Not in my domain

You are probably better off calling it 'blog standard', the latest call to censor web content is now referred to as the 'Streisand effect', named after the self-deprecating stunt pulled by singer Barbra Streisand who unsuccessfully sued to block personal material that she disliked from appearing on the blog dimension of the internet.

An illustration of the "Streisand effect" is best described with an axiom from John Gilmore - one of the pioneers of the internet: "The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it."

Sidelining all the celebrity-frenzy attention the web is credited to give in its amorphous world, the curious question lies as to whether a government is entitled to its privacy from the blogger's space. When the web censorship scenario sets on authoritarian countries such as China and Saudi Arabia, it seems plausible for the state to intervene for sensible reasons. However, infringement of the blogger's right has been a hotly-debated topic where it appears, contents in blogs can put the ordinary - and potentially influential - blogger behind bars.

In the next election, for any government around the globe, bloggers can perhaps boycott the free publicity (be it infamous or good publicity) given to that state.

Unwanted guest - musafir

In Islamic terms, a guest should always be made feel welcome, irrespective of prejudice. Yet if we were to count the number of unwanted intrusion and compare it to the number that we genuinely would welcome, it would be exceptional to find that the latter number is higher than that of the former.

Frankly speaking, prejudice does take precedence in different forms. Postcode-orientated discrimination is nothing new; nor is it unusual to find a community who holds prejudice against those classified as 'benefit frauds', and furthermore, it is common to despise a "chamcha" who unwittingly lives up to his bestowed name.

Although it is a grave injustice to be indifferent to the children who have had his name since birth. After all, these children are innocent of his misdeeds.

Today, a little boy's reaction provoked the thought that there is an element of dignity which all human beings deserve, despite instances where - on one scale - 'dignity' may possibly remain imbalanced with the other scale weighing more.

"I am always ready, sweetie"

"...His armoured division and two infantry divisions were deployed elsewhere. To shift them would need the entire railway network, so the grain harvest could not be transported and would rot, bringing famine. And of his armoured division’s 189 tanks, only 11 were fit to fight."

In reality, Sam Hormusji Framji Jamshedji Manekshaw was hardly ever ready. He was the army chief during the independence war of Bangladesh, who recently passed away on 27th June.

I have mixed feelings about this guy. On behalf of the Indian army - Sam Manekshaw tried to liberate Bengalis under Pakistani occupation. Although, on the flip side, Bengalis would enounter another drastic famine partly because of Sam. Yet famine was not quite close to the greatest controversy of this man's career; it was suggested that he sold war plans to Pakistan during the 1965 war.

What adds to the amusing history is the fact that though modern-day India lacked to appropriately honour the cheeky man who once assured apprehensive Mrs. Indira Gandhi with, "I am always ready, sweetie", Bangladesh acknowledged the role Sam played towards the nation's foundation by paying a grateful tribute when he passed away. All in all, very fair to pay repsect to those who were doers. In this instance, however, we will continue to wonder if the tribute itself was just another 'one-up' game to India on Bangladesh's part.

Objective illusions

Sometime ago, a wise blogger posted an article called 'Mathematics manifesto' on his blog (Objective Illusions). Unfortunately, in a recent visit to the domain, it no longer remains a site for the intellectual perception feeds, but more so the site has had its contents(and perhaps ownership) changed and is now a place to go to for cinema listings & pyshic clairvoyance.

A written piece of this blogger's work was archived in hardcopy; here is an abstract recollection of his musings:

Raymond Smullyan, a Mathematician, Philosopher and author of several outstanding books of logical puzzles, tells, in one of his books, a revealing story. A friend invited him for dinner. He told Smullyan that his teenage son was crazy about Smullyan's books and could not wait to meet him. The friend warned Smullyan not to mention that he is a Mathematician and that Logic is a part of Mathematics because the young fellow hated Mathematics.

A person abhors reading in general may be suspected of lacking in intelligence, but otherwise, in the absence of further personal data, would likely be judged "normal." A rare person would dislike music as opposed to the one who dislikes a particular kind of music (classic, chamber, pop, country, etc). You would probably be surprised to meet a fellow who feels indiscriminately dizzy at the sight of a painting. Why then has it become an acceptable norm to confess a dislike and misunderstanding of Mathematics as a whole?

If you are a mathematician you surely know what I mean. If you are not, pretend you are, and next time when making a new acquaintance suggest as much. Chances of a response in the spirit of "Oh, really. I have always had problems with math," or "Math was the most difficult subject I ever..." are overwhelming. Somehow I feel that a biologist would not hear (at least not too often) complaints about biology, an a chemist about chemistry. I am sure of this because the term "math anxiety" has gained a respected position in our vocabulary long ago which may only compare to the position afforded to a more recent "computer illiteracy." But whoever heard or confessed of "biological anxiety" or "chemical illiteracy"?

Two attributes (real or perceived) of Mathematics place it apart from other subject and sciences. Mathematics is the only deductive science, and Mathematics is pervasive. It is pervasive and fundamental in the sense that more human activities require at least some math skills than is true of any other field of knowledge. I believe this to be a standard perception. Why is it then that so many people (after having troubles with math in school and learning very little or next to nothing) live their lives happily without missing Mathematics in the least?

The answer is simple. You cannot build an engine without good knowledge of Calculus. Still you can drive a car without any understanding of the internal workings of the engine; much less of the mathematics needed to design or build one. In pragmatic terms, we need mathematics very rarely, and, when we do, the mathematics we need is mostly trivial. Coutning the change in a supermarket, mortgage cost, interest on a loan, the best time to start a driving trip, frequent flier mile count, and what else? However, thinking along those lines is a great simplification and injustice towards both Mathematics and the avarage person. I know for sure Mathematics may be beautiful. Judging Mathematics by its pragmatic value is like judging symphonia by the weight of its score.

What is a pragmatic value of music or literature? Yet would you rather do without either? Few among us attempt to or practice writing music. Most are just happy to be able to appreciate it. Appreciation of music enhances our lives. Likewise, the ability to appreciate Mathematics enhances the lives of those who possess it.