Religion

We still argue controversially about this topic; how my religion is better than yours? We argue about the history of these religions, the accuracy and whatnot, to the point where we are left in bloodshed.

But it goes without doubt to say that the fundamental values that all religions hold is identical to one another. Maybe a few slight variations, but all religious values look to the betterment of one another. To be honest, I know extremely little of Hinduism, what should be my faith; but I do know that it shares two things with most others:

1. The belief that humans are subordinate to some unknown figure.
2. To hold one's actions to a high standard for the benefit of oneself, as well the community.

What is the difference between Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, or Zoroastrianism? The histories maybe...fundamentally, nothing.

Don't even get me started on the concept of missionaries...

Maybe?...

A Dream: A Unified India and Pakistan

A dream is a little more than just an imaginative world that has slight chances of ever coming true...or even impossible. But it's good to dream.

My dream is a unified India and Pakistan. One government working towards a common goal. As complex as the current state of these countries may be, how are the interests of two nations different? Adequate provisions for all citizens, little crime, and the prevention of illegal activities would suffice.

In my opinion, it's no more than mistrust in one another, combined with the Hindu-Muslim rivalry. But it should be possible [in a hypothetical world]; if the Sikhs can thrive in both India and Pakistan, why are we still reduced to this futile hatred?

That mistrust has led to both India and Pakistan pointing the finger at each other in every controversial matter; it's also led to bloody fighting before. Why, I still ask? Aren't we all brothers and sisters, created as one? We were taught these principles at one point or another, but we still don't act on them.

I know it won't happen...maybe in centuries to come, but we all know that it should happen. Merging economies, diplomatic relations, and other aspects of two competitive governments is just not being practical.

It ends when the peoples of India and Pakistan stop teaching their younger generations slander and libel of their neighbor. It's these new generations that will shape the world...but unfortunately it's not even this one in the 21st century.

A dream can be called a dream only if you have the will to aspire. For if you do not, it's no more than an dissipating illusion.

The Libyan Revolution: US Intervention & Wikileaks

I praise the action and efforts of the citizens of Libya fighting against the crude dictator Moammar Gadhafi. In such an authoritarian country, it becomes difficult to stand up to the government...and they've still managed even with the amount of violence the rebels have seen in Benghazi. They aren't well armed and have the courage to stand up against tanks and other advanced weaponry that the government is using.

"Action is necessary and we will not be acting alone," Obama said


It seems quite obvious that this isn't going to be direct military intervention [yet], but I personally condemn any American intervention in Libya; the effects from the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq still hinder our country with excessive costs and burdens. Either way, even if the United States attends the Paris summit hosted by French President Nicolas Sarkozy, wouldn't the efforts be futile if the European countries are going to take action anyway? 


If this does eventually lead to direct military intervention, it is not the United States' position to invade Libya. It will be a waste of tax payer money [when that money should be used on healthcare and education], cost American lives, and may further damage the economy. 


I don't understand why these countries invade nations on the basis of humanitarianism. They've all supported their share of the wrong regimes and have initiated conflict before. The French armed the Hutus in the genocide in Rwanda and Burundi that almost wiped out the Tutsis; the US has supported terrorist regimes to counter the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan; they've even supported the Tamil Tigers in the Sri Lankan Civil War. On a darker note, who knows what these rebels might do with armaments and support from the West?


It's obviously all for oil. But is it really worth it? I bet there's more long term consequences. 


Another point that I want to stress is the effect Wikileaks has played. Initially it was condemned for the threat it could play, but it seems as if this was an overreaction. In fact, I think it's helped the United States. According to Stratfor, a global intelligence company, everything released by Wikileaks is vague, known to the public, and raw, unanalyzed data. In fact, news organizations such as The Guardian and the New York Times attempted to analyze this data...so doesn't that logically mean that these news organizations should get in more trouble? [Point of clarification: the unanalyzed data can only successfully be interpreted by the US Military]


Well, the news articles that "attempted to" analyze the data are thought to have been the trigger for the Middle Eastern revolutions...and so far, they've been in the United States' favor overall. In Tunisia, the United States did not want Ben Ali as the incumbent...the domino effect finally led to Libya where it may lead to the abdication of another leader the US loathes. So maybe Julian did a favor for the United States? 

Kyrie Irving...and Duke's Overconfidence

No doubt about it, Kyrie Irving is an extremely talented freshman guard playing for Duke, but is his return for March Madness over anticipated? As a loyal Duke fan, I'd like to see the Blue Devils win the whole tournament, but honestly I think Duke fans are getting a bit overconfident with the return.

Nike's made a special shoe for Irving to play, but honestly, he hasn't played a game in about three months and never with these shoes. Yes, he can condition in them, but it's never the same as actually playing...and adding on, how much comfort will they really offer?

"I think I had a high basketball IQ when I was playing," Irving said, "but now it's increased, tremendously."

He'll need a few more games before he plays to his full potential, and putting that "IQ" to the test isn't as easy as Irving makes it seem.

Things do come in three's though, so hopefully Irving's return isn't the third:

1. ACC Tournament Champions
2. #1 Seed
3. 2011 NCAA Champions???

My Final Four Picks:

Syracuse
Duke
Kansas
Pittsburgh

I'm trying not to be boring like President Obama's bracket picks by only choosing 4 #1 seeds in the Final Four...hence, Syracuse.

And for fun, if NCAA picks were done in terms of economics programs:

http://timothyjlayton.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/econ-bracket.jpg?w=1024

Inverse relationship between quality of econ program and athletic program?

So SMART

Info straight from MIT

The Singapore-MIT Alliance for Research and Technology. Singapore is using more than just its strategic location for this one. The country is devising methods to cope with rapid population growth in every way possible; they collect gutters to collect rain water, place very tight limits on loans for second homes, and slap high taxes on speculators who flip properties.

Intrusive? Maybe, but it's worked. Singapore recently saw a 14.5% growth with FDI growing 123%. They're called the Switzerland of Asia, but as SMART examines the "future of urban mobility", Switzerland may be the Singapore of Europe.

At this rate, I see the Singaporeans as the next New Yorkers, receiving contracts from places such as UAE and China, and American companies such as Proctor and Gamble. Probably not going to be the world's largest economy [I speculate China in 25 years], but definitely a mini-superpower.

Nukes for all?

For some reason, I always find it wrong that many nations refuse to provide Iran with uranium. Even if it is to make nukes [which it very well may not be], wouldn't that just lead to increased deterrence?

To clarify, if Iran possesses nuclear weapons, Israel [or any other country] would not fire their weapons for risk of being annihilated themselves...a concept coined as Mutually Assured Destruction.

Either way, Iran could only produce up to 2 nukes in their arsenal, whereas the U.S....thousands. So no fear, America would still have the upper hand.

In my opinion, if every stable country possessed nuclear armaments, then no country would be inclined to use them. Right now, since the weapons are concentrated in the most powerful countries, what if they are eventually used. Questions, questions..

Of course, it would reduce the political power countries like the United States have. The U.N. Security Council requires that in order to have veto powers, nuclear armaments are required. Now it's quite obvious that most states wouldn't want to give that up.

But hey, in the long run, we might not need to spend that much money on defense again if nukes aren't going to be used...given the fact that we spend more on the military than education.

Universal Healthcare

Life is considered an inalienable right [John Locke], coming from a man who so vehemently affected the Constitution. But yet over 200 years later, America still lacks universal healthcare compared to every other G8 nation. Of course, in a heavily capitalistic economy, such behavior is expected. One would be unwilling to pay for the life of another, as one should earn the privilege of healthcare itselft.

But people are naive to think that the insurance company isn't stealing money from them. As far as I see it, in capitalism, everyone goes for profit; so why wouldn't the insurance company? They, along with the hospital, would try to extract every penny possible, even at the expense of the consumer.

An HMO for example, pays doctors money to withold information from you. This way, if there is a problem, the insurance company would not have to pay for your treatment. And the irony: for witholding information, the doctor at the end of the day, receives a fat paycheck. To me, this is only a form of corruption. The American healthcare system needs to ostracise such corrupt behavior, and seriously should be reformed.

Universal healthcare does not lead to an unsuccessful economy, as many would argue.

Japanese Earthquake

This earthquake is huge and I'm honestly quite surprised that this is Japan's largest earthquake in recorded history. I always remember looking at little postcards of cartoon Asian villages being destroyed by earthquakes...might have been Godzilla now that I think about it. The good news is that it probably won't be as bad as the Indian Ocean tsunami from 2004 since most of the Pacific rim actually has tsunami warning systems installed. 

I think what, 300 people have died so far? Even if that number escalates past a thousand, it won't be as close to the devastation from 2004 or even the Haiti earthquake which well surpassed 200,000; tragic nonetheless though. Who would know that Mother Nature would use her fury today? I feel terrible for those people who lost their lives thinking it was going to be an ordinary day...now that's tough. And hell, enough force to cross the few thousand mile frontier of the Pacific Ocean. Part of me worries what is to become of us in 2012. 

The Deception of Education

I was once asked in an application to answer a simple, but deceiving question, "The Greatest Problem Known to Mankind". Now this is difficult. Honestly, ask yourself this. Where would YOU start? Global warming, women's rights, overpopulation; ultimately they are all linked together.

Let's take this a step backwards. What is man's greatest achievement? Okay, to clarify, I'm trying to ask the process that allowed humanity to progress so far. Education, undoubtedly. Without it, wouldn't we still be incompetent cavemen eating raw flesh? Education has led people to live longer, live more comfortably, and have more leisure in their lives. On the contrary, education is a death sentence.

Education is the root cause of all social problems. If I were to approach a Westerner and question them on whether or not socialism or capitalism were the better system, I would expect the latter. Why? Well, isn't that how we've been educated? From what I've learned, my teachers and parents have always denounced socialism. As if I've been guinea-pigged into thinking it doesn't work. In a way, this is what fueled Vietnam and the Cold War too, right?

People always go about what they've been taught and most fail to move past this. For example, the global recession struck in 2008. Most jobs were outsourced out of America, because these companies [IBM, cough cough] wanted "capital". Well, I'm sure capitalism is a winner now isn't it? That near double-digit unemployment rate is just the icing on the cake!

As education and development progress, so does the number of lives it takes. Just look at modern conflict. Back in 1800, we didn't have the capability to nuke someone, but now we do. That bias in education will undoubtedly cause more lives to be lost [just because socialism is definitely subordinate to capitalism] as time passes. That was a Cold War/Vietnam War/Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan reference to try to make it more obvious.

The solution obviously is not to stop educating, but to eliminate the bias. When we do, we'll be living in the ideal Utopia [let's try to make Thomas More proud].. No more wars and world peace. That's the hard part.