Is that true? Question to all Indian CPians
-
So middle class involves not yet rich, but well off ?
Colin Angus Mackay wrote:
Poverty includes those households where the adults are unemployed or earn close to the minimum wage (or below it).
I'd say that group is definately the one that's on the increase then.
Christian Graus wrote:
So middle class involves not yet rich, but well off ?
Yes, I'd say so. Well enough to be comfortable.
Christian Graus wrote:
I'd say that group is definately the one that's on the increase then.
Probably. My take is that that group's size (along with the workers) fluctuates the most.
*** Developer Day 4 in Reading, England on 2nd December 2006 - Registration Now Open *** Upcoming Scottish Developers events: * Developer Day Scotland: are you interested in speaking or attending? My: Website | Blog | Photos
-
We don't have a single spoken language in India - so it's hard to spread literacy. Perhaps if India'd standardize on English, instead of each state focusing on its local language, our education system could be speedily improved from its current rotten state. Of course a massive population, where the poorer a family is, the more children they seem to have, is not helping much either. If India's population was 1/4 billion instead of 1 billion, everyone would have 4 times as much as they have now.
Regards, Nish
Nish’s thoughts on MFC, C++/CLI and .NET (my blog)
Currently working on C++/CLI in Action for Manning Publications. (*Sample chapter available online*)Nishant Sivakumar wrote:
We don't have a single spoken language in India - so it's hard to spread literacy
I don't think that has anything to do with it. I also thought for a long time that population was the problem. But now I don't think it is. Sinagpore is far more populous than India (density wise) yet they are extremely well off economically. I think economic freedom is what is required.
Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place. Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are, by definition, not smart enough to debug it. -Brian Kernighan
-
Warren D Stevens wrote:
I can't stand any system that will makes Charles head of my government
Once again, Charles cannot be the head of your government unless you elect him. He may become the head of your state. These are two separate things in a constitutional monarchy. From what I remember the only power that the head of state has is to dissolve parliament and call a general election - something that is done under instruction from the head of government(normally... In 1975 the Governor General of Australia dissolved the parliament because the incumbent was in a stalemate situation and it was the only way to resolve it. Afterwards he became almost universally unpopular, despite the election resolving the stalemate situation, that he had to leave Australia and now lives in England). Everything else is just rubberstamping and carries no more than a ceremonial role. You could keep the same system (if you like the system) and just do away with the monarch. You would end up with more-or-less the same situation, because the governer general won't really ask the Queen on these things as the power is given to him to act on behalf of the Queen, nothing more. By the way, I totally understand where you are coming from wanting to remove the British monarch as your head of state. I'm just pointing out that with a minimum of fuss you could delete that element - and then you could have someone else's pictue on the money (that really confused me when I visit Canada. Even in Scotland we don't have the Queen on our bank notes [we have people like Adam Smith, Robert Burns, Sir Walter Scott and Robert the Bruce]). Personally, I'm hoping that when Scotland gets its independence we could ask Princess Anne to become our Queen (I happen to think the model of Constitutional Monarchy to be a rather good system of government) but we'll probably end up with Charles (or George as he apparently wants to be known)
*** Developer Day 4 in Reading, England on 2nd December 2006 - Registration Now Open *** Upcoming Scottish Developers events: * Developer Day Scotland: are you interested in speaking or attending? My: Website | Blog | Photos
Colin Angus Mackay wrote:
hese are two separate things in a constitutional monarchy.
I'm certainly not an expert on the constitution, but in addition to forming and disolving the government, the Governor General also has to give "Royal Assent" to all bills before they are law. Whether you call it the government or the state, there is one person at the top of the "chain of command", and it seems like the Queen/Governor General is above the Prime Minister. There was also a case in Canada when the Governor General refused the Prime Minister's request for an election, so it can be more than just a ceremonial role. This was back in the 1920's but this may be an issue again soon, because we have more political parties now, so minority governments are more likely.
Colin Angus Mackay wrote:
Everything else is just rubberstamping and carries no more than a ceremonial role.
90% of Canadians would agree with that, so I realize I have a minority viewpoint here. I think ceremony is more important than most people think. Flags and national anthems only play a ceremonial role, but having symbols is important to how humans function. How many people have "died for their country"? (or been told to "lie back and think of England" ;P ) Those sentiments are all driven by symbols and ceremony. And what does any ceremony or symbol that involves the Monarchy tell people? It says to everyone that there are two classes of people. There is 1) the Monarchy and 2) everyone else - and they are our rulers.
Colin Angus Mackay wrote:
You could keep the same system (if you like the system)
The rest of our system isn't that great either. Our Senate is appointed, basically for life, by the Prime Minister. The senate doesn't really do much to effect life in Canada, so the government mainly uses the senate as patronage appointments for their cronies. Our senate was called a "taskless thank" by one sharp commentator (Hugh Segal). Ironically, he was later appointed to the senate. Not to say that the U.S. always does the right thing around the world or at home, but their system of Government is far superior to the UK or Canada.
Need Icons? Huge list of Stock Icon collections (free and commercial): www.IconsReview.com
-
Corinna John wrote:
The next question might be "would india be better off, if the British were still there"
No. When the British left, the literacy rate was near 15%. Since the British left, population hs tripled yet literacy rate has gone up. Which means that Independent India has educated more of its people than the British ever did.
Vivic wrote:
The next question might be "would india be better off, if the British were still there"
And the question after that, "would the UK be better off, if the British were still there?" It's 2006 and supposedly Seven million UK residents are functionally illiterate[^] it couldn't have been 7 million people in 1947 !?!?!? ;P ;P ;P ;P ;P (I'm not from India or the UK, I'm just joking around)
Need Icons? Huge list of Stock Icon collections (free and commercial): www.IconsReview.com
-
The thing is, if a lot of call centre/IT work flows into India, money flows in, and the new middle class want to eat out, buy cars, go shopping, furnish their houses, etc. So, any sector that becomes a major employer will create growth in service industries and retail.
yes, you are right. service and retail has been very much influenced by the growth in IT. And probably IT is the formost sector to bring in the foreign investment. But there are other parts of the economy which are growing very fast too. Like health care, automobile, manufacturing, biotech etc. Manufacturing sector got 75% increase in FDI in last 2 years. Government policies (in last 10 - 15 years) in opening the markets and encouraging privatization has helped a lot. even with low litercy rate, because of the high population india already had high number of educated people and open competitive market provided the opportunity. Ankita
-
Hello, I just read an article about farmers in india in a german newspaper. Now, I'm not sure about one sentence: > 50% of all indians cannot read and write properly. You are a big player in IT, your economy is growing and growing ... are there two parallel worlds in india? One world of educated people, and another world of poor losers? Please tell me if it is true and (if true) why your government does not do anything against it. :rose: coco
____________________________________ There is no proof for this sentence.
1. The figure is closer to 40%, as has already been pointed out. 2. I would equate the 'Govt' with the 'politicians', and it is in the politicians' best (self) interest to keep the masses illiterate. 3. I'm ashamed. :sigh:
Cheers, Vikram.
"Life isn't fair, and the world is full of unscrupulous characters. There are things worth fighting for, killing for and dying for, but it's a really small list. Chalk it up to experience, let it go, and move on to the next positive experience in your life." - Christopher Duncan.
-
Hello, I just read an article about farmers in india in a german newspaper. Now, I'm not sure about one sentence: > 50% of all indians cannot read and write properly. You are a big player in IT, your economy is growing and growing ... are there two parallel worlds in india? One world of educated people, and another world of poor losers? Please tell me if it is true and (if true) why your government does not do anything against it. :rose: coco
____________________________________ There is no proof for this sentence.
Corinna John wrote:
are there two parallel worlds in india? One world of educated people, and another world of poor losers?
Yes. There are two parallel worlds in India, one of educated people and one of poor losers. However, not so long ago, there used to be only one world of poor losers.
Corinna John wrote:
Please tell me if it is true and (if true) why your government does not do anything against it.
The political environment of India is pathetic. You would imagine that India should be only a few short steps away from atleast becoming "not so visibly" poor. The politics here is purely focused on gaming the electoral system. I know many would say, "Yeah, but that is true everywhere including the USA". The scale is just not the same. A quick analogy. I-90 has potholes, Bombay roads have potholes, but they are not the same now, are they ?
-
Hello, I just read an article about farmers in india in a german newspaper. Now, I'm not sure about one sentence: > 50% of all indians cannot read and write properly. You are a big player in IT, your economy is growing and growing ... are there two parallel worlds in india? One world of educated people, and another world of poor losers? Please tell me if it is true and (if true) why your government does not do anything against it. :rose: coco
____________________________________ There is no proof for this sentence.
Another world of poor losers ? ...it's almost like saying that since you don't know jack about farming you and your family are starving to death. Farmer's (not all but many) are quite rich because 1. They are damn good at what they do 2. They don't have to worry about outsourcing :) ... 3. India thrives on agriculture first ... IT is a baby in comparison (although this baby is the cause of sleepless nights for many software professionals in developed nations) What's for the govt. to do ? It's almost like saying "Why doesn't the US govt. do something about the outsourcing?"
-
Colin Angus Mackay wrote:
hese are two separate things in a constitutional monarchy.
I'm certainly not an expert on the constitution, but in addition to forming and disolving the government, the Governor General also has to give "Royal Assent" to all bills before they are law. Whether you call it the government or the state, there is one person at the top of the "chain of command", and it seems like the Queen/Governor General is above the Prime Minister. There was also a case in Canada when the Governor General refused the Prime Minister's request for an election, so it can be more than just a ceremonial role. This was back in the 1920's but this may be an issue again soon, because we have more political parties now, so minority governments are more likely.
Colin Angus Mackay wrote:
Everything else is just rubberstamping and carries no more than a ceremonial role.
90% of Canadians would agree with that, so I realize I have a minority viewpoint here. I think ceremony is more important than most people think. Flags and national anthems only play a ceremonial role, but having symbols is important to how humans function. How many people have "died for their country"? (or been told to "lie back and think of England" ;P ) Those sentiments are all driven by symbols and ceremony. And what does any ceremony or symbol that involves the Monarchy tell people? It says to everyone that there are two classes of people. There is 1) the Monarchy and 2) everyone else - and they are our rulers.
Colin Angus Mackay wrote:
You could keep the same system (if you like the system)
The rest of our system isn't that great either. Our Senate is appointed, basically for life, by the Prime Minister. The senate doesn't really do much to effect life in Canada, so the government mainly uses the senate as patronage appointments for their cronies. Our senate was called a "taskless thank" by one sharp commentator (Hugh Segal). Ironically, he was later appointed to the senate. Not to say that the U.S. always does the right thing around the world or at home, but their system of Government is far superior to the UK or Canada.
Need Icons? Huge list of Stock Icon collections (free and commercial): www.IconsReview.com
Warren D Stevens wrote:
the Governor General also has to give "Royal Assent" to all bills before they are law.
That is just rubber stamping. That is the ceremonial bit.
Warren D Stevens wrote:
There was also a case in Canada when the Governor General refused the Prime Minister's request for an election, so it can be more than just a ceremonial role. This was back in the 1920's but this may be an issue again soon, because we have more political parties now, so minority governments are more likely.
As also happened in Australia in 1975. But the Queen (or King as it was in the 1920s) was very unlikely to have been involved.
Warren D Stevens wrote:
The senate doesn't really do much to effect life in Canada, so the government mainly uses the senate as patronage appointments for their cronies.
Sounds like the House of Lords.
Warren D Stevens wrote:
Not to say that the U.S. always does the right thing around the world or at home, but their system of Government is far superior to the UK or Canada
I disagree. I think the system where the person at the top's only real power is to call a general election is far superior. There is a power of veto also (i.e. not giving "Royal Assent") but it is very weak and would probably result in a sudden change of constitution. I feel that the system's like the US put too much power into the hands of the president. And no one person should have that much power.
*** Developer Day 4 in Reading, England on 2nd December 2006 - Registration Now Open *** Upcoming Scottish Developers events: * Developer Day Scotland: are you interested in speaking or attending? My: Website | Blog | Photos
-
But I sponsor a child and her family for US$25 odd a month. That makes your $300 a month look pretty good, I would have said.
Christian Graus wrote:
But I sponsor a child and her family for US$25 odd a month. That makes your $300 a month look pretty good, I would have said
The 25 USD would probably give her food and education and its a pretty good amount for an organization to look after the child. But to run a family with 300 USD isnt possible. 120 USD to rent a decent house 60 USD if you cook food at home 60 USD for electricity, telephone 20 USD for Internet bill You are already down to 40 USD with which you need to look after entertainment, schooling of kids, transportation, cell phone bill, save some money for the future, etc... In the current times you need atleast 500 to 700 USD to live a decent life in the city.
Tarakeshwar Reddy MCP, CCIE Q(R&S) Experience is like a comb that life gives you when you are bald - Navjot Singh Sidhu
-
Warren D Stevens wrote:
the Governor General also has to give "Royal Assent" to all bills before they are law.
That is just rubber stamping. That is the ceremonial bit.
Warren D Stevens wrote:
There was also a case in Canada when the Governor General refused the Prime Minister's request for an election, so it can be more than just a ceremonial role. This was back in the 1920's but this may be an issue again soon, because we have more political parties now, so minority governments are more likely.
As also happened in Australia in 1975. But the Queen (or King as it was in the 1920s) was very unlikely to have been involved.
Warren D Stevens wrote:
The senate doesn't really do much to effect life in Canada, so the government mainly uses the senate as patronage appointments for their cronies.
Sounds like the House of Lords.
Warren D Stevens wrote:
Not to say that the U.S. always does the right thing around the world or at home, but their system of Government is far superior to the UK or Canada
I disagree. I think the system where the person at the top's only real power is to call a general election is far superior. There is a power of veto also (i.e. not giving "Royal Assent") but it is very weak and would probably result in a sudden change of constitution. I feel that the system's like the US put too much power into the hands of the president. And no one person should have that much power.
*** Developer Day 4 in Reading, England on 2nd December 2006 - Registration Now Open *** Upcoming Scottish Developers events: * Developer Day Scotland: are you interested in speaking or attending? My: Website | Blog | Photos
Colin Angus Mackay wrote:
I feel that the system's like the US put too much power into the hands of the president. And no one person should have that much power.
I completely agree with the idea of limiting power, which is one reason I prefer the US system to the Canadian system. In Canada the Prime Minister: 1) Appoints the judges to the supreme court 2) Appoints the Senate 3) Picks (and dismisses at will) all of the cabinet ministers. 4) Controls the party whip (tells members to vote with the PM, or you're out of the party) 5) Gets to pick when the next election is called (there is a limit on # of years, but when they've only got 18 months to go, they wait until the opposition has a scandal, or their party takes a jump in the polls, and then call a snap election). All of this effectively gives the Prime Minister total control of their party and (and assuming they have a majority) the government. At least in the US, they have "mid-term" elections, so when the president really screws things up, the population gets to send them a message fairly quickly (as just happened). In our current party system, the Prime Minister is chosen by the party (i.e. not picked by the country in an election), so we get stuck with someone who is a lousy leader, but has built up enough favours, or made enough back-room deals, in the party over the years that they become P.M. There have been many times where I like (or at least, don't mind) the party in power, but I want to replace the leader. For a good laugh, read the WikiQuote for Jean_Chretien[^] where he is described as "20th prime minister of Canada, was known for his wrestling matches with the English language.":sigh: I'd much prefer the U.S. system where you pick the leader separately (notwithstanding the current choice made in that system - a bad result doesn't mean a bad system ;P)
Need Icons? Huge list of Stock Icon collections (free and commercial): www.IconsReview.com
-
Garth J Lancaster wrote:
to illustrate my point, if you went to Bangalore or Pune, you only have to step outside the door of an air-conditioned IT office before you're back in the third world
OK. I have a friend who goes to Bangalore a lot, but we've never really talked about this stuff.
-
1. The figure is closer to 40%, as has already been pointed out. 2. I would equate the 'Govt' with the 'politicians', and it is in the politicians' best (self) interest to keep the masses illiterate. 3. I'm ashamed. :sigh:
Cheers, Vikram.
"Life isn't fair, and the world is full of unscrupulous characters. There are things worth fighting for, killing for and dying for, but it's a really small list. Chalk it up to experience, let it go, and move on to the next positive experience in your life." - Christopher Duncan.
Vikram A Punathambekar wrote:
3. I'm ashamed.
Don't be ashamed. Do something about it. Start kicking butt NOW! :) Those who do nothing but claim they are ashamed of the pathetic situation should be shot (I'm not saying you are one of them, just venting).
-
Anand Vivek Srivastava wrote:
The British encouraged the caste system to keep the masses divided, and we are having a hard time overcoming it
It's not fair to blame the British at all for the caste system at this point. India has been independent for ~60 years at this point. The British didn't invent the caste system. You can argue that it may have been encouraged, but if it wasn't an integral part of Indian society, would it not have died out in sixty years. Take a look at Indian dating sites like: http://www.jeevansathi.com/[^] The fourth combo box in the filter is "Caste". You can't blame the British for that one. 3) Not being from India or Britain, but from another British colony, I can say that we have some hold-overs that never would have come about except for the fact that we were a former British colony. For example, our official head of government must be 1) Anglican and 2) is chosen by hereditary. I really don't agree with this, but all things considered, being in a former British colony is a lot better than the alternative in today's world.
Need Icons? Huge list of Stock Icon collections (free and commercial): www.IconsReview.com
Warren D Stevens wrote:
but if it wasn't an integral part of Indian society, would it not have died out in sixty years.
Intellectually speaking, yes. But not so from a practical point of view. It's a wee bit difficult if you have always believed in the caste system, your parents have always believed in the caste system, their parents have always believed in the caste system, and so on. Not to mention that it's in the interest of the politicians to keep it alive. Of course, the educated ones are getting over it, but most people are poorly educated, if at all, so it's taking some time. But I am sure the caste system will only remain a memory in a few generations. The OP didn't say the British invented the caste system in India, just that they encouraged it and took advantage of it. Not pointing fingers, just stating facts.
-
Vikram A Punathambekar wrote:
3. I'm ashamed.
Don't be ashamed. Do something about it. Start kicking butt NOW! :) Those who do nothing but claim they are ashamed of the pathetic situation should be shot (I'm not saying you are one of them, just venting).
smaaaart wrote:
Don't be ashamed. Do something about it.
What makes you think I'm not?
Cheers, Vikram.
"Life isn't fair, and the world is full of unscrupulous characters. There are things worth fighting for, killing for and dying for, but it's a really small list. Chalk it up to experience, let it go, and move on to the next positive experience in your life." - Christopher Duncan.
-
Yes, the situation is pathetic.
Corinna John wrote:
> 50% of all indians cannot read and write properly.
Athough the number is around 40%,
Literacy:
definition: age 15 and over can read and write
total population: 59.5%
male: 70.2%
female: 48.3% (2003 est.)IT is the only field India has done well, Biotechnology seems promising but it will have to prove itself.
Corinna John wrote:
are there two parallel worlds in india? One world of educated people, and another world of poor losers?
Isn't that always the case? Someone will always be poor, however the fact that the system(not only the government) does not do enough is quite dishearting. The problem is that the system has got accustomed to the viscious circle of illiteracy <=> poverty <=> corruption. The corrupt politicians want the people to remain ignorant so that they keep getting elected, and when a police constable gets get INR 2500(~$50) per month as salary, corruption is difficult to reap out. However, situation is improving. The politicians are illiterate and corrupt but a lot of policies(the low profile ones) some how get created and implemented by the educated (IAS officers - corrupt but educated) who form the backend of the legislature and the Judiciary has started keeping a watch over things. Some hope has been kindled by Free mid-day meals for kids at schools(to encourage parents to send their kids to school instead of work - yes child labour is illegal, but ...) and free education for girls in primary school, but it is a long way to go. please note: it is only 59 years since independence and the British left us in really bad shape.
Anand Vivek Srivastava wrote:
Someone will always be poor, however the fact that the system(not only the government) does not do enough is quite dishearting.
Why should this be the government's problem? The government is overly abused, yet so many still want to be fed, clothed, and housed by it.
"Approved Workmen Are Not Ashamed" - 2 Timothy 2:15
"Judge not by the eye but by the heart." - Native American Proverb
-
Warren D Stevens wrote:
but if it wasn't an integral part of Indian society, would it not have died out in sixty years.
Intellectually speaking, yes. But not so from a practical point of view. It's a wee bit difficult if you have always believed in the caste system, your parents have always believed in the caste system, their parents have always believed in the caste system, and so on. Not to mention that it's in the interest of the politicians to keep it alive. Of course, the educated ones are getting over it, but most people are poorly educated, if at all, so it's taking some time. But I am sure the caste system will only remain a memory in a few generations. The OP didn't say the British invented the caste system in India, just that they encouraged it and took advantage of it. Not pointing fingers, just stating facts.
The OP said: "the British encouraged the caste system to keep the masses divided, and we are having a hard time overcoming it" Which seems to imply that the British bear a large responsibility for the caste system. My point was that the caste system really didn't need much encouragement (note: I'm not saying it wasn't taken advantage of, just that it doesn't seem to need encouragement) 1) It was there before the British 2) It was there after the British 3) Castes are not present in other (former) British colonies, so it's not something the British were going around pressing on people (unlike, say, speaking English and the English system of law, which you will still see in almost all former colonies). It's fair to say that education/literacy was not good under the British, but if literacy can make incredible progress since the British left town, the caste system should have gone away if it was their fault too. And that is NOT to say that colonialism was a good thing, just that the vast majority of the any blame for the caste system causing divisions/problems should not be dumped on the British.
Need Icons? Huge list of Stock Icon collections (free and commercial): www.IconsReview.com
-
Anand Vivek Srivastava wrote:
Someone will always be poor, however the fact that the system(not only the government) does not do enough is quite dishearting.
Why should this be the government's problem? The government is overly abused, yet so many still want to be fed, clothed, and housed by it.
"Approved Workmen Are Not Ashamed" - 2 Timothy 2:15
"Judge not by the eye but by the heart." - Native American Proverb
I never said it was government's responsibility alone to feed/cloth/house everyone. And that is why I used the word system(The industry, the government, the voters, the NGOs) the instead of the government. And if this is not the government's problem, what is? I don't see anything worse than a hard worker dying of hunger (it has happened on multiple instances when farmers died of hunger). If you want to ask what is government's fault, I will give you an example. there is around 59% tax on petrol which affects all other costs and the inflation at the moment is quite high. The money it gets is wasted on policies like giving free electricity to farmers in Punjab(one of the richest farmers are from this state)
-
Colin Angus Mackay wrote:
I feel that the system's like the US put too much power into the hands of the president. And no one person should have that much power.
I completely agree with the idea of limiting power, which is one reason I prefer the US system to the Canadian system. In Canada the Prime Minister: 1) Appoints the judges to the supreme court 2) Appoints the Senate 3) Picks (and dismisses at will) all of the cabinet ministers. 4) Controls the party whip (tells members to vote with the PM, or you're out of the party) 5) Gets to pick when the next election is called (there is a limit on # of years, but when they've only got 18 months to go, they wait until the opposition has a scandal, or their party takes a jump in the polls, and then call a snap election). All of this effectively gives the Prime Minister total control of their party and (and assuming they have a majority) the government. At least in the US, they have "mid-term" elections, so when the president really screws things up, the population gets to send them a message fairly quickly (as just happened). In our current party system, the Prime Minister is chosen by the party (i.e. not picked by the country in an election), so we get stuck with someone who is a lousy leader, but has built up enough favours, or made enough back-room deals, in the party over the years that they become P.M. There have been many times where I like (or at least, don't mind) the party in power, but I want to replace the leader. For a good laugh, read the WikiQuote for Jean_Chretien[^] where he is described as "20th prime minister of Canada, was known for his wrestling matches with the English language.":sigh: I'd much prefer the U.S. system where you pick the leader separately (notwithstanding the current choice made in that system - a bad result doesn't mean a bad system ;P)
Need Icons? Huge list of Stock Icon collections (free and commercial): www.IconsReview.com
Warren D Stevens wrote:
All of this effectively gives the Prime Minister total control of their party and (and assuming they have a majority) the government
Well, I assume that each party has a way of electing their leader. How the individual parties organise themselves is upto the party. For example, the Labour party in the UK operates on a college system of sorts. 1/3 of the votes come from party members, 1/3 from trade unions and 1/3 from elected members - This gives elected members a huge weighting. However, that is how the Labour party operate internally and it is up to them how they do that.
Warren D Stevens wrote:
I'd much prefer the U.S. system where you pick the leader separately (notwithstanding the current choice made in that system - a bad result doesn't mean a bad system )
True, but I think the US president has too much power for one person. It needs to be spread around more. You could argue that the Canadian system (which looks identitcal to the British system) puts too much power in the hands of the PM. However, people have been known to ignore the whip and that can really put the cat amongst the pigeons. The appointments to the senate sound like the appointments to the Lords - and while I believe strongly in a bicameral parliament, because it spreads the power around more people, I feel the Lords needs a lot of reform (so I agree with you regarding the Senate) - Hopefully, I won't have to worry about the Lords for much longer. If the SNP win in Scotland we should have an indepenendce referrendum within 4 years.
*** Developer Day 4 in Reading, England on 2nd December 2006 - Registration Now Open *** Upcoming Scottish Developers events: * Developer Day Scotland: are you interested in speaking or attending? My: Website | Blog | Photos
-
smaaaart wrote:
Don't be ashamed. Do something about it.
What makes you think I'm not?
Cheers, Vikram.
"Life isn't fair, and the world is full of unscrupulous characters. There are things worth fighting for, killing for and dying for, but it's a really small list. Chalk it up to experience, let it go, and move on to the next positive experience in your life." - Christopher Duncan.
Vikram A Punathambekar wrote:
What makes you think I'm not?
Firstly, like I said in my post, I wasn't saying that you were one of those who keep on saying they are ashamed without actually doing anything. I don't know anything about you, to say or imply anything like that. Secondly, it's my experience that most of the people who talk like you, don't actually do anything. They just say all these things to feel superior to other Indians. Once again, I am not saying you are one of those people. Either become an agent of change, or stop complaining and feeling ashamed. Because you are part of the problem. (Again, to clarify, the "you" here is said in the generic sense, not directed at you, Vikram Punathambekar, personally.) So, tell me. What have you been doing/have done?