(All quotes from the NDTV website)

Regarding computers:

“The use of computers in offices is creating unemployment problems. Our party feels that if work can be done by a person using hands there is no need to deploy machines.”

Regarding use of agricultural machinery:

“A harvesting season brings employment for the labour class for at least six months but these harvesters will snatch their earnings.”

Regarding education:

The party’s manifesto also mentions that it will work to abolish schools providing expensive education in English medium and provide free education for girls till graduation.

And this gem on terrorism, from the same party that wanted to field Sanjay Dutt, convicted of possession of firearms that were linked to the terrorists responsible for the 1993 Bombay blasts:

The basic cause of terrorism lies in regional differences…if a government comes to power with our support, we will ensure that action is taken against communal powers and attack terrorism at its roots.”

There is really no reason to comment on these statements; the sheer absurdity of it all is obvious.

Throwing a shoe at someone is considered an insult in India.

Isn’t that strange? In other parts of the world, it is considered a great honor to be showered with footwear.

Oh wait.

I am glad this drama is over for now. Lawmakers can go back to worrying about that wiggly line describing the stock market, without having to pretend that they’re actually doing something about it.

Oh, and in case you haven’t kept up with the news, Barack Obama is the guy who finally got elected.

While I personally don’t care too much about the US elections, there are times when a little attention cannot be avoided. For instance, when you idly open the Digg homepage and notice that half the stories are about Presidential candidates, you can’t help but start reading some of them.

My first observation is this: every news site or forum discussing the election belongs to exactly one of the two camps. A forum that belongs to camp ‘A’ will post wonderful stories about candidate ‘A’ and try its best in subtle and not-so-subtle ways to mock, deride and expose the mendacity of the other camp. This should not come as a surprise to anyone.

And here’s my next observation: a supporter of candidate ‘A’ will inevitably drift towards a forum that supports his candidate. There, he will praise his idol and curse the opponent, and he will nod and murmur in agreement when others do the same. What is interesting is that not many of these people venture into the enemy camp to contradict their opponents lies, or clarify their own position. Why? Maybe because they know that few would be willing to change their opinions when provided with better information — and so they sit with their mates and bask in the warm, fuzzy feeling they get when everyone agrees with them.

What is the point of an election in which a majority of the people stubbornly cling to their opinions without weighing the facts and coming to a conclusion rationally? Perhaps the best solution would be to disenfranchise everyone having a fixed opinion, and ask the rest to vote.…