Abraham Lincoln's letter to his son's teacher

He will have to learn, I know, that all men are not just, all men are not true. But teach him also that for every scoundrel there is a hero; that for every selfish Politician, there is a dedicated leader... Teach him for every enemy there is a friend.

Steer him away from envy, if you can, teach him the secret of quiet laughter.

Let him learn early that the bullies are the easiest to lick... Teach him, if you can, the wonder of books... But also give him quiet time to ponder the eternal mystery of birds in the sky, bees in the sun, and the flowers on a green hillside.

In the school teach him it is far honourable to fail than to cheat... Teach him to have faith in his own ideas, even if everyone tells him they are wrong... Teach him to be gentle with gentle people, and tough with the tough.

Try to give my son the strength not to follow the crowd when everyone is getting on the band wagon... Teach him to listen to all men... but teach him also to filter all he hears on a screen of truth, and take only the good that comes through.

Teach him if you can, how to laugh when he is sad... Teach him there is no shame in tears, Teach him to scoff at cynics and to beware of too much sweetness... Teach him to sell his brawn and brain to the highest bidders but never to put a price-tag on his heart and soul.

Teach him to close his ears to a howling mob and to stand and fight if he thinks he's right. Treat him gently, but do not cuddle him, because only the test of fire makes fine steel.

Let him have the courage to be impatient... let him have the patience to be brave. Teach him always to have sublime faith in himself, because then he will have sublime faith in mankind.

This is a big order, but see what you can do... He is such a fine fellow, my son !!

Persuasion as the Cure for Incivility

What if, instead of demonizing opponents, we took steps to persuade them?

Father Jenkins is president of the University of Notre Dame. His book "Conviction: The Power and Peril of Our Passionate Beliefs" will be published by Random House later this year.

By JOHN I. JENKINS

Several decades ago, my predecessor as the president of the University of Notre Dame, the Rev. Theodore M. Hesburgh, was presented with a dilemma. A Jewish student, after repeated hazing by some kids in his dorm, had left campus and gone home. After thinking it over, Father Hesburgh summoned the perpetrators. "Pack your bags," he told them. "Go find your friend. Either you persuade him to come back to Notre Dame, or you don't come back."

The approach worked for everyone concerned, and it may offer an idea for easing the incivility that marks much public discourse and leads to political stalemate. We need to try harder to persuade one another—to try to get people to change their minds.

There isn't nearly enough persuasion going on in America today, and there was too little, in the view of many citizens, in the past presidential campaign. A postelection Pew poll found that the 2012 campaign was a "frustrating experience" for many voters: 68% said there was more "negative campaigning and mudslinging," with less discussion of issues.

The recent fiscal-cliff negotiations might have ended in a budget deal, but the rhetoric during the wrangling was hardly of the persuasive variety.

That is likely because much of the election campaigning and much of the budget discussion wasn't designed to change anyone's mind, but instead to encourage people to believe more deeply what they already believed—not about policies, for the most part, but about the villainy of the other side.

In the presidential campaign, the negative ads and speeches may have been unfortunately effective. A Washington Post-ABC News poll from last summer reported that 70% of Republicans saw President Obama in a strongly unfavorable light, and 57% of Democrats had a very unfavourable view of Gov. Romney. These were historically very high numbers for two presidential contenders.

As a country, we seem to have become the factions James Madison warned against in 1787, when he wrote: "A zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points . . . have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to cooperate for their common good." A more earnest effort to persuade one another could help remedy many of the problems we face.

I confess that I am deeply biased. I am a university president with a strong belief in the power and importance of a liberal arts education. I believe that deep and candid dialogue, marked by many acts of courtesy and gestures of respect, is a discipline that brings us nearer the truth about ourselves, about our opponents, about human nature, and about the subject under debate. To shut down this source of wisdom because we are too angry to hear the other side is a tragic setback in our quest for knowledge and our hope for a healthy society.

What if, instead of dealing with opponents by demonizing them and distorting their views, we were to take some steps to persuade them? I don't mean to suggest that one could persuade a stalwart partisan to switch parties, but perhaps one could persuade another that a particular policy or a position is "not as bad as you think."

If I am trying to persuade others, I first have to understand their position, which means I have to listen to them. I have to appeal to their values, which means I have to show them respect. I have to find the best arguments for my position, which means I have to think about my values in the context of their concerns. I have to answer their objections, which means I have to work honestly with their ideas. I have to ask them to listen to me, which means I can't insult them.

If we earnestly try to persuade, civility takes care of itself.

Civility is sometimes derided in the modern world, where bluntness and even coarseness have somehow come to be celebrated in many quarters. But civility is not a minor virtue. It is not an attempt to impose someone's notion of courtesy, and it is certainly not an attempt to suppress speech. Civility is what allows speech to be heard. It is an appeal to citizens never to express or incite hatred, which is more dangerous to the country than any external enemy.

A more sincere effort to persuade one another would remind us why the Founders believed this country could improve on history: We were the first society in many centuries with the chance to use free speech and sound argument to debate our way toward a better future.

That path is still open, and as promising as ever.

What Thomas Jefferson Said

"When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we shall become as corrupt as Europe."

-- Thomas Jefferson

"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."

-- Thomas Jefferson

"It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world."

-- Thomas Jefferson

"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."

-- Thomas Jefferson

"My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government."

-- Thomas Jefferson

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."

--Thomas Jefferson

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

-- Thomas Jefferson

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

-- Thomas Jefferson

"To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."

-- Thomas Jefferson

"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property - until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."

Thomas Jefferson said in 1802:

The moral cost of the civilian-military gap

By Rosa Brooks  

In my last column, I wrote about the civilian-military gap, and asked whether the most common laments about it make sense when examined closely. We tend to think that the military is "special" in some way, and fundamentally different from other occupations.  I asked whether that belief in military "differentness" is justified, and suggested that in many respects, the military isn't as different as we assume.

That is: If members of the military deserve special consideration and respect, it can't be simply because careers in the military are dangerous, since there are other occupations that are equally dangerous that we don't view as similarly "special."  It can't be simply because military service often involves extreme hardships (time away from families, long hours, physical discomfort), since here too, many civilians have jobs that involve such hardship. And finally, the military's specialness can't be based simply on the fact that military careers provide a vital public service, since millions of other Americans also do work that serves the nation in critical ways, whether that involves teaching our children, building our roads, mining our coal or staffing our hospitals.

Some readers objected to these arguments, viewing them as an offensive implied comparison between military personnel and the likes of truck drivers or sanitation workers. But the comparison shouldn't cause any angst -- why should we regard those who do the exhausting, dangerous, and invisible work of hauling goods or hauling our trash with anything other than respect? Millions of Americans give their all -- their energy, their health, their time -- on cold, windy oil drilling platforms, in dark, methane-filled mines, and in decaying inner-city classrooms. Noting that military service is less different from such other jobs than many assume is no insult to the military. In a better world, we'd respect and honor all the Americans -- military and civilian alike -- who do difficult, dangerous work for the benefit of the nation.

But there are two key ways in which serving in the military is deeply different from serving the country as a school teacher or working in a coal mine. For one thing, our nation, like some many others, arose out of war, and the cauldron of war has profoundly shaped our history. For this reason, the military is deeply linked to our sense of national identity -- to dearly held national narratives about where we come from and who we are -- in a way that is true for no other profession.  

No other profession has shed so much blood at the nation's behest. For members of the military, the shedding of blood (that of others and that of their own) isn't a strictly incidental part of their work -- something that could happen, might happen, but isn't supposed to happen.  Historically, the shedding of blood has been the fundamental purpose of militaries.

Some service members will never hear a shot fired in anger, of course -- and in my own experience, military personnel tend to be a great deal less bloodthirsty than the average civilian, perhaps because they've been forced to consider what it truly means to be prepared to kill and die. Most military personnel I know fervently hope killing and dying will never be required, that the mere existence of a robust American military prepared to kill and die will help deter conflicts, and ultimately reduce bloodshed.

Yet the fact remains: Even as our military finds itself moving into unfamiliar terrain (cyberspace, the information domain, intelligence gathering, humanitarian aid, development work), it's still the only public institution that's inherently defined by the willingness of its members to kill and die.

There's a second and related reason to view military service as fundamentally different from other kinds of work. However tough and dangerous their jobs are, loggers and miners and commercial pilots can always quit. A commercial pilot who doesn't like his odds can decide from one day to the next to become a realtor; a miner ordered into a situation he deems dangerous can tell the foreman to go to hell. His pay may be docked -- he may be fired and face consequent economic hardship --  but he won't go to prison for his refusal to risk his life.

That's not the case for service members. Yes, we have a volunteer military, but once you sign up, there's no changing your mind until you've fulfilled your service obligation. A soldier ordered to engage the enemy can't politely decline. Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, disobeying a lawful order will land you behind bars-and desertion in wartime is still punishable by death.

When someone volunteers for the military, they do more than just sign on for a career that may have its difficulties and dangers. They're asked, in effect, to embrace those dangers, and from that moment on, to waive their fundamental right to preserve their own lives. The Declaration of Independence tells us that all men have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but those who volunteer for military service effectively give up those rights. Once in the military, their lives belong to the nation. Their time, their comfort, and ultimately their lives are subject to the whims of their military superiors, who, in turn, are subject to the whims of elected civilian leaders.

In the end, this is why civilians in a democracy have a moral obligation to understand the military, treat service members with respect and concern, and try to ensure that military force is used wisely and only when necessary. Members of the military voluntarily place their lives in our hands.

I suggested at the end of my July 26 column that there's a pragmatic reason to worry about the civilian-military gap: When senior military officials and senior civilian officials engage with each other at the national level, a lot of vital questions just get lost in translation. Too often, that leads both to an impoverished decision-making process and to poor policy outcomes.  (I'll discuss this more next week.)

But the moral cost of the civilian-military gap is also real. Civilians have the luxury of voting or not voting, tuning in or tuning out, deciding to pay attention to the war in Afghanistan or deciding to watch American Idol instead. But if we -- through our votes, our choices or our simple lack of interest in events that feel distant and unimportant -- allow our troops to be ordered into harm's way, our troops have no choice but to go. Service members entrust us with their lives.

Is their trust in us misplaced?

http://byothermeans.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/07/27/the_moral_cost_of_the_civilian_military_gap


The views expressed by the author are his own and left to public to judge and rationalise for themselves.  

Generals Are from Mars, Their Bosses Are from Venus

But does the civilian-military gap really matter?

BY ROSA BROOKS 

Most Americans know roughly as much about the U.S. military as they know about the surface of the moon. It's not that we don't like the military -- we love it! We just don't have a clue who's in it, what it does, what it costs us, or what it costs those who join it. And as a nation, we don't particularly care, either.

Commentators routinely lament this civilian-military gap, and admittedly, it's more of a gulf than a gap these days. As former Defense Secretary Robert Gates told a Duke University audience in 2012, "For a growing number of Americans, service in the military, no matter how laudable, has become something for other people to do." Even with the post-9/11 patriotic surge, only about one half of one percent of the population served during any given year in the last decade.

Congress has fewer veterans within its ranks than at any other point since World War II, and many worry that the military is particularly disconnected from elites. In AWOL: The Unauthorized Absence of America's Upper Classes from Military Service, Kathy Roth-Douquet and Frank Schaeffer note that only a third of a percent of Ivy League graduates enter the military. What's more, military personnel are drawn disproportionately from non-urban areas and from the South, the Southwest and the mountain states. Compared to the civilian population, members of the military (particularly the officer corps) are also substantially more likely to self-identify as politically conservative.

As Tom Ricks observed in his 1997 book, Making the Corps, members of the military often perceive themselves as "different" from the civilian population -- and, on the whole, as better. And military personnel certainly feel misunderstood. In 2011, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen told graduating West Point cadets that although the public supports the troops, "I fear they do not know us." Similarly (as I noted last week), the Military Times' 2012 annual survey found that more than 75 percent of all active duty personnel and reservists believe, "The military community has little in common with the rest of the country and most civilians do not understand the military."

But so what?

In my day job I teach at a medium-sized university, and I can guarantee that if you asked a national cross-section of American academics to evaluate the statement, "The community of university professors has little in common with the rest of the country and most non-academics do not understand professors," 99 percent of my colleagues would agree -- and in many ways, they'd be right. Reframe the question to make it about police officers, nurses, garbage truck drivers, elementary school teachers, mortgage brokers, screenwriters, or flight attendants and I suspect you'd get similar results. We're all tragically misunderstood.

Why should it matter, though? The mere fact that a particular occupational group is not fully representative of the U.S. population -- or is not fully understood by other Americans -- isn't in itself a cause for hand-wringing. So why get worked up about the civilian-military gap?

Let's look at the arguments usually advanced by those who decry it. The first argument generally put forward by those who lament the civilian-military gap is that since members of the military sacrifice on our behalf, the nation owes it to them to understand them better. Writing in the Joint Forces Quarterly, former chairman of the House Armed Services Committee Ike Skelton worries that Americans need more awareness of "the long-term implications of the sacrifices Service members are making.... Today, the public may not show the military as much gratitude as it deserves."

 Following topics certainly deserve due consideration and a serious thought process

MILITARY

What Is Life in the Service Like?

MORALS

Minding the Civilian-Military Gap

SOCIALISM

It’s Not Such a Bad Thing

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/07/25/generals_are_from_mars_their_bosses_are_from_venus

The Highest Waterfall in the World - Angel Falls

At fifteen times the height of Niagara Falls , Angel Falls is the highest in the world. Just how tall is it? How did it get its name? Did someone seriously BASE jump from the top? Littered amongst the stunning images below you will find the answers. Enjoy!

Angel Falls is the worlds highest waterfall, with a height of 979 meters (3,212 ft) and a plunge of 807 meters (2,647 ft)

It is located in the Canaima National Park , an UNESCO World Heritage site in the Gran Sabana region of Bolivar State , Venezuela . It is one of the countrys top tourist destinations despite its isolated location.

Did you know the height of the falls is so great, that before getting anywhere near the ground, the water is atomized by the strong winds and turned into mist? The mist can be felt a mile (1.6 km) away!

The base of the falls feeds into the Kerep River (alternatively known as the Rio Gauya), which flows into the Churun River , a tributary of the Carrao River.

 Apparently, the falls were not known to the outside world until American aviator Jimmie Angel flew over them on November 16, 1933 during a flight searching for a valuable ore bed. Returning on October 9, 1937, Angel tried to land his Flamingo monoplane, El Rio Caroni atop the mountain, but the plane was damaged when the wheels sank into the marshy ground. 

He and his three companions, including his wife Marie, were then forced to descend the mountain on foot. It took them 11 days to make their way back to civilization, but news of their adventure spread, and the waterfall was named Angel Falls in his honor. Angels plane remained on top of the mountaintop for 33 years before being lifted out by helicopter. It was restored at the Aviation Museum in Maracay and now sits outdoors on the front of the airport at Ciudad Bolvar.


Sent by CA Parthasarthy

chetlurpartha@yahoo.com

FOUR LARGEST SUPERMARKETS IN UK COULD FACE PROSECUTION FOR 'MIDSLEADING' SHOPPERS" - DAILY MAIL

Four largest supermarkets could face prosecution for 'misleading shoppers with grocery price war lies' Investigation found that buying products in bulk can be MORE expensive. Some 'savings' only came because the price was temporarily higher By Sean Poulter Supermarkets have been accused of misleading shoppers with confusing and untrue claims that could leave them open to prosecution. Research into the ‘big four’ – Tesco, Asda, Sainsbury’s and Morrisons – pours scorn on their claims to be in the middle of a price war. For at the same time as retailers have claimed to be slashing prices, their profits have ballooned and their stranglehold on grocery shopping has tightened. Studies by the consumer group Which? and by the BBC for a Panorama programme, presented by Sophie Raworth, have revealed some of the tricks used by the supermarkets to pull the wool over customers’ eyes Presenter Sophie Raworth heads in to a Tesco store during the Panorama programme and examines a 1.5kg tub of 'Big Value' Vanish stain remover costing £12.  She compares it with 3 x 500g pots in the supermarket which cost just £3 each - ie £9 for the same amount. Sophie makes her way through Asda. Studies by the consumer group Which? and by the BBC have revealed some of the tricks used by the supermarkets to pull the wool over customers' eyes. One snapshot survey found that 17 items sold on the basis they were ‘bigger packs and better value’ were actually more expensive than buying the same items in smaller quantities. In one startling example, Tesco was selling a 1.5kg ‘Big Value’ pack of Vanish Oxi Action Stain Remover for £12. This was a third more than buying the same product in three 500g packs. There were also many examples of products being pushed as a special promotion with posters and labels that actually offered no saving. Last December, the Office of Fair Trading warned retailers to stop using misleading pricing practices, or face ‘enforcement action’. However, the evidence of the BBC Panorama programme suggests the stores are still failing customers. Consumer law expert Deborah Parry said: ‘It is not just the occasional mishap. 'There are repeated examples with many, many products in different locations with different supermarkets and all of them seem to be doing the same thing. So there is a potential for prosecutions to be brought against all of them.’ In September, Tesco announced the ‘Big Price Drop’, promising savings worth £500million a year. It said this represented a change in strategy which would deliver permanently low prices to struggling families. Asda retaliated with its own Rollback deal, claiming prices had been slashed across 3,000 essentials. It later emerged that many of the products involved in the promotions had seen prices rise in the weeks before they were cut. Richard Lloyd, executive director at Which?, said: ‘Supermarkets must do more to help people in tough times by offering real deals, not fake price cuts, and by making it easier to compare prices.’ Retail analyst Richard Perks dismissed retailers’ price war claims as a marketing mirage.  ‘If there was a price war going on at the moment we would have seen profits falling, or we would have severe warnings, and that is just not happening,’he said. All four of the big supermarkets deny misleading or deceiving customers. They say they work hard to keep prices down and point to recent research from the Office for National Statistics, which attributed last month’s fall in inflation in part to supermarket promotional campaigns. The squeeze on family finances is predicted to trigger a big increase in sales for budget chains such as Aldi and Lidl. Sales through the chains will grow by an average of 10.1 per cent a year, rising to £11.4billion by 2016, according to the Institute for Grocery Distribution. Supermarkets are slashing the price of big-brand Christmas alcohol to lure shoppers. For example, the cost of a 70cl bottle of Baileys was cut from £15 to £7 last week for a short-term promotion by Asda. Sent by Parthasarathy CA chetlurpartha@yahoo.com

FDI in Retail - Some facts about Walmart

What is Walmart?

.

Capitalism, & Exploitation ?

.

How Big is Walmart?

.

This should boggle your mind!! And Probably scare you as well!

1.  At Wal-Mart, Americans spend $36,000,000 every hour of every day.

.

2. This works out to $20,928 profit every minute!

.

3.. Wal-Mart will sell more from January 1 to St. Patrick's Day (March 17th) than Target sells all year.

.

4. Wal-Mart is bigger than Home Depot + Kroger + Target + Sears + Costco + K-Mart combined.

.

5. Wal-Mart employs 1.6 million people and is the largest private employer, and most of itⳠemployees can't speak English.

.

6. Wal-Mart is the largest company in the history of the world.

.

7. Wal-Mart now sells more food than Kroger & Safeway combined, keep in mind they did this in only 15 years.

.

8. During this same period, 31 Supermarket chains sought bankruptcy.

.

9. Wal-Mart now sells more food than any other store in the world.

.

10. Wal-Mart has approx 3,900 stores in the USA of which 1,906 are Super Centers; this is 1,000 more than it had 5 years ago.

.

11. This year, 7.2 billion different purchasing experiences will occur At a Wal-Mart store. (Earth's population is approximately 6.5 billion.)

.

12. 90% of all Americans live within 15 miles of a Wal-Mart.

.

13. The value of product for Wal-Mart passing through the port of San Diego each year is a larger sum than 93% of ALL countries Gross National Product (GNP) .....and that is only ONE port ... one way thatⳠhow Wal-Mart gets it's stuff.

.

14. Of the 1.6 million employees, only 1.2% make a living above the poverty level.  "#990000" (This should interest Anand Sharma,

our Commerce Minister)

.

15. Wal-Mart's head office is located and centralized in Bentonville. 

Due to this fact, there are more millionaires per square mile there than any place on Earth.

.

16. The official U.S. Government position is that Wal-Mart's prices are no lower than anyone else's when compared to a typical families weekly purchases from other shops selling the same items. That's the view of the statisticians at the Bureau Of Labor Statistics (BLS) 

responsible for calculating the Consumer Price Index (CPI).

(" Today, support small businesses in your community by shopping at 

your favourite local stores " Barack Obama on Twitter." 

.

17. 92% of everything Wal-Mart sells, comes from China. Another 

4% comes from Chinese owned companies in the U.S. or in the 3rd world Countries.

This is Communist China's  World  Retail

Market Invation ) 

.

18. Wal-Mart and MOST large companies,take out life insurance on its employees,without their knowing. If an employee dies, ALL the insurance moneys go to the companies, i.e. an employee making $18,000 per year, dies, and the company might make as much as $1 

million. Most often these moneys, coming from what is commonly referred to as "Dead Peasant Life Insurance Policies", is paid out to 

executives as bonuses. (A common practice, unknown to the average consumer). 

.

19... Wal-Mart now averages a "profit" (not sales) of $36 billion per year.

.

20. Let Wal-Mart bail out Wall Street. If not, consider shopping someplace else. 

.

If all the Wal-Mart stores are closed China will go bankrupt!ࠠ

( Americans will starve too )

Now you can well understand what will happen if Walmart comes to India!

.

(Comments  H. Rajagopal by are in Italics )

.

Rajagopal H 

gpcaptraj@gmail.com