Alternate Dreams

***********************************************************

Alternate Dreams

“A race not free to dream has lost its’ future before its’ present!!”

As an eternal optimist, I am habitual of counting seven rainbows when there is none, on a moonless night. No surprises what irks me the most happens to be the spate of alternate and realistic endings that have become a staple of every movie industry, or is about to. Why this obsession with negativity?

Ok! Why this obsession with criticizing, some of you might ask. The rude ones’ might even go the whole nine yards and try to pull out my beard even before my hair has popped out of the follicles. What issue do I have with dreams and what the heck has it got to do with how a movie ends?

Well, let me put it after I have put this;

“Alternate and Realistic endings irreparably damage the moral fabric of the society and poison its’ psychological health!!”

Now that makes it two halves of one circle!

And here is how I get down and dirty with both, with due protection, off-course!

One of the movies I recently watched was “The Real Steel”, a decent movie, captivating visuals, honest acting and crap ending.

Given the fact that one of three main protagonists of the movie was a child, and the story trudges along from a child’s perspective, who wants his father to redeem himself, the movies falter, ne, flatters to deceive in the end.

Let me put it this way;

“What possible harm would have happened to the whole wide world if the movie had ended with Atom actually knocking the reigning champion out and claiming an outright victory?”

But no, the ending had to be realistic! Atom had to give a close contest yet loose on points, claiming moral victory. Do kids actually understand the concept of moral victories? What happened to the good old fairy tales and godmothers? Is this what we want to teach our kids; that dream big as long as it is within the limits and confines of your real world?

Can our kids not even dream big now?

And it is not just about kids, it’s about grown-ups like you and me!

Each one of us is living a struggle of our own. We all know the travesties of life and the prickly thorns it dishes up every day. Each one of us is fighting our own little battle and there are days when we all are up-beat and days when we are down-browed. At the end of it all, if we spent a few bucks of our hard earned money to go and watch a piece meant to entertain us, we do so to get away from those harsh truths of ours. We want to be taken to a land where dreams are big and achievable. We all know what suffering is and no decent human being wants to see another of his kind suffer what he or she themselves have, or just plainly suffer for any reason. When we go and watch cinema we want to see those who look like ourselves, living lives that may or may not be like ours, struggle to succeed. We want to see them overcome their suffering and achieve their dreams and aspirations because the thought of their contentment gives us a pleasure that alleviates our own sufferings even if momentarily. It gives us peace, even if temporary. Our lives become easier.

What is the point of going and watching a movie with an intention to forget our own travails only to step out with our mind burning with questions that concern someone who doesn’t even exist? When we are already trouble with the question “What will happen of this thing I am in”, why should we be burdened with a red-herring, “What if he or she had done this”? We want to forget our own sorrows or enhance our own happiness. Why should our spirits be dampened by the plight of something fictional as in, “So sad. Shouldn’t have happened like that!”

Have we even lost our freedom to dream happy things? We always knew dreams are only dreams, but they made us happy. Have we lost our rights to be happy even in our dreams?

Are you going to tell your child a story, “Once upon a time, there was a very handsome Prince and a very beautiful Princess. You were their ordinary servant”? Doesn’t this story sound realistic?

Are you going to tell your kid to dream of a rainbow but in black and white because he cannot afford to buy his own color television out of his pocket money?

Such realistic endings are akin to a Master Chef from a grand hotel serving you with the biggest and the best cake you have ever seen, on your very own birthday, covered with the sweetest icing, and the reddest cherry on top. And then the Chef brings out a live turkey and makes it poop on top of your cherry since the cake is complimentary from the hotel. Now isn’t it realistic? You are getting it for free! Just toss the cherry away!

Compromising with reality generally means giving up your ambitions, desires and dreams. You are inadvertently accepting defeat and giving up your fight for a better future. You are losing your future in present. Such realistic endings are slowly weakening the inner strength and will of individuals to fight as they are becoming more and more susceptible to the notion, “That’s fine! It happens like this only!” Such realistic endings are harmful for the future of human society as they slowly and slowly weaken the psychological strength of humans who day by day become more accustomed to ordinary people losing out on their dreams just because real life is harsh.

Such realistic endings are killing our dreams.

If you can’t even succeed in your dreams, how will you succeed in your real life?

Movies are an escape from real life as they tell stories of unreal people. If we can’t even dream of imaginary people wining their battles, how do we expect to win our own battles?

So do I make the first statement clear?

Now coming to the second statement, let’s take the example of a movie that came out a few summers back, “500 days of summer”; average movie with a pathetic ending and nothing to write home about, except that it had an alternate ending. Infact it was the ending which made the movie pathetic.

Tell me which one of us or our friends haven’t fallen in love with a complete looser and characterless of a person in our lives, only to realize our mistake later (Irrespective of the fact the relation consummated or not)? Which one of us doesn’t know there are chicks who are bad and boys who are no different either? Which one of us doesn’t know of users, publicity mongers, controversy seekers and cheap-stakes?

Now what difference would it have made if the movie had ended with the girl finally accepting her mistake and returning to the guy? We don’t need a movie to tell us, “That’s fine! It happens!” We already know that! For GOD sake we all live in the real world. But instead what the movie does is it justifies the actions of the girl in a way. It makes a statement that it is alright to play with one man, sleep with another and then marry another. It makes it alright to forget about one relationship and go for another without improving yourself or trying to figure out what went wrong.

Look at our society today. How many relationships, including marriages are lasting today? Why did they last in case of our parents and grand-parents generations?

Well, the simple answer is, during the times of our parents and grand-parents, if something used to go wrong in someone’s relationship, everybody including friends and families from both sides used to get involved with advice derived from personal experiences and they used to help the couple thaw out the offending straws in the roof of the relationship before the leak deteriorated into a collapse. But what happens now days?

The moment a relationship gets in trouble friends from either side start interfering to aggravate the situation, telling both sides that the best alternative is to get out of the relationship and finding someone new who is better. Infact I sometimes wonder if people actually enjoy the sight of the collapse of someone else’s relationship, as if they actually want it to collapse and their sympathies with either side are only a show-off. I don’t think they even seriously try to provide a sound advice that might help spot what went wrong from either side, leave alone the sound advice to fix what everybody actually knows has gone wrong.

Now add to this mix stories like the one of the movie mentioned above. What do such movies promote if not promiscuity, infidelity (“Up in the Air”), loose sexual behavior etc. Are such movies promoting the interests of the society? Are they developing or inculcating right moral values among the younger generation? Are they teaching the kids of the society they are feeding on as to how to effectively manage their relationships and be a better partner?

So do I make my second statement clear as well?

Fatal Urge Carefree Kiss,

Amanpreet Singh Rai

***********************************************************

Why this gag-social-network madness?

***********************************************************

Why this Gag-Social-Network madness?

“Media is a mistress to politicians and businessmen!!”

From NDAA to SOPA, and very recently Twitter agreeing to selectively sensor tweets for selected regions, I’ve been carefully monitoring the current socio-politico-online scene. For a man with a radically different approach to what he perceives around self, no wonder I am not surprised as I can clearly see a method behind all this madness, a method so sinister that it should send a chill down every ordinary person’s spine.

Coming out of a recession, while the whole world grapples with the economy, I have been the lonely man waging a losing battle to save ordinary people’s interests. This write-up is another such act although honestly this world has done nothing for me to deserve such largesse from me. But I can’t run away from my responsibility.

Before I explain my statement in italics, before I touch the topic of “Occupy Movements” and how they are linked to the current scenario, it is very important to touch on the “War on terror” as that war is one of the reasons behind this current scenario, in a way you can’t even imagine. Besides, I want justice for those who died in 911 as their real killers are still at large, hale and hearty and living lavishly in “USA”. Just wait for a couple of days and I am going to make a youtube video and explain very clearly in it, how a handful of dirty rotten Politicians and businessmen knowingly enacted a tragedy that brutally murdered innocent Americans.

With 1 million Iraqis and over tens thousands of Afghanis dead, if the Americans still not open their eyes to the truth and how it is shouting hoarse at the top of its’ voice, calling for justice, if Americans still won’t get justice for their own who were killed, it will be the saddest day in human history. A crime committed so openly, so shamelessly, will become “The perfect crime of modern era”.

Those innocents were brutally murdered so the Politicians and their businessmen pals get a legitimate reason to use “Tax-payers” money to wage a war, a war whose sole intention was to protect oil interests of a few businessmen. Ask President Obama to tell the Americans how much money was being spent on the war in Iraq and Afghanistan everyday at its’ peak and how much money was being put in for development. Ask President Obama how much money has actually been spent on the war so far and what percentage of national debt does it make.

Now ask yourself, “If I was in America, how easy would it be for the same bunch of Politicians and businessmen to shut me up using NDAA?”

Yep! You got my point. NDAA and acts like failed SOPA (as explained below) are meant to curb the voices calling for justice, voices that call for change, to save the interests of the same very rotten politicians and businessmen.

Now if you have read all my write-ups, you will know how I have been trying to explain to the whole world how blind Capitalism is ruining it for the ordinary people who are becoming more of slaves than free citizens. What happened to the American dream? How many Americans can start an own small business today and hope to succeed?

All the manufacturing jobs that President Obama is trying to bring back to America is a good step in the right direction, but a lot more needs to be done. What needs to be done is to level the playing field in small business where big corporate chains are fast taking over everything (I’ve explained this in detail elsewhere).

But that said and done, the whole world knows Americans lost a huge chunk of employment opportunities due to out-sourcing, now ask yourselves, “Now that we know it ruined ordinary American families, how many American businessmen have actually brought those jobs back?”

Now let me take up the issue of “Occupy movement” too as it is equally important in this discussion.

With all due respect to those who put in a valiant effort, time and energy in various “Occupy Movements”, what are the results to show today? Do you think “Occupy Movements” were really meant to bring out any results? Ask those who participated in the movements, “What was the aim of the movement and what were the short term and long term objectives?”

The way I look at “Occupy Movement” is, after all the hoopla and shenanigans, the Americans still don’t have even one man to show as a true leader capable of being their President and working for them and in their best interests. All I see is Americans still stuck to either voting for the current incumbent President Mr Barack Obama or one of his Republican counterparts. What the heck was the point of wasting so much time and energy in a fruitless exercise?

Scratching your head looking for answers? Don’t worry! I am here to settle your curiosity. The so called movements for 99% were actually and clandestinely sponsored by the 1% for three objectives:

1. Post recession, how much disenchantment is there in the hearts of American people?

2. Provide the disgruntled public a platform to vent out all their frustration so that they can go back to their daily lives and take care of their families once again, thus securing the future of that 1%.

3. To check whether an “Arab Spring” was possible in America using social networking. Guess what they found. And now imagine all that SOPA could do and what the current statement by twitter means (I’ll explain this bit below).

And just to clarify all the misunderstandings those 99% had, “Mate you are not 99% but just 60%”. There are 30% who have better jobs and really good lives. They don’t feel the need to leave their comfort zones and go for a change. They don’t need change! And the remaining 10% are either ruling the rest of 90% or are friends, promoters, well wishers or partners of those who are ruling.

Even among the 60% of you, half are so poor, they can barely think about anything else but making sure they have a meal to feed their family at the end of the day. They don’t have time for a change. Tell them whom to vote and they will vote. But the question as I asked is, “Have you got even one man you can project as your candidate?”

Now having explained all this let me come to the crux of the matter.

NDAA was passed by the Republican regime under the pretext of protecting American interests, but was that the real intention? Even if there was one honest man who could bring about a change in America, this act gives the ruling politicians vast powers to shut him up even before anyone listens to what that person is saying. However let me mention here, any part of this or any other act passed by the US parliament, which is in contravention to “Bill of Rights” or any other provision of the US constitution, that act or its’ part in error is invalid and illegal. However, the intentions of those proposing such legislation, leave alone making it a law, are evidently clear.

Same is the case with SOPA. It creates an opportunity to run down any semblance of public action even before it is envisaged.

I made a very telling statement about media at the top of the page not without a reason. Media does not work for ordinary people anymore. Take the example of the media Mogul Rupert Murdoch and his media empire. Do you still believe media works for ordinary people? Media is only used to guide public opinion in a direction desirable to the ruling regime. Post 911 media was used to support war on terror by indirectly promoting news items that promoted hatred. In case of India and Pakistan, every time the political leadership of the two countries wants to start a dialogue the media is suddenly flush with positive news from across the border. And then when the politicians decide they want to promote intolerance towards the neighbor, the media is flush with news items detailing acts of hatred. Media no longer works for public good.

The only hope ordinary people have in such a scenario is social networking sites. Politicians can control the media but can they control public outcry? Movements like “Arab Spring”, “Occupy Movement” and “Anna Hazare’s campaign” (which I’ve explained elsewhere, doesn’t impress me), these were possible because people were able to express themselves openly amongst each other, share their beliefs and could co-ordinate action. Imagine what would happen if the social networking sites are gagged as well. They are the only hope ordinary people have today. They are all that’s left.

And considering all that I have written so far, not surprising it was a Republican who introduced SOPA and those who supported SOPA were organizations benefiting only a certain section which generally has close connections with politicians.

Now coming to the latest act in which Twitter has accepted that it can selectively sensor tweets according to region, this takes the game to a whole new level. Now even social networking sites will become untrustworthy as they will actively promote content that promotes the interest of the politicians and businessmen, while the content which acts against it will be actively snubbed and pushed away and out of public view. Now to think of it, it is the ordinary people who made these social networking sites what they are today, and their owners, all multi-millionaires. This is how they repay us!

By the way, as far as twitter is concerned, personally I never trusted that website anyway. I just use it because you keep your enemies closer. I personally even believe that site is either CIA or FBI operated or under direct Government supervision. If they say today that they can selectively ban tweets in different regions, I highly suspect their role in “Arab Spring”. It means they can actively promote tweets that influence public opinion in a particular direction and can hide from public view what their fathers don’t want people to know. This raises a serious concern about such a site. In fact, who knows the Government is just using twitter to break a deadlock with other networking sites by saying, “Look, even this site is agreeing to our demands, why aren’t you?”

I agree there are instances when people abuse such networking sites and post material that offends a particular section of the society, thus causing unrest. But the solution is not what Twitter is proposing, which is nothing but a sinister way of sabotaging the public welfare for political ends. The right solution will be as follows:

1. At first step all major networking sites like facebook (which already does it in a way by asking for phone number), youtube, twitter, orkut, myspace should make it mandatory for their users to provide proof of their identity and address before they are allowed to create accounts. This will help in the identification and locating of offenders who misuse the web.

2. At second step, if a user has expressed an opinion or posted material which is objectionable, the proper and legal way would be to give that user an opportunity to explain and/or remove the content, and offer unconditional apology or face trial.

3. For simple websites like mine, the owner can be simply made aware of any objectionable content and asked to either remove it or defend it in court.

The basic concept behind “Democracy” is, if you are not happy with the government or governance, you are free to discuss it, share your ideas and if the need be, launch agitations. That is how democracy is supposed to work. Any action or act which curtails such freedom is illegal and cannot be tolerated.

The only reason I see behind the political regimes pushing for acts like NDAA, SOPA or curbing social networking sites is to hinder free speech and democracy. It only means the political regimes or political parties who are supporting such actions don’t have the best interests of the public at heart. Such regimes should not be supported. We elect these regimes, and if they are going to bite our backs, repay us like this, it’s time to change them. But then, who will you change them with?

Fatal Urge Carefree Kiss,

Amanpreet Singh Rai

***********************************************************

Introducing "Chillax"

***********************************************************

Introducing “Chillax”

“Rhythm is what you feel, melody is what you hear; together they make a song!!”

We can break down a song into its’ components in many different ways. We can say a song is made up of singing and music, or lyrics and notes, or melody and accompaniment, and so on so forth. Some purists might skin the hair and go as far as breaking down lyrics into intro, verse, chorus, bridge and a possible outro; and the same bunch of wisest lunatics will break down music into bass line, beat, chords, melody, hooks and riffs. The more you want to embroil yourselves, the more you may please yourselves. But what actually makes up a song?

Irrespective of the fact whether a song contains any singing at all or is it just instrumental, irrespective of its’ genre, like whether Rock, Pop, House, Trance, Hip-Hop, Opera and so on so forth, I personally dissect a song into two basic components; one that is heard and one that is felt. The one that is heard is the pulse of the song, the rhythm it is propagating, it is the vibrations your body feels when you hear that song. The other component is the melody that you actually hear, the music, the sound, the words or lack of them. “Chillax” is just a new way of defining their use in a production.

Yes my dear friends, today I present to you a new genre of music I lovingly christen “Chillax”!!

So a very obvious question now would be, “What is “Chillax” and how is it created?”

Well friends “Chillax” is based on a very simple psychological principle of providing release through internal strife and a process I name as “Shifting stereo field”.

I am sure this definition has confused you even more than explaining anything. But then I haven’t set a definition for “Chillax” as yet. Maybe I am just waiting to figure out better words.

However, even if I cannot provide you a perfect definition of it right now, I can still explain in detail the working principle behind “Chillax” and how it is created.

 How is “Chillax” created?

“Chillax” is created by a careful mixture of two techniques: internal strife and shifting stereo sound.

1. The internal strife within a “Chillax” production is created by creating a simple strife or non-conformity between the two components of a production; the Rhythm and the Melody. The Rhythm, as used in current context, refers to the pulse of the song and includes the sounds of drums (namely Kick), sub-bass and bass line. These are the components whose sound is more predominantly felt than heard (exceptions being some new bass line driven music like Dev and Cataracs’ “G6”, or Dizzee Rascals’ “Dance wiv me” where it is both heard and felt, but then neither of the two is a relaxing number). The melody refers to all other parts which are heard and identified clearly by their distinct musical sounds like hooks, riffs, melodies etc.

In case of “Chillax”, an internal strife is created between the Rhythm and Melody components by intentionally giving one of them a slow movement by using far spread and longer notes, while the other one is given a quicker feel by very short and closely spaced notes. This creates a sensory paradox in the sense that while our body and limbs may feel the pulse of the music to be fast or slow depending upon how the Rhythm has been defined, our brain (via auditory organs) will perceive the melody to be differently paced. This effect is created without altering the tempo in any way and can be created at any tempo. The result is a sound that alleviates stress and gives the listener a relaxed chilled feel, hence the title “Chillax”.

2. “Shifting Stereo Sound” is an effect which makes the listeners believe that the sound source has shifted around in a stereo fashion, from one end towards the other, that is, the sound started on one side and moved around to the other. The simple trick to create this effect is to create a sound in duplicate and then pan the two sounds midway around the opposite ends. However the trick is to delay one sound only by a minute fraction and make sure it is not panned as far away on the other side of the stereo file as the non-delayed sound is. So for example, if a sound is paned at 33 degrees to the left, its’ duplicate copy will have to be delayed by about 1-3 milliseconds and panned about 27 degrees to the left. The levels of the two sounds have to be the same or the delayed sound can be slightly quieter, but never the reverse. This will create an effect when sound will appear to be actually moving from one end of the stereo field to the other, as it will start early (or on time) at one end while its’ counterpart will be slightly slower, and while the first sound will finish, it will still continue by the delayed amount at the other end. This will sound like a shifting stereo field. For best effect, if one sound is shifted from left to right, make sure another one is shifted in revrerse.

 How does Chillax works?

“Chillax” works in two ways, depending upon which component is faster of the two.

1. If the Rhythm of the music is set to slow, the pulse or feel of the music will relax the tension in the body muscles sending them into a relaxed state while the fast melody of the song will excite the brain. The strife between a relaxed body and a hyper active brain will force the energy out of the brain and dissipate it through the body, thus relieving the brain of stress and rejuvenating body muscles with the rush of energy or hormones, thus relieving fatigue.

2. If the Rhythm is fast it will excite the body which would try to respond to the music, but the relaxing effect of a slow melody would calm down a stressed out brain. This internal conflict will force the body to push the excitement into the brain, thus pouring all the bodily energy into the brain, which in turn will act like a balloon put under stress. This would force the excessive energy through the brain, thus relaxing the body muscles and giving the person a feeling of content sleepiness.

While in first case the “Shifting Stereo Field” acts like an excitement module, in the second case the same “Shifting Stereo Field” creates an artificial feeling of a relaxing head massage as the sifting sounds excite one ear and follow it around the head and excite the other ear, after a delay.

So friends, this is the simplest way of defining and presenting “Chillax” to you guys. The concepts mentioned in this article have been used in all the five songs from my debut album “I’m Fine” so far. Hope you are enjoying them.

Fatal Urge Carefree Kiss,

Amanpreet Singh Rai

***********************************************************

Military Junta Of America - Issue and Solution

***********************************************************

Military Junta Of America - Issue and Solution

“If not stopped right away, America will become an un-official military dictatorship.”

Growing up in a democracy and currently living in another, like my fellow Indians, Aussies and Americans I have always regarded Ann Suu Kyi a protagonist of Democracy in the darkest corners. A shining light of unflinching commitment to her brothers and sisters in Myanmar (Burma) would be an apt description. Her struggles with the dictatorial diktats of the ruling regime, the Military Junta of Myanmar are not only well documented and well publicized, but also serve as an inspirational fuel to many others around the globe that are fighting tooth and nail to earn their democratic rights from their current regimes. But what has it got to do with America, the biggest democracy in the world, the epitome of freedom, the example for the rest of the world to follow?

Well, let us just take two things out of the current history of Myanmar for a just comparison for this discussion:

1. The Military Junta of Myanmar was always accused of violating human rights and picking up citizens to curb their voices, both by Ann Suu Kyi and also by the foreign media which always supported her, and very rightly so. The allegations always centred around the facts that the Military Junta used to pick up, detain and even prosecute anyone who raised his or her voice against the regime and/or its’ policies, so much so that the people in Burma actually lost their voice to dissent completely.

2. The current elected regime of Myanmar has been termed as a puppet government by Ann Suu Kyi and the elections were described to be rigged.

Now let us bring our attention back to the US setup and have a look at the new “National Defence Authorization Act 2012” and specifically scrutinize the implications of Section 1031 and Section 1032 contained in it. What is this Section really capable of through the words written in it?

Before that, let me just say a few words about the wording of the article which allows the military to identify anyone including American citizens as enemy combatants and give military Presidential consent to detain such persons indefinitely without a trial or crime. (Perhaps even without saying it, I have already proved how this Section compares to the much condemned actions of Military Junta of Myanmar). Now, if anything, this Section shows two things:

1. Firstly, it shows the self-created fear the strongest nation on this earth lives in today. I was born and brought up in India and have lived nearly 28 years of my life over there. India has suffered the worst form of terrorism for more than three decades now. India is situated next to both Pakistan and Afghanistan, but we still don’t have any act like this in India. This is because neither we are cowards, nor do we go out of our way to destroy other people’s homes. All I can say is, “Rather than being obsessively paranoid of own shadows, it is time to learn to live peacefully with others.” Mending fences that have been damaged by your actions is not only the first step towards salvation but also the first requirement to have a lasting peace.

2. Secondly, it goes to show how the current political setup is keen on protecting the interests of its’ premier businessmen. If the current societal actions like “Occupy Wall Street” are an indication of the simmering public discontent with Government policies and Businessmen apathy, I can only foresee even worse times to come. Such movements are going to become more omnipresent, stronger and badly needed. In such a situation, all I can see is this act being misused to curb such movements by cracking the military whip on those who lead such movements, a la US Ann Suu Kyis’. The reason invariable given would be, “Prevention of terrorist activities”. When there will be no trial, the question of proving innocence won’t even arise. Besides, it will easily be explained in media that the detained person was actively involved in destabilizing American society and has possible links with a foreign agency which are now being investigated.

So to sum it up:

1. The military will get sweeping powers in the form of being legally allowed to detain anyone it claims to be an enemy combatant, under Presidential orders. So just like Military Junta of Myanmar, American politicians will have an easy way to get rid of those who stand in their way or object to and question their decisions, raise their voice against the Government action and everything else you can possibly imagine and then leak in your pants.

2. The civilly elected Government will be just a face of the military authority. It will conduct the country to please the businessmen and the military will take care of those who will raise their voices. So in effect, the Democracy will deteriorate into a Military Dictatorship, its’ just that in case of US such a dictatorship will be to benefit a handful of businessmen and the politicians they support.

People blame Chinese Government of curbing voice of ordinary people and the whole world hails and honours those who raise their voice and suffer in China. That is exactly what I can foresee happening in America.

Yes, that’s right! From where I stand there are only two truths about the future that I can foresee:

1. Americans will only have one freedom; freedom to decide whether they want to work or not. Their choices will be countable on one finger. The reason I will explain below.

2. Americans will only have one right; the right to vote who amongst the available candidates is going to govern them.

Now as to why Americans won’t have a choice as to what work they want to do, let us look at what has happened so far. But before I explain that, let me make a statement:

“Businessmen are like sponges; you put them in an economy and they soak every penny out of it, just like sponge soaks water from a spill or pool.”

Most of America’s wealth is securely locked in the bank accounts of a handful of organizations that own most of the business in the US. The reason US work force is running out of choices for work is, US has reached that peak of development where businessmen will not invest any more money. There are two reasons for it:

1. The small business is already dead or is fast dying whereas big businessmen invest money to start a business only when they know their product will sell. They do so because starting a business means hiring workforce as well. And when you are investing so much in business you want your products to sell too so that the business generates income. Has the majority of American population got money to buy anything more from the market than what it needs? I don’t think American businessmen can set up a business in America and then depend on American consumer to sustain it anymore.

2. American businessmen cannot set up businesses in America to sell products overseas as they won’t be able to compete in prices with competitors from China, Korea, Thailand, India and other third world countries where labour is cheaper. They will have to move over their production houses to those third world countries to cut costs. So all the money that the American Businessmen have collected out of US economy is going to be invested overseas now. But the worst part is, what they have done is the US is exactly what they will do in those third world countries too. Now it is only the US whose money is stashed in those few accounts, then it will be the rest of the world as well.

If this is going to be the case then the sufferings of American people are only going to get worse and social actions like “Occupy Wall Street” are only going to get more frequent. The only escape for the businessmen and their political faces will be the misuse of the authority vested into the US Army via this Section of the “National Defence Authorization Act”. And when Americans won’t be able to stop their businessmen, who else on this earth will be? The boat Americans will find themselves in soon, the whole world will end up there ultimately, what with the same businessmen taking over the other free world economies.

So basically, if Americans don’t act now, we all are at the same risk. That is why we all are in this together.

But to stop this you need to have a social movement, and to safeguard social movements you need protection against such acts like the current “National Defence Authorization Act” with its’ Section 1031. So what is the solution to the problem that we have at our hands right now?

One word answer is, “Constitution”.

“Constitution” is the supreme authority of any nation. It is one instrument that creates the nation in the first place, and then creates the relevant authorities and empowers the same to run the nation efficiently. The Head of a State (President and/or Prime Minister), his council, legal system, Federal Parliament, Subordinate Parliaments, their Heads (Chief Minister/Premier), their councils, everything is either directly created by the “Constitution”, or is provided for a legal birth via its’ wording.

Even the most powerful man in a country, its’ head, The President or Prime Minister, his position as well as the powers conferred on that position, are all a “Constitutional” creation. In fact, the Constitution itself provides for the harshest remedy available in a country, that is the removal of the head via impeachment.

So the bottom line is, the Government cannot pass legislation or approve a section which is contrary to any provisions of the Constitution, even if it intends to empower The President. Such a legislation or its’ section is automatically legally invalid.

Nothing in the Constitution can be construed to imply that the Senate or Council can make a law and the President forced to approve it, which overrides any Constitutional provisions, howsoever such a law might be in the interests of the nation. If that were to be the intention of the Constitution, then there will be nothing stopping in this world for a Government to pass a legislation doing away with the Constitution itself, all in the name of national interest.

The constitution of America expressly provides in the Bill of Rights, a guaranteed Habeas Corpus, and clearly explains what constitutes treason. In such circumstances, no Government can pass a legislation which allows the Government or Military to detain any individual lawfully present on the land, whether a citizen or a resident or a visitor, without providing a due process of law. As long as there is no rebellion, even the President cannot legally authorize such an action. Nothing can be worse than being wronged by the law itself and having no remedy at all. It is not only constitutionally invalid, but it is also contrary to every principle of justice.

Thus Section 1031 is both constitutionally and legally invalid. So all Americans need is an honest lawyer who can do the needful and get the erring Section removed.

Fatal Urge Carefree Kiss,

Amanpreet Singh Rai

 

***********************************************************

Where They Seperate

***********************************************************

Where They Separate

“Capitalism and Communism are worlds apart but separated only by a thin line.”

Most of the people living in Capitalistic society get scared by the mere mention of the phrase, “Government take-over”. The first thing that pops up in their crania is “Communism”, which invariable translates into “Loss of freedom”. Now it is not completely untrue as in Communism you don’t have a choice about what you want to do, when you want to do it and how much you will get for doing whatever you do. But what people don’t realize is, doesn’t matter whether you are living in Capitalism or Communism, 60% of the population generally never has a choice. They have to do what is available to them and they only earn barely enough for their lives. And then another 35% only have better jobs. The only difference between the two forms of society for them is, in Communism you have to work even if you don’t want to.

However, I don’t support Communism, just like I don’t support pure Capitalism. I have my reasons which I have explained in various other write-ups I have done. If you read my write-ups you will know that I support “Equalism” which is Capitalistic to the extent that everyone is free to choose what they want to do, when they want to do and how much they want to get paid. However, you can get paid what you want to for your work but its’ total can only amount to a certain level, which is where it becomes Communistic, although unlike Communism, you can still earn way more than what many others will earn, simply because you are better, more talented, more hardworking or more enterprising then the rest. The Communistic cap on earnings to a Capitalistic set-up will make the society more equal in wealth distribution and opportunities more easily accessible to the majority of the population, which in Communism has no choice, and in Capitalism cannot avail them because they are beyond their reach.

Anyhow, this article is not about Equalism, Capitalism or Communism. It is more about how to differentiate what constitutes Capitalistic decision, what makes the same decision Communistic and what constitutes “Betrayal of national interests”. So let me explain it with a very simple example.

Suppose I want to set up an industrial unit manufacturing steel for car part industry. For this I will need pure Iron. I can buy Iron from an Iron ore processing unit which extracts Iron from mineral ore and then purifies to market it. Now that Iron extraction unit buys mineral ore from a distributor who is in turn supplied by a miner who controls the mining site. Based on this example, Communism, Capitalism and Betrayal of National interests can be differentiated as follows:

 1. Communism:

In Communism, the Steel manufacturing unit, the Car manufacturing units, the Iron ore processing units and the mines, everything is controlled and run by the government. Neither me, nor any other private individual can own any of it. All we will get is jobs in these units and get paid for our work like everybody else, because we all are equal.

 2. Capitalism:

In Capitalism, I have the freedom to own an industrial unit and run it as I please for whatever profit I want to make. I am free to switch over and own a car part manufacturing unit, or an ore processing unit, or own all of them provided I have capital to do so. This is the freedom in Capitalism.

 3. Betrayal of National Interests:

One thing you might have noticed under the above heading of “Capitalism” is that I didn’t mention “Mining site” in it. The reason is, the mineral wealth does not belong to any one individual but belongs to the entire community. There are two types of resources: Renewable (Like Sunlight, wind, rainfall etc) and non-renewable (Like fossil fuels, mineral ores etc). Both of these belong to the entire country or community, and not to one individual. (Do not confuse the issue with Middle East where the Sheikhs are the rulers by default and hence the Government within themselves and hence can claim the resources as theirs without anyone questioning them. But this cannot be the case in a Democracy.) Mineral wealth belongs to the nation and the Government in a democracy is not the owner of that wealth but just a caretaker. The public can change the Government any time via voting in elections. As such, the Government has got no right to sell those mineral sites to private organizations for cheap so that they can dig out the mineral wealth and make many times more money. That is underselling the national wealth for a private organization’s profit, which can be classified as nothing else but betrayal of national interests. More details are in my write-up on the same which can be accessed via the following link:

The Mining Betrayal – Economics Explained

 4. Equalism:

I know I didn’t mention it above that I will be discussing this point as well, but now that I have already gotten down and dirty with it, we may as well go through this muscle flexing exercise. In Equalism, the Government will control the mining sites as it should be doing in Capitalism as well but in Equalism, unlike Capitalism, everyone will be free to own a Steel manufacturing unit, a car parts manufacturing unit, an ore processing unit, either completely or as a share in them which will be no more than an investment of $1 Million. Unlike Communism, everyone will be free to earn as much profit from it as much they can as long as their earning are not more than 15times greater than the money the poorest in the society are getting as assistance from the Government every month. Everyone will be free to own what they want to but only one such thing. So if I own a steel manufacturing plant or a $1 Million share in it, I cannot own another business until I sell my share in the Steel manufacturing plant. There is freedom to do what I want to but just because I earn a lot more than others doesn’t mean I can buy out everything else in the market thus depriving others of an opportunity to succeed. And because everyone can own only one business, it means there are a lot more business opportunities in the market up for grabs, provided one is enterprising enough to seize the opportunity, work hard and succeed. The salary cap is big enough to make one’s living standards much better than most of the population as one can earn 15 times more than what the poorest get, while the employed can also earn as much as 10 times. At the same time the difference between 7-10 times and 15 times is not so huge that nobody else has the means or resources to own a business of their own and earn upto 15 times. The cap of one business along with the earning cap will make sure that no business organization will be huge enough so as to drain all the economy’s money into its’ account thus leaving the weaker sections of the society vulnerable to market diktats.

Another example:

Now since I am on fire, let us take another example. This time let me take the example of Public Transport.

 1. Communism:

Government owns and runs it. All profit goes into Government account. All loses are Government’s headache as providing this service is Government’s responsibility.

 2. Capitalism:

The Governments own the public transport and run it for profit or loss as Public Transport is Government responsibility. However, the Government can open up the Public Transport sector to Private operators giving them permission to bring their own buses, setting up their own business centers and offices, then hiring staff and running the services for profit after paying the Government a monthly or annual permit fees (Permit to operate a passenger transport vehicle) and fees to use public places like interchanges, bus terminals etc. This will mean that the Government will not only be not needed to spend and provide this service, but it will also be earning double profit; As tax from the profits earned by private operators plus the permit fees those operators will be paying to provide the services. The public will benefit not only because there will be competing services and hence better service, but they will still get the same number of jobs in this sector.

 3. Betrayal of national interests:

If the Government leases away the service to a private organization telling that organization to provide the service for it using the Government owned machinery, employing the same number of people which the Government will need to run the service on its’ own, and then pay the private organization money to run the service, it can be classified as nothing but betrayal of national interests. In this case the Government is suffering double loss. It is over spending as it is paying private organizations money for running what it can run on its’ own using same infrastructure and manpower (thus paying same salaries, benefits and expenses), but Government is also missing out on earning any profit which it would have in case the above mentioned example had been followed.

 4. Equalism:

The transport sector can be based on the example given under the heading “Capitalism” above but the business investment cap of $1 Million and one business per individual, along with the earning cap of 15 times will apply. This would mean that it won’t be just one or two companies who will own the entire Public Transport in a metropolitan area but many individuals who can afford to invest $1 Million can own a share of it.

 Conclusion:

The thin line that differentiates a Communistic and a Capitalistic decision is whether the decision curbs freedom that in no way affects national interests, or not. If the decision is taken in national interests as given in examples above, and does not curb individual freedom in any way, the decision is well within the reigns of Capitalistic set-up. Every Government takeover is not to curb freedom or convert to Communism. Remember, national interests are always more important than individual freedom, just like society is always more important than the individuals that make it.

Fatal Urge Carefree Kiss,

Amanpreet Singh Rai

***********************************************************

Why Confusion: Capitalism doesn't mean selling national interests

Why Confusion: Capitalism doesn’t mean selling national interests

“A man owns what he creates; a Nation owns what it inherits!!”

A lot of people get confused by certain concepts as being against the principles of Capitalism. So this time, before I explain the above statement using a couple of relevant examples, let me assure you, neither the above statement nor the two examples are outside the purview of Capitalism. In fact, these two represent the balanced epitome of capitalistic virtues. So let us get on with the subject matter.

It is important to draw a distinction between what belongs to a man who is just a small part of the community he lives in, and what belongs to the community as an object of common interest or inheritance. The reason for this I will explain later in this write-up when I will explain how in democracy a Government, at best, is just a caretaker and not the owner of national wealth, resources and land.

Let us take an example of a farmer who has been awarded a piece of land as his own, whether by virtue of inheritance or by virtue of a purchase. The land listed against his name today was at some stage listed against the name of some member from the community’s past as a personal resource that can be transferred on to posterity. The intent for such a decree was to provide that member of the community an opportunity to create a resource for the community and generate income for self and family.

The individual thus, farmer in this case, puts in personal efforts by way of tiling, sowing, irrigating and harvesting, using the natural resources of soil, water and air to which he has no personal claim but are available in nature to one and all without any discrimination or private ownership. The resulting produce from these efforts belongs to the farmer who may sell it for money thus providing community with a food resource or otherwise. The farmer has only used nature and natural resources to create something that didn’t exist before but has taken nothing from the nature as such.

Now compare this to a scenario where a community, or rather Government, discovers tones of metal ore buried under soil. Who does this mineral wealth belong to? No doubt it belongs to the entire community or Nation within whose territory the find has been made. So who owns the right to exploit it if not the community or Nation itself?

This mineral wealth is a natural resource that has not been created by the efforts of any man using nature and natural resources, rather it was already present in nature and had passed on from one generation of the community to the next unnoticed until that time. It is inherited wealth of the community. Since no one man has created this wealth with his efforts, it belongs to no one man. So who has the right to exploit this wealth?

Mineral wealth that belongs to a community can only be used to promote the interests of the community in whose territory the wealth was found. It cannot be enlisted to one man or organization to exploit it and make a fortune for self. So who has the right to decide how this wealth is to be exploited for the best interests of the community?

Irrespective of the type of a society, whether it is Socialist, Capitalist or mixed, and irrespective of the type of Government, whether a democracy, aristocracy or dictatorial, it is generally the Government which makes decisions regarding exploitation of mineral wealth. So does a democratically elected Government hold a right to sell the national treasures to a private organization or entity by virtue of the powers imbibed in it by the constitution?

The simple one word answer to this question is an emphatic “No”.

A democratically elected Government is not an entity in itself. Its’ existence is subject to the whims of the community that elects it. A democratically elected Government consists of representatives whose position is provided by an instrument called vote. Those who make a Government in this term may not be there in the next term. The elected representatives have only been given a right and power so that they can exercise the two to make decisions for the entire community they represent. This right can be withdrawn via the same instrument at next election.

A democratically elected Government is at best a caretaker for the community and exists to serve the same. Such a Government is not the owner of what belongs to the community, which is the natural resources, land, water, man-power etc. The only authority a Government has is there to help it utilize these resources to the best of the capacities for the betterment of the community.

This above discussion is not contrary to but is rather a part of a better Capitalistic set up. As a Capitalistic society, it is well within the framework to let an individual or private organization to buy a piece of land, set up an industry, then buy minerals, utilize man and machine power to convert those minerals into processed goods to market and make a profit. In this case the natural resources have been utilized to create something with human effort and hence can be privately owned.

However, leasing a mining site is not the same as in that case a private organization is not creating something using man power but is rather using man-power to exploit what is already present in nature, something which neither belongs to that organization nor to the Government but to the community.

We all have a right to the air that surrounds us but none of us have the right to poison it and make it unfit for everybody else. Neither can we claim all the air to ourselves and charge everybody else for breathing it. That would be criminal and/or illegal.

The natural resources belong to the community and the only right a Government as a caretaker of natural resources for the community has is to exploit the resources in best possible way for the betterment of the community. No Government has the right to transfer these resources into private hands for exploitation as this causes irreparable loss to the community.

If this was not the case and the Government was the owner of everything and free to do as it pleases, then there would have been no way to stop a corrupt regime from selling the entire nation to a foreign power for money, thus accepting slavery for the entire community.

Thus a Government has no right to sell or lease a natural wealth site to a private organization or body to exploit for personal benefit. This is treason and can only be punishable by death. Any statutes passed by any democratically elected Government anywhere in the world that allows for such a selling of national resources are thus illegal and unconstitutional. A tenant, caretaker or a lessee cannot sell what he cannot own.

Capitalism means equal opportunity for everyone to create their own future, not a right to anyone to exploit what belongs to someone else. Providing opportunity to everyone equally to earn their living and destiny using what is available in the society and then putting own efforts to shape it is the essence of Capitalism. Letting someone take control of what belongs to everyone else for private benefits while everyone else suffers a loss, is treason.

I don’t think there is any scope or reason for confusion.

Fatal Urge Carefree Kiss

Amanpreet Singh Rai

A Brave Man

A Brave Man

“Strength is neither in muscle nor in attitude!! Strength is born of faith and resides in brain!!”

Once there was a very brave man. He was so brave that many other men became jealous of him.

Each one of those men used to think, "He is not even half as good as me. I can take on him one on one any day and crush him into cowdung!"

One day each one of those men decided to confront the brave man alone, when the brave man will be taking his daily walk, and then defeat him in a duel.

So the all reached the spot in anticipation, independently of each other, but when the brave man came they all pounced on him at once.

The brave man however took care of all of them alone.

Fatal Urge Carefree Kiss

(Amanpreet Singh Rai)

"Everyone thinks he can take on me one on one!! No one realizes I've been fighting all of them all alone all along!!"