Glen Cayley, technical director of the exploration and production in Europe for Shell, said the company deeply regrets the spill, which was unfortunately the worst in Britain since a decade.

He added that  it was a great challenge to get to the bottom of the complex underwater structures where the leakage occured.

In an interview with the BBC, Cayley said it is conducting an investigation to determine the cause of the oil spill, which recently was noticed on Wednesday. The British government has also promised to investigate into this issue.

The Shell executive said that the company immediately reported the spill to government agencies, but it was not made public until Friday.

The company estimated that 54,600 gallons of oil have spilled into the North Sea from the shelf off the east coast of Scotland, and the leak continued at 5 barrels per day.

The side spill is pumping about two-gallon barrels every day into the sea.

Gannet Alpha platform, which is located 180 kilometers (112 miles) east of the city of Aberdeen, is operated by Shell and co-owned by Shell and Esso, a subsidiary of U.S. firm Exxon Mobil.

The British government reported that the leak was small compared with the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico last year which leaked 206 million gallons of crude oil  into the sea.

The key word in that last sentence is ‘democracy’. These discussions are only relevant for a democracy and, as I mentioned in the introduction, I fear for democracy in the United States. So let’s start with that, for if democracy is not maintained, all of the other points I make on these issues lose, to some extent, their relevance.

I have stated twice now that I believe that democracy in America is in jeopardy. Why am I making such an alarmist and, seemingly, unsubstantiated statement? America is doing great! Our economy is the envy of the world, and our elections are regular, stable, and (Florida 2000 notwithstanding!) free of the tampering other, younger democracies are facing around the globe. To understand my rationale, we first have to look briefly at the history of democracies that came before us – and then look again at our own situation.

There are two primary examples of democracy before that of the U.S. – ancient Athens, and ancient Rome. In each case, democracy was instigated by strong, focussed, determined citizens in the anarchy following the overthrow of an oppressive regime. In each case, the democratic nation flourished astoundingly well, becoming the pre-eminent powerhouse in the region, indeed, in the known world. In each case, at the height of their outward powers, the democracies crumbled from within, descending into demagoguery. And in each case, this took place between 200 and 300 years after the establishment of the democracy. Why?

Reading the works of the people writing in the times, it becomes apparent that in each instance after two hundred years or so much of the citizenry had become lazy, dissolute, and irresponsible – at least as far as their civic duties were concerned. Scholars today argue the reasons for this, but to me it seems fairly straightforward: both Athens and Rome were victims of their own success. For 200 or more years things had become progressively better and easier for each succeeding generation (with very few, if any, exceptions). As this took place, citizens began expecting more – for less effort. After a period of time it seems people genuinely forgot that they in fact were the government, and instead began more and more to demand that ‘the government’ take care of their problems for them. And as citizens became less willing to do the work of self-governance, they became more susceptible to leaders who would agree with them, offering to shoulder the burdens of government for them – in other words, demagogues (or in the modern vernacular, dictators).

Does any of this sound familiar? It should. In a recent national election in the U.S., only about 38% of the so-called eligible voters (that is, citizens who had registered to vote) bothered to go to the polls – and most of the other 62% believed their vote wouldn’t matter. Sad as this is, it is even sadder to realize that, to a large extent, the 62% of non-voters are right in thinking this. America’s elections have become dangerously rote, with a very few people making the decisions of who will be candidates. In a moment I will talk more to this issue, discussing the need for election reform. But for now, let’s stick with the perils and promise inherent in America’s Future. If the American “great experiment” in democracy is to continue, what must be done?

First and foremost, we Americans absolutely must reclaim a firm hold upon our government – but more, upon ourselves. Democracy is never, ever given; it is earned, constantly and continually. It is earned by the collective shouldering of civic responsibility by all citizens. And what is a citizen’s responsibility? To understand the form and functions of one’s government; to maintain a reasonably constant and consistent awareness of the issues facing one’s society and one’s government; to make individual decisions regarding those issues; and to act on those decisions, through voting, through communications with one’s elected officials, and, at times of dire need, through protest and/or civil disobedience. Finally, one needs to adhere to (if not accept) the decisions arrived upon through the democratic process.

Far too many of us Americans have shirked our civic responsibilities. Many of us have fallen prey to the belief that we as individuals cannot make a difference. This is a debilitating belief, which in a democracy becomes self-fulfilling. The more we citizens believe our voices don’t count, the less likely we are to participate – and the less we participate, the less control we exert in the governmental process. Nature abhors a vacuum – someone will have stepped in, gradually, more and more, to take over the reins of government. In the case of modern America, the ones filling the vacuum are our government officials, both elected and (to an ever-increasing degree) non-elected. These officials are becoming less and less answerable to the citizenry, which in turn is making the citizens still more apathetic.

So how do we stop this downward spiraling trend? Well, first we have to want to stop it. That may sound silly, but it’s important. We as a country and as individual citizens need to seriously consider whether we want to save our democracy. It’s a slow, frustrating, cumbersome, time-consuming process, better suited perhaps to a nation of leisured people rather than to a nation of two- or more income families. When our country was founded people worked hard, but the pace of the culture was slow – and discussing the political issues of the day was by and large an accepted part of the business day. It’s not nearly as acceptable in today’s nose-to-the-grindstone business culture. Do we want it to be? Democracy requires of us a great deal of effort – do the benefits warrant that effort? I believe they do. Because of the very discipline and effort democracy requires, we as individuals are made stronger, more vibrant, more alive. In this respect, the mind is like a muscle – the more we exercise it, the more powerful it becomes. This is also why, I believe, democracies are initially so successful – the creative energies unleashed by the disciplined, exercised minds of their citizens are unstoppable. And naturally, democracies are more prone to asserting and protecting individual rights and freedoms than any other system of government – another argument in their favor. But of course, all rights and freedoms have price tags attached, and each American individually has to want to pay the price. If we don’t want such rights and responsibilities, we ought at least to determine what system of government we want to replace our current system with, so we don’t fall haphazardly into a government which we don’t like at all – but are powerless to remove.

But for now I’m going to assume we do want to save our democracy. I think – I hope – that we Americans deep down still tend to be too independent-minded to enjoy being dictated to, however benevolently. So how do we stop the spiraling trend of ever-lessening belief in individual effectiveness, which leads to the increasing power of elected and non-elected officials? I believe there are three fundamental areas to concentrate on: 1) the electoral process itself; 2) campaign reform; and, 3) the media. But before we go into depth on these issues lets look again at the history of democracies in the past, to see what examples they might provide for our possible future.

Second, because we cannot afford to allow military expenditures to decrease, it weakens our resolve for peace both domestically and globally, for it calls into question exactly what is in our national interest. When the Soviet Union collapsed, for example, was it in our national interest to attempt a sort of Eastern Europe ‘Marshall-Plan’ to rebuild the infrastructure and political systems of the multiple countries that were emerging, to help them create a stable and productive Europe (and giving us still more stable, strong trading partners)… or was it in our national interest to do nothing, and allow Eastern Europe to destabilize socially and politically, creating both a market for our weapons and a need for U.S. military involvement? Again, I am not trying to imply that there was some sort of conspiracy to ensure the destabilization of Eastern Europe; but I do believe that our military economy creates an environment in which we are more prone to engage in conflict than we are committed to creating peace. Not intentionally, perhaps – but conflict does seem to be the end result.

The third problem with having our economy dependent upon the military industry is taxes – to maintain a military economy of this magnitude requires an enormous amount of taxpayer money to be spent upon defense. Now, this really amounts to a sort of socialized welfare for the military industry. Indeed, if this were any other industry, the so-called “Right-wing” in this country would be screaming about government waste and socialism – and justifiably so. We all should be ‘up in arms’ (so to speak) over this issue. It strikes me that if our government is going to pump so much money into our economy, it ought at least to diversify a bit and prime the engines of industries from a broader spectrum, beyond the military, to allow for a more balanced and diversified over-all economy. But personally, I’d prefer we didn’t spend taxpayer money so extravagantly at all. Now, all this is not to say that I don’t think we need a strong, pro-active military – we do. But I question the need for a military machine so enormous that it swallows up well over a third of our current national budget and constitutes one of the largest single percentages of our GNP. Here too, we need to reassess our nation’s values and needs, and ensure that they are in accordance with our people’s values and needs.

What is the primary purpose of our military? It is to protect our nation from attack by external forces. Now, sometimes that might best be done by fighting elsewhere on the globe to prevent an escalation of a local conflict into a global one. I would argue that this was true of Kosovo by 1999. (I would also argue that if we had truly tried to help create a stable Eastern Europe starting back in 1989, we quite probably would have avoided the Yugoslavian war altogether.) Similarly, I would suggest that if we had entered the fray sooner in both World War I and World War II, each of those wars would have been over sooner and with less expense of human life. This is not simply hindsight speaking, either – President Roosevelt knew it in 1939, but was hamstrung by popular opinion against involvement and a jittery Congress… until Pearl Harbor. My point is that we do need a strong, pro-active military, and we need to have the willingness to use it. But our current military is simply too expensive. There is absolutely no reason why we can’t have a strong, well-equipped military without also being economically efficient in our management of it. And we also need to be very, very specific with ourselves as to when, how and why we use our military strength. It is contrary to the principles of democracy for America to be the world’s policeman – the world often does not want our stewardship, and unless it can be shown that it truly effects our national interests, we should respect others’ wishes. Indeed, I think that the U.N. ought to be the policeman of the world if anyone should be; that is a large part of why it was founded in the first place, after all. There is no need for America to incur all the cost (and all the wrath) of these conflicts.

There is a problem with all this, of course. It is one thing to say that we need a more balanced economy, one not so heavily dependent upon military expenditures – but it is quite another thing to actually make the shift. Let me give a small but poignant analogy of what I mean here. When the shoe and textile industries pulled out of the State of Maine years ago, moving their factories overseas, tens of thousands of people were thrown out of work. Whole towns were virtually boarded up as local businesses went under from lack of trade. The same thing happened in Michigan when the auto industry shifted overseas. Now, the military industry permeates all fifty States. It is, as I’ve already pointed out, enormous. We truly are dependent upon it, and to try and end that dependence all at once would be economic suicide; the whole nation would look like those ghost towns in Maine. If we are going to decide to end this dependence, we would need to approach things slowly, carefully, and most of all, patiently. I would suggest that since to a large degree this industry is already government-sponsored, in this instance a few socialistic government incentives to encourage companies in the military industry to make the shift to peacetime uses might certainly be in order. On the one hand, we need to slowly cut back on military expenditures; while on the other we need to offer financial aid to help military industries make the shift to the true private sector. It is also important to keep in mind that these industries haven’t had to really deal with the rough and tumble world of true competition – once they’ve signed a deal with the government, there has always been a lot of leeway for mistakes and delays; leeway that the real private sector doesn’t get the chance to enjoy. For them to make the transition successfully will require some degree of government aid, as well as a willingness on their part to change with the times.

Our courts are also showing the stress, becoming circuses that are running (at times) months or even years behind schedule, with ‘justice’ seeming to be applied more and more only to those who can afford it. The letter of the law is all too often substituted for the spirit, occasionally allowing known criminals to walk free and (sometimes) basically good citizens to be unreasonably imprisoned. Now, all this is not to say that justice is never served, or that all lawyers are amoral and all judges literalists – there is indeed a lot of good justice being dispersed daily by highly ethical, well-intentioned lawyers and judges. But the negative view is the impression generally held by the public, and it has some justification – especially considering some of the high-profile cases in recent years.

Yet I reserve my most scathing criticism for our current prison system. If we employed the best minds in the country to create a system to ensure recidivism (i.e., repeat offenders), create more effective criminals who are hardened to the effects of the violence they inflict upon others, and to eliminate virtually any chance of rehabilitation, I think those minds would be hard-pressed to come up with a better system than our current prison system. In short, we have perfected a system for creating a permanent criminal class. Our prison system is doing the exact opposite of what we want, need and deserve. It seems to me that we need to utterly re-think our approaches to crime, criminals, justice and punishment — and to make some dramatic changes to those approaches.

What is “crime”? One answer is to say it is a breaking of society’s laws. But what does that mean, really? Most of us break laws – we break speed limit and parking laws, for example. Most of us have probably at some point in our lives trespassed where we shouldn’t have, imbibed alcohol before the legal age or in some other illegal manner, parked surreptitiously in a handicapped parking spot – something. To this day, we may ‘forget’ to put something (say, the $2000 we earned ‘under the table’ in cash, working for a friend) into our tax return, or we place a bet in an office pool, in spite of our local or state laws against such gambling. Whatever the ‘crime’, most of us have broken some law or another. Does this make us ‘criminals’? By a strict, ‘letter of the law’ sense, yes it does. Certainly by the definition I gave above it does. But I don’t think many people, guilty of any of the above ‘crimes’, would consider themselves ‘criminals’. Certainly I don’t.

I think a more accurate way of defining ‘crime’ is to look at it as the breaking of a covenant between an individual and the society to which s/he belongs. The covenant states that an individual gains the benefits of the society (camaraderie, protection, mutual benefit, etc) at the price of living within the expectations of that society. Thus, in a theoretical society that doesn’t recognize ownership, there would not be a crime of ‘theft’; while in our society, which places an importance on ownership, theft is a serious crime. Now, ‘laws’ can be quite different from a covenant. A law can be passed which can be quite unpopular, and therefore gets (largely) ignored. The 55mph speed limit leaps to mind. In the society at large, a speeder broke no covenant because the law did not match the expectations of the society. Hence, while the ‘crime’ of speeding is arguably far more potentially serious to both the speeder and others in society than, say, painting graffiti on a building, the first carries no stigma with it, while the second does. No covenant was broken when we speed on the highway; it is broken when we deface others’ property.

One problem with our approach to crime and criminals is that we tend to do so from a literalist, legalistic point of view, a point of view that says “a law has been broken – a set punishment must be inflicted”. We don’t look at the covenant at all, which to my mind is the most important part. For if we approach crime and criminals from a viewpoint of law, we simply inflict punishment. But if we approach it from a standpoint of a covenant broken, we seek retribution, a making of amends. Thus a criminal is made truly responsible not only for what s/he has done (punishment), but for making amends as well (retribution). That is a vital part of what is missing in our current system. The self-responsibility a democracy requires of all its citizens is not being required of our criminals – and it should be.

There is of course a good reason why it isn’t. Requiring retribution, the making of amends, is difficult – difficult for the criminal, for the victim, for the courts, and for society. There are few, if any, black and white answers. Amends must be something we in society work out slowly and carefully – and in some cases it will be especially difficult to decide upon proper amends. How does a murderer make amends to her or his victim, for example? How does a rapist make amends? In such cases, something irreparable has been done. I think what is needed in such instances might be a broader scope. Strong punishment is probably the only retribution a victim can receive in such instances – any true ‘amends’ must then be made to society as a whole, for society has been injured as well. This, I think, might best be done through an enforced rehabilitation program and through enforced service to society.

If any of this is to take place, we must also take a long, considered look at our societal definitions of ‘cruel and unusual punishment’. Our Constitution protects against such abuse, but it is up to us to interpret what that term means for us, today. Thus far we have left such determinings to the Courts, but it seems to me that they have gone too far into the letter of that law and lost the spirit. We citizens must set the lead, and discuss openly what that term means to us today – and what it does not mean. I have some suggestions to that discussion, but I by no means feel I have all the answers, nor am I even certain that all of the solutions I am suggesting are even desirable. But I think we need to start discussing them, opening ourselves to all possibilities. First, I would suggest that it is not cruel and unusual punishment for a criminal to be put to work for the betterment of society. Working on roads, or sorting through a community’s garbage for recyclable material, or training for other productive jobs in society are all positive works that criminals can (and I think should) be required to do.

Next, is it truly ‘cruel and unusual’ to consider using ‘re-education’ techniques and aggressive rehabilitation programs to foster and encourage culturally acceptable behavior? Perhaps it is. Certainly deciding what is ‘culturally acceptable behavior’ would be a hot debate in itself. And the methods and styles of the techniques and programs themselves would need to be ironed out and freely discussed. But my point is that we need to discuss these things. We cannot afford any longer to simply rule out such possibilities carte blanche – it is unfair to the criminals, to the victims, and most especially to society. Now, I grant that all this has ominous undertones, especially to so-called ‘liberals’. Visions of Orwell’s Big Brother lurk in such suggestions. But I would argue that since all education is at its essence a form of brainwashing – since the purpose of education is in large part to mold minds into accepting the societal beliefs – re-education need not be diabolical. Granted, good education includes an encouragement to think and act for oneself, to see beyond those cultural beliefs in order to help them evolve. But that typically comes after the instillation of those beliefs. So I see nothing wrong with ‘re-educating’ prisoners to foster an acceptance within them of societal values and mores. It is not the only answer (as Anthony Burgess so admirably demonstrated in his novel A Clockwork Orange); but I suspect it can and should be a part of the answer. I know I’m going to be raked over the proverbial coals for saying all of this, but I am doing so because I think it is important that we at least open ourselves to discussing and considering all options. Our current approaches to crime and criminals obviously do not work; we need to look clearly at where we are, where we want to be, and what steps would best get us to where we want to be. And then we need to act. We must be willing to experiment with different policies, and to accept and learn from our mistakes. Finally, we must learn to find a balance between a criminal’s personal rights and society’s need for (to use a sport metaphor) productive ‘team members’.

Your EMI comprises an interest component and a principal component. In the initial years of your home loan term, the interest component will far exceed the principal component. Use our Loan Amortization Calculator to find out how much your next EMI is going to contribute towards interest and how much it will contribute towards principal repayment. This could help you in your tax computations.

Paying your home loan EMI on time is an excellent way to build a re-payment track record. Banks love responsible borrowers and are often willing to negotiate on the interest rate if you have a great repayment history. Typically a three year track record of timely repayments could help you secure much lower than market rates on a home loan and if the time is right, you may want to consider switching your home loan. We invite you to use our Should I transfer my Home Loan? calculator to help you find out the exact costs and benefits.

Barack Obama who will be the candidate of the Democratic Party has kick started his campaign a few months ago through his website. The Obama team has started showing much care in planning and collecting the Election funds, till date a record amount of six million dollars has reached the kitty of the Obama camp. The 2008 presidential elections total expenses by all candidates was just 5 million dollars and the next year’s election is expected to be fought on a much higher Dollar expense.

The total money spent during the 2008 election was 760 dollars, where as this time it is expected to reach at least one billion dollar. Obama has got a good support among the business and the Industrial community. The first quarter of the year saw a total collection of around 293 dollars. The interesting fact was that Indian born Americans too have joined in this Dollar hunt for Obama. T.V ads and Internet based Ads make up a big chunk of the expenditure. Soon we can expect Google ads for Obama.

If this rumor turns out to be true, India could be the first country to buy weapons and accessories from a country that is much smaller in Technological advances.

The sri lankan websites have reported that the recently created Sagar prahari bal which was created by the Indian Navy with the task of monitoring the Shallow Indian waters. The speed boats are estimated to be purchased by the Indian Navy at a price of 250 crores. Indian Navy has planned to use these ships for chasing and interpreting the ships with suspicious navigation.

Solas Marine, a sri lankan company has been roped in to to get these ships delivered to the Indian Navy in another 36 months.

The speed boats owned by the erst-while LTTE sea wing was said to be the best and had the latest technologies inbuilt in them. The LTTE naval force posed a great challenge to the Lankan Navy during the wars. The Lankan Navy started designing boats based on the very same technology and used them effectively during the last phase of the war.

In a world beset by the after-effects of corrupt wars marketed by corrupt politicians, Jason Andrew McMurphy dreams of revitalizing America’s democracy. While traveling in Asia he has written a book of political essays calling for the radical restructuring of everything from America’s form of political campaigning to its criminal justice, welfare and education systems, national defense, and even freedom of the press.

The novel opens with Jason catching a flight back to the U.S. from Asia to sell his book. His plane is taken over by a group of hijackers, but Jason grittily fights back and leads the passengers in recapturing the plane. Once back on the ground, he finds himself in the media spotlight, a sudden hero, and uses the limelight at first to pitch his book of essays, and then later to start up a whole new political party.

To Jason’s surprised delight, his views find fertile soil amongst America’s cynical citizenry. As his ideas catch on, however, those in power begin to fight back – in increasingly nasty ways. Set against a backdrop of an America riven by years of political and corporate scandals, FREEDOM FIRST is a tale of a nation in crisis rising to the challenge of redefining itself. It is also a tale of individual bravery and cowardice, wisdom and naïveté, idealism and pragmatism, treachery and sacrifice. Amidst assassinations, recriminations, riots and redemptions, Jason – and the American people – learn the value of both tradition and innovation in politics. By the novel’s end, nothing and nobody in America is the same.

The main implements of virtual reality are in medical and military training. Technology such as flight simulators make it much safer for pilots to learn important skills, as the virtual plane reacts in exactly the same way as a real plane would. Hydraulics and a fake cabin are used, along with real dials and controls to make the simulation as real as possible. Training doctors in virtual reality is also a more logical way to deal with a very practical problem. Instead of mutilating corpses or even worse, practicing on live patients it is possible to perform surgeries and operations without ever putting anyone in real harm! Of course there are less practical uses, and hopefully one day in the future the latest games will all come out in virtual reality.