I’ve got the following text from an AI analysis on Google and I’m using it here as a quote, although I had no idea who’s written it or when—the analysis is not revealing its source, if any. Of course, it’s only a part of the analysis that impressed me most, and therefore I thought of putting it down here for all people of the same ilk. And yes, I’ve tweaked it bit to cover more of the categories of people obviously involved. "Many emerging or existing artists/writers/discoverers feel ignored, with their work going unnoticed, which is often a burden of being in creative industries , rather than a reflection of talent." Very right indeed! Creative people who have put out their work in the public domain would most naturally like to be noticed and be told if their work is poor or mediocre or even good. When nothing of that sort happens they most naturally get frustrated and even indignant that nobody is even aware of their work and the very few who have indeed gone throug...
Article first published as Politics of Corruption: The Democratic Angle on Technorati. In a democracy power is always decentralized—from the highest level of the Prime Minister to the grass-root level of a village chieftain. So in a similar way corruption has to get decentralized too specifically at every level. The village chief enjoys lot of powers to take decisions, settle disputes and negotiate for development projects. If, in the process, s/he takes bribes or bribes someone the higher authority at the district level cannot necessarily be implicated criminally in that corruption. A local boss at a town office similarly enjoys absolute discretionary powers in regard to his/her office. Now, if s/he indulges in corrupt deals the town chief or the district collector cannot necessarily be held criminally responsible. Accordingly, the chief minister of a state cannot necessarily be implicated criminally if the collector creates scams and scandals. So, if local authorities wi...