Women and Cruelty to Animals
Every now and then, some idiot comes up with a study saying that there are more vegetarians among women and women are more likely to be nice to animals and all that crap. But actually, women are probably the reason for most of the unnecessary cruelty that happens to animals. Women are the users of cosmetics which are pretty unnecessary if they maintained good habits and some good hygiene in order to maintain their skin. Women unnecessarily shave their armpits and legs and thereby end up using razors and shaving creams which have been tested on animals. Somehow, their parents and grandparents never found the need for that. Women are the ones who use fur for clothing the production of which is mostly by skinning animals alive. If any woman, especially these damn hollywood actresses talks about animal cruelty, I think it has to be the ultimate in hypocrisy as they are causing unnecessary torture to animals by using tons of make up while making life miserable for people by not allowing scientists to test essential drugs and medicines on animals.

The only way a Hindu marriage can be safe and lasting in India now
In the light of the changed scenario in India with fucked up laws which put all the power in the hands of the woman with no checks and balances, there is now only one way by which a Hindu marriage can be lasting and safe for the male. The marriage can be safe and lasting when marriage happens between an SC/ST male and a non SC/ST female. The reason is simple. A SC/ST male can file a case without proof saying that his caste was insulted. The female can put a case without proof of dowry and abuse and all the chimichanga that has been given to them by the female renuka chowdhury. So in the case of a marriage between a SC/ST male and a non SC/ST female, the power of both parties is somewhat balanced (responsibility is still unfotunately put as a burden on the male...he is still expected to provide for the family even if the bitch is educated). But it is a lot better than a non SC/ST guy marrying any female because he cannot file a case without proof against his wife and get her arrested...so he is vulnerable to torture by the bitch. So men of India, if you want to marry, first buy an SC/ST certificate and keep it ready. It will also help you in life to prevent false charges of rape and molestation by unknown women as you can file a case under Prevention of Atrocities against SC/ST act against such women. And women who support renuka chowdhury can fuck off and work their ass off on their own to earn money and live on their own as such women do not deserve good husbands in the first place.
If you are not bothered about the marriage being a Hindu marriage, then marry a westernn woman after signing a pre nup with her. Anyway, western women are more likely to sign pre nups than Indian women and if they earn more, they will end up paying maintenance to the husband under the western laws unlike the extremely biased Indian laws. So now, even western women are a better choice for marriage than Indian women for Indian men.

Why Bill Gates dropped out of Harvard

Because he realized that it was not worth wasting his time there and unnecessarily making the prof's rich for taking a course which was of no use to him.

Most people join MBA courses to be a part of the cartel which gives them privileged access to the corpus of the colleges which are bloated by the exorbitant tution fees and the exorbitant donations given to them by people who get money easily(like the $100 m which Phil Knight gave to Stanford). They then use this money for their own ventures which are given chances to utilize the facilities of companies which belong to some of the parents of their classmates and even if the venture fails, the cartel of MBA puts them in some high post in some damn company where all they do is push their goals down the throats of their subordinates who are much smarter than them and threaten them with dire consequences if the goals are not met though they provide no guidance on how to reach those goals(like the boss in Dilbert - I would not be surprised if that guy were from Harvard). Remember the fedex ad - where the mba thinks that he should not do anything because he is an MBA? They hit the nail on the head with that ad.

Unfortunately, Bill Gates actually happened to be a guy who wanted to do something on his own instead of pushing targets down the throats of subordinates with no guidance of getting to those targets. And furthermore, he wanted to start a venture in this industry called Information Technology which was pretty non existent then. The only things in 1976 were the mainframe computers and IBM 390 PC's whose architecture was a closely guarded secret because of which IBM charged a huge premium making the PC's unaffordable for home usage. And of course, Apple was and continues to be overpriced, but still people buy iPod.

So naturally, given these circumstances, Bill Gates could not get his hands on the Stanford corpus and he realized that it was a waste of time to continue any further over there and he would be better off if he started off on his own without wasting time so that he did not lose the time window which was available for utilizing the opportunity which he felt existed at that time. And maybe he still feels that MBA is crap except for the connections it brings, which is probably why he heaps more praise on technical institutions than management institutions.

I have one simple question - has anyone ever seen a person start off in an MBA role and move to a technical role successfully? Like start off in marketing and then go on to become head of operations? Or start off in HR and go anywhere? I have seen the other way happen very often with lots of currently successful marketing people - and I know why it happens - because technical work is more difficult that MBA work like marketing, and anything is more difficult than HR.

Are women really treated unequally in life?

In my previous post, I mentioned about SIG's who keep demanding more and more no matter what they get. In this post, I will focus on one of those SIG's - women. Women claim that they are discriminated against, denied opportunities, rights, and are in danger of a lot of things which impeded their freedom and what not and even after becoming governors of states or CEO's of companies, they act as if they have been getting a raw deal. But I really doubt if women have it that bad...in fact, in my opinion, men have it a lot worse.

Let us take the simple case of all the women specific rape laws and marriage laws which originated in the west and are now being blindly copied all across the world(obviously...when did politicians ever have brains? all they did was copy anyway). A woman can file a case of rape or domestic violence against any man without proof which automatically takes away the right of the man to be treated as innocent until proven guilty. This is a complete trampling of a mans right to be free and live without fear of anything bad happening to him even if he has done nothing bad and consequently, he has to be a slave to the woman. There is no law on earth which a man can use against a woman in this manner(maybe it exists...only in islamic countries..nowhere else in the world).

On top of it, in a stupid country like India, a woman has no legal responsibility to provide money for the household even if she is educated while even an uneducated man has the damn responsibility even though he did not get the opportunity. And while the feminazis will say that the woman cooks and takes care of the kids, it is a fact that there is no legal remedy for a man to do anything to his wife who does not do the above two tasks properly. Ultimately, a woman, who gets as much opportunities as a guy in terms of education and work(which is pretty much a fact in the middle class unlike what the feminazis claim..in fact, it is more for women because they have reservations in jobs and education which men don't have) till the time of marriage gets choices at the time of marriage(the choice to sit at home and live off the poor husbands money and watch soap operas in the afternoons and evenings or go work and bring some moolah) while a man gets burdened with additional responsibility of taking care of himself and the additional responsibility of providing for the wife with the wife having legal rights to his money and he having no legal rights to his wife's money. The burden of pregnancy is just a few months in a lifetime of more than 60 years and definitely, it is not the job of the man to bear economic responsibility for his entire working lifetime just because the woman is bearing some biological responsibility for a few months. On top of it, in case of a divorce which may even be entirely the woman's fault, the man is the one who loses money though the fault is that of the woman while the woman never loses money even when it is her fault. This is absolutely unfair in terms of risk sharing where one side has no risk and the other side has all the risk in the whole deal.

Consequently, this whole damn nonsense of womens rights seems really shady just like reservation and it is high time women work to secure their future instead of demanding men doing that for them. And it is high time women also face the consequences of their actions like staying at home and plan accordingly and it is also high time men get that right to stay at home and live off the wife's money. Ultimately, true equality means equality not only in rights, but also in responsibility. And consequently, men should also get equal rights like filing cases against women without proof or the damn women specific male bashing laws should be dropped....but then, when did politicians ever admit that they made mistakes? they will modify the laws to make them even worse.

And of course, we need to have quotas in jails for ensuring 33 percent of inmates serving sentences of any length are women (because if women want 33 percent reservation in responsible posts, obviously they should be prepared for this caveat also because they should be punished equally like men, not the lenient manner which is currently followed...nobody deserves a free lunch anyway). Currently, though there is more acceptance among people of women being as bad as men, even after conviction, they are not sentenced to as harsh a degree as men which is again a trampling of the concept of equality which the feminazis claim to be working for.

The conclusion finally is that yes, women are treated unequally, but the inequality is completely in their advantage and completely to the disadvantage of men unlike what the damn feminists and politicians and the politically correct, lying mainstream media would like to have us believe. And women would do better not to trust the feminazis as their intent is anyway not the good of women or society, but to get more money sanctioned for their activities from the tax kitty so that the feminazis can build palatial mansions and buy maybach's for themselves with the money which they siphon away.

Has any govt. ever bothered about the majority?
History has seen various forms of govt. with the vast majority of the world which had trade contacts following a more or less similar form of govt. during the same time. Initially, there would have been the tribal rule where a tribal chief would have been the ultimate authority on everything to do with the people who he ruled over. And this position of tribal chief was largely hereditary with the son of the chief becoming the next chief even if he was a spoilt brat of the first order. And as things became larger in scale and more organized, it became a monarchy which again ran purely on the whims and fancies of the king. In both forms of govt. my guess is that initially, the first generation ruler would have maybe been chosen on consensus and would have probably ruled well, but as time and generations passed a dogmatic rule would have ensued which did not take into account the interests of the majority and dissent against unfairness or injustice would have been crushed by an organized gang run by the ruler. Lucky people would have been able to flee from this ruler to a more merciful and just ruler if they could ever get to know of the existence of such a ruler considering that no decent source of information existed then and no decent transport existed either.
And then the French revolution happened which brought democracy to most parts of the western world and democracy was established in a considerable part of the eastern world after the world wars. Even after democracy was established, there was considerable resentment of govt. giving in to special interest groups of those days like rich traders and merchants and industrialists of the industrial revolution who brought in huge money to the powers that were ruling. Though the western world was democratic, they did not seem to think that the rest of the world deserved it and instead ruled over their colonies in the same monarchical manner that they were ruled. The greed for more colonies led to two world wars. And democracy got established in a decent portion of the eastern world after the second world war.
Everything seemed pretty decent in the western world after the second world war till recently. Now, it looks like democracy seems to plagued with giving in to the noises and threats made by special interest groups and the press which was supposed to be a check on democracy from going haywire has also caved in to the pressure to appease special interest groups(women, gays and now recently muslims). There are special programs to spend money on each of these groups irrespective of whether it serves any purpose or not and laws getting passed all the time to appease each of these groups. And there does not seem to be any way to get govt's to stop wasting taxpayer money on unncessary things which do nothing but make life difficult for the silent majority and appease the SIG's.
My feeling is that govt. wants to spend money just to ensure that the people involved in the whole implementation of the programs get money and the people in the govt. who sanction money to get spent for such programs also make money by getting a portion of it from the people who get the money for implementation. I think the whole reason for this problem is that citizens are not like consumers who can easily switch from one product to another with minimal switching cost. A government is a monopoly for 5 years which gets taxes without much effort from citizens and the more citizens earn, the more the taxes the govt. gets though the effort of the government in ensuring that the person earns more is actually minimal. If govt. had to struggle to get taxes for each purpose just like companies have to struggle to get the money of the consumers, then that might act as a check to ensure that money is not wasted on unnecessary things and only important things involve money being spent on them.
Currently, the money contributed by the vast majority gets them very little benefit and a disproportionate share of the benefits goes to special interest groups. But unforunately, the vast majority is not able to make noises or cause trouble like the SIG's due to the fact that they are too busy trying to survive and that they are also to a large extent afraid of persecution and want some stability in life unlike most SIG's which are generally filled up with lunatics and hence they dont care even about dying and causing grief and sorrow to their families or the SIG's are politically powerful and hence have no fear of being persecuted for causing trouble.
Ne ideas on how to make sure the govt. spends money only on necessary things and not on nonsense which satisfies SIG's? In fact, my feeling is that if that is achieved, most SIG's would fade into oblivion because the reason for their existing is not genuine concern, but to get their hands on the tax money sanctioned to appease them.

Do increased wages really lead to a better standard of living?
Quite a few states in America have recently revised their minimum hourly wage rates with the promise of improved standards of living for the people lying at the bottom of the wage pyramid. But I wonder if they really accomplish what they aim to. I have noticed that with increased wages, the first thing that happens is that rental values tend to go up( in a very flat real estate market). This probably negates the benefits that would probably accrue from the wage raise thereby making it futile. In the longer term, I have also seen jobs getting outsourced and more products getting imported from developing countries like Mexico and China. Only services which cannot get outsourced like mechanics, barbers, waiters etc continue to remain here and the influx of people who were earlier making products into this workforce due to outsourcing ensures that the wages there remain under pressure to be low(this is without even taking immigrants into consideration....if immigrants for these jobs are taken into consideration, then probably the pressure on the wages for these jobs increases manifold). While all the capitalists shout hoarse that they are improving America's competitiveness by outsourcing the manufacturing and moving up the value chain by keeping only the creative work in America, they seem oblivious to the fact that they are firing a large number of their workforce which used to form their customer base thereby making even the lower price of the imported product unaffordable since the fired workforce no longer have jobs to support the normal expenditures which they used to incur.

And lets face it......the number of people who can do creative work can only be limited....the vast majority cannot keep reskilling themselves everytime they lose their jobs and hope for the best since most skills are picked up by years of experience on the job and the resulting learning curve...To illustrate, let me give an example:-When Henry Ford paid his workers $5 a day instead of the prevailing $2.94 then, it was definitely not out of altruism or with the intent to create customers out of his employees...he was faced with a very high attrition rate and absenteeism because of which he had to employ much more people than needed to fill in for the people who suddenly left or did not turn up for work which made his production expensive. By paying $5 a day, he effectively gave a golden handcuff to his employees(since they could not get such a high paying job outside Ford) which brought down his attrition rate and as the employees stayed in the company much longer than the 2.5 months which they averaged prior to the new wage they went up the learning curve and managed to improve efficiencies which then resulted in the price of the Ford Model T falling from $780 to $290. So all this talk of reskilling and getting people to move up the value chain is a whole lot of bull since better value chains get created by people working as only the problems faced during real work give insights to problems which would have never been thought of before.

My argument against minimum wage increases is this: if wages increase without any increase in productivity,our cost of living will go up and we will only become more incompetent and jobs will more likely get outsourced. For the sake of a marginal improvement in living standard(for those who remain in jobs), there is no point in making ourselves more incompetent and our jobs more insecure than they already are. I would rather stick to lower standard of living with much higher job security instead of repeatedly getting fired and having to reskill myself with no certainty as to how long my newly acquired skills would serve me. And if we keep thinking that only we are capable of creative work and that the countries to which we are outsourcing our routine work would not touch us there, then we could not be more wrong: I am pretty sure those countries(at least China would definitely be doing something...they are a juggernaut to watch out for) are silently building up their capabilities on that front as well and would probably strike at an appropriate time which will then catch even our creative people by surprise and make them fight a futile battle like the one the Detroit auto cos are fighting against the Japanese, Koreans and the Europeans and in the near future, the Chinese as well(Geely automobile of China has announced plans of entering the American market within the next 18 months and about 4 months back Maytag was about to be taken over by Haier of China which was stopped at the last minute by Whirlpool submitting a higher bid for the company).

Finally, somebody told the truth about HR

In my earlier post, I had just given a fleeting mention of HR saying that only useless people would be doing teaching, whether it is in colleges or in the HR depts of various companies. Looks like many more people are sharing that view of mine......read about it at the below link
http://us.rediff.com/money/2005/dec/09hr.htm?q=bp&file=.htm

The article mentions that people who take HR as a specialization in MBA do it probably because they did not get meatier things like finance or marketing...It also mentions the case of people who do badly in the main work for which they are recruited in companies and hence are shunted to HR to prevent any further damage to the company due to their incompetence.

Frankly, I couldnt agree more.