interesting Facts about HSBC

I thought that you might find trouble falling asleep without knowing the valuable information I'm about to give you.

1.) HSBC Increases interested rate to 3.25% on their Credit Cards. Yup that's a staggering 39% annually. (Just when you thought Petrol prices are coming down and things are getting better)

2.) If you have access to HSBC Internet Banking, there is this great link that makes you feel good about your self, called "Net Worth". It reduces your Credit Card and Loan Payables from your Savings account and tell's you what your worth. I'm yet to break even. (I know this isn't a fact but thought it'd be useful, for an ego-boost or maybe not)

3.) Family Planning have detemined that the Highest Condom sales in the Country is from an outlet (Laughs Shed/Supermarket I think) close to the HSBC International Call Center known as HDPL in Rajagiriya, with some 2000 employees working under them.

There... now for some nice sleep. Now now, don't go thinking what those chaps at HDPL get down to. Servicing customers or their own. lol

Shaken or Stirred? Blondie or Bald?

Yes I'm talking about Bond! So there has been much rife about the new Bond, and most of it has been put in it's right place (atleast what I hear) with the folks who disliked Daniel Craig, admitting that he's "Not That Bad Afterall".

I know this it's too late to discuss all this now, since the movie is already out, but being the slow bugger/blogger I am, I thought what the hell. It all started with Craig being the first Blondie Bond. But then it went to a frenzy, and I even heard stories of he doesn't know how to handle a Manual Gear Shift. God me saying to myself "How the hell is he going to handle the Aston Martin?"





So it got me thinking of the likely replacement in my opinion. Now I'm not the movie buff like many on the Blogsphere, so the names I come up with may sound absurd and there might be many more worthy out there.

Looking back at the movies that caught my eye, the most likely to me, who had the same class, posture and finesse as the previous Bonds would be Jason Statham (The dude from Transporter 1 & 2). I know his Bald, but if we can have a Blondie Bond, and a Black Bond, why not a Bald Bond?







James Bond (Ian Flemming's impression)

Here's my list on judging a bond :
  1. He's got to look good in a suit, and in trunks coming out of the pool. (The Bond Look)
  2. Have the class and personality on and off the camera. (One thing Daniel Craig lacks I feel.. he's too shy off camera)
  3. Physique. (Able to rough it out with any Terrorist threatening World Domination but not Rough around the edges.)
  4. Flare for the Ladies (Typical Playboy, Charm the ladies off their feet and into Bed.. goes with no 2.. I think)
  5. Handle a Car.. Manual Shift preferably. (I know it's kinda Ironic coming from a Guy who drives an Automatic, but then again I'm not Bond.. lol)





Well there you go, enough of my rambling, considering the fact that I'm yet to watch the movie, so you can expect a new post (or an update to this one) after that. So lets give the bugger a chance. Some people were skeptical about Brosnan too, but I knew he was the guy to replace Sean Connery, after his role in 'Remington Steel'.



Is This The Case In Sri Lanka?

Start with a cage containing five monkeys. Inside the cage, hang a bunch of bananas on a string and place a set of stairs under it. Before long, a monkey will go to the stairs and start to climb towards the bananas. As soon as he touches the stairs, spray all of the other monkeys with cold water. After a while, another monkey makes an attempt with the same result -- all the other monkeys are sprayed with cold water. Pretty soon, when another monkey tries to climb the stairs, the other monkeys will try to prevent it.

Now, put away the cold water. Remove one monkey from the cage and replace it with a new one. The new monkey sees the bananas and wants to climb the stairs. To his surprise and horror, all of the other monkeys attack him. After another attempt and attack, he knows that if he tries to climb the stairs, he will be assaulted. Next, remove another of the original five monkeys and replace it with a new one. The newcomer goes to the stairs and is attacked. The previous newcomer takes part in the punishment with enthusiasm! Likewise, replace a third original monkey with a new one, then a fourth, then the fifth.

Every time the newest monkey takes to the stairs, he is attacked. Most of the monkeys that are beating him have no idea why they were not permitted to climb the stairs or why they are participating in the beating of the newest monkey.

After replacing all the original monkeys, none of the remaining monkeys have ever been sprayed with cold water. Nevertheless, no monkey ever again approaches the stairs to try for the bananas. Why not? Because as far as they know that's the way it's always been done around here.

Posted at
http://www.shof.msrcsites.co.uk/work.html

Friends, Enemies and Countrymen

Taken off the Asian Tribune. By Dayan Jayatilleka

Post war Italy’s most respected political and legal philosopher was Norberto Bobbio, who died a few years ago. A liberal leftist in orientation, he nonetheless endorsed and considered foundational, the work of a thinker of very different ideological persuasion, Carl Schmitt. The political theorising of Carl Schmitt, a conservative Catholic who initially opposed and then supported the Nazi state, was so brilliantly pioneering, that he is acknowledged (and taught) as a seminal political theorist, just as his contemporary Martin Heidegger, who had a similar political past, is widely respected as one of the most important philosophers of the 20th century.

Many contemporary Leftists - Marxists and post Marxists such as those around the journal TELOS and political theorist Chantal Mouffe- have rediscovered and appropriated Carl Schmitt’s insights, resulting in a school of thought dubbed ‘left Schmittian’. Schmitt’s best known conceptualisation is that the defining characteristic of politics and warfare is the distinction between friend and enemy. This definition is independently echoed by Mao Zedong around the same time, when he identified the key question as ‘who are our friends, who are our enemies?’

Norberto Bobbio refers to Schmitt and in his 1997 work Left and Right, develops this definition. According to Bobbio, there are only four basic positions which are possible in serious politics, deriving from Schmitt’s duality: friend/enemy. Bobbio’s fourfold categorisation is:

Enemy’s Enemy
• Enemy’s Friend
• Friend’s Enemy
• Friend’s Friend

What then is the picture that emerges when this matrix is applied to the contemporary Sri Lankan conflict?

Enemy

The enemy is the LTTE which seeks to dismember Sri Lanka as a country and a state (and expand beyond what could reasonably be claimed as an ethnic homeland). The LTTE engages in terrorism of the worst sort, entailing assassination of democratic political leaders, suicide bombings and the witting targeting of civilians. The LTTE is also a formation which bears at least a family resemblance to fascism. It is therefore the enemy. This enemy is waging a war of aggression, an unjust war. (In his Just and Unjust Wars, the prominent, left-liberal, just war theorist Michael Walzer defines aggression as the violation of the territorial integrity or political sovereignty of a nation–state).

Friend

The country is kept together by the State. This would be so whatever its character. Sri Lanka is a sovereign democratic state, a legitimate authority and actor (unlike the LTTE). We are afforded a defence from anarchy, some form of representation and a minimum of civilised life by the state, which is a democratic state; a democratic republic.

At the heart of the state, any state, are the armed forces.

At the apex of the state is the executive.

The state is waging a defensive war to protect the country. For the reasons just mentioned – legitimate authority and defensive war - the war fought by the Sri Lankan state is a Just War.

When the state is at war and society stands threatened, the rights and freedoms that obtain in peacetime may temporarily be circumscribed or suspended. This is in a situation other than of normalcy; it is that situation described by Carl Schmitt as ‘the exception’. Who decides on which situation is exceptional? "Sovereign is he who decides on the exception" says Schmitt, referring to the Executive.

While it is greatly advisable, preferable and to be recommended, that war should be waged in a moral manner (and this, as Fidel would have it, is an imperative for liberation struggles and movements), the words of the great Karl Von Clausewitz, who (as Lenin acknowledged) knew these things, cannot be readily discounted:

“Of course moral scruples and legal principles may, by lucky accident, happen to coincide with the intelligent application of force to gain an objective. But of themselves, in the nature of things, they can have no direct effect on the conduct or the outcome of war”. (Clausewitz, On War)

That having been said, our common humanity demands as a moral absolute, the eschewing of deliberate - as distinct from accidental or coincidental – lethal targeting of unarmed, non-combatant civilians.

In Sri Lanka the executive is directly elected by the people. It is the most unmediated expression of popular sovereignty, unlike even the American executive in the election of which the Electoral College plays a crucial part.

Furthermore in Sri Lanka the executive can be elected only by a plurality i.e. 50.1%, unlike in many countries (say, Nicaragua) where one may be elected president with less than 40% of the vote.

In a distortion, President Jayewardene initially elevated himself to the presidency without an election (1978) and was re-elected while his main opponent had been disenfranchised. However this was not so in the case of his successors Ranasinghe Premadasa, Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga and now Mahinda Rajapakse, whose wielding of executive power was not lacking in legitimacy.

No democrat can therefore fail to classify the elected president of Sri Lanka as friend, and by the same logic, no one who classifies, regards or treats him (or earlier, her) as enemy, could in turn be classified as democrat or ‘friend’, and may indeed have to be regarded as objectively serving as ‘friend’s enemy’ or worse still, ‘enemy’s friend’.

The main duality that structures the Sri Lankan reality then, is the opposition – and it is an armed opposition- between the LTTE and the State.

Enemy’s Enemy

The enemy, the LTTE’s main enemy is the Sri Lankan state. Its secondary enemies are the anti-Tiger Tamil organisations, chiefly the Karuna faction (TMVP) and the EPDP, because these are the most consequential military and political opponents of the tigers. The other anti-Tiger groups, PLOTE and EPRLF are but residual, and the TULF is unarmed. Thus the enemy’s enemies are the Sri Lankan state – with the armed forces and the executive at its core – and the TMVP and EPDP.

Enemy’s Friend

Those who regard or refer to the LTTE uncritically: the TNA, some prominent elements of the UNP, the so-called peace lobby, one newspaper and perhaps an electronic media organization or two; externally some parties in Tamil Nadu.

Friend’s Enemy

The LTTE and those who, in this situation in which Prabhakaran prepares for his grand slam, treat the armed forces and/or the elected executive as the main enemy or the enemy or co-equal to the LTTE: the TNA, a stratum of the UNP, the so-called peace lobby, extremist Tamil Nadu politicians, some journalists local and foreign.

Friend’s Friend

According to all opinion polls, this would embrace the clear majority of the country’s citizens. Also the SLFP, many UNP MPs and most UNP voters (who probably identify with that party’s Deputy leader Karu Jayasuriya, a former volunteer Army officer who served in Jaffna), the JVP, the JHU, the bulk of the Buddhist clergy, most journalists in print and electronic media.

In this exceptional and extreme historical situation of existential threat it is incumbent upon all who are participants, observer-participants or simply commentators on the conflict to be aware that there are only these four standpoints or roles that can be played - deriving from the two main positions - whatever their subjective views and self-perceptions. There are no intermediate, neutral, or above- the-fray positions that can objectively, historically and concretely be occupied.

Four Thousand Traitors

Throughout this island’s recorded history, the recurrent and crucial factor in all defeats suffered, has been the presence of internal fissures and factionalism and the role of traitors. Therefore it is of critical importance to estimate the extent of this factor, as Prabhakaran sets the stage for his all-out offensive.

There are only 3,500-4,000 traitors in Southern Sri Lanka. The upper figure was the most generous estimate in the international media of Monday’s demonstration in Colombo. We should be thankful to the organisers of the march, ostensibly to protest the killing of parliamentarian Nadaraja Raviraj, but in actuality a demonstration marked by the most lurid charges against the Sri Lankan state and society: "stop killing Tamils! Open the A-9!" A garrulous woman even described the Southern areas such as Colombo as under fascism while denying that the Tiger controlled areas were!

These demonstrators, a conglomeration of the Tamil National Alliance (TNA), the Trotskyist Left, the so-called Antiwar Front, an MP each from the UNP and SLFP, and the Free Media Movement (FMM), represent the sum total of treachery, behind our lines. The Trotskyist banner (which reminded me why Stalin chose to bury the hatchet so to speak with old Leon, just before he had to deal with the Nazi threat) characterised Mr Raviraj as one who “built an alliance with the Left and fought for Tamil liberation”. Now that would be an accurate description of many non-Tiger and anti-Tiger Tamils, ranging from K Pathmanabha right up to Kethesh Loganathan, all of whom were killed by the Tigers! Except for those who died in combat, all those Tamils who "fought for Tamil liberation in alliance with the Left" were assassinated by the LTTE and none by the ‘terrorist’ state! However I did not see these Trotskyists such as Dr Wickremebahu (bootha) Karunaratne carrying this banner at their funerals!

The ‘National’ Antiwar Front, or more accurately the Anti National Anti War Front, or even more accurately the Anti National Pro (Prabhakaran’s) War Front carried a banner which hailed Mr Raviraj as "one who would be vindicated as a patriot by History". While that is debatable to say the least, I did not see photographs of these worthy citizens unfurling this same banner at Kethesh Loganathan’s funeral. Jehan Perera is quoted by Somini Sengupta of the New York Times as describing Kethesh’s style as ‘adversarial’ (which implies that Kethesh provoked his own death), but I have yet to read a line from him which describes Raviraj’s TV performances as being the same or even more so!

As we face Prabhakaran’s decisive ‘Final War’ over the coming weeks and months, we now know how large the Fifth Column is, how many collaborators with Tiger fascism we have amongst us and who they are. Luckily, they aren’t that many.

Royal Retain Hayman Trophy

This Saturday saw the 2nd Leg of the Dr. R. L. Hayman trophy being played at St. Thomas' Pool. Royal team going in with a lead of 6-4 from the first leg, managed to hang on to a 4-4 draw which enabled them to hold on to the Coveted Trophy for a 2nd Year in a row.

For more detail comments on the game I hope Shanaka might decide to drop by and not be too biased, since he together with Aloka were the Referee's of both the legs.