other parties are corrupt, and their intention about the welfare of the people is not good. They talk about various things in tv debates, but when it comes to doing, they do only for themselves. (Which is exactly what anybody should do :D)

Arvind Kejriwal, did his graduation from IIT, then went to become some commissioner in Income tax department. He worked with Mother Teresa, and says that working for others is the best spiritual feeling or something. He (and some others too, probably) made the Delhi's 'privatization of water supply' project stop. (The video below has some mention of it, but details of the project are there in some other kejriwal video) He is considered to be the main guy who brought RTI. He says that it is a necessary but insufficient condition for true democracy. True democracy lies in Swaraj, the decentralization of power and giving parts of it to the people. Let the decisions that can be made at the lowest level, be made at the lowest level. Only then start moving up. He has written a book about Swaraj which, of course, I haven't read.
Watch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exyAS3ABI3I&feature=share
The way he talks gives all signs that he is a bit too honest, and has an extremely high IQ. (IQ has been judged with similar results by other people too, in case you think how I can claim this IQ thing). He is fearless, goes against the most powerful people. When he goes to any public debate, with anybody, any guesses about who wins most arguments?
I do feel he is some sort of control freak (some say dictator), but since the decisions seem to be in my (our) favor, I don't mind. If power is decentralized, and accountability of  of the government is increased, and a strong anti-corruption law is passed, what can he do even if he goes rogue? And seeing the history of this man, who donated his prize money of 22-24 lakhs in the Janlokpal andolan, worked for years and years with poor people, worked for laws like RTI and Janlokpal, just see the passion in him when he talks about all these things, how much else do we need to trust him?
This man is the biggest reason why I, and probably many others, are willing to vote for AAP.

Some people say AAP guys are not experienced, they can't do much. One argument they make in their defence is that it is good that they don't have this experience in corruption and communal-ism and stuff that other parties have. They say that a good minister just needs to have a good intent for the people, so that he can listen to them. They just have to listen to the people and do what they want. How to do, is managed by the bureaucrat layer.
And just see the innovative ideas and strategies they are putting in for their campaign, who can say that they are not capable?

They can become corrupt
They say that they are going to pass some anti-corruption law (Lokayukt) as soon as they go into power (within 15 days, that too in Ram Leela Maidan). Some say it is not possible with their own will, Delhi doesn't have a state status so it can't pass bills like that, or something. In case that happens, then AAP guys can also get corrupt. (It should be the natural tendency after getting power) But if power is given to Mohallas (272 municipal wards, each to be divided into around 10 Mohallas, whose monthly meetings will decide what is to be done in a particular Mohalla), this should again become less relevant.
Qualities: They make their received donations public (and stop taking more after 20 crores, as they announced just after starting their party), their expenditure public, government does its investigations but doesn't find anything wrong, they openly challenge everybody to investigate them, and declare to not contest elections if anything is found wrong, they say we'll leave the seat if anything wrong is found in any of there candidates, their manifesto says that there will be an yearly meeting to leaders with public to make sure that manifestos are actually being implemented, corruption eradication, education, health are at the topmost of their concerns, everybody knows about their concerns on water and electricity, they are also very much willing to affect the Delhi police, even though it is not in state government's control because Delhi is not a state.
They are in favor of promoting new business ventures, so that wealth and employment is generated, they wish to make easier VAT laws so that business can be made easier, they are in support of privatization of electricity
They promise to bring Right to Recall (remove MLA if you don't like him) in case they come to power in central government.
This is all before elections, what after that? They can become corrupt, right?(Ans: Umm.. maybe..) But can they go as far as BJP and Congress have gone!?(Ans: Oh no! not at all!) If Lokayukt comes and power is given to lower levels, would it even be possible? (Ans: No) Assuming Kejriwal himself will not get corrupt, do you think he'll let the ones below to get corrupt? (Ans: No)
Credibility comes with the things that you do, and of course we can't trust anybody in this world, but if a party is to be trusted, which one would it be?

Recent Accusations (which I don't believe are true)
When the sting operations came, they were willing to not fight elections from the seats from where the accused candidates are fighting elections. If you watch their second press conference of 22nd Nov, 2013, Yogendra yadav clearly explains the reasons why they cannot believe the accusations until they receive the unedited footage. And they are not getting the raw footage because the MediaSarkar (maker of the sting videos) is not giving it to them, so I infer that the footage will make it clear that the accused will be proved innocent. Also, it seems that AAP want the things to be investigated within 24 hours, while the powers want that let people be confused until elections are over.
Anna Hazare is not with the AAP, and nobody cares. Looks like the only people who use this argument are the politicians or the workers of congress and bjp. He doesn't believe in party system it seems. But I don't know how can the system that he wants come without first entering into the current political system.
IAC fund used in AAP? Kejriwal had to give his own award money for IAC because they stopped receving donations during Janlokpal movement after five days thinking that enough money has been collected, but it was not enough. This has already been investigated by the government earlier, and accounts came out to be fine.
Foreign funding, I don't mind even if they are taking it, though they are asking for an Indian passport number before taking funds from NRI's, and doing investigations in case any donation is more than 10 lakh (afair).

Vote for BJP because of Narendra Modi, NO! Modi will not become the Chief minister of Delhi!

Why I should not vote for AAP
I do feel that in case I need to bribe somebody in the coming future to get some work done, I might not be able to do that. Some people live a happier life because of their political connections, that would not be possible if AAP comes into power. But still, I think that price would be nothing compared to what we'd would be getting.

Put your vote on Jhadu this time. If you are not voting for them, go die.


Tuesday, October 2, 2012

Is happiness real when shared?


To be happy or to be 'seen' as happy. That is the question. Or is it that we are happy 'only' when seen as happy? and some people mind the lies, and some don't.
http://assets.amuniversal.com/8f9ae4d0250a102d94d7001438c0f03b
The above happens if people don't mind the lies. And that is a common practice as far as I have seen.

Saturday, June 9, 2012

What I believe

When I say dig for reasons, the digging has to end somewhere. Anything which is presented as an argument needs to have a reason. I have to reach some 'premise' which is acceptable  by all (or most). What would be that premise?

I 'believe' what I can sense from my sensory organs. What i can see, hear, touch, smell (that too only if it coincides with what others sense) . And what I feel, what comes from within me. I might feel I like music. I might feel I hate somebody. I might feel I want something. Only these things form the basis of my arguments. (And I (we) argue only for things that I believe or disbelieve.)

(Some people 'feel' God. I found out that the 'feel' God because they 'believe' in God. It should be the other way round!)

And one more thing. Facts based on experimental analysis. If something has happened 90 out of 100 times, it has to be accepted as a fact. If I prayed for 10 days for a different thing everyday, and all 10 wished came true, and any other reason doesn't seem valid, then I would start believing that prayers help.

(And it surely is not a matter of perspective or opinion. Perspective also brings reasons with it. Perspective comes when the premises differ. It is the case where no further argument can be made and neither side wins.)

I ask a simple question. 'Do you want to believe the truth or not?'. I say I 'want' to, and if you say that you are not interested in that and you can believe anything you want, then this argument ends! No further argument can be made. But if you say yes (which everybody i have asked, does), this means that the premise is same. But still our final arguments differ. (say, about the existence of God. We want to believe in truth, and you believe in God. But I don't see any reason to, so I don't believe in God.). This means either one of us has made a mistake in reasoning between the premise and the final argument. To find out that flaw, we argue. Whichever side finds the mistake in its argument has to change its final argument. (though i don't see that happening :P)

I'd like to cite a simple example. Suppose it rains, but we didn't know that clouds strike and stuff and that causes rain. We'll try unlearn some stuff and assume, that before somebody proposed that God of water (jal devta :D) is causing the rain, somebody else proposed that there are aliens outside this planet. They live somewhere else and they are there to 'help' us. They have plenty of water, and they are donating that water to us.
Doesn't this explanation seem fine? Its weird, and stupid, but matches the current arguments.
(we now discard that the God is causing rain, we say that air is moved by the God, which moves clouds, and then rain happens due to collision of clouds.) We have 'aliens', some'body' to take care of us in our times of need. It gives us hope, and we don't mind if it is false hope. So. from now on we'll believe that aliens cause rain. Can you do that? (I have been hearing that unlearning is a bigger problem than learning. Now I think that's true.)
Fire was God before we knew about friction. Why? It helps us in making food, and it scares us because it burns us. Every such thing had been a God. But now that we know of friction, we call ourselves 'non-superstitious' and this boils down to 'god is one', and fire is not one of them.You are still superstitious. (as if you care :D)

Either some  people have decided what is good for us to believe and have passed on those things to us, or some people wanted to control other people (as says ayn rand in the fountainhead), that's why they made us believe the stuff they wanted us to believe.
I don't think we want anybody else to decide what's good for us, neither do we want anybody to control us. So, why believe?

Tuesday, May 22, 2012

Abortion. what's the problem?

(If somebody considers abortion as 'killing' somebody, then the following lines are invalid.)

Somebody wants a boy, but there is a girl inside her womb. Why to bring her into the world when he (they) doesn't want it! Parents make children for themselves. Not for the sake of balancing the number of girls and boys in the world. Social service karne thode na nikle hain.

I watched Bol. The protagonist says 'paal nahi sakte to paida kyun karte ho'. She is so right! Don't give birth to girls if you don't want them. Yours and the girl's lives might be doomed.

Killing children before they are born doesn't seem as a 'bad' thing to me. Whether it be a girl or a boy.

Saturday, May 12, 2012

Farz karo, Khuda hai.

Suppose one day somebody proves that God exists. There is something or somebody which is running the world and to whom we can pray and who/which can listen. Would that prove that you (you= theists) were correct in the first place? Would it be right for you to say ' i told you so' ? No it won't be!

What I am saying now is that since we have not proved that existence of God, so I won't believe in it. What you (theists) say is that God exists. You argue, you lose the argument (or start bringing up absurd arguments) but don't stop believing, which you should. Beliefs are always based on logic. We can't believe what we 'want' to believe. (Unless you are disinterested in truth).

But if tomorrow we found out that God exists, and then you start to think that you were so right and I was wrong, I would still call you a moron (harsh word, replace with a softer one. I have a bad vocab).

Suppose, once there were two sets of people. One who believed that earth is round, the other who believed that earth is flat. Just like that, No reasons. Both sets are idiots. But when some guy travels across the ocean, he comes to know that earth is round. Does that mean the first set of people was right?

I am saying all this because I have heard people telling me, that one day you will realize that God exists, and then you will regret saying all this. I am just clarifying beforehand.