The Last Minute Phenomenon - Work Smart not Hard!

“It takes 46 muscles to frown but only 4 to flip ‘em the bird”. I feel myself connecting with this gem of wisdom as I look at the last year of my life. My epic battle with education is coming to a close in a few days and I have no idea if it’s all been worth it. Maybe I should’ve flipped them the bird when I had a chance.

My exam starts in two hours. That is two agonising hours of waiting and berating myself for not working hard earlier. Many of us have that disease I guess, that plague which makes us fool around the entire year and then cram the whole syllabus into our heads a day before we actually write the paper. I myself am a chronic patient of this disease; I’ve been infected with it all my life and will no doubt continue to suffer from it for the rest of my stay on planet earth.

I used to hate myself for this. After every exam I used to take an oath that the same won’t happen again, that next time I’ll work much harder. But nothing changes; I sit through the next set of exams with my last minute revision and unabashedly take the same oath again. It is a little like the saying that everybody wants to go to heaven, but nobody wants to die. I was willing to take the oath, but I wasn’t willing to go through with it.

However, today is different. Not that I worked hard this time, I still rely on my last minute feats of endurance as ever, but I’ve realised that this is me. I am not someone who works hard, I am someone who neglects his duties and relies on improvisation to pull him through. I shouldn’t fight it, I should cherish it.

Yes, hard-work never killed anybody, but why take the risk? I’m good at what I do, I have fun and I get through it in the end. Why change a formula that works? To be honest, I really am tired of people telling me how capable I am and how much I can achieve if I just worked harder. It has never occurred to them that the reason I’m good is because of the life I lead, that if I immerse myself into those colossal books in the library, I wouldn’t be as good anymore. The price I pay for being me is that I’m lazy, I can’t deny that.

So this is a message to all those out there who rely on their last minute improvisation skills like me. Working hard is for nerds, working smart is for us. And don’t give a shit about those hypocrites who accuse us of being lazy; we live our lives for us, not for them. When I die, I want to go peacefully in my sleep - not screaming, like the passengers in my car.

The Gun Controversy - Misdirected Passion

I was watching a couple of videos on youtube about the recent V Tech massacre in Virginia last month. For those who are not familiar with it, it was a school shooting incident where Seung-Hi Cho, a university student, killed 32 people and wounded even more, making it one of the worst shooting incidents in modern history. Moreover, it happened in a university.

As expected, the incident sparked outrage all over the country, with Liberals using it as yet another incident to bolster their claims to buff the gun control laws in the country. Even though I identify myself as a Liberal minded person on most issues, here I do differ with them. Their anger is not pointed in the right direction, they have heavily politicised an issue which has caused deep emotional trauma for many people and they are cheapening the lives of the people who died that day for the sake of publicity.

Freedom has a price; you have to understand that if you value any kind of freedom. To think that we live in a free country today without realising that something this important comes with implications is absurd. For free speech the price is that we have to tolerate racists and haters. For freedom of religion we have to tolerate beliefs that differ from our own. If you want the right to assemble, you have to acknowledge that the Nazis and KKK can too.

Now, to protect yourself from clans and parties that abuse this freedom, you need to be armed. To protect yourself from the lunatics around you, you need to be armed. The price to protect freedom is sometimes tragic, like the V Tech massacre. However, is strengthening the gun laws really going to solve the problem? Do you really think that a deranged university student would not have killed those people if the laws had been stricter? If that lunatic really wanted to kill people and he could not get his hands on a gun, he would have used a knife or baseball bat or a crossbow or poison. However, we don’t see people campaigning for laws that prohibit crossbows and poison. Why? It would get them no publicity.

Does the shooter really care how many laws he is breaching? In the columbine incident (another tragic school shooting), at least 18 existing anti-gun laws were breached. Do you think the shooter would have cared if it was 18 or 1800? Stricter laws on guns have no effect on loonies.

People show me statistics of the amount of gun violence escalating not just in the US, but all over the world today. Where are the numbers for knife violence or murder by poison? If it is the act of murder that these people are against, they should be as opposed to alternative methods of killing a person as well. Yet, we see no outcry against that.

Hundreds of thousands of innocent people have died because of cars, and there's no movement to ban them. Is the right to drive cars that much more important than protecting our freedom? Is my right to protect myself from lunatics like Seung-Hi Cho less important than your right to go for a drive in the beach?

Now, I understand the argument from the other side too. That, even though it is obvious that someone who is willing to commit a major crime like murder isn't likely to worry about a gun control law, the object of gun control is to make it hard for someone that's likely to commit a crime from getting a gun and even harder to get a gun capable of killing dozens of people. I get that argument and it makes perfect sense to me. However, what I am saying is that we have disregarded the underlying cause -The social factors that drive these lunatics to kill dozens of people.

If the passion that celebrities and commentators showed against guns was channelled into finding a way to deal with this underlying cause, the problem might be over by now. Both Hitler and Stalin had a moustache, but we cannot use that similarity to claim that it was the moustache which made them dictators. Likewise, these people did not commit these murders merely because they possessed a gun, the reason is elsewhere.

We tackle that problem and we make things better instead of defying logic just to make a political statement. Remember, a lunatic is far more dangerous than a gun. You always know when a gun is a gun, but you never know when a person is a lunatic.

The Only One

I always thought that you were a friend,

An ally I could cherish and trust.

But now I know your flaws never bend,

They batter my joy to dust.

You haunt my life with tales and lies,

I grow sick and tired of life.

You sought to break all our ties,

Your words hurt more than a knife.

You value others more than me,

Despite all that I have done.

Whenever you needed someone to see,

I was always the only one.

I know it isn’t just your fault,

You had a problem with my attitude.

But progress in life I cannot halt,

Even for those with no gratitude.

You stole my soul and in that hole,

I feel alone and lost.

I remember the times when my only goal,

Was to help you at any cost.

I would close my eyes and fall asleep,

And all I saw was you.

But my bones are dry and my wounds are deep,

I know yours are too.

You call me evil, say I am wrong,

But stop and think of the past.

Do you not like this one sad song,

That I wrote for you at last?

The New Deal - Good intentions but bad planning.

I came across an old article today, one talking about the global New Deal plan that was supported by the then UN Secretary General Kofi Annan to fight poverty in poorer nations. The plan was meant to, and in many ways did, raise several questions. But their key issue to tackle was whether the standard of living could be improved in these poorer countries. It was a routine article that spoke about the pros and cons of this plan, one that I did not think I would remember a few minutes after I read it. But for some reason, I did.

Frankly, I found Kofi Annan's approach a little suprising. It was basically the same as the New Deal that was implemented by Franklin Roosevelt during the Great Depression. That is, government welfare and political intervention into economic activity would be the two primary tools used to allviate poverty. The reason I found the plan suprising is that it expects poor nations to operate on the same conditions that the United States did during the depression. The plan assumes that there are wealthy people to tax and economic activities to regulate. But what about countries where the overwhelming majority lives in poverity and there is virtually no economic activity that is worth regulating?

Let's assume that one million people live in Nilanopia, all of whom live in desperate poverty. No one has a net worth exceeding $100, and those who are able to find jobs receive $1 a week. Living and health conditions are terrible. About 10 percent of the population die each year of malnutrition.

Could anything be done to alleviate the poverty of the people of Nilanopia? The New Deal plan says "The government of Nilanopia should enact a New Deal and tax those who have wealth and give welfare to the poor. It should enact a minimum-wage law requiring every employer to pay workers $100 weekly, and it should impose price controls on food, housing, and other necessities to ensure that the poor are able to afford them."

Do you see the problem? There are no wealthy people in Nilanopia to tax and no businesses on which to impose wage and price controls!

Annan's answer seems to be: The rich nations of the world should be taxed and the money sent to the United Nations, which would distribute it to government officials in Nilanopia, who would then give it to the poor. But Annan's approach, of course, by-passes some crucial questions: Why are there wealthy people in Europe and not in Nilanopia? What if the entire world was in poverty? What good would a global New Deal do then? Is it not dangerous to implement a plan on this scale when it works in such a deceptively subjective nature?

But what is the cause of wealth in a society? The answer is a counterintuitive one, and it has been the solution to poverty in many ravaged nations. The key to economic prosperity and rising standards of living, especially for the poorest people in the world, is: Stop governments from trying to 'help'.

The key to economic success, especially for the average person, lies in economic liberty - the unrestricted freedom to engage in economic activity, to enter into mutually beneficial trade with people all over the world, and to accumulate unlimited amounts of wealth. By trading their goods and services with others, people will gradually be able to improve their respective economic positions. And a rising collection of private capital (tools and equipment) makes workers more productive, which results in rising wage rates, especially in a highly competitive environment. If the UN was just willing to provide them with some capital instead of political intervention, the results are likely to be fare more fruitful.

Thus, a society in which people have greater freedom to work, trade, and earn their wealth will always have a higher standard of living than a society riddled with governmental regulations, taxation, and welfare. The intent has no relevance here, what the population needs is a positive result. That is why West Berlin had a higher standard of living than East Berlin. And why Hong Kong has a higher standard than Cuba.

Annan's plan for a global New Deal is not entirely wrong-headed but his approach definitely is. It has a higher chance of lowering standards of living and dooming people in poorer nations to even more poverty than of elevating it. What these people need is some cash and a plan, not a handbook that attempts to tell them how their life should be run.

Too bad the United Nations begs to differ.

Freedom or Security?

The whole idea of a ‘united world’ appeals to me. The planet is becoming a global village in every sense and I think we should all be glad. I speak to my cousins and relatives scattered all over the world with minimal effort, I can travel to any country within a day. My textbooks were shipped to me from another continent, the movies I watch were made on the other side of Mother Earth. In short, globalisation kicks ass at a first glance. But as a true cynic, I am forced to look at the negative side of it and I must admit, what I see looks ugly.

In my opinion, ’freedom’ is the key to civilisation. No great civilisation can ever exist without providing the public with a certain amount of freedom. Remember, the extent of this has to be taken with consideration to the lifestyles of all cultures at the time. The Greek kingdom might not be a tolerant one by today’s standards, but they did pride themselves on their ability to understand the other side of the coin unlike the other ’savages’.

But the world’s most powerful country today seems to have disregarded freedom and human rights to help them on their war on terrorism. I am not a sympathiser of terrorists, but I do feel that a look at this disregard for human rights is required.

No one can deny that the USA has become a country where the president, on his own proposal, has the supreme power to send the country into war against any nation on earth, especially considering that this war on terror extends all over the planet. The president, the CIA, and the military have the power to take any suspected terrorist — foreigner or American — into custody and torture, abuse, and execute him/her without due process of law and trial by jury. The president and the NSA have the power to tap telephones and monitor emails without a warrant. The president, the CIA, and the military have the power to send missiles into cars and drop bombs into buildings anywhere in the world, including even the United States, in their attempt to win their war on terror. In fact, the president even wields the power to ignore any constitutional or legislative restraints as a "wartime" commander in chief.

If a government has the power to arbitrarily take anyone into custody and torture and kill him, how can the people in that society truly be considered free? How can any other nation be considered free if the most powerful government vests itself with such power? Even if there is freedom of religion, freedom of the media, freedom of assembly, the freedom to vote, and even the freedom to own guns, all such freedoms are meaningless if the supreme force on the planet has the power to arrest, torture, and execute anyone it wants.

I could not help but think of Braveheart, which portrayed a period in English history when the English king and his cronies possessed and exercised the right to rape a newlywed bride on her wedding night. Can any sane person imagine the woman’s husband exclaiming, as his wife was carried away, "At least we can peacefully protest the king’s actions without being thrown into jail"? He has every power to protest, but he has no power to stop them from raping his wife. He can follow any religion he wants, he can protest freely, he can start a petition to preserve the virginity of his bride, but he has no real power to change things because the government has the ’right’ to do it and were merely exercising that right. And they can do it again if they want to.

To me, these policies only seem to expose a trend that started many decades ago and continues to occur at a steadily increasing rate. That is, the movement of the most powerful nation away from its original principles of a republic and in the direction of an imperialistic force. The second World War introduced the American government as the supreme military power in style, and the government has not forgotten it. Freedom is increasingly sacrificed for 'security'. While I have no problems with a balance between the two, an overwhelming importance of national security over human rights will not help us move forward in any way. I only find it ironic that the USA uses these powers in the name of security, but they have earned far more enemies than friends with these policies.

Let me end this with a quote from none other than Benjamin Franklin, who was one of the pioneering figures behind the USA becoming a great nation. "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." I am not in complete agreement with the statement but he sure does drive the point home.

Homosexuality - A matter of taste and a matter of hate.

Attraction towards a member of the same sex. Some see it as disgusting while others see it as just another way of life. From a traditional point of view of course, homosexuals are generally frowned upon, though this perplexes me. Homosexuality has existed since the dawn of civilisation. Every great kingdom to ever dominate the planet had great personalities who were bisexuals or just plain gay.

Socrates, Alexander the Great, Julius Ceaser and Aristotle are just some of the many great personalities who have had male lovers at one point of time or another. Now, if you did not know this before, is this going to make you view these historic personalities differently? Are you going to tell me that Alexander the Great, one of the greatest conquerors that history has ever seen, is lesser of a man just because he had male lovers?

Before I go further, I am not gay or bisexual. I explicitly state this because when someone defends homosexuals, there is often a tendency to speculate that the person is a homosexual too. I still remember about a year and a half ago, when I was back home in India, my brother and I were trying to explain to my father how homosexuals were normal people just like us. But his reaction was "Oh my god, one of my sons might be gay."

Normally, I would attribute such a response only to characters like Homer Simpson or Perter Griffin. But here was my own father responding to a defense of gay people in the same way that Homer might, all because of his one dimensional view on homosexuality. As far as he was concerned, they were not normal people like us, they deserve neither our sympathy nor our understanding. And despite how 'modern' you might think the world of today is, you would be shocked to see the narrow minded hate that stems from some people towards the gay community.

As a general rule, I often avoid people who claim to hate homosexuals because whenever I engage them in an argument or debate, none of them ever have any logical justifications to support their view. They say things like "I dont know, I just hate them" or "Homosexuality is wrong" but they never come up with a justification that makes any sense. They fail to realise that what seems disgusting to them is completely natural to others.

In that sense, hatred towards homosexuals is just like racism, the hatred stems more from ignorance and false beliefs than logical conclusions. As Martin Luther King Jr said "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance". I find it quite ironic comparing it with racism though, many of the haters I know are Africans.

I dont mind people who rally against homosexuality as long as they have considered the other side of the coin as well. You are entitled to your views and opinions as long as there is some logic behind it, as long as you can justify your cause. But so far, few people I have met have ever been able to justify their hate. They have not been personally wronged in any way by the gay community, their arch enemies in life are not homosexuals, yet they hate them.

Another crucial factor for this hate could also be that many think homosexuality is a choice. But in most cases it is not a choice, these people just feel attracted towards members of the same sex. We are not in control over who we feel attracted to, it just happens. And to be persecuted and hated because of this attraction that people have no control over makes little sense to me.
I prefer mutton over chicken, I just cant help it.

The thought of mutton just has my mouth watering while the thought of chicken does not. Anyone who hates me and thinks I am not normal just because he/she likes chicken better can go to hell.

"We hate some persons because we do not know them; and we will not know them because we hate them." Charles Colton has a valid point there.

Abomination or Exaggeration?

Many of us have come across hate speech on the internet, some of us more frequently than others. One side considers it to be a prime example of freedom of speech, while the other considers it a prime example of freedom of speech gone beserk. As much as I refrain from judging things, as much as I like to see the other side of every story, when I visited some of these sites, all I saw was just one side - hate.

Hate Groups and hate based organizations can be found all over the Internet and there are almost no limitations placed on the material posted on their web sites. Because the Internet is technically accessible to everybody, and is a primarily unregulated world, it allows hate groups to spread their influence without any form of interference from governments. There are plenty of hate sites I managed to find on the internet. They varied from pages linked to the Ku Klux Klan, Neo-Nazis and Skinheads to Christian Identity, Black Separatist, and other cults. These sites have the tendency to move from server to server or shut down without notice, so they can be difficult to locate.

The problem that many find with the spread of these organisations on the internet is that larger groups like the Ku Klux Klan can recruit new members in an inexpensive and efficient manner and smaller groups with less money and less international exposure can easily introduce themselves to anyone. Internet users today can access speeches and rallies and read literature that once had to be personally delivered or sent by mail. Hate purveyors can anonymously email each other, and by using list serves containing thousands of names, can send unsolicited hate material to individual mailboxes. Whereas previously they had to stand in the streets and pass pamphlets or make speeches, the internet makes their co-ordination far more lethal. It is not the same old fox in sheep's clothing. It is a new wolf.

Many recent studies show that the popularity of the internet has led to an increasing amount of hate crimes worldwide, a lowering of age for the commission of hate crimes and the existence of hate crimes where they never existed before. In fact, the majority of hate crimes are now committed by people under the age of twenty and in suburban communities.

The battle for and against hate speech usually boils down to feedom of speech advocates against human rights advocates. Here is where I find myself in a dilemma. In both my universities, among my friends, among my family and within the numerous debating communities that I am a member of, I am a staunch advocate of both and when asked to pick between the two, I immidiately feel a sharp throbbing at the back of my brain. So I have decided to see what both sides have to say.

Freedom of speech advocates contest that banning hate speech on the internet cannot and will not work. They have a point when they say that the internet makes a mockery out of the current prohibitory laws anyway (has finding pornography ever been easier than on the internet?) so passing such a law would be like "a law that makes mosquitos illegal" or "banning winter from Canada".

Human rights advocates on the other hand claim that freedom of speech is a small price to pay for the elimination of hate crimes. Statistics show us that the internet is a direct factor for the rise of these crimes, do we not owe it to the previous victims and countless victims in the future to combat hate crime? Is freedom of speech really so vauable that we stand by it and watch hate crimes devolop beyond our control?

If you ask me for my opinion, I have to say I would side with a bit of both, but mainly with the free speech advocates. My perception of the problem though is more in line with the human rights advocates. I think hate speech on the internet has to be fought against with all our might, but I dont think sacrificing freedom of speech is the answer. I dont believe banning hate speech from the internet will solve the problem in any way. Hate stems primarily from ignorance. We are prejudiced against certain races, certain cultures because we are ignorant of their humane, cultural side and hence paint a general, negative portrayal of them in our minds. It is this ignorance that I think has to be tackled for the crime itself to dissapear on any kind of long term basis.

Banning these organisations and forbidding them to speak out in public will not silence them. It will only fester their wounds and allow their hatred to grow in darkness. Bringing their radical theories out in the open and creating a forum for debate on the other hand, will raise awareness. Why ban the Neo-Nazis when we can create a website of our own called the Anti Neo-Nazis? This way, not only would we be warning unsuspecting individuals of the dangers of getting influenced by such organisations, we would also be creating an open area of discussion. The ignorance which these Hate groups feed on can thus be countered.

Remember, the law can often be a clumsy, brutish instrument to achieve certain social goals. The use of the law should be a last resort, when all else fails, not the first line of defense. In scenarios where the crime stems from social conditions, like it does here, this principle is paramount.

For as Voltaire himself said, "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Atheists - Defenders of Reason

There are some thoughts that have sprung up in my mind after numerous debates in forums, books and conversations I have had with theists. I am an atheist, I will not believe in God till I get some proof that he exists. But this topic is not about the existence of god, it is about the misconception that theists have on atheists. It is truly amazing that so many theists think that atheists are immoral, satanic (how ironic), evil, worse than rapists and ineligible for public office.

What on earth could have driven them to such malicious and ignorant conclusions? The answer is quite obvious - religious institutions and doctrines that encourage blind belief over reason.
The only method that can truly open the eyes of anyone about religion is through questioning. God is the wizard of Oz and atheists want to pull back the curtain. Once the trick is revealed, doubt kicks in. For religious leaders, this cannot be allowed to happen. These institutions, and especially their very human leaders, enjoy the good life. Their hunger for power should have come as a warning for the followers. But somehow they manage to justify this life to themselves and to their followers. 'Blind faith' is such a wonderfully precise term.

It's obvious why religious institutions think of atheists as 'the enemy' and participate in spreading mean spirited opinions in the guise of well researched facts; the only way these institutions can stay in business is to keep all their contributors on a leash. Questioning and doubting have to be cut out of the picture. Imagine yourself as a magician. How would you feel if someone stood nearby explaining how every trick was done? Additionally, there are so few self-proclaimed atheists, that these insitutions don't have to worry much that one of the believers might actually get to know an atheist and realise the nonsense they've been fed.

Most theists do not know many atheists. This is because atheists rarely participate in discussions that are of no concern to us. If we were immoral, would we not stand out more? In that respect, atheism is very similar to homosexuality. The people you know to be atheists or homosexuals are the flamboyant ones. The less spectacular of them tend to blend right in. Atheism has nothing to do with a person's political beliefs, his/her view on euthanasia or drugs. Gay, bi or straight, white, black or brown, man or woman. An atheist could be a criminal lawyer or a soccer mom. You can't tell by the outside. We don't have tails or horns, despite what you may have heard.

There are even those who claim that atheists hate god. This makes me laugh. How can we bloody hate something that we claim does not exist? The concept of gods was thought up by humans to meet certain needs of society at the time. Those needs no longer exist, so we have no use for maintaining the myths of gods. Inexplicable things a thousand years ago can be explained today and we know that even for the currently inexplicable ones, an answer will be found someday in the future. The idea served its purpose, for good or bad, and is totally irrelevant today. So if I dismiss the entire concept of gods, what is there to for me to hate? You might as well accuse me of hating The Boogeyman.

There are however, certain things associated with religion that I hate, or atleast dislike. Fanatics of any faith are not just annoying but can be extremely dangerous. They fuel the fires of hate. And yet, it is also undeniable that fanatics are what a literal interpretation of most religions will eventually produce. They are the super-soldiers of religion, people who will disregard even the slightest notions of logic and reasoning to uphold their blind faith. When it comes to practicing their religion, whatever it may be, fanatics put the rest of them to shame. That is what makes them dangerous to everyone, not just to those of us who dont share their views.

I honestly hate the fact that something I consider a delusion is so widespread. I cannot stand wars fought in the name of gods, I am deeply irritated to think about all the people killed in the name of gods. I hate the dictators who have hidden behind the cloak of theism. And yes, I also hate the dictators who have been avowed atheists. Just because we share a common opinion regarding religion does not excuse their behavior toward the rest of humanity. Atheism is no more common among the general population of dictators than it is among the general population of the world.

But most of all I hate the notion that everything that cannot be explained has to be attributed to god. Just because we dont have an explanation for something now, that does not mean we wont get an explanation in the future. Critical thinking was what made us the most powerful species on the planet, not blind faith. Remember that.

To quote one of the greatest thinkers of the twentieth century "God did not create Man, Man created God".

To Kill or Not to Kill?

I was reading an article on the website of a Canadian newspaper, which talked about wide protests that were taking place throughout the country to ban seal hunting. But that was not the interesting part. The interesting part was that the Fur Institute of Canada sent a counter report that showed just what an indispensable part of the economy hunting was and how it was actually better for the environment in the long run.

Most of us today are completely unaware of the complexities that sorround the world of hunting, to us it usually just means slaughtering innocent animals. We see it on the most basic premise - taking the life of another creature - and based on this premise alone, brand it as an evil act and call for a complete halt. We fail to take the other side of the coin into account and we refuse to consider the possibility that it might, just might, benefit society in certain ways. "What benefits can killing an animal possibly bring to us?" was a question posed to me by a friend when I told her that I planned to write about this. Here is my answer.

Firstly, there are several communities that have thrived on the profession of hunting since the dawn of mankind. It is what their community does for a living, it is the only thing they know. Take the Inuit for example. For thousands of years, they have lived by hunting seals for their flesh and fur, it is the backbone of their culture. Looking at where they live, they have no other options. A community can thrive only on what it can produce, it can live only on what it sells. And this scenario is not restriced just to them. There are tribes throughout South America, Australia, Africa, Asia and even the Antarctic that thrive on the profession of hunting. By snatching the one gift they have away from them is to condemn their culture to certain death. Living in the urban world with phones, televisions, computers and blogs, we will never understand the utter dependence on a trade that these communities face.

Last year's seal hunt for example, garnered about 55 million Canadian dollars, which is vital for the survival of the Inuit. It is also essential for the sustainance of rural communities in the country, for whom this 55 million could represent up to a third of their income. Cut this off and they starve. If the ban on seal hunting is finally placed in Canada, environmentalists who have warm homes in the city, steady jobs to go to, who have never had to fight against nature for their survival have cause to celebrate, but thousands of families that have had to struggle against all odds to live their lives will perish in poverty. Environmentalists sympathise with animals, sympathise with plants, I just wish they sympathised a bit more with their fellow man. They see hunting as more of a voluntary sport than a means by which many feed their family, which reflects their often naive views on the subject.

How many for example, are aware that without elephant hunting in Africa, the African elephant would have dissapeared decades ago? Nature no longer has the natural resources that it once had to sustain large populations of wildlife (these resources have been depleted by the activities of mankind, but NOT by hunting). The only way the authorities can ever ensure that a significant elephant population exists is to make sure that the population is controlled. Ban hunting here and the resources would deplete at an alarming rate, destroying the entire population of elephants with a single swoop. Would you kill 500 elephants to ensure the survival of 5,000 ones or would you rather tell yourself that killing is 'evil' and watch all 5,000 die?

Where do you think all the money that goes into protecting these animals comes from? Environmentalists? Of course not. The money comes from hunting associations, hunting licenses and fishing licenses. The deer population thrives today in most regions of the world and a key factor to this has been deer hunting. Wildlife management (of which hunting and fishing are essential parts) makes sure that populations do not grow unabated and thus do not damage the already depleted natural resources (once again I stress that the human activites that caused this depletion was not hunting). If their populations are left to increase without hunting, the imbalance would lead to a much higher number dying of starvation.

Simple minded people will not understand this. The truth is too realistic and harsh for their naive outlook on life to comprehend. The notion of taking a life to sustain many others will not make sense to them, since their perception of life bears a stronger resemblance to a fairy tale than the real world. They will continue to go on protests to stop the 'murder' of animals and will continue to brand anyone who is pro hunting as a barbarian.

Fortunately for the pro-hunting folks, the facts are on our side. Loss of habitat and our addiction to automobiles are much greater threats to animals than hunting. There are estimates that 300 million animals are killed each year while crossing streets and roads. Hunting accounts for barely more than 1 million animal deaths in even the biggest hunting industries. And the vast majority of animals killed by hunters are eaten, instead of being left to rot beside the road. But give environmentalists the chance to ban either hunting or enroaching roads and they will pick the former without batting an eyelid.

Killing another animal may not seem like a nice thing to do. But in todays world, it is more than just essential, it is utterly mandatory. When you have to make a choice, you do after all, pick the lesser of the two evils.

Ghosts - How utterly fascinating they are!

As I have mentioned before, I dont believe in the supernatural, I always require proof before believing in something. This principle of mine has been the source of major annoyance for many of my friends, who just cant make me believe in their ghost stories, no matter how hard they try. They give me every minute detail, every spine-tingling sensation of the encounter, every instinctive fear, but I dont budge.

You see, I have never encountered a ghost or a spirit or any such being in my life, and I doubt I ever will. My brain seemes so tuned in to the real world problems that I face that I hardly have time to bother about worlds beyond the astral plane. And as long as I live my life this way, I can do so with peace. As far as the people who genuinely think they have encountered ghosts are concerned, I have no idea how these people live their lives. If I really did go through what these people claim they did, I would be devastated.

What keeps me secure when I am alone in my room or in my house or any remotely creepy place is the fact that I dont believe in ghosts. I am not afraid of the dark because I am unaware of the presence of anything else. But just imagine if one day I really did encounter one and I realised that ghosts did infact exist. That for me, would be one of the biggest disasters possible. I would always be terrified of staying anywhere alone, be it my room or my house. I would be afraid to close my eyes and sleep at night, I might even be afraid to spend too much time in the shower.

And yet, here I see dozens of my friends who tell me about their encounters with spirits and ghosts, but they seem to lead a normal life. They live alone, socialise, drink, laugh and do everything that the rest of us do. I dont mean to accuse them of being liars, but I cant deny that they seem to be startlingly happy and balanced individuals in life for someone who claims to have experienced something as damaging as a ghost encounter. One of the drastic examples is this one guy (a very close friend of mine) who claims to have been strangled nearly to death by a banshee in his own room! And yet he leads a normal life and continues to sleep there alone everyday like it isnt a big deal! If you really were strangled by a banshee in a room, would you ever set foot in that place alone again? Would you continue to sleep there like nothing happened? Illogical patterns like this are what make me doubt the authenticity of the tales that I have been told. But the interests that such stories stimulate within us is undeniable.

So what is it about this whole 'ghost' thing that we find so enthralling? No campfire, no slumber party, maybe even no friendship is ever complete without swapping ghost stories. And no matter how skeptical we are, a chill always runs through our spines when we hear the best of them. We may have outgrown our fears of the boogeyman and monsters under the bed, but there is some primal fear of the netherworld that lurks deep inside all of us. It is this fear that awakens when we listen to tales regarding the afterlife, this fear which seems to make the stories so fascinating.

"That which we cannot see terrifies us beyond all else." could it be this that instills itself in our hearts? I am quite positive that ghosts wouldnt be even remotely as scary if they were supposed to be visible. I mean, the whole point is that we cant see them but they can see us. To deprive them of their invisibility is to put them on the same level as other 'inferior' monsters like goblins and trolls. Yes, these creatures are effective in fantasy and horror literature, but not many of us actually rack our minds on whether they exist, and an encounter with a troll wouldnt be as interesting as one with a ghost.

Or is their alleged 'transparency' what makes us fear them? They can float through walls and roofs, which means that no matter where you go, they will eventually find you if they have to. You can run, but you cant bloody hide. If I wake up in the middle of the night and find a goblin strangling me, I can always grab the nearest item next to my bed and thump him on the head with it, after which I can proceed to pound him into oblivion. But I cant do the same thing to ghosts because they cant be physically hurt. My fist, the same that can disfigure a goblin's face, is useless against a ghost since it would just go through it.

And last but not least, ghosts are already dead. Which means we cant do shit to them. Every other nightmarish or mythical being, trolls, goblins, dragons, ogres, gnomes can be killed because they have a life. They are monsters with powers, but the bottom line is that they are flesh and blood like us. A 100 metre serpent that can swallow an elephant in a single gulp is terrifying, but throw a greande in its mouth and that is the end of it. A ghost not only cant get hurt, it cant die either. And when you encounter such an invincible being, that makes for a good story.

Be it the fact that we cant see them, or that we cant beat them, or that they were once living beings like us, nothing about ghosts and spirits is certain. As a matter of fact, I am quite suprised that I actually spent time writing this, since I dont even believe in them. The only thing that remains certain is the fact that they fascinate us like few things do. And as long as this fascination exists, the constant stream of stories about the spirit world will never cease.

I dont have a problem with that. Not until I actually see a ghost.

Supreme intelligence or Random coincidence?

Does destiny exist? Any person who likes to think would have asked him/herself this question numerous times. As we move through life and learn new things, there always seems to be a pattern at hand. People we meet by 'accident' might end up becoming close friends, events that happened due to a coincidence might eventually play a big role in our lives. Is this the result of some intelligent force that pulls the strings behind the scenes or does it all just boil down to mere probabilities and chances? Is the history of the universe an already preplanned 'script' or are we in control of where our lives lead?

Before going further, I must admit that there are many instances in my life where the hand of destiny has almost been tangible. Most of the close friends I have right now are those who I met completely by chance (at a party to which I decided to go at the very last minute, in a bus that I took only because I overslept and missed the previous one and things like that). People I should have never met end up becoming crucial friends. Take about two years ago for example, when I met Adrian, a fellow law student. We were in different classes and thus did not see each other often, we knew almost nothing about each other except our names. The only similarity that we probably shared was the fact that we towered over the rest of the law faculty, be it in height or frame. We were regularly referred to as 'the bouncers', though we eventually used that title to our advantage by intimidating others into submission and manipulating the system into making us the vice presidents of the Law Society. But we werent close friends, we only saw each other during the Law Society meetings. Then things changed.

After our first exams in Law School (if it can be called that) Adrian planned to drink with his classmates but did not know where to buy some alcohol because (as chance would have it) it was a public holiday. One of his friends on the other hand (as chance would have it again) thought he had once heard me say that I know where alcohol could be bought in the area even on holidays. I had previously planned to go for a party with my close friends at the time but (as chance would have it yet again) I overslept and they left for the party without me. Adrian then called me and asked if I knew where a few bottles could be bought and I (having scented the oppurtunity to drink) immidiately went over to see him in his apartment and we went into one of the lesser known regions of Malaysia to buy a few cheap bottles. There were 6 of us drinking that day and we all got drunk. Adrian casually mentoned that he was looking for people to rent one of his rooms to and (as chance strikes for the fourth time) I happened to be looking for a room to move into at the time. Four freaky coincidences, all of which had to happen at the exact time that they did for the future events to be set in motion.

Almost two years have passed since that day, and in the course of those two years I moved in to his house, had some great times, had some terrible times, got myself kicked out of the house, was introduced to a life changing game called Dota, stayed in various places illegally, made new friends, lost old ones, was saved by Adrian himself during my exams, flew to England to finish my degree and lived life like only a true ENTP can. And despite all the ups and downs, I still got on with my life. Two years and a thousand cans of beer later, the friendship is now stronger than ever. I even went to visit him last week and had a great time. It was after hearing that he has a blog that I remembered mine. Thus, without those four freaky coincidences that happened almost two years ago, I might not have returned to my blog and you certainly would not be reading this.

So are all these tiny coincidences just small components of a massive coincidence called 'life'? Or is there something really called destiny? Was I destined to become friends with Adrian and write this blog? Was Harrson Ford destined to play Indiana Jones even though Tom Selleck was the main choice? Were Mr and Mrs Wayne destined to die so that young Bruce could become Batman? Was George Bush Jr destined for a second term so that most of us could get a cheap laugh or two at his verbal gymnastics? The possibilities are endless and much like religion, to take any stance on destiny requires either faith or personal experience. And also as in religion, the only stance that requires neither is to deny it altogether. And as much as it pains me to say that, denying it is also the stance that makes the most sense to me.

As a general rule, I dont believe in things that cannot be proven. If somebody expects me to beleive that he has a third eye on his right elbow, he has to show it to me. If it is something that cant be visibly shown, it has to be proven. We cant see air, but basic experiments we learn in school still prove that it exists. This is one of the reaons I am a staunch atheist, because I feel that if God expects me to beleive in him, he better be able to convince me that he exists. At the same time, neither do I bear any grudge against those who beleive in God, as the evidence in front of their eyes might be sufficient to satisy them. With destiny however, even that chance to prove itself dissolves. Unless we actually create parallel universes or somehow show they exist, destiny can never be proven right or wrong. It is wrong of me to expect anybody to prove something that cannot be proven, yet it is also wrong for me to beleive in something that cannot be proven.

On one hand, if destiny does exist, I am nothing more than an actor in an already preplanned script. You might argue that the small things in life and that the route we take to acheive that destiny is entirely up to us, but my opinion differs. If the overall path of our life is controlled by some superior being, then every action (regardless of its scope) has to be in accordance with setting about a chain of events that will ultimately lead up to that destiny. I am not in control of my actions because I can do nothing that might prevent me from reaching that destiny. We are all just puppets and this higher intelligence is the puppetmaster. And we dont even realise it.

I dont like that. I dont like the idea that every step I take, even writing this blog is because it has already been scripted. I want to believe that my life is a product of my thinking and my actions. I want to believe that every mistake I made was done by me and not some cruel scriptwriter up in the skies. But most importantly, I want to believe that every success I have had in life, every obstacle that I have crossed was because I worked for it and because I deserved it. And because I want to believe it, I do.

Wow. Talk about faith.

"Adventure" - A Tribute to a Genre

Steamy jungles, arid deserts and vast oceans, adventure novels are rare these days. As a matter of fact, they are almost gone. They have been replaced by the action genre with urban settings, suspenseful plots, big explosions and political messages. Horses and swords have been set aside in favour of cars and guns. The dangers of nature and explorations of human character eschewed for terrorrist threats and serial killers.

Now dont get me wrong, I like a good thriller or police procedural as much as the next guy. But as I sit here and think of the books that I have enjoyed the most, it is undeniable that there is a specific kind of story that captures my interest, with a specific kind of setting and plot. We call it a 'genre'. There are several genres which are well known, including horror, suspense, romance, comedy and so on. Sometimes it is just the tone that sets the story apart from the rest (like horror) or the key elements of the plot (like science fiction) or the setting of the tale itself (like the western).

As general readers, most of us just like a good story regardless of what genre it belongs to. We want a tale that enthralls us, either by capturing our interest or by making us think. But more often than not, we have to admit that there is always one specific genre that attracts us just a little more than the others, a type of story that enchants our imagination. It could be the spine-tingling of the macabre, the rousing intensity of swashbucklers or the overwhelming paranoia of espionage.

So what makes exactly makes 'adventure' a great genre? How does one differentiate between adventure and other types of fiction? The simple answer to this is "I have no idea". The genre interacts with so many settings and so many tones that it is probably impossible to ever create a definition for it. But I shall try to identify three key themes that I have seen prevalent in the books that I have read. Dont make the mistake of assuming that anything falling outside this cannot be classed as 'adventure', this is just a general look at it.

1. The Environment - We often find adventure fiction set in harsh and possibly exotic settings, like jungles, deserts, mountains and so on. They are usually far away from civilisation and the protoganists have to defeat the harsh obstacles of nature if they wish to survive or fulfill their goals. The main characters are usually explorers or hunters or travellers. The plot can be a mountaineer trying to climb a dangerous mountain, a hunter in pursuit of his quarry, someone embarking on a journey across the desert and so on. The main theme is generally man trying to survive, and in some cases, conquer nature. A classic among this type is Robinson Crusoe.

2. The Age - Historical novels tend to have many apects of adventure fiction, though they can vary to a great extent. Stories of crusaders and pirates, kings and queens, dungeons and prisons, are all an indispensable part of adventure lore. They usually involve epic quests or a multitude of plots and are filled with sword fights, chases on horseback, duels to the death and rescuing damsels in distress. Some can also be startlingly informative on past customs and politics, revealing themselves to be suprisingly philosophical (anyone who has read the works of Joseph Conrad will understand). A classic among this type is The Count of Monte Cristo.

3. The Journey - The last of the common kinds of adventure fiction is the most contemporary one, tales which fall within 'adventure' because the story involves a journey from point A to point B. Though this often falls under the first two categories, I class it as a seperate branch of adventure fiction because I notice an increasing amount of stories that have none of the elements of the first two (they often have urban settings and involve a road trip) while still retaining that same sense of adventure and exploration. These books are usually not as adrenaline pumping as the others, but reach a far more mature level of poigancy. They are interested more in the changes the characters undergo through the journey, than on the obstacles they come across. A classic among this type is On The Road.

I have loved adventure fiction since I can remember . My first short story at the age of 8 or 9 was called "The Ultimate Chaser", thinking back about it I just realised that it was remarkably similar to the recent 'Apocalypto' (the bulk of the story was just one man relentlessly running from his pursuers). The realisation though, that adventure was "my" genre came less than a decade ago. I was lucky to have been in a school with a lot of intelligent people who valued reading (I still keep in touch with them and most are very well read) and this prompted me to move on from Famous Five and Hardy Boys books to more 'serious' fiction. I started reading the spy thrillers of authors like Frederick Forsyth, Robert Ludlum and Tom Clancy. Once in a while I would go into crime novels and even comedies.

But something was missing. I didnt feel the same excitement I once felt while reading fairy tales and comic strips. The fiction I was reading was far more intelligent and informative, but the spark that once made me turn the pages with glee was diminishing. I still enjoyed them and read whenever I got the oppurtunity, but it was more because of my love for reading itself than my love for the books I was reading. The chases, the complex plots, the unique characters, the imaginative settings, everything was there and they were all good. But for some reason, they were not great. I thought it was maybe because I was dumb, that my intellect was too limited for me to appreciate anything more than books for children. This only made me read even more, almost to the point of exhaustion. But all that was about to change.

I picked up a copy of Wilbur Smith's 'Warlock' in my local library and I remember that at an imposing 800 pages, it was the longest novel I had attempted to read at the time. I finished it in slightly more than a day, which given my lifestyle at the time was an extrodinary feat. The book had me burning the pages and my pulse was pounding throughout the story, making me not want it to end. Come to think of it, it was a lot like having sex for the first time, though I was too young to realise it then. I have read several books that I liked better than 'Warlock' since then (like it's predecessor River God) but the experience of reading it is a memory that still remains with me.

I gouged down any Wilbur Smith book I could find after that, started reading books by several other adventure writers. I travelled colonial India with Rudyard Kipling, explored African jungles while spouting philosophy with Joseph Conrad, was introduced to the swashbuckling political intrigue of Victorian age Europe with Alexander Dumas and even explored the unknown regions of the planet with Jules Verne. I loved the clash of steel, the excitement of the hunt and the sly observations made on the journey. Adventure was back in my blood.

Whatever the environment, the age or the journey, the one thing that always remains constant is the spirit. This is what I beleive makes it a great genre and what attracts me to it. The spirit of adventure. It was this spirit that made me want to write all this, and it is this spirit that continues to ensure that my days of enjoying fiction are far from over.

A short work of fiction...

The rumbling was worse than thunder, for its source was the earth itself, not the sky. The weather was pleasant enough, the sun shone with all its brilliance and the tall blue sky was cloudless, nature unaware of the slaughter that was about to commence. The elephant herd was about three dozen in strength, most of them females and calves. They were running downhill, raising a massive cloud of dust as they galloped for protection. The four male bulls were a considerable distance ahead, for the females had the calves to protect, infants destined to die young in a cruel world.

It was a magnificent sight from where I stood on the opposite hill, even in chaos the great beasts had a certain majesty that other beasts like humans completely lacked. The bulls in particular did not look like they were running away, but rather like they were charging at something ahead. I watched on impassively as the group of hunters finally appeared from behind the hill, armed men on horseback pursuing the great beasts. Even after so many hunts, it never ceases to amaze me how tiny men with a rifle could make the might of nature’s great elephants inconsequential in comparison. I felt a certain twinge as I saw doom approaching the herd, intelligent and often gentle beasts killed for their skin and their tusks. It was however, just a twinge in my heart, one I felt often in my 'profession'. My brain on the other hand, was calculating the money I would make in the market for so much ivory. My share would come up to a considerable amount.

"Do you want to sit there all day or do you want to get some work done?" I roused myself and turned around to face a short, bearded man. "If you want to sit there, you can forget about your share, if you want to get some work done, I suggest you join the others." I felt myself sigh as the man walked away, I hoped Ormon was not going to be a pain this evening. Checking my rifle and ammunition on the way, I sauntered over to my horse, which stood with the rest of the mares. There were eight men in the group including me, eight experienced and solid hunters. More than enough to handle four bulls. Forming into two groups, we trotted our way downhill, none of us in a hurry as we knew that the bulls would take a few more minutes to charge down our way.

I headed the first group myself and lingered at the foot of the hill, directly in the path of the approaching goliaths as the second group with Ormon headed towards the trees to enclose them from behind. I grinned at Kormas, the nearest horsemen.

"Might be a good one today. You should have seen the size of those bulls; I bet a single tusk from one of those champs would take care of your gambling debts for the next ten years." All I got in response was a grunt, but I chuckled anyway. The approaching rumble of the bulls was getting stronger now. The horses were snorting and shifting around uncomfortably, but the men stroked their backs and looked ahead at the bend of the slope, waiting for our prey to approach. I felt myself suck in the deep scent of the hunt.

"Easy now." I murmured to my Persian mare as the dust became visible. I looked again at the steady line of horsemen beside me, poised to cut the charging behemoths down. I still remember the first years when we hunted as a group, at a time like this we would shout words of encouragement to each other, assuming that it helped. Now there was only the heavy breathing and the thumps of the hooves, the years had taught us that words did not change the course of the hunt. Each man knew his part well and had enough confidence in himself.

The rumbling was loud enough to make talking difficult now and I raised my rifle as I saw the first of the giants charge out from the bend. One mistake from a single member and we were all doomed. The tension was palpable. My rifle boomed in my hand and then the usual chaos enveloped us. The elephants gave out an angry roar that deafened the team and the men roared back with their rifles. Pulling at the reins, we met them head on and galloped between them, making circles around the raging bulls and firing at their broad sides. A missed shot or a botched reloading attempt was the difference between life and death.

Ormon galloped in with his men and fired from behind, one of the bulls went down with a shot through the side of his neck. I watched in a daze as one of the horsemen got knocked out of his saddle by a random shot from a colossal trunk and crashed into the ground. Dodging the flailing trunks, I shot another bull right though his chest cavity and the bloody carcass fell like an uprooted tree. Swerving around to avoid the collapsing behemoth, I saw that the third bull had been brought down, but through the immense amount of dust, I could not see where the last one was. The world had compressed as in every hunt, existence consisted only of deafening gun shots, screams and smoke.

"After that fellow right now!" Ormon bellowed as he saw the last bull break through the formation and rush into the trees, the blood that wept through its flanks seeming to have no effect on its speed. Harnessing our reins, we went after the wounded giant at full gallop, dust coating our faces as we raced through the thick formation of trees and thorns to pursue the beast. Only Ormon and Kormac stayed behind to meet the rest of the herd as they came charging round the hill. I saw the sorroundings blur around me in the speed of the gallop, the humid air making things even harder.

I had been around long enough to know that tracking the beast down would not be a problem, for we just had to follow the trail of uprooted trees. I was however, uncertain on how badly wounded the beast was, or even how fast it could maneuver through the trees. The only thing more dangerous than a healthy, alert elephant was a desperate and angry one. As our mounts took us deeper through the jungle, I heard thundering gunshots behind us from the open valley. The females and calves must have run into Ormon and Kormac, with the rest of the hunters at their heels.

"Split up." I called out to the rest of the pack, suprised at the authourity of my own voice. "Two on the left of the trail, two on the right, two on the trail." The arc formation was always the best to hunt down a wounded elephant; each group could protect the other in case the beast went berserk. "How far ahead is the next pool?" My question was not aimed at anyone in particular but Killick answered. "My guess is it cant be more than five minutes away. Maybe even two if we push the horses." I shifted in my saddle. There were several pools scattered all over the forest, if we could catch up with the beast by the time it reached the first pool, the open area would give us a clear shot.

Ignoring the rough branches which grazed our skin as we raced by, I dug my heels into my horse’s sides to urge it on faster. Unless the elephant was mortally wounded, it would gallop away as fast as our horses for twenty miles and walk for another fifty miles faster than any of us could run. I remembered the size of the bull’s tusks; I knew how many mouths they would feed. To let it escape and bleed to death somewhere in the interior of the woods would be a sin.

I sighed in relief as we burst out of the clearing at the pool, and I heard some of my hunters give a shout of triumph as they saw the behemoth only a little more than a pistol shot away. The old beast was hard hit but not gravely wounded, he could disappear if we did not catch up fast. I raised my rifle with my mount at full gallop, squeezing the trigger and the men cheered as the shot crashed into the soil not more than a few meters from our quarry. Encouraged, the rest of the hunters took their shots as the figure ahead loomed closer, some shots swerving off course and some landing close by.

As we pursued it through the clearing, it was obvious from the red puddles on our path that the old bull was bleeding badly. I raised my rifle again, this time with my mount only at a trot and took the shot. A puff of dried mud erupted from the beast’s neck, but I could see from the way the behemoth continued that the bullet did not penetrate the fortress of its skull. But the end was close for the mighty beast, as we caught up with it and emptied our shots into its chest, the bullets ripping its internal organs. It’s legs gave way under it and we watched as the titan collapsed on the mud. We brought our mounts to a halt and sorrounded the paralysed collossus, a mark of respect for a great beast.

All that was left was the final execution. I dismounted and drew out my pistol to end its suffering. As I approached the immobile beast, all I saw in those intelligent eyes was agony. I was expecting anger.

In the heartbeat that I pulled the trigger, I felt lucky for being born a human.

Ten months and a Thousand lessons later...

"The only light is switched off and in the shadows I examine my room. It is incredibly messy, the heater barely works and my lukewarm attempts to sleep are constantly interrupted by my noisy housemates. On the desk beside my bed lies my phone, ready to alert me the instant somebody needs to get in touch. The heap I see next to it is the tiny collection of adventure novels that I seem to accumulate wherever I go. The collection that has formed in the six months I have been here consists of only six books, for my current lifestyle doesnt provide me the time for more than a single 800-1000 page novel a month. Beyond the collection of books on my desk is a jungle of notes, textbooks, papers, CDs, clothes and bags, scattered across the rest of the room in such a widespread manner it almosts looks intentional . I sit on the bed with my laptop and think about my life in England." - Nilanthan

It has been nearly a year since I created my account and posted my first blog and I think what suprises me the most is how much has happened in that seemingly short span of time. 2006 was a very turbulent year for me, as far as friendships, relationships and my attitudes towards life were concerned. I have absorbed a lot since then and my personality has undergone a drastic change, but reading my first blog again, I feel a certain joy in knowing that in essence, I remain the same person who wrote that blog almost a year ago.

I was going through a happy phase of my life then, had wonderful friends, experienced wonderful things. I felt neither the burden of life-changing decisions, nor the stress of meeting the expectations of people. But I feel them now. The feeling tightens it's grip over me with each passing day and I feel increasingly overwhlemed by the endless possibilities that my life can take from here. Are happy days ahead or has my trip downhill just started?

I have no idea. But till then I am determined to fight, determined to endure beyond the last adversary if I have to. And as part of my campaign, I have returned to blogging with a new enthusiasm. This time the average will be far higher than one post a year.

The last time I posted here, I was in Malaysia doing the second year of my Law degree. I am in England now, with only a few months left before I graduate and my whole life ahead of me. Barring certain circumstances, I can expect myself to have a bright future and a prosperous life if all goes according to plan. The downside, if it can be considered one, is the fact that all this requires an exceptional amount of hard work. I have always hated 'work' and 'routine' to the core of my very existence, and nothing that I have encountered in the course of two decades on planet Earth has changed my perspective on that.

Suffice to say, I need a source of output for my creative instincts to counter-balance my mundane activites. I need to pour my thoughts and ideas out to whoever is willing to listen. And what better way to express your feelings than on the internet, where anybody who treads past your works has the potential to be a future spectator as well? There may be no one out there who listens to my thoughts and struggles, but I always have the luxury of imagining otherwise.

I dont really know what to say.....

I know almost every first post usually starts with something like this. Some comment on not knowing what to say and what to expect; and despite my considerable efforts to think of something original to discuss, my common sense advices me that it is better to have an awkward but honest introduction with this new 'blog' craze, rather than to move into provocative topics on my very first step .

My brother told me one evening that he was giving this whole blog thing a try. Later, I found out that a good friend was into it too and I naturally thought Id give it a shot, since writing random rubbish has been a passionate but ultimately useless hobby I have had since I was quite young. I really cant think of anything else that made me create this.

Nilanthan, thats my full name, though this lengthy and often verbally challenging title is only reserved for my lecturers and classmates who arent that close to me. My brother is the only other person who calls me by my full name, though the reason for that is probably more because of his flair for the dramatic than anything else. For the rest though, which includes family and friends, the name is Nilan. Thats 'Nilan' as in Nilan the good friend, Nilan the eldest son, Nilan the occasional confidant and Nilan the notoriously problematic student who often thrives on bluffing his way out of sticky situations.

I doubt there would be too much apart from my name that you wouldnt know if you read my posts from time to time, but for those who might want to know something right away, I am this complicated mix of Indian and Sri lankan. Indian by a loving mix of birthplace and upbringing, Sri Lankan by a nauseating brew of family and bad luck (I have nothing against Sri Lankans and even if I did I wouldnt be scared to post it here, as not a soul from there is likely to know what a 'blog' or even what the 'internet' is).

I am a law student, one who has no illusions about fighting for justice and serving the needy and one who isnt dumb enough to overlook the fact that lawyers compete with hitmen and insurance salesmen for the last place in popularity contests. But I am good at what I do, which doesnt really matter because I see myself as so many things other than just a law student. As vain as this may sound, and as unlikely as this may sound to some, I also consider myself an excellent philosopher, a potential novelist, a true film buff and a helluva good liar.

Where I currently live is irrelevant since Im not here to discuss geograhpy (though I might at a later time if I feel like it), but for the benefit of curious observers lets just that say Im somewhere in Malaysia at the moment and am flying away to some place in Europe in a few months to finish my degree. Where my life goes from there depends on God, Mother Fate and Lady Luck, none of whom I beleive in, which makes me both depressed and amused, depending on how dark my sense of humour is at any given time.

Well I dont want to go on and on about my life and my expectations for the future, since the reason for this blog is not to talk about me, but to rant about what I feel like talking about. I will tell you more about my hobbies and my whims as I post more, but right now I am just happy to get into this mania like a lot of other people and am curious to see if atleast this one lasts for a long time.