Did You Know

1. The cardboard sleeve that comes around a disposable coffee cup is called a zarf.

   Any plane carrying the U.S. president is called Air Force One. Any plane carrying the pope is called Shepherd One.

   Walnuts are the healthiest nuts.

   Which country has the highest percentage of people who use Twitter? Brazil!

   The highest number of bank robberies in the United States take place on Friday mornings

   Some people freeze their jeans instead of washing them.

   Dogs might be smarter than cats, but cat owners are more educated than dog owners, on average.

   More than 70% of the land in Japan is mountainous.

   Shopping carts typically have more fecal matter on them than public toilets do.

          Bulls don't get enraged at the sight of the color red.

Full-time college students in the U.S. spend as much time on grooming as they do on homework.

 It's estimated that $1 trillion US Dollars in bribes is paid each year.

 In parts of the Middle East and Asia, giving a "thumbs up" is offensive.

 Before coffee became popular in the U.S., beer was the most popular breakfast drink, even for children.

 The longest recorded tennis match lasted 11 hours and 5 minutes.

The world's largest ice cream manufacturer is Unilever -- the same company that makes Dove soap and Vaseline.

Some species of lizards can reproduce via "virgin births."

 Carrots originally were purple.

 

            

 

1.  

Interesting essays on current topics

INDIAN BILLIONAIRES SHOULD SHARE THEIR WEALTH WITH THE SOCIETY !!!!

Warren Buffett and Bill Gates are coming to India this July to request our billionaires to give away a large part of their wealth in their lifetime. India now has the third largest number of billionaires. Forbes says that India has 69 billionaires worth collectively $280 billion. The fourth-richest man in the world is in India, with his wealth in India. Americans have founded a society based on compassionate capitalism, which encourages individual initiatives and the creation of wealth.


But with great wealth come great responsibilities, and most American billionaires give away a large part of their wealth to society during their lifetime. This was started in the era after the Robber Baron era, at the start of the 20th century, when Carnegie, Rockefeller, Ford and others set up their foundations and built universities, libraries, museums and generally enriched the quality of life and gave back to society what they earned from them. This has ensured that the harshness of a capitalistic society is blunted and becomes acceptable to ordinary citizens. Europe, on the other hand, still has a feudal attitude to wealth, and inheritance needed legal measures to prevent wealth accumulation through the generations.


Warren Buffett and Bill Gates are great examples of this culture. Both have promised to give away collectively $100 billion during their lifetime, leaving a small amount (relatively) for their children. They are now on a drive to get other billionaires give away a large part of their wealth to ensure that society does not look at high achievers with hatred and envy and accepts that an open capitalistic society is essential for economic growth and societal well being. In India, we have the example of the Tatas who lived their dreams, accumulated great wealth and gave it away, leaving their descendants ordinary mortals.


What has been the response of our home-grown billionaires who have seen great wealth, unimaginable in the socialistic era, come to them because of the policies of liberalisation and globalisation? A very substantial part of this wealth is because of the market value of their shareholding in their companies. This wealth is a direct result of an open economy that allows the rapid creation of wealth and a dynamic stock market that rewards enterprise.


Besides this, tax policies have played a major role. In 1992, wealth tax of 2% on market value of shares was abolished. Income tax was 50% at the maximum marginal rate in 1991, 40% in 1994 and is 30% today. Dividend is tax-exempt in the hands of the recipient if dividend distribution tax is paid by the company. All told, tax policies have had a large role to play in the accumulation and size of this wealth. So, a large part of this wealth is a direct result of tax policies that fostered a dynamic stock market and, of course, the enterprise and courage our billionaires showed in their business. They do deserve full credit for this and none should envy them their success.


What responsibility do our billionaires owe to society and the rest of their brethren? India is a poor country with ordinary people dying because of lack of elementary healthcare, 45% of our children in the age group below 5 years being malnourished, a child mortality of 45 per 1,000, and only 13.5% of our young people in the age group of 18-24 being in college, a country beset by problems of governance and poverty looking for succour after 60 years of freedom, almost a failed state for the vast majority of our people. Our billionaires have given back to society, schools, colleges, a university or two, hospitals, but nothing substantial in relation to their wealth save Azim Premji who has recently given away 8,500 crore.


Being beneficiaries of a poor country, they have a moral responsibility to give back the vast majority of their wealth to society. We are a society where we hold this to be true that wealth is given to a few to be held in trust and to be used for the betterment of society and not for oneself or one's children alone, where the power of wealth is reckoned to be the power to do good and not for personal enjoyment alone, where the maxim Sarve Jano Sukhino Bhuvantu is a guiding principle. If we take this aspect, we can conclude that our billionaires have not done enough to justify their wealth in terms of giving back to society directly or indirectly like the American billionaires have. Should we wait till they are advanced in age or ask for this now when we have so much of poverty and so much of inequality?


It would be a pity, in the land of Mahatma Gandhi, if Warren Buffett and Bill Gates have to come and persuade our billionaires to do their duty. India expects them to discharge the responsibility cast on them as leaders and do their bit. Even if they give away 2% of their wealth each year - 2% being the saving in wealth tax alone - it would amount to $5.6 billion, or 25,200 crore. What could this get us every year? Medical insurance of 2 lakh per family for 12 crore families (60 crore people), 100 universities at 250 crore each, with 10,000 students each, a midday meal programme for 20 crore children, job training for 2 crore youth at 10,000 each, the solution to the country's challenges! Do we have a right to make a claim? I would say, yes. And it is a small part of their wealth only, and that too because of beneficial tax policies.


Is it morally right for a few to enjoy such a disproportionate share of our national wealth? Yes, it is, provided they display the statesmanship to demonstrate their leadership in society and discharge their duty. They can wipe the tears from the eyes of the poorest of the poor

Laughter Session

Gang of Santa-Banta broke a bank, but instead of cash they find
bottles of chilled red wine…
happily they drink and left
next day headline
~ Braking News ~
“Blood Bank Robbed”
lmao…..

Q: What is the difference b/w secretary & private secretary?
Ans:
Secretary says GOOD MORNING SIR
&
Private secretary says ITS MORNING SIR…… 

Man's Worth-

It take one Amitabh Bachan to sell Diamonds.

But,

It needs three Abhishek Bachan to sell Sim Cards.

An American tourist in London decides to skip his tour group and explore the city on his own. He wanders around, seeing the sights, occasionally stopping at a quaint pub to soak up the local culture, chat with the locals, and have a pint of bitter.
After a while, he finds himself in a very nice neighborhood with big, stately residences...no pubs, no stores, no restaurants, and worst of all NO PUBLIC RESTROOMS.
He really, really has to go, after all those Guinnesses. He finds a narrow side street, with high walls surrounding the adjacent buildings and decides to use the wall to solve his problem.
As he is unzipping, he is tapped on the shoulder by a London police officer, who says, "I say, sir, you simply cannot do that here, you know."
"I'm very sorry, officer," replies the American, "but I really, really have to go, and I just can't find a public restroom."
"Ah, yes," said the policeman..."Just follow me". He leads the American to a back delivery alley to a gate, which he opens.
"In there," points the policeman. "Go ahead sir, anywhere you like."
The fellow enters and finds himself in the most beautiful garden he has ever seen. Manicured grass lawns, statuary, fountains, sculptured hedges, and huge beds of gorgeous flowers, all in perfect bloom.
Since he has the policeman's blessing, he relieves himself and feels much more comfortable. As he goes back through the gate, he says to the police officer, "That was really decent of you... is that what you call English hospitality?"
"No sir...", replied the police officer, "...that is what we call the French Embassy."

Debates

Are WikiLeaks release of US diplomatic cables good for democracy and transparency?

WikiLeaks obtained in November of 2010 a trove of over 250,000 US diplomatic documents leaked by US Army Pfc. Bradley Manning. The stated intention of the leaks was to reveal contradictions between public and private US international policies. But, the leaks have set-off an international debate on the value of transparency to democracy, whether such transparency jeopardizes diplomacy and even lives, whether the leaks expose illegal behaviour on the part of the United States, and whether Wikileak’s actions were legal. The White House came out strongly against the leak, as it did against the Afghanistan and Iraq War Log leaks earlier in the year, declaring: “Such disclosures put at risk diplomats, intelligence professionals, and people around the world who come to the US for assistance in promoting democracy and open government. By releasing stolen and classified documents, WikiLeaks has put at risk not only the cause of human rights but also the lives and work of these individuals.” But others have come out in defence of the leaks, including the New York Times, which wrote: “the documents serve an important public interest, illuminating the goals, successes, compromises and frustrations of American diplomacy in a way that other accounts cannot match.” These and other arguments and quotations are outlined below.

Arguments in favour of the releases:

• WikiLeaks aided transparency and accountability. Wikileaks has helped in revealing grand pretences about projecting freedom worldwide by US and on the other hand has kept most of the details of its actions away from the prying eyes of the public. WikiLeaks and its efforts have helped provide the information necessary so Americans can govern themselves in this supposedly self-governing society. WikiLeaks has helped demystify the inner workings of US government, sparking a much-needed debate over various U.S. policies across the world and reminded Americans that free societies depend on an informed citizenry.
• WikiLeaks served public by revealing actual US policy. The documents serve an important public interest, illuminating the goals, successes, compromises and frustrations of American diplomacy in a way that other accounts cannot match.
• WikiLeaks helped expose wasteful/equivocal top secret world. The top-secret world the government created in response to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, has become so large, so unwieldy and so secretive, that no one knows how much money it costs, how many people it employs, how many programs exist within it or exactly how many agencies do the same work. The result of this classification mania is the division of the public into two distinct groups: those who are privy to the actual conduct of American policy, but are forbidden to write or talk about it, and the uninformed public, which becomes easy prey for the official lies exposed in the Wikileaks documents. Like the failure of American counterinsurgency programs in Afghanistan.
• WikiLeaks helps journalists do job and check government. It is a fact of the current media landscape that the chilling effect of threatened legal action routinely stops reporters and editors from pursuing stories that might serve the public interest – and anyone who says otherwise is either ignorant or lying. Wikileaks is a powerful new way for reporters and human rights advocates to leverage global information technology systems to break the heavy veil of government and corporate secrecy that is slowly suffocating the American press.
• WikiLeaks release won’t have terrible diplomatic effects.  The long-term damage will be much more minimal than is presently ascribed by maybe the White House spokesperson. Leaks are not the problem; the lies they expose are.
• Cables reveal contradiction between US public and private statements. WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange said in a November 2010 statement: “reveals the contradictions between the U.S.’s public persona and what it says behind closed doors.
• Cables expose and counter US spying, missteps, and corruption. The cables show the U.S. spying on its allies and the U.N.; turning a blind eye to corruption and human rights abuse in ‘client states’; backroom deals with supposedly neutral countries and lobbying for U.S. corporations.”

Arguments against the releases:

• WikiLeaks leaks lack democratic principles of consent. One can hardly compare a society that is open by consent and by voluntary disclosure of the governed and the governing to vandals who forcibly pry open what is rightly closed. Like all the open source thugs, Wikileaks violates the principle of opt-in; and indeed there is not even an opt-out. Yes, most of all, what’s wrong with Wikileaks is that it is achieved by force, without consent and without knowledge. It’s Bolshevist, in that a group of people arrogantly usurp to themselves power, without democratic legitimacy, in the name of revolutionary expediency.
• WikiLeaks can be exploited by regimes unfriendly to democracy. The United States of America is surely a democratic country, respecting the freedom of reporting. However, the acts of WikiLeaks are not appropriate because it is revealing the national secrets to the world. This can cause serious problems around the globe because enemy countries, such as North Korea, can use the information from the WikiLeaks for their own benefits.
• WikiLeaks release is an assault on global democracy. It puts people’s lives in danger, threatens national security, and undermines efforts to work with other countries to solve shared problems. In every country and in every region of the world, governments are working with partners to pursue these aims. So this disclosure is not just an attack on America’s foreign policy interests, it is an attack on the international community – the alliances and partnerships, the conversations and negotiations, that safeguard global security and advance economic prosperity.
• Transparency is important, but not in case of diplomacy. Transparency is fundamental in our society and its usually essential — but there are a few areas, including diplomacy, where it isn’t essential.
• WikiLeaks decreases diplomatic frankness, undermines public debate. If everything a government official says and writes is liable to become public the next moment, you will only have self-censorship, political correctness and worse, a greater tendency to avoid putting debates and decisions on record.
• WikiLeaks is not about transparency, but damaging US. There’s only the taunting slogan ‘We open governments.’ Except they don’t. They only open one government, pretty much, the U.S. The others only become displayed to the extent the U.S. engages with them, and much of the time, it’s unflattering and damaging to the U.S., not anyone else.
• WikiLeaks release is rooted in anarchist objectives. Like small children playing with fires, fascinated with their own power to destroy, Assange and company are setting the world aflame merely to watch it burn. They are not crusaders for a better society. They are nihilists. They are anarchists. And they are enemies of the United States.
• WikiLeaks has none of the transparency it espouses. People involved are mainly anonymous. They ask for donations by banking accounts – but one don’t know how much they raise or how much they spent, or on what. They don’t say what their aspirational goals are, or whether they have any creed or ideology — there’s only the taunting slogan “We open governments.”
• WikiLeaks undermines international trust and diplomacy. The key ingredient to all relationships is trust. With the release of the cables one could say that the trust that’s essential to diplomacy has been broken.
• WikiLeaks decreases frank intra-government dialogue. WikiLeaks release will shift specialized diplomats. Wikileaks release puts diplomats and officials at risk. Such disclosures put at risk diplomats, intelligence professionals, and people around the world who come to the United States for assistance in promoting democracy and open government.
• Leaks undermine counter-terrorism intelligence sharing. Brakes will be applied in the trend towards sharing of information within government and across departmental silos. A process that began as a result of the US intelligence community’s failure to piece together data that could have led to the uncovering of the 9/11 plot—and was adopted by governments across the world, including in India—might come to an end with abuse of technological power by Wikileaks. ‘Information fusion’ within governments is likely to be the first casualty of Mr Assange’s war on responsibility.”
• Private cables are not US policy as WikiLeaks claims. People of good faith recognize that diplomats’ internal reports do not represent a government’s official foreign policy. They are one element out of many that shape policies, which are ultimately set by the Head of the state. And those policies are a matter of public record, the subject of thousands of pages of speeches, statements, white papers, and other documents that the US State Department makes freely available online and elsewhere.

Learning vocabulary with the help of mnemonics

1)      HORTATORY : giving strong encouragement

While ploughing farms with bulls, farmers say "HUR HUR HORT HORT" to encourage bulls to move ahead. This is HORTATORY.

GRUESOME : something extremely unpleasant, ghastly, grim, sick...........

memory key : sounds like cruelsome , which is self-explainable

THOUGH / ALTHOUGH -YET
with though or although either 'YET' or simply a 'COMMA' is used before the next sentence, not 'BUT'
e.g-though the match startd late BUT all the playrs were present(use YET or COMMA after late insted of but)