I'm trying to find the song that plays during the ending credits to the movie Eklavya. It is basically the "instrumental" version to the song "The Love Theme"????

I really loved just the music that played during the credits and I'm trying to find it online, but not much luck so far. Let me know if any of you peeps know where I could find it and download it.

Gracias

Lemme set the scene. I'm on the Gold Line, heading to campus to finish The Paper That Wouldn't Die. There's a dude sitting near the door -- a middle-aged white guy who I'll call Conversation Man. The train is half full. Conversation Man starts up a conversation with me. I respond in a friendly way, but I don't much like carrying on conversations with strangers on the train, so I wait until there's a lull and go into my "There's something urgent on my phone that I must attend to by pushing buttons" routine.

At a stop, Psychobitch gets on, pushing a covered stroller and carrying a two-year-old.

Conversation Man: Would you like this seat?
Psychobitch: No, I'll stand.
Conversation Man: Are you sure? You don't wanna sit down with your kid?
Psychobitch: No.
Two-year-old: (drops bottle)
Me: (looks for where it fell to see if I can reach it)
Conversation Man: I'll get it. (gets up, retrieves bottle, hands to Two-year-old)
Two-year-old: (drops bottle)
Me: (reaches down, picks it up)
Psychobitch: She's upset, just leave it.
Me: (puts bottle in cupholder on stroller)

Conversation Man: Got another one in there? (points to stroller, which is covered with a blanket) They're a handful, aren't they.
Psychobitch: (turning around to face him) WHY DO YOU CARE? DO YOU HAVE KIDS? DID YOU BEAR ANY?
Rest of train: ??
Conversation Man: I was just trying to make conversation ...
Psychobitch: WELL DON'T FUCKING BOTHER. YOU SHUT THE FUCK UP, ALL RIGHT?
Rest of train: ?!
Conversation Man: Well excuse the fuck outta me ...
Psychobitch: SHUT THE FUCK UP! YOU SHUT UP! WHY DON'T YOU LEAVE US ALONE? YOU DON'T HAVE ANY RESPECT!
Conversation Man: Why don't you just turn around, then?
Psychobitch: DON'T YOU FUCKING TELL ME WHAT TO DO, ASSHOLE! YOU STAY THE FUCK AWAY FROM MY GIRLS, YOU FUCKING SICKO!
Rest of train: !!
Conversation Man: (gets up and moves to the other end of the car, muttering)
Psychobitch: YEAH YOU BETTER WALK AWAY, ASSHOLE! FUCK YOU! YOU GOTTTA LEARN SOME RESPECT FOR A LADY! DO YOU EVEN KNOW WHAT A LADY IS?!
Rest of train: (thinking as one) Well, now we sure as hell know what a lady isn't!

(pause)

Psychobitch: (to rest of train) WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU LOOKING AT? ARE YOU ENJOYING THE SHOW?! MAYBE YOU SHOULD FUCKING STARE SOME MORE! YOU DON'T HAVE ANY RESPECT!
Random guy: You're the one who needs to learn some respect, lady.
Psychobitch: (goes OFF for another five minutes in the same vein)
Rest of train: (decides not to even look at Psychobitch anymore, lest we all get accused of wanting to molest her kids or something)

It was ... surreal. It should have been in Webster's under "Overreaction". Conversation Man seemed like a nice enough guy. Sure, he could have been a child molester, but so could anyone else on that train. He wasn't rubbing himself, he wasn't leering, he wasn't popping a chub as far as I could tell ... he didn't do anything to make a rational person assume he meant any harm to the kids. He was just chatting with whoever was near him.

I feel sorry for the little girls. They're not gonna trust ANYONE when they grow up.

If you haven't seen this, and you love bollywood, then you really should. Honestly, can you picture either John McCain or Hillary Clinton doing Bollywood? I think not! The election is over! Screw West Virginia, if you've got the Bollywood vote your on your way to White House!

Upon viewing YouTube footage from the China earthquake, I feel the need to once again give this PSA:

If an earthquake hits your area, DO NOT RUN OUTSIDE. Inside, you mainly have to worry about a few things falling over. Outside you have to worry about glass, bricks, building facades, trees and parts thereof, people driving their cars off the street, power lines coming down, transformers exploding, etc etc etc.

So unless your building is VISIBLY COMING APART and about to fall on your head, stay inside until the shaking stops!

_{PS this includes you guys in the South and Midwest too.}

Nirvak Singh has a blog post about a paper he heard from Davesh Kapur in which he reflects on the real difference between China and India. Certainly there is no discounting the role of centralization that China's authoritarian governnment played in the economic moves China has made, and contrastingly, the much less streamlined approached democracy has entailed for India. Many economists praise the Chinese totalitarian government as "quick and versitile" while India's democratic institutions are "slow and lumbering." Still Singh puts these aside and approaches the issue ideologically sideways which presents food for thought

"My reading of the role of ideas (not necessarily completely in line with Kapur’s) is that China saw a much sharper shift in the conception of what forces drive material progress. China’s experience with central control of all facets of society and economy, the sharp discontinuities it had already undergone, and the ability of the Communist Party to reach down to the local level, meant that the country’s ideational shift was comprehensive and far-reaching. In India, on the other hand, economic reform has not been accompanied by a similar sea change in perceptions. Liberalisation has been seen by many in the bureaucracy or political leadership as a necessary evil, to be implemented grudgingly on an as-needed basis, rather than as a fundamentally new approach to organising the economy. It is important to realise that this is not a difference between elite and masses—it is large segments of the elite that have failed to change their attitudes, despite the failures of the old Indian model of supposedly state-led development. The result is a false equation of concern for distributive justice with a preservation of the ancien régime, or with restoration of some non-existent golden age of governance."

Here the issue of ideology is not simply about an economic system, it is about a new way of thinking, a change in core values and the political will to follow through. Here again we veer perilously close (as G.W. Bush did once) to praising dictatorship as "easier to get things done." But what is more important I think is that India's reticence represents a failure in the marketplace of ideas of the free marketeers to make their case to the entire populace. All boats must be lifted and a transition from one economic system to another requires not the sink or swim callousness of Milton (or Thomas) Friedman, but clear sense of how people are going to be taken care of.

In our own country, if we are going to prepare for the global revolution that looks to be knocking at our door we cannot expect that a causal "jobs will be created, jobs will be lost, that's life in the global economy" approach is going to be successful. We must strengthen our governmental safety net. It is only when people have the confidence that their economic and physical well being will not be put in jeopardy that they will be willing to take the risks necessary to be competitive in the global economy. Otherwise we will continue to lose out to China and India.

http://leninology.blogspot.com/2008/05/soaring-cost-of-living-under-new-labour.html

The baseline rate of inflation is now 3% and the headline 4.2%. This will clobber workers already suffering pay cuts and Victorian working conditions. The BBC says that the proportion of incomes going on essential goods has risen to over 30% - I don't know where these statistics come from, because in my household, what with the cost of rent, food, clothing, energy, water, council taxes and so on it has always been closer to 75%, and it's higher now. New Labour's neoliberal policy package relies on its promise to keep inflation down, not just as a means of suppressing pay demands, but also as a promise to voters that their incomes won't suffer sudden, big real terms cuts. Aside from everything else that was wrong with the policy, it was always an illusory idea when commodity prices are determined by global speculation without large-scale state intervention. Governments worldwide are talking about raising export tarrifs and price controls, given the furious social upheaval that rising costs have unleashed. Even Hillary Clinton is proposing temporary price controls on petrol and mortage interest (for this, liberal Obama-supporters upbraid her for failing to understand "basic economic theory"), while McCain is co-sponsoring a bill with Ted Kennedy to control prices on medicines. These are hardly radical measures, but don't expect New Labour to imitate them. Any help this government offers with the bills will be strictly in the form of modest tax-cuts, but as tax receipts fall with the economic downturn, the temptation would surely be to raise the shortfall through indirect measures such as VAT, or by borrowing billions. Either way, the Tories - whose past record in government is gradually sliding down the memory hole - are likely to hammer them for this.

Since these price increases are coming at the same time as New Labour pay cuts for the public sector, I would expect an increased tempo in industrial action. In 2007, the number of working days lost to strike action grew 20-fold over the year, with Prison Officers, Royal Mail workers, civil servants, lecturers and others out on the picket lines. It was the second highest rate of strikes in a decade. Although New Labour's early rule was characterised by a decreasing incidence of strike action, a momentum has built up since the firefighters dispute in late 2002. It's pretty far from the peaks of industrial action in the 1970s and 1980s, but as unions increasingly co-ordinate their actions in response to a co-ordinated offensive by the government, last year's record could well be broken. That changes matters. The Tories might like to capitalise on fears of a new 'winter of discontent', but this also serves to remind people of the hated Thatcher years that followed. Given that Cameron's strategy is to try and woo working class voters suffering, and pose as a 'progressive', he won't necessarily do himself any favours with loud union-bashing. Of course, talking to business audiences, the Tories are all for breaking the public sector unions, but in the context of strikes that will widely be seen as legitimate, they may decide to restrain their rhetoric a bit.

Union leaders are pleading with the government to tax the rich and forge a new election deal, modelled on the Warwick Agreement, in advance of 2010. But if New Labour failed to uphold its promises last time round, there is no reason why anyone should believe them this time. And why on earth would union members want to be party to an ass-saving deal with a government that gratuitously attacks them? Fortunately, the PCS is looking at further national strike action at its upcoming conference. Healthcare workers are being balloted on the government's pathetic pay offer, and if they vote against it, they may be out as well. Further education unions have rejected their pay offer. The NUT's recent, highly successful national strike action is likely to result in further action. If you want your money back, you better hope for a big co-ordinated stoppage, and soon.

http://leninology.blogspot.com/2008/05/friendenemy-distinction.html

For example, let’s take, again, Iraq. This is my supreme example. They went there to do what? (a) To defundamentalize the country, to introduce their—some kind of a secular democracy, which would then serve as a model for the others; (b) to contain Iran. Now, three, four years later, what’s the result? (a) Almost two million, all the educated, secular, middle classes, majority of them left the country. The country is more religiously fundamentalist than ever. (b) We know that among the Shia political elite, the orientation is fundamentally pro-Iranian. So isn’t this a nice paradox that the ultimate result in Iraq of the US intervention is the exact opposite?

...

This is also my basic view about the entire Middle East Arab-Israeli conflict, that it’s a wrong conflict. There shouldn’t have been that kind of a conflict. Now, of course, we have to deal with it. But this, I think, is the true triumph of the enemy, not that the bad guys win, but that the very conflict you are dealing with is a wrong conflict. If I’m told, “You have to choose Jews or Arabs,” sorry, no, I refuse to choose. I only—the only thing I can do is honestly to criticize both sides.

And so on. It would be useful to know who this "enemy" is that lured the US army into the wrong conflict with Iraq, and forced Zionist armies to ethnically cleanse the greater part of historical Palestine before subjecting the rest to conquest and colonization. I gather that this figure is quite important in Zizek's understanding of the Middle East. This "enemy" doesn't have too many obvious attributes, but we can say for sure he/she/it has been around for a while (at least since 1948 and perhaps since the first Aliya or even before then, who knows?), is capable of Mephistophelean manipulation of great powers at long range, and is somehow connected to the Orient (the 'bad' Orient, the 'Semitic' Orient, the one that failed to exhibit precocious signs of civilization).

It would also be useful to know who this "we" is? And who might be the friends of "we"? Perhaps this "we" is surreptitiously produced after the fact of the "enemy", whose contours remain as yet mysterious. On the other hand, part of what characterises this "we" might be the capitalist mode of production which, strange to relate, is apparently threatened with destruction by torture and gated communities and slums (as in previous Zizekiana, liberalism, capitalism and democracy are almost synonyms). Suppose "we" is a liberal capitalist, faced with crises brought on by "our" system, trying to stop it from going too far ere "we" perish, but lured into fatal misconduct by an enemy who perhaps doesn't share those, er, values. Are we approaching an answer yet? Reductively, "we" could be a Eurocentric cultural theorist for whom facts are relatively unimportant (Lenin did not refer to imperialism as the "last" stage of capitalism, Parisian rioters did not burn down "their own mosques", "state socialist" countries do not in fact have the "worst" ecological record, etc), and who has some fantasies to traverse?

I had an odd idea of how to get chinese gold farmers out of the north american edition of world of warcraft.

Code up some wiki-like software that works via the in game whisper or chat system and fill it with pro-democracy/anti-chinese state content. Then the chinese firewall will block them.

Whispering certain unapproved chinese terms to farmers who are spamming might also get them blocked by the chinese firewall, and probably be easier to do.

So does anyone know some forbidden words that could be easily kept at the ready?