Mama Lapalu machang.!!

What's next for occupy

2011-12-17T00:17:00.000-08:00

With the winter approaching, the momentum and the buzz about the occupy movement is dwindling and calls for an evaluation of it's goals tactics and of course, success.

The Neoliberal policies that has captured most of the world today has created a crisis of the middle class. The dwindling middle class has created social instability and with the occupy movement, and the poeple's resurgence against this is visible all over the world. If one expects to change things for the better, a re-formulation of tactics is needed to benefit from the heightened momentum of the occupy movement, and it needs to be done fast. The expectation of most liberals seems to be that this momentum will bring the democratic party to the power with a progressive political base, and that would lead to better reforms. I agree with that sentiment, and think that will be a win for the occupy moment and the people in general.

However, is that the only thing to expect?

Given the reasons to the present global crises and the boom-bust cycles we have experienced in the past, we are compelled to seriously rethink the validity of the core arguments in our economic system. While race, as in the post below, is tightly dependent on the economic system, most other problems we face today in both economic and moral stand point, are even more intrinsically bound to the capitalist system. This global crises thus creates an avenue to discuss the validity of a capitalist system. As one of my physics friends claimed, "Capitalism is where the lowest potential for humanity is, given the human nature". To my non-sciency friends, this means that it is inevitable that we end up in a capitalist society. The reason implied here is the selfishness and drive to self preservation ultimately takes us to a capitalist society.

But is that true? are humans by their nature selfish? I think we can do better, and if we want to build a society that we can make people realize the value of humanity, we will be happier. Happier, not only as a society with less people dying of hunger, and less people having depression, but as individuals who see the happiness as less related to material wealth, but more related to one's inner self.

I think we need to dream about such a world. Our demands on banking regulations, limiting campaign financing, public education and/or universal healthcare, are just small steps in that sense. And if we have a greater dream, then we can formulate the steps to get there better, and more effectively. One of the most important facets most people tend to overlook in OWS is the aspect of community building. Most people see putting up a tent and staying in a urban part as a worthless act. However, one reason behind camping, music, discussions and all the 'weirdness' in OWS is that it is an avenue to get together as a community.

Importance of the occupy movement lies here, it is not just a grass roots movement to protest the current system and change certain aspects of it. It is a movement that calls us to first realize who we are and how capable humans are, before thinking how better a world we can build. That is the goal I expect from OWS, and ourselves.

Can't finish without this. originally by John Lennon,

Importance of history in affirmative action.

2011-11-24T14:59:00.000-08:00

Our education system is based on the ideal that best and the brightest gets the best education and opportunities. This translates into the opposition for affirmative action, as racial prioritization in selection will deny some of the more 'qualified' students their chances of getting the best education they can. While most people agree that the American history plagued with racism has created unequal opportunities in the past, they argue that racism is mostly a thing of past. It's a common to hear people say, "I'm not a racist, nor are my parents, so why do I have to pay for a slavery that happened more than a century ago?". On the other hand, even some liberal minded people seem to think that the situation of minorities today is partly due to their own fault, "it's just that they are not trying hard enough". Hence the question is, almost 40 years after the civil rights movement (ok, 37 years), do we really need to talk about the historical facts that brought about the inequality in the USA? Isn't 40 years enough time to wither off much of the negative effects of racism?

Lets sum up the history that led us up here.

Racial oppression before the end of WWII

Any analysis of historical effects of inequality has to start with slavery. While the white majority advanced through the new world, slavery kept African Americans out of access to any education (or any other opportunity, for that matter) for two centuries. The inhumane oppression of minorities continued for another century in the form of Jim Crow laws after eliminating slavery. While "Jim Crow" laws refer to the de jure segregationist laws in the south, similar laws existed in north and west targeting both black and Asian minorities. Northern states had similar segregationist laws banning blacks from entering to the state, voting, assembling and even testifying against a white in court. For instance Indiana passed a law in 1851 banning blacks entering the northern states and prohibiting whites the employment of those. In California, the minorities faced discrimination at the end of the gold rush era. Both Chinese and Mexicans were targeted in taxing foreign miners and were forbidden from obtaining citizenship, and the racial oppression was evident in many court rulings against Asian and Mexican miners in this era. At the height of these tensions, with the incidents starting from the Chinese massacre in 1871, most Chinese workers and merchants were the targets of physical violence, driving them out of their homes to the newly forming 'China towns'. These ethnic enclaves offered little chance of economic success, as they had to take menial low paying jobs and were not allowed to work outside of the given area. Similar measures were taken later, at the beginning of the great depression, to prevent Mexican Americans and from accessing the scarce economic opportunities. The racial discrimination thus created a vast inequality in access to better paying jobs, and hence economic success of the minorities. Data below shows the disparity in education and socio-economic index (SEI) between the minorities clearly. It should be noted that the Chinese and Japanese are taken as one group, and with Japanese immigrants, who were doing relatively well before the internment in 1942, changes the statistics for this group. Understanding these racial inequalities in early 1940s help better understand the ever widening inequality after the end of WWII.

	Years of schooling	Occupational SEI
Native African American	5.4	13.3
Native Mexican American	4.7	14.8
Native American (Native Indian)	5.6	14.8
Native Chinese/Japanese American	9.1	30.1
US Population	8.9	29.5
Native White	9.3	30.8

New middle class social order

The mass rearrangement of the social order in America after the end of the world war II created the conditions for the strong structural racism that persists today. Being the only industrial country in the world that left standing on its feet after the WWII, USA quickly captured the world market through its vast industrial production machine, that was transformed from its original purpose of wartime production. United states became the worlds super power, both economically and politically. Sudden expansion of the US economy was felt positively by people across the income spectrum through the high paying blue collar jobs and the new deal social services. The labor force became increasingly unionized, and they successively won many battles and the workplace standards, wages and benefits of the unionized workers increased dramatically, while G.I bill gave many war veterans access to higher education. All these changes gave most Americans access to middle class

Occupy Wall Street..!

2011-10-18T21:48:00.000-07:00

I am sure you all have at least heard of Occupy Wall Street. When I first saw their announcement in August, it felt like a joke, and until Sep 17, most media outlets played it as a joke. When the momentum started gathering, it was called a get together of some lazy lunatics and got only abysmal coverage. However, today of course, it has become a centerpiece in the media, not in a positive way, but still, it has grown to a point that mainstream media cannot ignore.

The main question most of us have is what is the purpose? If you listened to news, you probably know that the Occupy movement does not have one specific demand, and you cannot find one coherent voice within the movement as to what their demand is. But is it really needed? Are demands what determine a revolutionary movement? Is it having a solution?

I think NO, it is the acknowledgement that we have a problem that is needed. And most importantly, it is the realization that us, the 99% who feel the negative effects of that problem, have both the ability and the responsibility to take charge into changing things for the better.

Is it worth my time? Would this achieve anything? The fact is my time in occupy movement will be worth only if you show up too. And your time will be worth only if your friends and family supports it too.

Thousands of protesters AROUND THE WORLD have faith in you and me. So spread the word, let’s go and show our support.

Website,

http://occupyla.org/

http://www.occupyberkeley.org/

http://occupywallst.org/

A good article on what Occupy movement is : http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/09/30-3

Want to make yourself angry? http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

I agree with rawls

2011-08-02T01:10:00.001-07:00

Yes, If you want the perfect justice system, you would look at the kind of justice and laws that comes forth from a society of equals. If you have no information about how you compare with others of the society, then inevitably you are forced to assume every one is equal. This would lead to a society where the justice is based on equality (which we are supposed to have today).

Well, in my view, if I were in such a society, my main proposals for justice would be these.. well apart from the basic human rights, atleast, which I don't think I should repeat.

A representative democracy (I dont see any other way around it)
Right to free education, with no strings attached (untill you get out of high school, atleast work-study for university depending on the major)
Right to free healthcare. No extensive medical support for non-vital medical needs, like life support (for aged if you are 95, just let it go), or plastic surgeries, and limited abortion (use contraceptives, for gods sake). It would be wise to incur penalties for not using free healthcare facilities for preventive care like dental, eye (??) etc.
Right for a roof to live under, nutritious (not tasty) food to eat, and clean cloths to wear. WOW, you might say... but creating a communal living space for who are in need is not hard. And if you can create a society where education and basic needs are accessible regardless of social class, I assume there would be less need for this.

Why school districts?

2011-08-02T01:00:00.000-07:00

School districts seem pretty intuitive, accepting only kids that live close to school. But is it really a fair approach? The schools in low income neighborhoods gets less and less resources (not particularly monetary resources, but personnel resources), and kids in those areas tend to mingle with more and more high risk kids which creates a downward spiral of negative youth development.

On the contrary, if the schools would accept any kid, from, say the county, or the state, that would flatten out this problem. Yes, you wouldnt want your kid to be hanging out with those gangster kids... But the reality is, your child looks for peers who matches his and his parents views. Thus if you spend more time looking after him, you wouldnt have to worry as much about his or her peers.

Obama Toasting Queen: Who's embarrassing, Obama or Beck?

2011-05-26T16:28:00.000-07:00

Watching news from different media channels is usually pretty fun. You get to see how fair-and-balanced-ly the channels report the news. This is just one such instance I thought was funny.

Glen Beck targeted Obama's tour in Europe to bring some humor to his show. While I'm not sure how good a comedian Beck is, Obama's visit did indeed have a couple of funny moments. Specially him toasting the Queen while the UK national anthem "was"(As fox reports,) playing. That was an embarrassing moment for the US president (The fact that he didn't know it was the national anthem)

But the best part is how Beck reported it, compare the Beck's video with the Telegraph's one with a more complete footage.

Watch after 3.15 mins

The real footage (which doesnt seem to have been picked out of context)

Climate Change..!!!

2009-12-06T10:56:00.000-08:00

It is quite a heated debate that is revolving around the climate change and its effects. I was really ignorant on that 'debate' until i met a couple of science students who held a different view than that of mine. So, I was wondering what others think specially near the UN conference on Climate Change, and here's a poll. Just mark what you think, and fill out the form if you like.

The real poll is on top of the page. The one on the bottom is to just see what different societies and age groups think of this issue.

(Don't try to research before answering..!:D coz that'll foil the purpose..! )

thanx

Books I have read

2009-02-24T00:13:00.001-08:00

Lately, I was trying to remember some Russian novels that I have read, and realized that it is a really hard thing to do. So thought to have some kind of a record, and here we are. You are welcome to leave a comment on anything, or may be recommend a book.

Mother - Maxim Gorky (Sinhala)
(Yakada Pravahaya) - ( ---) (Sinhala)
Three years - Anton Chekov (Sinhala)
(Sara Bhoomi) - (---) (Sinhala)
Dr. Zhivago - Boris Pasternak (English)
And Quite Flows Don - Mikhail Solokhov (Sinhala)
My Universities - Maxim Gorky (Sinhala)
How The Steel Was Tampered - Nicolai Ostrovsky (Sinhala)
A Story Of A Real Man - Boris Polevoi (Sinhala)
The Iron Flood - Alexander Serafimovich Popov (Sinhala)
Tom Sawyer - Mark Twain (Sinhala)
Huck Finn - Mark Twain (Sinhala)
David Copperfield (Sinhala)
Lorna Doone (Sinhala)
Heidy - Johanna Spyri (Sinhala)
Animal Farm - George Orwell (Sinhala)
'1984' - George Orwell (Sinhala)
Space Odyssey 2001 - Arthur C Clark (Sinhala)
2010 - Arthur C Clark (Sinhala)
2064 - Arthur C Clark (Sinhala)
3001 - Arthur C Clark (Sinhala)
Fountains of Paradise - Arthur C Clark (Sinhala)
Children of Dust - Part I (...)
The Sacred Stone - Olive Cusler
Journeys of Socrates - Dan Millman
The Kite Runner - Khalid Hussaini
The Alchemist - Paulo Coehlo
Wild White Boy - R. L Spittle
Where the White Sambhur Roams - R. L. Spittle

And more, I'll add later.

Book Banning: The Right of Schools, Libraries and Other Institutions on Banning Books.

2009-01-18T23:19:00.000-08:00

How would you feel if you were a Christian and were banned from reading the Bible, or if you were a Muslim, and were banned from reading the Qu'ran? As ridiculous as it may sound, these books are prominent among the thousands of books that have faced censorship throughout the history. With the free media movement today, though, censoring has faced severe criticism from authors, journalists, artists and other progressive activists. This matter has stirred up a lot of debate in two fronts: first being banning books in a universal level and the second, seen with a more moderate eye, being restricting children from accessing certain books. At the latter part, schools, libraries and other places related to children have become the focal point of the argument. The question arises when determining which books should be banned and most importantly, by whom? Even though it is favored by the majority to let above-mentioned institutions ban controversial books, this must be done only by a separate objective professional body while book banning as a whole must be limited to putting age restrictions.

Limiting the access of books for children must be done in a way that does not violate their right of freedom of thought. There definitely are writings that can be detrimental for children, and when it comes to the question who have the rights to prevent younger generation from accessing these books, one might naturally point towards parents. This appointment, seemingly very innocent and intuitive, is deduced from a rather wicked idea that a child does not have the right to choose what religion or ideology they should have. As one author put it bluntly,

"If parents don't want a child to read certain books, they have the authority as guardian of that child to prevent him or her from reading material they find offensive or counter to their religious beliefs" [Barbara McCuen 06/15/00].
This 'parental authority' thus seems to be a dictatorship that crushes the rights of children. The connection of schools and libraries with parents takes the matter further, as these public institutions are compelled to adhere to parents' demands extending their totalitarian-like hand to a school level. A report on St. Petersberg times best explains this fact, “... one elementary school will not stock two of the Harry Potter books by J.K. Rowling because of the "witchcraft themes." As the Principal explained it, the school knew they would get complaints about the books so they did not buy them” [K. Gazella 01/28/2000]. Many children in that school thus miss the opportunity to read one of the most favorite child novels of the time. In fact, the right to ban books should not be held by libraries, schools and other groups for it can become a tool to condemn child rights.

With the power of regulating held by different institutions individually, arises another question; Why should your child (or you yourself, for that matter,) should be denied access to certain literature because your neighbor happened to have different views than you? If these places remove all the books that they think are controversial from the shelves, people will not get a chance to be exposed to different views. As Judy Blume sees it, "If every individual with an agenda had his/her way, the shelves in the school library would be close to empty" [Censorship 1]. Hence, if people want their children to read books that they think are important, they should not limit others' children from reading what others think important. In this sense only the literature that is collectively identified as harmful should be restricted, while determining this 'harmfulness' must be done by a separate entity which has a global participation of parents.

Apart from under-age restriction, there should be no other way of book banning. Most of the time, books are banned for the general public because of the different and often conflicting views that these books talk about. The different opinions expressed, though, are the cream of the crop, as they demand the reader acquire more knowledge on the subject. Lillian Hellman, a playwright supporting leftist causes appearing before The House Committee on Un-American Activities stated that “I cannot and will not cut my conscience to fit this year's fashions ...“ [Hellman Letter to HUAC, 05/19/52]. This is the opinion held by many readers who seek the truth and open to questioning of their own views. Every book expresses ideas of other people, ideas of the author, to the very least. Even though some books can carry false facts, arguments or inappropriate content, it should be the readers' decision whether they should or should not read them. Furthermore, if one can know what he is putting in his stomach when eating a fat bar of chocolate by reading the 'Nutrition Facts' on its label, why can not he read the back part of a book and know what he is about to put in his head? Rather than outright banning, a mechanism to point out the unaccepted content would thus point the reader in the right direction. Hence, book banning should be avoided as these should-be-banned books open the readers' mind to a different perspective.

Various reasons for which schools, libraries and other groups have failed to implement a proper mechanism in censorship leads to the necessity of an institution that can protect the readers from the effects of books that are argued inappropriate. Books that are highly detrimental to a child's mind is the only thing that must be restricted and it should be done only by an intellectual panel of child psychologists, and any book that its controversiality can be explained should not be banned but should carry a small amendment introducing the inappropriateness of the book. This can be used to neutralize the harmful effect the books might have had not only on children but also on adults when used for adult books. The power of book banning, thus, should be held only by a responsible professional body, which will restrict certain books for certain ages and will recommend amendments to the so-called racist, obscene or offensive books warning about their content to the reader.

Social institutions like libraries should not be entitled to any censorship rights, as it can be a way of suppressing different opinions. Minors, the only group that must be protected from these books should be able to pick any controversial book that comes with a warning of its contents, and gain knowledge while only the books whose contents cannot be justified must go on the higher shelves with restricted access. As for adults, literature that is questionable according to the public can accompany a small 'Nutrition facts' label that will neutralize its effects and make the reader question the contents. To identify the books that should be restricted and to provide such 'warning flags' previously mentioned, an intellectual panel should be formed transferring all the censoring authority, or restricting authority to be precise, to that panel which will take over censoring rights from any other institution. The debate over which books should be banned is far from over, but having one authority for regulating literature rather than thousands of schools and libraries having thousands of preferences, will definitely be favorable for authentic authors with different views and hence, the society as a whole.

Nice meeting you!!

2008-04-26T11:34:00.000-07:00

It's nice to meet new people, but not always. But as far as internet/ blogging goes I know you simply will navigate away from the page If you are bored, or if you don't like it. Or hopefully you will criticize my posts with a comment. But the point is, I dont have to be so polite or be 'A nice person with all the good you can expect'. Neither do I have to care about my grammar or spelling which i am not good at anyway.

Actually this first post is just an extension to my 'About me' paragraph. So, well I am, aaaa...

A child, who loves cartoons more than any other video...

A confused thinker tangled in a mess of words, Communism, Marxism, liberalism, capitalism.. followed by a lot lot more.... There is a part of me who wants to study politics; simply because, after all thats the only way -that I can think of- to make things better (BETTER..!! gosh!! thats another word I hate!!!). But the problem is, I am afraid to make the wrong choice, as 'HE' said, I should have chosen a path to walk, (that was either X-Party or JVP, btw), and then see where it leads to, rather than looking at the entrances and asking the people passing by....!!

And the best times I remember are the times I spent with friends on Shramadhana campaigns, Funerals (...!!!) including the amazing couple of days I spent with JVP 'Sahana Sewa Balakaya' clearing The tsunami affected areas. I loved being a Social Worker.

AND I am LAZY, it may be just to get the phone right beside the bed or it may be to study in the day right before exams, That is the biggest weakness of me and I know, that is idiotic.

An Adventure Lover, Love moutaneering, and always eager to test my nerves stepping on to an edge of a rock boulder or jumping between two 50ft tall rocks...! (Well, I'm not as crazy as people on youtube!!). And there's lot more I would like to do. Bouldering( near future..!!), Rock climbing, White water rafting, Surfing, Skiing(Missed it in this winter, but surely, in the next winter), Sky diving, Bungee jumping, Snow climbing, gliding...etc. And that actually is one thing that made me stay in USA. There is much more things that you can do, and much more to explore.

And yeah, I definitely would like to meet a ghost, Mohini(..lol) or Dracula and see how good I am. But haven't been fortunate enough.

I love being lonely; hate being with people, sometimes even with friends and family. It is strange, sometimes I would just let myself alone and taste the bitterness of the pain and sorrow inside me, for which I really dont know a reason.......!!!!

And at last, I love computers, coding and Electronics(specially interested in stuff that integrates with computers), not to mention games (I'd say COD4 is the best). Well may be I will just study physics..... who knows, I love dat too.

Oki, If you are reading this, guess you have one word to describe me, the one that my friends (Oh I really really really do miss you guys and MORA) always used and one that I will never forget, 'Pissa' (means crazy person..!)