Best printers for Home

Best Mixer Grinder

Best wired Earphones

Best 43 Inch TV in India

Best Wi Fi Routers

Best Home Theatre in India

Smart Watch under 5000

Best Laptops for Education

Best Laptop for Students

<keyword id="6355261" type="POSITION" weightage="80" keywordseo="Finance-minister">Finance Minister</keyword> <keyword id="42575" type="PERSON" weightage="80" keywordseo="Arun-Jaitley">Arun Jaitley</keyword> today said higher wage cost in China presents the best opportunity for India to turn into a global manufacturing hub. 
 
 "Wages in China have gone up. That part of the world is now becoming costlier. Can we, therefore, create a world class infrastructure in India," he said while addressing the Annual Day celebrations at <keyword id="6542932" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="80" keywordseo="Shri-Ram-College-of-Commerce">Shri Ram College of Commerce</keyword> (SRCC) here. 
 
India is already armed with good human resources and institutions of various kind, making the cost of capital reasonable, he added 
 
 
"Can the cost of our capital not be reasonable... all these issues of efficiency, quality improvement, that's where the opportunity awaits us in creating mass jobs and that is the best possibility of India (in) removing poverty," he said. 
 The government has launched 'Make In India' initiative to increase manufacturing in the country. At present, the share of manufacturing in <keyword id="35050" type="CITY" weightage="80" keywordseo="gdp">GDP</keyword> is very less as compared to developed nations. 
 
 On conferring of Bharat Ratna to former <keyword id="71" type="POSITION" weightage="80" keywordseo="Prime-Minister">Prime Minister</keyword> <keyword id="47100" type="PERSON" weightage="80" keywordseo="Atal-Bihari-Vajpayee">Atal Bihari Vajpayee</keyword>, Jaitley said he is a "<keyword id="2764854" type="POSITION" weightage="80" keywordseo="stalwart-leader">stalwart leader</keyword> of the country". 
 
"This a proud moment for the country and all of us. He (Vajpayee) is a stalwart leader of country. He is a leader par excellence who worked tirelessly in the interest of nation. 
 "In this country, I think there would be very few people like him who are good orator, MP, political leader, thinker, poet. We pray for his good health and long life," the <keyword id="25455" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="80" keywordseo="finance">Finance</keyword> Minister said.

This is how China is helping India become a global manufacturing hub

How the GOP learned to love QAnon

<div class="KonaFilter image-container display-table"><div><div class="image on-image">REUTERS/Javier Barbancho</div></div></div><ul class="summary-list"><li>Government officials and their cheerleaders in the media, in several countries, have used the New Zealand mosque killings to suggest that information linked to the murders should not be published.</li><li>Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison said live-streaming on the major social media platforms should be stopped. New Zealand police asked for video footage to be removed.</li><li>The deputy leader of the Labour party in the UK called for YouTube to be hobbled in the aftermath of the shootings.</li><li>Britain's police chief for counter-terrorism blamed the "mainstream media" for terrorism.</li><li>Guardian writer Owen Jones named a specific journalist whom he believed "helped" the killings. (There is no evidence that journalist has anything to do with Christchurch.)</li><li>These people are afraid that uncensored information inspires and radicalises terrorists. </li><li>The right to free speech is only meaningful when it includes the right to publish material that many find objectionable. The "right" to publish information everyone agrees with isn't much of a right. It's the right to disagree that is the key.</li></ul>Within hours of the massacre at the mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand, last week, government officials began calling for censorship of the media. The New Zealand police were first. In reference to copies of the killer's live-streamed video of the shooting, <a href="https://twitter.com/nzpolice/status/1106402006183219203">they tweeted</a>, "We would strongly urge that the link not be shared. We are working to have any footage removed."That immediately posed a problem for the media trying to make sense of the event. The video showed the killer's face clearly. It was imperative for reporters to be able to correctly identify that the man in the video was the same man whose Facebook account was taken offline that day, and that he was the same man who published on Twitter a racist manifesto justifying the killings.The price for misidentifying a killer is high: That happened in the Boston Marathon bombing in 2015, when idiots on Reddit - as part of a "crowd-sourced investigation" - decided that Sunil Tripathi, a completely innocent man who had disappeared the month before the bombing, was a prime suspect. In fact, Tripathi had died some time before the bombing. In the meantime, however, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/28/magazine/should-reddit-be-blamed-for-the-spreading-of-a-smear.html">his family was targeted by an online lynch mob</a>. The Tripathi family received hundreds of threatening, racist, and Islamaphobic messages until the truth came out.Yet government officials and their cheerleaders in the media have expended considerable effort since the killings to suggest that facts surrounding the Christchurch murders should not be published.<h2>Tom Watson: "They should suspend all new uploads at this time"</h2>In the UK, Tom Watson, the deputy leader of the opposition Labour party - a man who might be the deputy prime minister after the next election - called for all of YouTube to be disabled on the day of the killings. <a href="https://twitter.com/tom_watson/status/1106493537888190464">He tweeted</a>:"If YouTube don't have the capability to halt the spread of the NZ massacre videos - because they are going up faster than they can take them down - then they should suspend all new uploads at this time."YouTube is one of the largest media platforms on the planet. <a href="https://www.omnicoreagency.com/youtube-statistics/">Five billion videos are watched on YouTube every day</a>. Almost every major press brand uses YouTube extensively. Yet Watson wanted it crippled."I will also be speaking to my Conservative counterparts in government to discuss how we can act together in order to deal with the unaccountable wickedness of the Silicon Valley oligarchs," <a href="https://www.buzzfeed.com/markdistefano/the-daily-mail-let-readers-download-the-new-zealand-mosque">he told BuzzFeed's Mark DiStefano later</a>.Watson isn't an extremist, braying in the wilderness. He is in respectable company. Australia Prime Minister <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com.au/prime-minister-scott-morrison-wants-the-tech-giants-to-stop-live-streaming-2019-3/amp?__twitter_impression=true">Scott Morrison said that live-streaming on the major social media platforms should be stopped</a>. "In the past, they have suspended this sort of Facebook live-streaming, and assurances were given that when it was put back up it could avoid this. Clearly it hasn't," he said.<div class="KonaFilter image-container display-table"><div><div class="image on-image">Associated PressNew Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern.</div></div></div><h2>Australia's largest telco censored the internet</h2>Then Telstra, Australia's largest telecommunications company, granted Morrison and Watson's wishes. It blocked access to "<a href="https://exchange.telstra.com.au/blocking-websites-hosting-footage-christchurch/">a number of websites that continue to host footage of Friday's terrorist attack in Christchurch</a>.""We understand this may cause inconvenience for some legitimate users of these sites but these are extraordinary circumstances and they required an extraordinary response," it said."We appreciate that it is necessary to ensure free speech is carefully balanced against protecting the community - but with these sites continuing to host disturbing content we feel it is the right thing to do to block them."The company's statement is telling. It admits what it did hurts "legitimate users" and "free speech" - but it chose censorship anyway.<div class="KonaFilter image-container display-table"><div><div class="image on-image">Christopher Furlong/Getty ImagesTom Watson with Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn.</div></div></div><h2>Britain's head of counter-terrorism blames the media for terrorism</h2>In Britain, <a href="https://www.counterterrorism.police.uk/acso-neil-basu-issues-open-letter-about-reporting-of-terrorism/">Head of Counter Terrorism Policing Neil Basu went further</a>. He blamed the "mainstream media" for terrorism. "Every terrorist we have dealt with has sought inspiration from the propaganda of others," he wrote. "The criminal responsible for the Finsbury Park attack in 2017 is a case in point, driven to an act of terror by far right messaging he found mostly on mainstream media, not even having to plumb the depths of social media or the dark web to find the material that ultimately radicalised him."Basu's statement isn't true.The mainstream media is not responsible for Darren Osborne's killing of a Muslim worshipper at the Finsbury mosque in 2017. As <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/feb/02/finsbury-park-attack-darren-osborne-jailed">the judge made clear at Osborne's sentencing</a>, the killer "educated" himself by reading material from other racists on the internet, including former English Defence League leader Tommy Robinson and the far-right group Britain First. He also had a history of mental illness.<div class="KonaFilter image-container display-table"><div><div class="image on-image">ReutersHead of Counter Terrorism Policing Neil Basu once blamed a terror attack on "far right messaging ... found mostly on mainstream media."</div></div></div><h2>Normalising the idea that the media are responsible for murder</h2>Osborne did watch the BBC drama "Three Girls," about the organised sexual abuse of young girls by a group of Muslim men in Rochdale. So one unintended consequence of calls for the censorship of any material that radicalises racist murderers might be to prevent the BBC from airing this dramatised version of real events. Should this series have been shelved? And if so, who would take that decision - the police? The police were one of the agencies that failed to stop the abuse in Rochdale. They might have been happy to see the BBC show banned, for their own reasons.British MP Wes Streeting took a similar line to Basu, <a href="https://twitter.com/wesstreeting/status/1107958414209105920">blaming the media for the New Zealand killings</a> (emphasis added): "Islamophobia doesn't begin with senseless slaughter. It starts with unchecked prejudice in our workplaces, our schools and our communities; amplified by the mainstream media; and then legitimised by so-called mainstream politicians like Boris Johnson."Basu and Streeting aren't literally "blaming" the media for the deaths, perhaps. They might be just suggesting that the media should cool it before doing what the MailOnline did, which is to publish video of the New Zealand shootings on its front page.<div class="KonaFilter image-container display-table"><div><div class="image on-image"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wes_Streeting#/media/File:Official_portrait_of_Wes_Streeting_crop_2.jpg">Chris McAndrew / Wikimedia CC</a></div></div></div><h2>Owen Jones: "You helped make this happen. This is on you"</h2>But these law enforcement officials and politicians are creating an environment - a "platform" if you will - for the normalisation of the idea that the media is literally responsible for the murders, and that free speech should thus be curbed. <a href="https://twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/1107341254784884741">The Guardian writer Owen Jones last week tweeted</a>, "It's time to be honest. There are people who are currently dead who would be alive if it wasn't for the hatred whipped up by the media. And I am beyond sick of those in the media who whip up this hatred, as well as their apologists. Game over."<a href="https://twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/1084228372518105088">He singled out one journalist in particular</a>, an ex-employee of The Sun:"You're the former chief political corespondent [sic] of The Sun newspaper, which has systematically whipped up hatred against Muslims, migrants, refugees, LGBTQ people, and the left. You helped make this happen. This is on you."The idea that The Sun's Kevin Schofield "helped" kill 50 people on the other side of the planet is factually false. (The Sun is a terrible newspaper, but it's not that bad.)<div class="KonaFilter image-container display-table click-to-enlarge"><div><div class="image on-image"><a title_source="REUTERS/Henry Nicholls" title_caption="Guardian columnist Owen Jones is confronted by right-wing protesters during a demonstration in central London, on January 12, 2019." class="zoomin" href="https://static-ssl.businessinsider.com/image/5c950fd186d56e196c4e4ff9-960/2019-01-12t160049z1316382546rc1627ec58f0rtrmadp3britain-eu-protest.jpg"></a>REUTERS/Henry NichollsGuardian columnist Owen Jones is confronted by right-wing protesters during a demonstration in central London, on January 12, 2019.</div></div></div><h2>Dylan Thomas did not radicalise the New Zealand shooter</h2>Blaming the media for the killings is like blaming the Pontyclun Van Hire company for letting Osborne hire the truck he drove in North London; or blaming the poet Dylan Thomas for radicalising Christchurch shooting suspect Brenton Tarrant (his racist manifesto opens with a recital of the poem "Do not go gentle into that good night").The logic of blaming the media is a dangerous path to walk down. A lot of people, for good-hearted reasons, would like to see racist material banned from the internet because they believe it harms targeted communities.But the corollary of that argument is to suggest a double standard: That these communities - always them, not us! - are too feeble to withstand seeing video or information that is upsetting or extreme, or that their members are especially vulnerable to radicalisation (unlike everyone in <keyword id="6358883" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="100" keywordseo="politics">politics</keyword> and law enforcement, who seem to be able to read the Sun and the Mail just fine without being turned into terrorists).These voices cannot be allowed to curb the free press. The civil rights of a free press and free speech are only meaningful when they include the right to publish material that many find objectionable. It is in times like these - when important people are arguing to curb our freedoms - that our rights are most important. (The "right" to publish only information that everyone agrees with isn't much of a right. It's the right to disagree that is the key.) <a href="https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/we-won-t-beat-terrorists-using-censorship-xffmv90pb">As The Times' David Aaronovitch pointed out</a>, censoring the press in the hopes of reducing terrorism has been tried before - and it doesn't work. In the 1980s, the UK government banned TV broadcasters from using the voices of members of the IRA in their news reports, in hopes of depriving Irish terrorists of "the oxygen of publicity." The unintended consequence was to make Britain's treatment of Northern Ireland look even more unfair than it already was; it drew supporters to the cause.<div class="KonaFilter image-container display-table"><div><div class="image on-image">Dylan Thomas, whose poetry inspired the Christchurch killer.</div></div></div><h2>I am glad I read the Christchurch killer's manifesto</h2>I am glad I was able to read the Christchurch killer's manifesto. I am glad it was not censored by do-gooders in the government or banned by the police. By "glad," I mean it was helpful to discover inside those 74 pages of drivel that the killer described himself as a "racist" and a "fascist." It confirmed that racism and fascism do indeed lead to killings. Murder is a real part of their ideology.That's useful information that ought to inform public debate and law enforcement investigations.But we wouldn't know any of this if we didn't have free speech and a free media, even on days when the speech we encounter is deeply unpleasant.This is an <keyword id="6356002" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="60" keywordseo="opinion">opinion</keyword> column. The thoughts expressed are those of the author. <div class="margin-top"> <h3>NOW WATCH: <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/paul-manafort-russia-mueller-probe-prison-fraud-conspiracy-trump-2019-3">Paul Manafort faces over 7 years in prison for conspiracy and obstruction. Here's what you need to know about Trump's former campaign chairman.</a></h3> <div> </div> </div>

The Christchurch massacre is being used by government officials around the world who want to curtail freedom of speech

MOMENTUM: The inside story of how Jeremy Corbyn took control of the Labour party

<div class="KonaFilter image-container float_right"><div class="image on-image"></div></div>In Vladimir Putin's quest to amass more power, the Russian government has <a href="http://www.cnbc.com/id/100805382#.">become increasingly corrupt</a> and ever more dangerous for critics and political activists.Case in point - <a href="http://www.vox.com/2015/3/4/8149751/nemtsov-murder-russia-politics">the suspicious murder of Boris Nemtsov</a> as he walked home across a busy bridge in Moscow almost two weeks ago.We recently sat down with Ilya Ponomarev - a representative in the lower house of the Russian Parliament who has been banned from Russia for his opposition to Putin - and got his take on what's going on in Russia today.Ponomarev believes that the people who killed Nemtsov were affiliated with one of Russia's state security forces, and says that his murder was meant as a "message to Russian elites... and a message to the West."Yet, he thinks that in general Russians are closer aligned to Americans than they are to Europeans and that change will come to the country as early as 2017: "The actual uprising might start in 2017... We will have major elections in 2016, and that is when economic and financial resources might get depleted by that time because of sanctions and issues with financial liquidities. All the problems will mount and be at their height in 2017. We need to be ready and we need to present Russia with a clear program, with a clear vision of Russia after Putin."Ponomarev is a former president of Yukos Oil, the former oil and gas giant that was effectively shut down in 2007 by the Russian government, which redistributed its assets to state companies. He was elected to the <a href="Ilya%20Ponomarev:">Russian State Duma</a> in 2007, and was the only member who voted against the annexation of Crimea last year. The final vote in Russia's lower house was 445 to 1. <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/29/world/europe/Russia-Duma-Crimea.html?_r=0">Colleagues warned him beforehand</a>, saying things like "Putin will crush you," and "Don't ruin your career." The year before, he was the only member of the Duma not to support <a href="http://mic.com/articles/58649/russia-s-anti-gay-law-spelled-out-in-plain-english">Russia's anti-gay "propaganda" law</a>. Eventually, in August 2014, Ponomarev and several of his aides were banned from Russia (along with several of his aides) and falsely charged with funneling money out of the <a href="http://sk.ru/news/">Skolkovo Foundation</a> - an organization that supports high-tech startups - to finance protests against Putin.Though he has been banned from Russia, he is still an active member of the Duma. He says that since his constituency voted him in, they are the only ones with the power to revoke his mandate. Speaking before an audience at the <a href="http://www.commonwealthclub.org">Commonwealth Club</a>, the bearded and battered politico spoke about Putin with disdain. He believes that Putin "wants people to negotiate with him and he wants to have the tradeoffs here and there and spheres of influence." To Ponomarev, Putin is a creature of the last century.However, throughout the night, Ponomarev talked with a glimmer in his eye - his wife, whom he had not seen for months, had finally reunited with him after clearing up a visa problem in Bulgaria. We talked to Ilya Ponomarev before his presentation. Here's what he had to say:The following is a transcript of our conversation with Ponomarev; it has been edited for clarity and length.BUSINESS INSIDER: Who do you think killed Boris Nemtsov?ILYA PONOMAREV: I think it was somebody very close to Putin. I have doubts that it was his direct order, although he has created this very system which killed [Nemtsov]. I think it was one of the clans who are fighting for influence on Putin. And they want to trigger instability and be those saviors to offer a solution to everything.BI: Are you worried that what happened to Nemtsov might happen to you?IP: We have a Russian proverb - "Those who are doomed to be sunk will never be hanged." I think that you shouldn't run away from what is in front of you. You should do what you have to do, and leave to it. What can you do? Hire bodyguards? Stop doing anything? It will not save you either.BI: Are politicians scared of Putin? Are there people looking at what you and Nemtsov have done and being inspired, in that sense?IP: Some politicians are scared and some are extremely apologetic, actually. And I feel very sorry for this because some people who are like my friends from the left flank, they praise Putin because they see him as the fighter against American imperialism - which he is not. You know, why would you select between American imperialism and Russian imperialism? To my mind, it's exactly the same thing. Others - conservatives - they say 'Oh, Putin is a real leader, he's a true man, he stays [firm] on his position, he's not like this weak Obama.' And also they are very much wrong. Because Putin is not a strong man, he is actually a man that put himself into a corner, and he's fighting and biting from that corner, being very weak.BI: Has anyone else you know been fined, kidnapped, or murdered?IP: We have a lot of people - journalists - that were murdered in Russia. But my own situation is pretty unique. I haven't seen my wife for half a year. She lives now in Bulgaria and couldn't get her here because of visa [problems].[Editor's note: Since 1992, there have been <a href="https://www.cpj.org/killed/europe/russia/">56 journalists killed in Russia</a>.]BI: How would you best describe your political ideology?IP: The best description would be that I am a progressive libertarian.BI: Which political figures do you look up to, people that you base your ideas upon?IP: I think that my political position of course is very much influenced by thinkers of the left, and those are different people. I pay a lot of attention to what was written by Marx and by Lenin, but also by modern leftists like Wallenstein. I very much pay a lot of attention to what has been written by Noam Chomsky. We have such thinkers in Russia as well, like Boris Kagarlitsky, who is a good friend. My political tradition is one the left, but I think that more modern leftists, they sometimes get stuck with this vision of large government and social benefits and everything and that's against what is my position, because I think that the ultimate vision of Marx, Engels and those people was to eliminate government entities and to give as much power to the people. And in modern standing that means direct democracy, that means all the power to the communities, it means gradually eliminating all government oppression on the society. And 100 years ago, leftists' major allies were labor unions. In the world of today, I think that entrepreneurs are the new emerging ruling class - I identify it as the startup class. That's the new proletariat of the 21st century. These are the people that are the drivers of that change.BI: How is it that you're still an active member of Duma?IP: From the point of view of legislation of the Constitution, my mandate has been given by my constituency. So it's only my constituency that can revoke my mandate. So until the next election, nobody is supposed to do anything. The next election is in 2016.BI: When was the last time you were elected?IP: Last time in 2011. The first time I was elected was in 2007. Originally it was a 4-year term and now it's a 5-year term. If I would not be able to campaign, I would lose my post. They can use such reasons like if I'm doing business, then they could justify that I am violating my status. But I'm cautious not to do it. They are looking through a magnifying glass from the outside. I have a group of very loyal people. We are in the minority very much, basically 10 to 15% of the population that supports what we do. It's temporary. I think that the high numbers for Putin, they will pass as soon as economic tensions mount. And then the whole situation will be flipped. It's important not to alienate people, not to receive negative reaction on yourself but we have to wait a little bit. Bolsheviks in 1914 were a dying sect, the only ones against the war, but just two and a half years later, they came to power.<div class="KonaFilter image-container display-table"><div><div class="image on-image"></div></div></div> BI: Russia is obviously a surveillance state. That being said, America has its own conundrums: NSA phone tapping, Edward Snowden, CIA torture tapes. How is the United States different from Russia in this regard?IP: I think that there are excesses that exist in all societies. I won't say it's normal to have them, but it's natural to have them. I'm watching very closely...what Snowden has done. I don't know him personally. I wanted to talk to him, but all of the security people didn't allow me to. But I think that he took the wrong approach to a very right thing which he was doing. Just the implementation was wrong. There was a clear platform to what he was doing, although of course that there were some mistakes made. I think that it's inevitable if society will be run by old-timers who are still in the paradigm of the past, so I think the real way to resolve this is if the entrepreneurs go into <keyword id="6358883" type="PERSON" weightage="100" keywordseo="Politics">politics</keyword> and gradually take over and push for their agenda. You named a bunch of privacy issues which are at this stage secondary to me. The primary issue is the competition between Uber and traditional taxis, or contradictions between FDA and 23 and me. That, I think is most important. And I think that we are right now - the society - is living in the Facebook era and the political system is still in the 19th century prior to the Industrial era.Why for God's sake do you need to be socially liberal and economically conservative? Or to be economically market-oriented but at the same time socially, extremely conservative? Why can't you be free in both dimensions?BI: Now let's bring our conversation to a global scale. Especially now with ISIS looming large close to Russia, what is Russia's end-goal in the Middle East?IP: I don't think there is a conscious and strategic play there. Putin is not a strategist at all. He has brilliant tactics, but he is a very bad strategist overall. And I think he is acting very opportunistically there, just to play the cards with America. He was very proud of himself when he convinced us to give up on chemical weapons so that it could be played down and prevent an invasion and that was very helpful for Obama because Obama saved his face and didn't order airstrikes at that very moment. Putin was extremely proud. That's the kind of thing Putin does. Generally, he thinks of himself as Christian. I don't think he is, but he pretends to think that he is. In terms of his ideology he's more like Bush Jr. But he's less ideological. He's [thinking] more 'how to stay in power.'BI: What is it about Putin then?IP: He's just maneuvering. He wants to be respected. He wants to be an important player in global politics. He wants people to negotiate with him and he wants to have the tradeoffs here and there and spheres of influence. He's very much a person of the 20th century in the global and geopolitical space.<div class="KonaFilter image-container display-table"><div><div class="image on-image"></div></div></div> BI: Stratfor predicted in its recent decade report that the Russian Federation will disintegrate into an archipelago of loosely-connected and more localized entities over the next decade as the ruble plunges, the price of oil declines, and the country's politics get crazier. Do you think Russia is essentially falling apart? What will be of the Russian Federation in the next 10 years?IP: Russia can fall apart. It's not because of the oil prices.... It's because what sticks a country together is a common interest of people. It has to be economically and socially profitable - beneficial - for people to be together. They should understand how they benefit from a large country. And if they start to feel like a large country is a source of problem, then the country collapses as the Soviet Union collapsed. And right now, I see a lot of alarming trends inside Russia, especially in Siberia, which I represent in the Parliament. People start to ask questions: If we mine all the natural resources - if we have all the oil, all the gas, all the coal, all the gold, all the diamonds - why the hell do we need central Russia? They are just eating at our resources. Without Moscow having a response for this, it would face very nasty questions such as one that was asked during my recent reelection campaign - it actually became a slogan of my campaign - "Stop feeding Moscow."BI: This mindset is similar to that of the <a href="http://www.economist.com/blogs/easternapproaches/2014/09/russia-and-Tatars">Tatars</a>. How is it different?IP: With Tatars, the situation is a little bit more complex. They are geographically very isolated so they need the rest of Russia. When they pump oil, they need pipelines to deliver it so they need those connections. We in Siberia don't need those connections. The only thing which actually sticks us together is the cultural similarities and the relatives that are on both sides of the Ural mountains.BI: Last question - if Putin were standing in front of you at this very moment, what would you say to him? The first words out of your mouth are...IP: There is nothing I can say. "Goodbye, Mr. Putin," that's the only thing I can say. We need to convince him that if he makes the decision to go, that we are ready to trade his personal security for peaceful resignation. That's very important because we're all afraid that he will stick to power to his deathbed and just kill a lot of people along the way. If he is willing to go, we shall buy him an island in the Caribbean or in the Pacific Ocean with nice girls - like a separate country for him.He's very much afraid of leaving. Because he is formally right now in his first term, so has another 8 years from now. Legally, he has created all the mechanisms for himself. He's a lawyer. <div class="margin-top"> <h3>NOW WATCH: <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/russia-facts-putin-world-controversy-2015-1">11 Facts That Show How Different Russia Is From The Rest Of The World</a></h3> <div> <div> <div class="ooyala-video-player" data-video-autoplay="false" data-video-id="RtbDU1bDra7DfSubgs0WuD4Pg0DTxjxx" data-player-variable="ooyalapopvideo" id="ooyalaplayer_popvideo" style="width:1280px;height:720px"></div> </div> </div> </div>

The Russian lawmaker kicked out of the country speaks out about Putin, Snowden, and a Russian collapse

<div class="KonaFilter image-container display-table click-to-enlarge"><div><div class="image on-image"><a title_source="REUTERS/Suzanne Plunkett" title_caption="David Whitney of Aberdeen, Scotland, plays the bagpipes near Big Ben and the Houses of Parliament" class="zoomin" href="https://static-ssl.businessinsider.com/image/5411922d69beddb07b25dd36-960/bagpiper.jpg"></a>REUTERS/Suzanne PlunkettDavid Whitney of Aberdeen, Scotland, plays the bagpipes near Big Ben and the Houses of Parliament</div></div></div>
With a vote on whether Scotland should declare itself an independent nation only eight days away, now is a good time to reflect on how we arrived at this point. Both sides will be using all the emotive imagery at their disposal as the campaigns enter the final stretch. So it is helpful to separate fact from fiction.
Some things that the Scottish independence referendum aren't about:
<h3>Braveheart</h3>
<div class="KonaFilter image-container display-table click-to-enlarge"><div><div class="image"><a title_source="littlebitofbass.tumblr.com" title_caption="" class="zoomin" href="https://static-ssl.businessinsider.com/image/54116c8c6bb3f7b10625dd35-960/giphy-7.gif"></a><a href="http://littlebitofbass.tumblr.com">littlebitofbass.tumblr.com</a></div></div></div>
The First Scottish War of Independence, popularized by Mel Gibson in the film Braveheart, is probably the first image that springs to mind when people think about Scottish nationalism. However, the current debate over sovereignty has little in common with the state of affairs in the 13th century.
Though it may be tempting to imagine the cause of Scottish nationalism simmering for generations under the yoke of British oppression before bursting forth in the modern day, the events of the intervening centuries warn against such a simplistic reading. While the proximate cause of hostilities in the First Scottish War of Independence included an ill-conceived invasion of the country by an English King looking to assert his authority, the vote today is set against the backdrop of over three centuries of (reasonably) amicable relations between the two countries.
Indeed the wars that are likely to bear most heavily on the results are those between 1914-1918 and 1939-1945. As <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8MmTTP2WWw">this gentleman illustrates</a>, support for the Union is strongest among the over-50s in Scotland in large part because either they fought, or are the children or grandchildren of those who fought together, with the rest of the U.K. in the two World Wars. Their vote could prove critical if the vote is as close as the polls suggest.
<h3>The 1707 Act of Union</h3>
<div class="KonaFilter image-container display-table float_left click-to-enlarge"><div><div class="image on-image"><a title_source="Wikipedia" title_caption="Scotland's planned Caledonia colony." class="zoomin" href="https://static-ssl.businessinsider.com/image/541076b469bedd4f76c92c1a-960/darien-colony.png"></a><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darien_scheme#mediaviewer/File:Darien_colony.png">Wikipedia</a>Scotland's planned Caledonia colony.</div></div></div>
Although Scottish poet Robert Burns's claim that "We are bought and sold for English gold. Such a parcel of rogues in a nation" remains popular among some nationalists, the Act of Union owed as much to calamity as coercion. What drew the two nations together was in large part the failure of <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/scotland/history/union_and_jacobites/the_darien_scheme/">the Darien Scheme</a>, where Scotland had attempted to emulate the trading success of the <a href="http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/176643/East-India-Company">English East India Company</a> by establishing a colony called "Caledonia" in what is now Panama.
The scheme was heavily backed by Scottish nobility, and its failure, due to poor planning, disease and misfortune, wiped out the equivalent to 50% of Scottish GDP, causing a financial crisis. Their perilous position as well as the promise of Scottish access to English trade routes provided a base of support for a union of the two nations - although there remained a large faction resolutely opposed. The treaty was finally signed in January of 1707 by 110 votes to 69.
While contemporary Scottish nationalists may claim affinity with the 69 dissenters, the fact that the union held firm speaks to its success in gaining general acceptance. Historians will no doubt see it as somewhat ironic that the legacy of a financial crisis brought the two nations together, and the fallout from another threatens to drive them apart.
And what the vote really is about:
<h3>Scots really do want to give a kick to the "effing Tories"</h3>
After the Conservatives swept to power in 1979 the reforms they undertook to increase the competitiveness of the British economy put them on a direct collision course with the labor union movement. The two came into direct conflict during the 1984-5 miners' strike where police were sent in to put down the pickets of workers fighting to preserve a coal industry that was under threat of closure across Britain.
Scottish miners were heavily involved in the dispute, joining their English and Welsh peers on the picket lines in huge numbers. If the strike was a galvanizing moment for the miners, its ultimate failure checked the progress of the labor union movement and sent it into decline.
What had brought people together from all sides of Britain descended into general antipathy for the Westminster government and a tangle of local grievances. As Tolstoy reminds us in Anna Karenina, "Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way."
<div class="KonaFilter image-container display-table float_right click-to-enlarge"><div><div class="image on-image"><a title_source="Twitter/@MrSammF" title_caption="An election leaflet for the Yes campaign." class="zoomin" href="https://static-ssl.businessinsider.com/image/54106a76eab8ead16c0fb489-960/scots-independence-leaflet.jpg"></a><a href="https://twitter.com/MrSammF/status/508593150676725760">Twitter/@MrSammF</a>An election leaflet for the Yes campaign.</div></div></div>
This rumbling discontent resurfaced in 1989 when the Conservative government made a fateful decision to introduce the Poll Tax, a flat rate tax that ignored individuals' income, raised to pay for local government. Anyone who failed to pay the tax forfeited their right to vote. The poll tax was introduced a year earlier in Scotland than in the rest of the UK. The country erupted in protest at the perceived injustice, with many Scots believing they were being treated as guinea-pigs for the new tax.
After that, Scottish support for the Conservative Party matched the labor union movement in falling into inexorable decline. After having returned 22 Scottish Conservative MPs in the 1979 general election, the party lost over half of them through the 1980s. It now boasts only a single MP from the country. (There is a popular joke that Scotland has more pandas in Edinburgh zoo than Conservative MPs.)
Yet despite their unpopularity in Scotland, the Tories continue to enjoy a solid base of support across the rest of Britain and are the larger partner in the current Coalition government. The pro-independence campaign has played on this to suggest to Scottish voters that independence would mean chucking out the Tories for good.
For some Scots at least, that logic will be compelling.
<h3>The rise and rise of the Scottish National Party</h3>
The Scottish National Party (SNP) has had a rocky road to the referendum. Having been founded in 1934 from an amalgamation of the Scottish Party and the National Party of Scotland, the SNP had to wait over a decade to gain their first seat in parliament - before losing it two months later in a general election.
It was not until the 1970s that the party really began to hit its stride. The party won 11 seats in 1974 and looked set to continue to grow. However, a combination of a Conservative Party landslide victory in 1979 and the failure to convince 40% of Scots to vote Yes to a Scottish Assembly in the same year wiped the party out as an electoral force.
Despite its setbacks, the modern day party re-emerged from obscurity, re-invigorated in 1990 under the leadership of one Alex Salmond. Conscious of the successful "Tartan Tories" line of attack on the party by the left-wing Labour Party in previous years, Salmond moved to modernize the SNP positioning them as economically and socially progressive and pro-European.
<div class="KonaFilter image-container display-table float_left click-to-enlarge"><div><div class="image on-image"><a title_source="REUTERS/Russell Cheyne" title_caption="Scotland's First Minister Alex Salmond (front C) poses with supporters of the 'Yes Campaign', in Edinburgh, Scotland September 9, 2014." class="zoomin" href="https://static-ssl.businessinsider.com/image/541037636bb3f7387a123b2c-960/scotland-salmond-yes-1.jpg"></a>REUTERS/Russell CheyneScotland's First Minister Alex Salmond (front C) poses with supporters of the 'Yes Campaign', in Edinburgh, Scotland September 9, 2014.</div></div></div>
The call for an independent Scotland, however, has remained its organizing principle.
After the Labour Party delivered on its campaign promise of a Scottish parliament in 1999, the SNP won 35 seats and sent six MPs to Westminster. That made it the largest opposition party, but was not enough to overturn Labour's majority in Scotland. They also suffered a shock with the resignation of Salmond as party leader the following year.
His equally surprising return as leader in 2004 marked a turnaround for the party, however, and it won its first majority in the 2007 Scottish election by a single seat. Although Labour were heavily favoured to overturn that in the 2011 election, the SNP managed to increase its share of the vote and secure another stunning victory.
A consistent theme in the SNP story is the repeated underestimation of their political acumen and their ability to last despite repeated setbacks and periods of severe internal divisions. They have thrived by fashioning themselves as the underdogs committed to getting the best deal for Scotland - and have succeeded in wresting powers away from Westminster using the threat of independence as a bargaining chip.
There is no doubt that the Scottish independence vote marks the highest stakes challenge yet. The outcome of the vote will decide Scotland's future for the next 100 years, and will see the realization or the destruction of the dream upon which the SNP was founded. As they learned after the 1979, a loss could throw the party into obscurity for years, decades or, perhaps, even longer.
For the SNP electoral machine to find itself in the unusual position of being the incumbent power in Edinburgh will require a new tack. Independence is no longer just an ace in Salmond's pocket, it's now the ship of state onto which they will have to set sail. Whether the Scottish people are ready to follow them onto it, sink or swim, remains highly uncertain.
But as has become the SNP way, the odds of a shock result on the 18th are narrowing.

Why Scotland Wants To Ditch England And Go It Alone

<ul class="summary-list"><li>Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis is seen as the top potential challenger to Trump in 2024.</li><li>He'll have to decide whether he wants to run for president in 2024 or wait it out.</li></ul>Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis often gets compared to ex-President Donald Trump. But as he faces a decision over whether to run for president in 2024, DeSantis shares far more similarities with two other ex-GOP frontrunners: Former Govs. Scott Walker of Wisconsin and Chris Christie of New Jersey. Like DeSantis, Walker and Christie once seemed like inevitable frontrunners for the White House.The two men made vastly different choices when it came to actually running for president. Walker seized the moment, while Christie let his moment pass.They both lost. Their stories provide a look into what could happen to DeSantis, too, if he decides to run in 2024 GOP nomination — or if he decides to wait until 2028."Timing is important," Mike DuHaime, CEO of MAD Global and adviser to Christie's 2016 presidential campaign, told Insider. "He's at a high point right now. Running when you're at a high point is a good thing. Timing is in many ways the most important and least controllable part of politics."Walker emerged as a darling of the right when Barack Obama was president. Like DeSantis, he skyrocketed to national prominence by picking fights with key Democratic allies.But Walker's campaign crashed so badly that he never even made it to the voting stage. He would also fail to secure a third term in Wisconsin in 2018. As for Christie, he was brash, populist, and had a big personality. It turned out that these were attributes that 2016 voters genuinely wanted in a president. But a certain reality TV star had those qualities too, just in far higher quantities.If Christie had run in 2012, when he was having a moment, maybe he would have been sitting in the Oval Office rather than Trump. Instead, he <a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/07/chris-christie-new-jersey-239227">rebuffed</a> influential Iowa Republicans who literally flew to New Jersey to beg him to run.DeSantis could trip up early in a '24 contest. A scandal could emerge during his second term that he can't come back from. Someone could steal the spotlight if he delays his run until 2028. Or, waiting might be the right move to secure an eventual White House win — he could have a strong second term in Florida with even higher approval ratings. "Those are definitely calculations and considerations that smart people in DeSantisworld would put out there," said a GOP strategist not affiliated with DeSantis, who asked not to be named in order to speak candidly. "And they would probably look at some of these past candidacies as a case study. There is a such thing as a perceptual moment and then sometimes the shine dulls a little bit."<h2><div type="image" title="Then-President Donald Trump speaks as then-Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (L) and Foxconn CEO Terry Gou look on at the groundbreaking for the Foxconn Technology Group computer screen plant on June 28, 2018 in Mt Pleasant, Wisconsin." height="1749" width="2500" msid="95715843" hostid="261" sizebytes="190284"></div></h2><h2>'We were a big deal'</h2>Walker was the one everyone was talking ahead of 2016.In 2010, he'd flipped the Wisconsin governor's mansion just two years after Obama carried the state. He then took on public sector unions to the delight of conservatives and the Koch brothers.Liberals tried to recall him. Then Democrats turned to his reelection campaign. By the end of 2014, Walker had won three times in four years. He was holding court with wealthy donors in Madison by the following summer. Neighboring Iowans clamored for his presence and a presidential campaign, as pollsters saw his fortunes rise. It all came crashing down just two months after Walker made his presidential run official. "We were a big deal, before we even had a campaign, because of what we did," Walker told Insider in an interview. "But we really didn't have the infrastructure or the experience nationally to deal with that."On top of that, the day-to-day questions a candidate faces as governor are vastly different than what can arise on the campaign trail, a top aide on Walker's Iowa team told Insider. "The national press scrutiny and the presidential issues are a completely different ballgame than being governor," said Eric Woolson, who was Walker's Iowa communications director. "It's one thing to be talking about state issues, and it's another thing to suddenly be talking about foreign policy and federal policy."Then, Walker's debate performance solidified his standing as a candidate unprepared for primetime. He was crowded out by well-known national Republican leaders on stage in heated debates. "It was almost like if they were trying out for a track team, and it was like, 'Oh, wow, everybody's a lot faster than me,'" Duhaime said. "He wasn't as good as when you put Trump and Christie and Ted Cruz, and Marco [Rubio]. They were all A-level debaters, A-level thinkers, on this stuff. Walker was just kind of the junior varsity on that stage." DeSantis may face a similar situation. He has more national and foreign policy experience because he served in the US House. But while he gets significant national coverage, he hasn't reached the national stage yet. He didn't face a serious challenge to the governorship this year, he isn't known as a gifted orator or debator, and rumors proliferate about about his <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/claims-desantis-hates-people-are-fabrication-gop-strategist-phil-cox-2022-10" target="_blank" rel="noopener">lack of people skills</a>. But DuHaime said DeSantis was "stronger than Walker ever was" and had "substantive experience" after dealing with hurricanes and the COVID-19 pandemic. "You don't have to be the best — you have to be good enough," Duhaime said about DeSantis getting on a debate stage. "And my guess is he's good enough at that point." <h2><div type="image" title="Ron DeSantis" height="1249" width="2500" msid="95715845" hostid="261" sizebytes="254940"></div></h2><h2>DeSantis could face a pile on </h2>DeSantis is Trump's most formidable potential rival for the 2024 nomination. A total of 33% of potential GOP primary voters said they'd vote for DeSantis today, shows <a href="https://morningconsult.com/2022/11/15/desantis-pulls-record-high-2024-support-after-midterms/">a Morning Consult/Politico tracking poll</a> released November 15. But he's still 14 percentage points behind Trump, who made his <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/photos-inside-mar-a-lago-night-of-trump-big-announcement-2022-11" target="_blank" rel="noopener">presidential run official</a> last week.The Florida governor has so far been mum about his future plans, but <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/desantis-wont-say-whether-hell-serve-all-four-years-governor-2022-10" target="_blank" rel="noopener">he hasn't committed</a> to serving out all four years as governor.He isn't the only one who could jump into the 2024 race. Other prospects include former Vice President Mike Pence, former UN Ambassador Nikki Haley, South Dakota Gov. Kristi L. Noem, former CIA director <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-2024-announcement-mike-pompeo-runs-ads-key-states-2022-11">Mike Pompeo</a>, Sens. Tim Scott of South Carolina and Ted Cruz of Texas, and former Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan.Should DeSantis not run, it's possible one of these other candidates could beat Trump as well as President Joe Biden, locking out the possibility for DeSantis to seek a White House run until 2032.If DeSantis does enter a large field, he would become vulnerable not just to attacks from Trump, but from all the other candidates that view him as a threat. DuHaime said presidential races were a "grind" unlike any other run for office. "Millions and millions of dollars just turn on you in an instant," he said. "It happens to everybody. Only one person survives that." Hogan told reporters last weekend at a Republican Jewish Coalition event, a high-profile gathering in Las Vegas, that he knew the media was "focused" on DeSantis but warned much could change in the next six months. "I can tell you in almost every race I've ever seen, the guy that comes out the box first that everybody's talking about two years out is almost never the nominee," <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/video/6315859012112" target="_blank" rel="noopener">he said.</a><div type="image" title="Chris Christie" height="683" width="910" msid="95715848" hostid="261" sizebytes="18706"></div><h2>DeSantis is in a stronger position than Christie was</h2>When Democratic strategist David Axelrod wrote a now-famous presidential <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/is-christie-ready-to-be-president/2011/09/28/gIQAfyuu4K_story.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">memo</a> to Obama, who was then a US Senator of Illinois, he stressed the importance of timing in politics. "History is replete with potential candidates for presidency who waited too long rather than examples of people who ran too soon," he wrote. <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/is-christie-ready-to-be-president/2011/09/28/gIQAfyuu4K_story.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Many</a> in the donor class, GOP leadership, and <a href="https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2015/02/did-christie-miss-his-chance-to-be-president.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">media</a> tried to impart the same lesson on Christie in 2011. But there are some key differences between Christie and DeSantis, even in terms of the timing piece, Duhaime said. When Christie was having his moment, he was early into his governorship, and Republican Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, was getting a good deal of support from donors. "He legitimately didn't feel like he was ready — not necessarily to run but ready to do the job" of president after being governor for a short time, Duhaime said of Christie. In contrast, DeSantis would be in his fifth year as governor if he chooses to run next year. "That's a huge difference in my opinion in terms of that moment," DuHaime said.Plus, he added, Obama's reelection seemed like a surer bet whereas <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/11/us/politics/biden-approval-polling-2024.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">polling from the New York Times</a> shows most voters don't want President Joe Biden, 80, to run again — in large part because of his age. DeSantis, in contrast, is 44.DeSantis' age gives him other options to stay relevant even if he loses the perch of the governor's mansion. He could run for Senate or — should a Republican win the White House in 2024 — serve in the administration. The GOP strategist, who concluded DeSantis should run in 2024, said "the country needs" the governor because of his competence and leadership in Florida. "There are moments," they said. "There was a moment for Christie in 2012 and there is a moment for Ron DeSantis in 2024. So so if I were advising him, I would say that it is it is less about the personal journey and more about answering the call for your country."

If DeSantis doesn't get his 2024 decision timing right, he risks peaking too soon like Scott Walker or wasting his big moment like Chris Christie

The man whom India’s first <keyword id="71" type="POSITION" weightage="100" keywordseo="Prime-Minister">Prime Minister</keyword> <keyword id="6360386" type="PERSON" weightage="60" keywordseo="Jawaharlal-Nehru">Jawaharlal Nehru</keyword> prophesied to become the Prime Minister of India one day, the man whom the then Prime Minister <keyword id="6359397" type="PERSON" weightage="80" keywordseo="Manmohan-Singh">Manmohan Singh</keyword> called the “Bheeshm Pitamah of Indian politics,” the man who led an Indian delegation to the United Nations for a discussion on the Kashmir issue despite being in the opposition… Yes, we are talking about no other than former Prime Minister <keyword id="47100" type="PERSON" weightage="100" keywordseo="Atal-Bihari-Vajpayee">Atal Bihari Vajpayee</keyword>, whom even the opponents regard with utmost respect and is invariably referred to as Atal ji by one and all. 
 The political life of Atal Bihari Vajpayee, spanning across seven decades, has numerous exemplary accomplishments and statesmanship. He was the man who helped build the <keyword id="58687" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="100" keywordseo="Bharatiya-Janata-Party">Bharatiya Janata Party</keyword> (BJP) from an insignificant political player, with just two <keyword id="6355187" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="80" keywordseo="Lok-Sabha">Lok Sabha</keyword> MPs in the 1984 elections, to the ruling party of today. In the very first general election that the BJP contested in 1984 – amid unprecedented pro-Congress wave following Indira Gandhi’s assassination – the BJP could manage to win merely two seats in the Lok Sabha. 
 
He led the BJP from two seats in 1984 to being the single-largest party in 1996. He was invited to form the government as the leader of the single-largest party, though he did not have the majority. Here he showed he was a true statesman and not like any other power-hungry politician who would have tried every trick of the trade (read horse trading) to cobble up majority and remain in power. But he gracefully put in his papers when he did not get enough support. 
 
In 1977, as foreign minister in the Morarji Desai government, he delivered his speech at the UN in Hindi and became the first Indian leader to do so. 
 
He also served as the country’s Prime Minister from 1998 to 2004. His tenure had many accomplishments like the nuclear test, Lahore summit, Kargil victory and ushering in growth and economic development. However, after his defeat in the elections, he retired from active politics in 2005. 
 
His current state Vajpayee suffered a stroke in 2009, which silenced the great orator. He now remains confined to his bed or wheelchair in his SPG (<keyword id="494734" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="100" keywordseo="Special-Protection-Guard">Special Protection Guard</keyword>)-guarded Krishna Menon Marg bungalow, where he lives with his adopted daughter Namita. He also suffers from dementia and often fails to recognise people. 
 Unlike the good old days, no one visits him these days, except <keyword id="6436232" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="80" keywordseo="LK-Advani">LK Advani</keyword> and former Uttarakhand chief minister BC Khanduri. He rarely ventures out of his sprawling bungalow, except for checkups at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences. However, leaders cutting across various political parties visit him to wish him on his birthday (25 December). Former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh makes it a point to visit him personally on his birthday. According to sources, Prime Minister <keyword id="6354477" type="PERSON" weightage="100" keywordseo="Narendra-Modi">Narendra Modi</keyword> is likely to inaugurate Patna AIIMS on Vajpayee’s birthday this year as a mark of tribute to him. Vajpayee had laid its foundation stone when he was the Prime Minister. 
 
He is also a prolific poet and many of his poems like Kadam milakar chalna hoga and Door kahin koi rota hai were sung by the late Ghazal maestro <keyword id="6385431" type="PERSON" weightage="80" keywordseo="Jagjit-Singh">Jagjit Singh</keyword>. Now, singer Bappi Lahiri will also compose an album of his other poems. 
 
As much as you write about him, it seems less. According to recent media reports, the Narendra Modi government might confer Bharat Ratna to Vajpayee. This would be a befitting tribute to this great statesman.

Atal Bihari Vajpayee: The Forgotten Statesman

<div class="KonaFilter image-container float_right"><div class="image"><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/moriza/96724309/">Mo Riza/Flickr</a></div></div>"A species in which everyone was General Patton would not succeed, any more than would a race in which everyone was Vincent van Gogh. 
"I prefer to think that the planet needs athletes, philosophers, sex symbols, painters, scientists; it needs the warmhearted, the hardhearted, the coldhearted, and the weakhearted. It needs those who can devote their lives to studying how many droplets of water are secreted by the salivary glands of dogs under which circumstances, and it needs those who can capture the passing impression of cherry blossoms in a fourteen-syllable poem or devote twenty-five pages to the dissection of a small boy's feelings as he lies in bed in the dark waiting for his mother to kiss him goodnight… 
"Indeed the presence of outstanding strengths presupposes that energy needed in other areas has been channeled away from them." - Allen Shawn
In "<a href="http://a-fwd.com/es=farstrblo068-21&amp;it=farstrblo0a-21&amp;fr=farstrblo08-21&amp;de=farstrblo07-21&amp;uk=farstrblo-21&amp;ca=farst-20&amp;com=farnamstreet-20&amp;asin-es=0307352153&amp;asin-it=0307352153&amp;asin-fr=0307352153&amp;asin-de=0307352153&amp;asin-uk=0307352153&amp;asin-ca=0307352153&amp;asin-com=0307352153" target="_blank">Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World That Can't Stop Talking</a>," Susan Cain looks at how our lives are shaped by personality. Specifically she explores how where we land on the introvert-extrovert spectrum influences our choices, friends, conversations, careers, success, and even love. "It governs how likely we are to exercise, commit adultery, function well without sleep, learn from our mistakes, place big bets in the stock market, delay gratification, be a good leader, and ask "what if."
It's also one of the most exhaustively researched subjects. It's not just scientists who've contemplated this, they are a rather recent addition. Poets and Philosophers have been "thinking about introverts and extroverts since the dawn of recorded time."
<blockquote>
"[T]oday we make room for a remarkably narrow range of personality styles. We're told that to be great is to be bold, to be happy is to be sociable. We see ourselves as a nation of extroverts - which means that we've lost sight of who we really are. Depending on which study you consult, one third to one half of Americans are introverts - in other words, one out of every two or three people you know."
</blockquote>
Surprising? That's because most introverts, like myself, pretend to be extroverts. I'm what you call a "closet introvert."
<blockquote>
"It makes sense that so many introverts hide even from themselves. We live with a value system that I call the Extrovert Ideal - the omnipresent belief that the ideal self is gregarious, alpha, and comfortable in the spotlight. The archetypal extrovert prefers action to contemplation, risk-taking to heed-taking, certainty to doubt. He favors quick decisions, even at the risk of being wrong. She works well in teams and socializes in groups. We like to think that we value individuality, but all too often we admire one type of individual- the kind who's comfortable "putting himself out there."
…
"Introversion - along with its cousins sensitivity, seriousness, and shyness - is now a second-class personality trait, somewhere between a disappointment and a pathology."
</blockquote>
The extrovert ideal is alive and well.
<blockquote>
"Talkative people, for example, are rated as smarter, better-looking, more interesting, and more desirable as friends. Velocity of speech counts as well as volume: we rank fast talkers as more competent and likable than slow ones. The same dynamics apply in groups, where research shows that the voluble are considered smarter than the reticent - even though there's zero correlation between the gift of gab and good ideas."
</blockquote>
But, like anything, it's a mistake to embrace this ideal without thinking. Without introverts, we wouldn't have: the theory of gravity, the theory of relativity, Chopin's nocturnes, Proust's In Search of Lost Time, Peter Pan, Orwell's 1984, The Cat in the Hat, Charlie Brown, Schindler's List, E.T., Google, Harry Potter, or Farnam Street.
In "<a href="http://a-fwd.com/es=farstrblo068-21&amp;it=farstrblo0a-21&amp;fr=farstrblo08-21&amp;de=farstrblo07-21&amp;uk=farstrblo-21&amp;ca=farst-20&amp;com=farnamstreet-20&amp;asin-es=0679430180&amp;asin-it=0679430180&amp;asin-fr=0679430180&amp;asin-de=0679430180&amp;asin-uk=0679430180&amp;asin-ca=0679430180&amp;asin-com=0679430180" target="_blank">How Heredity and Experience Make You Who You Are</a>," the science journalist Winifred Gallagher writes: "The glory of the disposition that stops to consider stimuli rather than rushing to engage with them is its long association with intellectual and artistic achievement. Neither E=mc2 nor Paradise Lost was dashed off by a party animal."
Cain argues that it is not in spite of introversion that people like Eleanor Roosevelt, Al Gore, Warren Buffett, Gandhi and Rosa Parks achieve what they do, but, in part, because of it.
As society moves unconsciously toward an extroverted world - one of open offices, team everything, and organizations that value "people skills" above competence - introverts will have to adjust. But things like creativity and "innovation" will suffer.
If you're an introvert:
<blockquote>
"you might still feel a pang of guilt when you decline a dinner invitation in favor of a good book. Or maybe you like to eat alone in restaurants and could do without the pitying looks from fellow diners. Or you're told that you're "in your head too much," a phrase that's often deployed against the quiet and cerebral."
Of course, there's another word for such people: thinkers."
</blockquote>
After taking my MBTI, one of my professors defined introversion as "where you get your energy." If you're extroverted you get energy from being around people, and if you're introverted you get it from being alone. But is there more to it than that? What exactly does it mean to say someone is introverted?
In 1921, psychologist Carl Jung had published a book, "<a href="http://a-fwd.com/es=farstrblo068-21&amp;it=farstrblo0a-21&amp;fr=farstrblo08-21&amp;de=farstrblo07-21&amp;uk=farstrblo-21&amp;ca=farst-20&amp;com=farnamstreet-20&amp;asin-es=0691018138&amp;asin-it=0691018138&amp;asin-fr=0691018138&amp;asin-de=0691018138&amp;asin-uk=0691018138&amp;asin-ca=0691018138&amp;asin-com=0691018138" target="_blank">Psychological Types</a>," that popularized the terms introvert and extrovert as the foundation of personality.
Discussing Jung's work, Cain writes:
<blockquote>
"Introverts are drawn to the inner world of thought and feeling, said Jung, extroverts to the external life of people and activities. Introverts focus on the meaning they make of the events swirling around them; extroverts plunge into the events themselves. Introverts recharge their batteries by being alone; extroverts need to recharge when they don't socialize enough."
</blockquote>
The MBTI is based on Jung's work. But, you should know, there is no consensus on any of this. There are "almost as many definitions of introverts and extroverts as there are personality psychologists, who spend a great deal of time arguing over which meaning is most accurate."
<blockquote>
"Still, today's psychologists tend to agree on several important points: for example, that introverts and extroverts differ in the level of outside stimulation that they need to function well. Introverts feel "just right" with less stimulation, as when they sip wine with a close friend, solve a crossword puzzle, or read a book. Extroverts enjoy the extra bang that comes from activities like meeting new people, skiing slippery slopes, and cranking up the stereo."
…
"(Introverts) prefer to devote their social energies to close friends, colleagues, and family. They listen more than they talk, think before they speak, and often feel as if they express themselves better in writing than in conversation. They tend to dislike conflict. Many have a horror of small talk, but enjoy deep discussions."
</blockquote>
Whenever I tell someone I'm introverted the first thing they inevitably say is "you can't be an introvert. You're not shy."
<blockquote>
"Shyness is the fear of social disapproval or humiliation, while introversion is a preference for environments that are not overstimulating. Shyness is inherently painful; introversion is not. One reason that people confuse the two concepts is that they sometimes overlap (though psychologists debate to what degree)."
</blockquote>
The bus to Abilene Here is one particularly amusing anecdote from the book: "The bus to Abilene." And this applies to everything from meetings to how we make decisions.
<blockquote>
"A well-known study out of UC Berkeley by organizational behavior professor Philip Tetlock found that television pundits - that is, people who earn their livings by holding forth confidently on the basis of limited information - make worse predictions about political and economic trends than they would by random chance. And the very worst prognosticators tend to be the most famous and the most confident - the very ones who would be considered natural leaders in an HBS classroom.
The U.S. Army has a name for a similar phenomenon: "the Bus to Abilene." "Any army officer can tell you what that means," Colonel (Ret.) Stephen J. Gerras, a professor of behavioral sciences at the U.S. Army War College, told Yale Alumni Magazine in 2008. "It's about a family sitting on a porch in Texas on a hot summer day, and somebody says, 'I'm bored. Why don't we go to Abilene?' When they get to Abilene, somebody says, 'You know, I didn't really want to go.' And the next person says, 'I didn't want to go - I thought you wanted to go,' and so on. Whenever you're in an army group and somebody says, 'I think we're all getting on the bus to Abilene here,' that is a red flag. You can stop a conversation with it. It is a very powerful artifact of our culture."
The "Bus to Abilene" anecdote reveals our tendency to follow those who initiate action-any action.
</blockquote>
Innovation A lot of organizations want to encourage <a href="http://www.farnamstreetblog.com/2013/11/your-organization-sucks-at-innovating/" target="_blank">innovation with "positive" action</a>. They hold up Google, Twitter, and Kickstarter as models of innovation. In a well-meaning attempt to encourage innovation they inevitably come up with a process that relies on presentation skills to sift ideas.
In his book "<a href="http://a-fwd.com/es=farstrblo068-21&amp;it=farstrblo0a-21&amp;fr=farstrblo08-21&amp;de=farstrblo07-21&amp;uk=farstrblo-21&amp;ca=farst-20&amp;com=farnamstreet-20&amp;asin-es=1422133303&amp;asin-it=1422133303&amp;asin-fr=1422133303&amp;asin-de=1422133303&amp;asin-uk=1422133303&amp;asin-ca=1422133303&amp;asin-com=1422133303" target="_blank">Iconoclast</a>," neuroeconomist Gregory Berns explores what happens when companies rely too heavily on presentation skills to sift ideas. "He describes a software company called Rite-Solutions," Cain writes summarizing his work, "that successfully asks employees to share ideas through an online 'idea market,' as a way of focusing on substance rather than style."
<blockquote>
(In Quiet Cain describes the company) Joe Marino, president of Rite-Solutions, and Jim Lavoie, CEO of the company, created this system as a reaction to problems they'd experienced elsewhere. "In my old company," Lavoie told Berns, "if you had a great idea, we would tell you , 'OK, we'll make an appointment for you to address the murder board' " - a group of people charged with vetting new ideas. Marino described what happened next:
(Cain quoting: <a href="http://a-fwd.com/es=farstrblo068-21&amp;it=farstrblo0a-21&amp;fr=farstrblo08-21&amp;de=farstrblo07-21&amp;uk=farstrblo-21&amp;ca=farst-20&amp;com=farnamstreet-20&amp;asin-es=1422133303&amp;asin-it=1422133303&amp;asin-fr=1422133303&amp;asin-de=1422133303&amp;asin-uk=1422133303&amp;asin-ca=1422133303&amp;asin-com=1422133303" target="_blank">Iconoclast</a>) Some technical guy comes in with a good idea. Of course questions are asked of that person that they don't know. Like, "How big's the market? What's your marketing approach? What's your business plan for this? What's the product going to cost?" It's embarrassing. Most people can't answer those kinds of questions. The people who made it through these boards were not the people with the best ideas. They were the best presenters.
</blockquote>
In his memoir, "<a href="http://a-fwd.com/es=farstrblo068-21&amp;it=farstrblo0a-21&amp;fr=farstrblo08-21&amp;de=farstrblo07-21&amp;uk=farstrblo-21&amp;ca=farst-20&amp;com=farnamstreet-20&amp;asin-es=0393330435&amp;asin-it=0393330435&amp;asin-fr=0393330435&amp;asin-de=0393330435&amp;asin-uk=0393330435&amp;asin-ca=0393330435&amp;asin-com=0393330435" target="_blank">iWoz: Computer Geek to Cult Icon: How I Invented the Personal Computer, Co-Founded Apple, and Had Fun Doing It</a>," Steve Wozniak writes:
<blockquote>
"Most inventors and engineers I've met are like me - they're shy and they live in their heads. They're almost like artists. In fact, the very best of them are artists. And artists work best alone where they can control an invention's design without a lot of other people designing it for marketing or some other committee. I don't believe anything really revolutionary has been invented by committee. If you're that rare engineer who's an inventor and also an artist, I'm going to give you some advice that might be hard to take. That advice is: Work alone. You're going to be best able to design revolutionary products and features if you're working on your own. Not on a committee. Not on a team."
</blockquote>
Of course introverts are not necessarily more creative. The most creative or innovative people tend to <a href="http://www.farnamstreetblog.com/2013/12/the-five-skills-of-disruptive-innovators/" target="_blank">ask questions</a>, display a healthy disrespect for authority, a natural irreverence, and a stubborn streak. This suggests they may not work well as part of a team.
In explaining why introverts have a creative advantage, Cain writes:
<blockquote>
"[T]here's a less obvious yet surprisingly powerful explanation for introverts' creative advantage - an explanation that everyone can learn from: introverts prefer to work independently, and solitude can be a catalyst to innovation. As the influential psychologist Hans Eysenck once observed, introversion "concentrates the mind on the tasks in hand, and prevents the dissipation of energy on social and sexual matters unrelated to work."
</blockquote>
In the end, creativity and innovation in organizations is about accepting and even encouraging differences. I'd caution organizations not to move too far towards the extroversion end of the spectrum (open offices, everything done in teams, promoting based on social skills above competence) without giving consideration to the effects that may have on some of your most creative people. A lot of things are better done by individuals than teams. It's ok to have offices. It's ok to have quiet. It doesn't work for everyone but it works for some of your best and possibly most misunderstood employees.
"<a href="http://a-fwd.com/es=farstrblo068-21&amp;it=farstrblo0a-21&amp;fr=farstrblo08-21&amp;de=farstrblo07-21&amp;uk=farstrblo-21&amp;ca=farst-20&amp;com=farnamstreet-20&amp;asin-es=0307352153&amp;asin-it=0307352153&amp;asin-fr=0307352153&amp;asin-de=0307352153&amp;asin-uk=0307352153&amp;asin-ca=0307352153&amp;asin-com=0307352153" target="_blank">Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World That Can't Stop Talking</a>" is an interesting look at how letting the extrovert ideal run wild is a bad idea for creativity, decision making, and cognitive diversity.<div class="feed-footer-wrapper"><div class="feed-footer">

 <h3>More from Farnam Street:</h3>

 <ul>
 <li>
 <a href="http://www.farnamstreetblog.com/2014/01/the-power-of-introverts/" data-bi-base="http://www.farnamstreetblog.com/">Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World That Can't Stop Talking</a>
 </li>
 <li>
 <a href="http://www.farnamstreetblog.com/2014/01/frankl-human-search-for-meaning/" data-bi-base="http://www.farnamstreetblog.com/">The Human Search for Meaning</a>
 </li>
 <li>
 <a href="http://www.farnamstreetblog.com/2014/01/laws-of-character-and-personality/" data-bi-base="http://www.farnamstreetblog.com/">Laws of Character and Personality</a>
 </li>
 <li>
 <a href="http://www.farnamstreetblog.com/2014/01/the-baloney-detection-kit/" data-bi-base="http://www.farnamstreetblog.com/">The Baloney Detection Kit</a>
 </li>
 <li>
 <a href="http://www.farnamstreetblog.com/2014/01/11-rules-for-critical-thinking/" data-bi-base="http://www.farnamstreetblog.com/">11 Rules for Critical Thinking</a>
 </li>
 </ul>
 </div></div>

You Searched For "good orator MP political leader thinker poet" and got 9 results

This is how China is helping India become a global manufacturing hub

BI India Bureau

How the GOP learned to love QAnon

Eliza Relman,Dave Levinthal,T…

The Christchurch massacre is being used by government officials around the world who want to curtail freedom of speech

Jim Edwards

MOMENTUM: The inside story of how Jeremy Corbyn took control of the Labour party

Jeremy Wilson

The Russian lawmaker kicked out of the country speaks out about Putin, Snowden, and a Russian collapse

Jonathan Fisher

Why Scotland Wants To Ditch England And Go It Alone

Tomas Hirst,Tomas Hirst

If DeSantis doesn't get his 2024 decision timing right, he risks peaking too soon like Scott Walker or wasting his big moment like Chris Christie

Kimberly Leonard,Brent D. Gri…

Atal Bihari Vajpayee: The Forgotten Statesman

Manish Kumar

The Quiet Power Of Introverts

Farnam Street

Popular Keywords

Buying Guides