Governments - Heaviest Element Known to Science

Got this from a colleague in an email (I don't know who originally wrote it but it is wonderful):

A major research institution has recently announced the discovery of the heaviest element yet known to science. The new element has been named "Governmentium". Governmentium has one neutron, 12 assistant neutrons, 75 deputy neutrons, and 224 assistant deputy neutrons, giving it an atomic mass of 312.

These 312 particles are held together by forces called morons, which are surrounded by vast quantities of particles called peons. Since Governmentium has no electrons, it is inert. However, it can be detected, because it impedes every reaction with which it comes into contact. A minute amount of Governmentium causes one reaction to take over four days to complete, when it would normally take less than a second.

Governmentium has a normal half-life of 4 years; it does not decay, but instead undergoes a reorganization in which a portion of the assistant neutrons and deputy neutrons exchange places. In fact, Governmentium's mass will actually increase over time, since each reorganization will cause more morons to become neutrons, forming isodopes. This characteristic of moron promotion leads some scientists to believe that Governmentium is formed whenever morons reach a certain quantity in concentration.

This hypothetical quantity is referred to as "Critical Morass." When catalyzed with money, Governmentium becomes Administratium - an element which radiates just as much energy as the Governmentium since it has half as many peons but twice as many morons.

 

***

The Governmentium story reminds me of an Asterix and Obelix comic book about guy running between different Government departments in Rome, each of which wants a stamp or a seal or photocopy or three signed copies. However, to be honest, this disease is not limited to ancient Rome, it afflicts most of our countries.

***

Dangers of Extremism in Nepal

Yes, I know it is long time since I wrote anything on this blog. Over past few weeks, I have been thinking about the situation in Nepal. Finally, it seems the King of Nepal has decided to give in to the people's movement asking for an end to the monarchy and now, hopefully the peace may return to this beautiful land.

At the same time, I am thinking about Nepalese Maoists and if they pose a threat to the country.

I have always felt that dialogue and democracy are the best way to deal with extremists - by extremists, I mean, those who believe in extreme changes, and not necessarily violent. In that sense, I don't agree with state repression, banning, jails and fighting to overcome or to contain those we consider "extreme". I believe that if extremists can be made to participate in the democratic dialogue and if they find public support, to become a part of the government, then with a little time, their extremism will be tempered and they will need to become less extreme to fit in with the system.

The increasing forces of globalisation, means that the increasing inter-links between people and countries, should be a safeguard since extremist governments, even if elected, can not break those links and live in isolation.

Another aspect of globalisation is the increasing presence of media, so that when "news worthy events" happens like dead bodies floating in Victoria falls in Rwanda, the world will see it. Thus, violent aberrations, sooner or later must go away other wise you become an international pariah.

Unfortunately, it seems that both these aspects of globalisation can be easily manipulated. When economic interests are there, other countries can become tolerant of dictators and murderers, and close one or both eyes. And, the international media is fickle, it comes to catch the goriest pictures but since here the supply is greater than demand, so it soon loses interest and leaves to catch other gorier pastures.

So I think that Maoists in Nepal should get a chance to participate in the elections and if they win the elections, they can get a go at the system. Yet, I am also worried if the democracy rules are considered valid for everyone? What if once in the Government, they decide that autocracy is the best way to govern the country.

So what do we do with people or groups, who do not believe in democracy and liberty, but they play along only to win elections and get into power and then start their dictatorship and repression?

 

And if through democracy, we end up with a Pol Pot and millions of dead, whose fault was it?

 

Or with Islamists and Talibans? 

***