Benazir Bhutto(1953 - 2007) Who is the assassin?

The world lost another young, visionary, liberal,dynamic leaders to the hands of dark coward forces. Benazir Bhutto assassinated at 1830 local time was the two time and the only woman prime minister Pakistan ever had

The moment the incident happened, media and information sources started going all out to cash on their EVENT, or some to drill in information they want people to believe for what ever motives they have.Numerous TV channels got people glued to their TV sets with stories on what kind of a lady and leader Benazir was, what would be the future of Pakistan as a nation, and PPP as a party.Several archived interviews were played to show probably the association those tv channels had with Benazir Bhutto.

The question which now would surface and much stronger too would be Who is the master mind behind this assassination?

Is Pervez Musharraf the assassin?

I was surprised that a reputed news channel much praised as The Channel for News kept on driving the point that it could be Pervez Musharraf who is responsible for the assassination.There were statements which were made to the effect that it was Pervez Musharraf's brain behind this assassination. Now well, I'm not a journalist and neither am I looking at monetising this unfortunate incident.I'm just using common sense here.Pervez Mushharraf who is the military dictator of Pakistan who is always been at the receiving end for being the dictator and for every wrong reason, would be according to me the last person to do such a stupid act.Come on and think about it, are we saying that Musharraf does not have simple common sense to understand that he would be the obvious prime suspect and accused in the event such an incident happens? Especially at a stage when Musharraf is trying his best to build a public clean image, this would be the last thing he would do.

Is Navaz Sherrif the assassin?

If a person can benefit out of the entire incident that was executed with only cheese cakes to take home, would be Navaz Sherrif.He and the media has already managed to put Pervez Musharraf on the spot for the assasination of Benazir Bhutto.With the people of Pakistan believing the media and using their spontaneous reaction to label Pervez Musharraf as the culprit, it is again common sense that Nevaz Sherrif would take home sympathy and winning votes in the event next election happens in Pakistan.

Hey where is Mr Bush?

Even after two hours after the assassination White House kept mute on the event.CNN correspondent did not do a great job of covering up what she honestly spilled that Mr Bush is in Mexico enjoying his holidays and probably does not know about the event.She had to come back later probably on a scodling from her boss to remind the world that Airforce one has the best communication systems on this planet and for sure Mr Bush is informed and would comment on the incident a little later.Yeah right, we remember how Mr Bush reacted after the WTC was brought on 9/11.Now does Mr Bush get benefited again if political unrest continues or gets worse in Pakistan? Well, if Benazir Bhutto was against militancy and terrorism and she would put an end to it if she had to come on power, does that mean that Mr Bush would probably lose out on a possible market for his arms, ammunitions and military parading?How would he repeat another Iraq and Afghanistan and edge closer to India if terrorism is killed in Pakistan? Is it favorable to Mr Bush that terrorism and militancy continues in Pakistan.We all know that Mr Bush has always been on the look out for politically disturbed nations to sell his arms, ammunitions and capitalise on that nations resources.

"Haircut Of Your Life" - Optimicician fun time :)

Click On The Image Below For The "Haircut Of Your Life"



Click On The Image Above For The "Haircut Of Your Life"

Why do ordinary people commit evil deeds?

Following is an interesting article I thought would be of interest to any one. We might not realise the number of times we ask this question to ourselves, over and over.

The debate about ordinary people committing evil deeds rolls on. But in a personal viewpoint Prof Phil Zimbardo, creator of the Stanford Prison Experiment, says its time to get to grips with why wrongdoing happens.

In 1971 I became superintendent of the Stanford Prison, a mock prison run by psychologists. I was a young psychology professor at Stanford University, and I wanted to understand what happens when you put good people in a bad place.

To do so, it was necessary to conduct a controlled experiment, so my graduate assistants and I selected college-student volunteers - normal, healthy young men with no history of crime or violence - and randomly assigned them the roles of prisoner or guard.

During the extended experiment, we would observe and record everything that happened. The inmates would live in their cells and the prison yard 24/7 - the guards would work eight-hour shifts.


Ordinary people can succumb to social pressure to commit acts that would otherwise be unthinkable

Our simulation tried to create a psychology of imprisonment in the minds of all participants, with all-powerful guards dominating powerless prisoners. To increase the real-life feel, we arranged for actual mass arrests and booking by the Palo Alto police; visits by a prison chaplain, a public defender, and parents; even parole board hearings.

Though not part of the plan, there were also prisoner rebellions. And, notoriously, there was chilling abuse and torture by the guards.

The experiment was supposed to last two weeks, but we had to pull the plug after only six days because nearly half the prisoners had emotional breakdowns in response to the extreme stress and psychological torments invented by their guards - good, young men who'd been overwhelmed by situational forces in the roles they were playing.

Fast-forward to April 2004. Horrific images flash across our television screens - nightmarish abuses of Iraqi prisoners by young American soldiers, the male and female military police reservists stationed at Abu Ghraib. Military commanders condemn the criminal actions of a "few bad apples," asserting that such abuses are not systemic in our military prisons.

The images were shocking to me, but not unfamiliar. They were, in fact, strikingly similar to what I had seen at Stanford - prisoners naked, bags over their heads, forced into sexually humiliating poses. Could the perpetrators of these evils be like the young men in my prison - "good apples" who happened to find themselves in a "bad barrel"?


Was their behaviour shaped by the same sort of social psychological forces that had operated in the Stanford Prison Experiment? My conclusion, after becoming an expert witness for one of the military policemen and reviewing all the evidence of the investigations into these abuses, was that the parallels were palpable. Indeed, one investigative report highlighted the fact that the "landmark Stanford study" should have been a cautionary tale in preventing the Abu Ghraib abuses.

Historical inquiry and behavioural science have demonstrated the "banality of evil" - the fact that, given certain conditions, ordinary people can succumb to social pressure to commit acts that would otherwise be unthinkable.

To be sure, few of us will ever end up as inmates or guards in military or civilian or mock prisons, but many of us find ourselves in relationships where we dominate other people or are dominated by them.

We spend our lives in institutions of one kind or another, from families, schools, and businesses, to homes for the elderly. And many times we bow to the will of the group even when it conflicts with our values.

Prejudiced beliefs

In the prisons at Stanford and Abu Ghraib, men and women did terrible things to other people in part because responsibility for their actions was diffused, rather than focused on each of them as individuals; we find ourselves in a similar situation whenever we witness someone else's trouble but fail to help because we assume others will.

Likewise, the prisoners at Stanford and Abu Ghraib suffered unnecessarily because the guards regarded them as less than human; dehumanisation allowed the guards to treat prisoners as lower beings. The same applies to us when we allow members of a minority group to be derogated as inferior.

Prejudiced beliefs lead to discrimination, and in turn to abuse. Situational forces affect us when we're acting in the capacity of a role we've assumed; when rules govern our behaviour; when we're in uniforms or dressed in ways that conceal our identity; and of course when we're in a group whose acceptance seems vital to our self-image.

We want to believe that we are "good," moral, and self-aware. We want to believe that we're different from "bad" or "evil" people. Thinking so is essential to maintaining a sense of personal dignity and self worth. But the line between good and evil is permeable, like the cell walls of our body that allow movement of chemicals across their boundaries.

Anything that any human being has ever done - anything imaginable - is potentially doable by any of us in the same situation.

This is not to excuse immoral behaviour; the point is simply that understanding how someone could have engaged in wrongdoing, rather than dismissing it as a bad deed done by a bad person, allows us to identify corrosive social forces - the very same forces we need to counteract if we want to avoid going down the same wrong path.

Prof Zimbardo is author of the Lucifer Effect - How Good People Turn Evil.

On the way to cannibalism - Riots

A group of persons claiming to be supporters of DMK leader M K Azhagiri today allegedly set fire to the office of Tamil daily 'Dinakaran' and indulged in protests resenting a survey published by the newspaper on the possible "political heir" of Chief Minister M Karunanidhi. Survey on "Makkal Manasu" (What People Think), published in the daily today had given 70 per cent chances to M K Stalin, the second son of Karunanidhi and just 2 per cent to elder son Azhagiri, who controlled the party cadres in Southern districts.

Riots is nothing new, and is not unique to India. Following are some facts about riots.

Riots occur when crowds or even small groups of people gather to commit acts of violence and property damage, usually in reaction to a perceived grievance or out of dissent. Historically, riots have occurred due to poor working or living conditions, government oppression, taxation or conscription, conflicts between races or religions (see race riot and pogrom), or even the outcome of a sporting event. Some claim that rioters are motivated by a rejection of or frustration with legal channels through which to air their grievances.

Types of Riot: Race riot, police riot, prison riot, student riot, hooliganism, street fighting.

Political parties find it easy to whip up mob fury and destroy public property to express dissent, rather than explore civil and legitimate forms of protest.Political parties, rather than stem the tide, have sought to exploit the situation by pitting one community against another.Politics has been reduced to a cynical exercise of managing identities at the risk of compromising the collective well-being of society.

It is time political parties and civil society realise that a people succeed only when they stand together and negotiate their differences peacefully.

On the way to cannibalism - Energy Suckers

"Nothing can stop the man with the right mental attitude from achieving his goal.
Nothing on earth can help the man with the wrong mental attitude" - Thomas Jefferson

The aforementioned proverb is so apt for our friend in news Mr D.P Satish. Leave alone his negative thoughts and energy sucking attitude, nothing is going to stop Mr Narayan Murthy from achieving his goal.What ever that goal is. he has proved his ability to do that umpteen number of times. Now the second sentence of the proverb is so apt for our friend D.P Satish - Nothing is going to help him.What ever prompted him to react in the manner he did, one thing he has managed to do is let people know about his emotional maturity and attitude.In a country smothered by criminals, corrupt political leaders, non-visionary leaders and citizens he decides to cry and crib about the most insignificant and kiddish reasons. Come on folks, Satish needs some help. It looks like satish is suffering from a behavior disorder called obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). It's estimated that 15 percent of domestic horses exhibit similar behavior. Yes don't be surprised this is observed in animals and in some humans like in this case. These kind of people are called "Energy Suckers".We all know some.They are everywhere.They will suck you dry if you fall into their trap.Energy Suckers are negative people.It’s easy to know when you are with them because the longer the exposure, the more drained you feel. You try to avoid them, but Energy Suckers thrive on spreading bad tidings so they seek you out. Out of the four common types of Energy Suckers, Satish falls into the category called,

• The Muck Mixers—These are the folks who love to stir the pot. They look for gossip or “information” that they feel they must know and then take it upon themselves to disseminate the dirt. They adore turmoil and conflict and will feed both if given the chance. Muck Mixers often “keep score” and tend to remember obscure information that can hurt others or their reputations. They are sometimes hard to ignore because their information is SOOO interesting.
• Solution: Avoid them like the plague or you will also become fodder for discussion. Their lack of productivity will eventually catch up with them. Make sure you are not standing next to them when they go down

On the way to cannibalism - A passing thought

Right thing done at a wrong time in a wrong place can be a deadly and a worst mistake. A perfect example is a slow moving car in a fast moving lane. Let me draw your attention to the basics here. Think about others, realize and keep your actions on check all the time and I bet you cant go wrong. All it takes is to realize others are just like you. A bit of care, consideration and understanding can do magic in making every ones life much better. Interestingly, these issues seem to be existing in other developed countries also. How ever I'm sure the frequency of these would be negligible when we consider Indian driving sense and road etiquettes. Driving slow is good, but watch it when and where you are doing it, else it could just accelerate our journey towards cannibalism - Where a human will have no care and consideration left for a fellow human being.

On the way to cannibalism 2

Driving with high beam lights is just one thing. Here is one more common behavior, which further goes to reiterate that we have no consideration for another human being. Check out this scene, in Bangalore during a weekday morning.

What do our literate, techno savvy, modern man do when there is a traffic congestion on his side of the road? He speeds his vehicle through the other lane trying to make his way through. Leave alone his consideration for others, it does not require Mtech in software engineering to foresee the chaos he would get into or cause, because of that action. Still we do it. All it takes is a second of thought to understand the situation and decide not to make things worse if not help solve. But such sensible thought would arise only if one has an iota of thought about his fellow human beings. Oh yes we can brag about being a breed of modern, sophisticated human being.

So what if we are on our way to cannibalism.

On the way to cannibalism 1

The caption might sound gory and disturbing for many. It might even haunt you and evoke some revolt if I explicitly say that WE are on the way to cannibalism. Yes its just a matter of time before the entire mankind takes on to that. You find this difficult to believe?

Read on. The focus is about the extent we have lost respect and consideration for a fellow human being.


Take the paradoxical instance of light being the reason for blindness! Thanks to the “lost and not-found” road tax paid, we are all aware that Indian streets, let alone the rural, even the urban top notch roads don't have street lights. Would there be any other reason other than ignorance, nauseating pride, and disrespect for fellow beings for one to drive around with their high beam lights on? Is the well educated, techno savvy, enterprising Indian ignorant that one should drive with his low beam lights unless he is on a deserted stretch? Do we need to run some campaign to get them aware on the danger involved in driving with lights on high beam? Being aware of the unpredictability of Indian roads, rash driving and jaywalking, it can cost many lives if the headlight of an oncoming vehicle blinds you completely. An alarmingly large chunk of accidents that happen in the nights are due to glaring high beams. To make it worse we have ruthless owners who use extra bright or halogen white bulbs as an attention seeking technique. Why should they bother if their attention seeking techniques would cost some ones life? Please express your thoughts and suggestions towards why people take this lightly. Is there any thing we could do to ensure we all drive with our low beam lights on? Is getting the traffic cops to fine them the only way, or is there a long run solution which will get our citizens to think about and respect a fellow human being? We could either evoke the feeling of brotherhood and respect for our fellow human beings or just shrug our shoulders and say

“Why bother”.We need not bother and there will be a day when incidents like what happend in Nithari would be just common.