by the meltingpot: Choosing information over propaganda and its price.

Now Reading!

Indeed, what is at work in the recent return of realism is the revenge of geography in the most old-fashioned sense. In the 18th and 19th centuries, before the arrival of political science as an academic specialty, geography was an honored, if not always formalized, discipline in which politics, culture, and economics were often conceived of in reference to the relief map. Thus, in the Victorian and Edwardian eras, mountains and the men who grow out of them were the first order of reality; ideas, however uplifting, were only the second.
And yet, to embrace geography is not to accept it as an implacable force against which humankind is powerless. Rather, it serves to qualify human freedom and choice with a modest acceptance of fate. This is all the more important today, because rather than eliminating the relevance of geography, globalization is reinforcing it. Mass communications and economic integration are weakening many states, exposing a Hobbesian world of small, fractious regions. Within them, local, ethnic, and religious sources of identity are reasserting themselves, and because they are anchored to specific terrains, they are best explained by reference to geography. Like the faults that determine earthquakes, the political future will be defined by conflict and instability with a similar geographic logic. The upheaval spawned by the ongoing economic crisis is increasing the relevance of geography even further, by weakening social orders and other creations of humankind, leaving the natural frontiers of the globe as the only restraint.
So we, too, need to return to the map, and particularly to what I call the “shatter zones” of Eurasia. We need to reclaim those thinkers who knew the landscape best. And we need to update their theories for the revenge of geography in our time.
Here is the link for the whole write up.

Now at 2nd place

My view is that relations between countries in the coming decades are most likely to reflect their cultural commitments, their cultural ties and antagonism with other countries rather than other factors. Quite obviously, power will continue to play a central role in global politics, as it always does. But usually there is something else behind conflicts. In the 18th century in Europe, the issues to a large extent involved questions of monarchy versus the emerging republican movements, first in America and then in France. In the 19th century, it involved states identifying themselves through nationalism. In the 20th century, ideology came to the fore, largely, but not exclusively, as a result of the Russian Revolution. We had fascism, communism and liberal democracy competing with each other. Well, that’s pretty much over. Liberal democracy has come to be accepted, in theory at least, around the world, if not always in practice. So the question really is what will be the central focus of global politics in the coming decades? My argument remains that cultural identities, antagonisms and affiliations will not only play a role, but play a major role in relations between states. The full interview is here.

This is the 3rd

Every citizen in the City of Richardson will be able to access 756 Kbps of internet connectivity for free, from anywhere in the city. They will be able to access the internet from their homes, schools, restaurants and parks using standard wi-fi connections which are now installed on almost every notebook computer. That is almost as fast as many so-called high speed broadband connections that one pays dearly for today, and several times faster than the various hotspots at your local coffee shops. And I should note that the tax-payers of the City of Richardson are not paying one penny for this, and in fact are going to see additional revenues as a benefit. ... At the beginning of this letter, I suggested that this would be one of the fastest worldwide rollouts of a technology ever seen. It was just 20 years ago that the first cellular systems were being built. The rollout for mesh wireless systems is going to make that look slow. There are several reasons I make this assertion. But they all center on the facts that installing mesh systems will be cheaper and easier than any previous system and the economics in both the developed and especially the developing world will be so radically compelling. Throw in the fact the any astute politician will want to be at the front of this parade (They will all want to say, "I was the man who helped bring free internet to everyone!") and the groundwork is laid for rapid deployment. In Richardson and elsewhere, MeshLinx is offering the basic infrastructure for free. This avoids all the time consuming, political budget battles in the cities. When a service is offered for free, much of the mandated competitive process is eliminated. Next is the low cost of installation of the system. As noted above, Richardson is a city of roughly 100,000 people living in 27.4 square miles. It will "only" cost about $2,000,000 today to lay the wireless blanket I mentioned above. It will cost a great deal less in the future, as MeshLinx is building the pods at a pace of 100 a month today. The maximum output of the US pilot assembly line is 500 a month. When the demand exceeds this (and it will in a very short time) discussions have been held to move volume production to China. Of course, the world will need tens of millions of pods. The cost for a pod will be a fraction of today's cost, with that installation number for a city like Richardson soon being half (or less) the cost of today. What does that $1 or 2 million get you? The infrastructure to be an internet connection, telephone, security, entertainment provider and a whole lot more company. As noted, it will get cheaper as the number of pods being made each month rises, thus lowering their costs dramatically. This technology does have scale. The cost of physically putting up a pod is not a large part of the equation, as you simply need to run a power line, attach a few bolts to a mount on the side of a building or light pole and then off to the next point. Think about the 40,000 homes and businesses in Richardson. If and (hopefully) over time when 10% decide to pay $50 a month for 10-20 Mbps high speed internet access you could see a revenue of $2.5 million a year just from internet access. Now add in all the other income possibilities (phone, entertainment, security and don't forget advertising revenue on the free service!). Think about your town or country. What would service like this be worth? If you are a small city that does not have high speed connections available, how many businesses that could bring jobs do not come your way because they need reliable communications for their work and their employees? If you are in a developing country, where internet access is difficult and expensive, it will open whole new vistas. Couple that with the various programs which want to give cheap laptops to kids in poor countries, and you could see significant social progress in a generation. Here is the link.

Monday, February 16, 2015

Choosing information over propaganda and its price.

Once during my college days,I tried to read a Puya.I could not even understand the first word.Even then I came to realize it's a specialist's job to read Puyas.But,like most people,the Puyas are still really intrigueing.

After posting my next to last post(which talked of three-way fight in present day Manipur),a thought has been keeping on nagging me.Is this three-way fight what the Puyas talk of as 'po ahum chainani'? I even don't know if it's an extract from a Puya but the general blelief is it is.

Even if it's all made up in my minds,this morning's headlines nonetheless tell us that one group of the three-way fight would be the 'constitutionalist'.

Much more intriguing than the fancyful links to the Puyas is the sudden realization that the likes of the person not less the super powerful,Mr Barack Obama, throws their weights behind the 'constitutuionalist'.

Barack Obama? Seriously?

Let the series of events of the past week answer it for themselves.

It turned out that Mr Barack Obama phoned his Chinese counterpart just when the clash between the Burmese soldiers and the rebels was raging near the border with China.The phone call indirectly told the Chinese president what the Americans (together with the Indians) could pulls of nasty things at their borders.Still not convinced that the particular Obama phone call is not just a simple one,loaded with indirect meaning?Then we have to remember how the Pakistan Prime Minister suddenly developed this irresistible desire to make a phone call to Mr Barack Obama.To make things even more interesting,this mysterious desire of the Pakistan prime minister began tormenting him with 48 hours of the Obama's call to the Chinese president!But it's only starting to get interesting!!For one thing,what the Pakistan prime minister told Mr Obama during the most interesting(even historic!) phone call?Get ready the answer--Mr Nawaz Sharif actually told the American president that he opposed the elevation of India to the security council of the UN!

Even if US and India were co-ordinating the rebel attacks on Burmese soldiers,what's the point in dragging in the name of Mr Obama here?

Two dates are the keys.

1)The 9th of Feb 2015.It's the date on which attack on Burmese army started.It's also the day on which the armed wing of the oldest rebel group in Manipur was born some twenty years ago.The attack on the Burmese army on this day meant as an eye for an eye reprisal for Burmese army's attack on the Kachin's stronghold at Laiza.

2)The 13th of Feb 2015.It's the day on which we first heard of the attack of the 9th.It's not an incident that Mr Rajnath Singh,India's home minister was staying the night of the 13th in Imphal.

So,if we read together the above two points,it's clear that US and India are co-ordinating in counterattacks on the oldest rebel group of Manipur.They are openly saying--'We don't have any liking for present uneven competition meted out to all other group by the oldest rebel group--so,we have started attacking the oldest rebel group--in this context,it's imperative that you should come out and co-ordinate with us in attacking this particular rebel group'.

More than the rebel groups themselves,US and India are coordinating in influencing sections of people within the Manipuri society.The timing of the visit of Rajnath Singh bears testimony to the fact the they are throwing their weights behind the 'constitionalist'(Does it mean that they would get their demand of getting a particular law enacted?I don't think so.The 'constitutionalsit' as they are today are still not acceptable to New Delhi.They want much more waterdown version.The coming
months would see New Delhi's attempts to wear down the 'constitutionalist' to their liking).

But one thing is quite certain that our compatriots like Shans,chins etc are getting more than what the 'constitutionalist' of Manipur are demanding.They are virtually independent.But they are still wallowing in the morass of smuggling,gambling and prostitution.They are selling themselves to the rising mass of China's middle class.Why don't they attempt a rise just like the Chinese are doing in front of their own eyes?

We have a similar question here also.Why don't the sophisticates in our society abandon the fine arts of pocketing New Deli's subsidy?Why don't they make a start for creative wealth making?Would the 'constitutionalist' much trumpeted Act would help us in taking the above paths?

So,what prevents us from taking that path?

To my mind,nothing short of 'enlightenment' would prepare us to take to that path.Unlike what the 'constitutionalsit' are thinking 'enlightenment' is not easy.It was shown in Europe that it was blood and tumult all the way.If we go with the 'constitutionlast' scheme of thing 'enlightenment' entail a lot signing on the official looking papers,shaking of hands and then announcing that 'we are all enlightened from this day onwards'.But history shows us that it did not work like that way.

But who would want bloodshed?Why history always demand such a huge dose of blood letting?

These are very profound questions and I'm quite certain that I'm not equal to the task of answering them.But,as the situation in Manipur is hotting up,it's everybody's responsibility to try answer these questions.With my limited knowledge,I'm tryingmy best.(I know it's the queer case of unknown blogger trying to be bit philosophical!)

To my mind.it's everything to do with putting yourself in direct bonding with that of state of being where there is primacy of information.You are trying to make sense of the information being gathered by your senses in real time.You have to act quickly on them.Otherwise,you get killed.So,there is a lot of blood.It's the stark conditions for a duelist.For enlightenment you yourself have to be a duelist fighting a series of battles with the status quo.

Until and unless you pass through that of being you can never bond with the primacy of information with the result that you are likely to be swayed by the petty propaganda flying around you.

But the tragedy here is that unless you are ready to spill your own blood as price of that experience,you can never bond with that state of being--you can never understand what a true information is--you can never let that part inside of you grow up that will enable you to distinguish between information and propaganda--you can never get 'enlightened'.

I'm using the metaphor of an individual self for the purpose of easy reasoning.Even though individual self has other means for attaining 'enlightenment',besides being a duelist,the collective self of a society has had this compulsion of going through the above mentioned state of being.This is hard lesson we learn from history.

Isn't it the sufficient reason why history demand such a huge dose of bloodletting?

by the meltingpot

Now Reading!

Now at 2nd place

This is the 3rd