Let Haneef return with self-respect, says wife
I feel bad for her.
Large and organized religions can sometimes be a very sweet deal for men, aye, but I hold that women have been routinely shortchanged by religion. A fundamental wisdom of large religions has been that women are either auction-ready chattel or are to be avoided. Hardly a flattering assessment.
I am fairly certain that women have only a passing tolerance for loud religion-mongering. All the philosophical dickwaving about whose god has the bigger biceps leaves them cold. Religion is far more personal to women than it is to men; they might nod and smile at their husbands or boyfriends out of patient consideration, but I suspect that they mostly go along to get along.
I further suspect that they are faintly amused when they see the reflecting on deep cosmic questions by someone who on any given day cannot reliably locate his laundry.
There is a reason why there is little empowerment of women in deeply religious societies. Otherwise it would be a huge problem for the men there. Because then, when we start going on about global Jihad or bringing the light of Christ to the world or banning Orkut for its anti-Hindu messages, they would tell us to shut the fuck up and take the eight o'clock to work.
Most religion is, to put it simply, anti-women, and I think that quite a few women have the smarts to instinctively latch on to this truth.
This is why I am amazed when I see the occasional woman come down violently on the side of Allah, or the laws of Manu, or whatever-the-fuck. I am amazed because I find it hard to reconcile myself to the sort of denial and obtuseness that this requires.
A woman coming out and marching for religion is like fattened beef-cattle handing out flyers for Outback Steakhouse.
But I ramble on so.
To repeat, I feel bad for Firdous Ashriya. Indeed, I feel bad for all women who put up with the shite that we put out in the name of our respective sky-genies.
Pratibha, Pritam, Putli Bai... what's the difference? What the hell do we need a President for? Show me an Indian who likes rolling up his money and smoking it, and I'll show you someone who needs a President.
Idiocy enshrined in the Constitution is still idiocy.
Empty Rashtrapati Bhavan and turn the fucker into a creche or something.
Idiocy enshrined in the Constitution is still idiocy.
Empty Rashtrapati Bhavan and turn the fucker into a creche or something.
Simply beautiful
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdDHsehW01M
Art can be additive or subtractive. Layering oil on canvas is additive. Sculpting a figure from a block of stone is subtractive. This one here seems to be both.
Just breathtakingly beautiful. Watch it.
Art can be additive or subtractive. Layering oil on canvas is additive. Sculpting a figure from a block of stone is subtractive. This one here seems to be both.
Just breathtakingly beautiful. Watch it.
Is there a man in manmohan?
Don't target any community: PM to UK
Why does this insect not miss the slightest opportunity to go and grovel before foreigners, just so he can mollify a militant vote bank at home?
Why do I cram a question and an answer in the same sentence?
Why does this insect not miss the slightest opportunity to go and grovel before foreigners, just so he can mollify a militant vote bank at home?
Why do I cram a question and an answer in the same sentence?
I'm swearing off Rediff
Glasgow attackers were resigned to death: Cops
That's it. No more rediff for me. When a newspaper starts printing boldfaced lies, it's time to take your business elsewhere.
Stop lying to us rediff. Stop calling Khafeel Ahmed an Indian Muslim. What exactly are you smoking?
Even a particularly slow child knows that Indian Muslims don't do that. The bruthas just ain't down with that terrorism shit, man.
Dontchoo also know that it is required learning in High School Dhimmitude 101 and therefore common knowledge today that it is mostly lack of education and poverty that drives ordinary Muslims to have this sudden desire to turn uninvolved bystanders into charcoal? Educated, affluent Muslims just don't do this shit. So stop calling him an engineer. He can't possibly be. Where is your journalistic integrity?
Besides, Islam itself, having had a peaceful beginning and having been spread through a rough sort of homebred loving kindness, quite naturally does not sanction this sort of tomfoolery. I challenge you to show me one verse--just one--in the Quran that says: Thou shalt, with some regularity, bring burning trucks to the infidels. Can you? You can't. I knew it. Case closed.
Khafeel Ahmed is not Indian, not a Muslim, and not educated. I, for one, refuse to believe any of that bull. So stop with the lies already.
Wankers.
That's it. No more rediff for me. When a newspaper starts printing boldfaced lies, it's time to take your business elsewhere.
Stop lying to us rediff. Stop calling Khafeel Ahmed an Indian Muslim. What exactly are you smoking?
Even a particularly slow child knows that Indian Muslims don't do that. The bruthas just ain't down with that terrorism shit, man.
Dontchoo also know that it is required learning in High School Dhimmitude 101 and therefore common knowledge today that it is mostly lack of education and poverty that drives ordinary Muslims to have this sudden desire to turn uninvolved bystanders into charcoal? Educated, affluent Muslims just don't do this shit. So stop calling him an engineer. He can't possibly be. Where is your journalistic integrity?
Besides, Islam itself, having had a peaceful beginning and having been spread through a rough sort of homebred loving kindness, quite naturally does not sanction this sort of tomfoolery. I challenge you to show me one verse--just one--in the Quran that says: Thou shalt, with some regularity, bring burning trucks to the infidels. Can you? You can't. I knew it. Case closed.
Khafeel Ahmed is not Indian, not a Muslim, and not educated. I, for one, refuse to believe any of that bull. So stop with the lies already.
Wankers.
Pardon the Morbidity
There are certain expressions that I have never understood. One of them is: unnatural death.
What is an unnatural death? All death is natural. As a matter of fact, it seems to be mandated by nature. No exceptions. If you know of an exception, I would suggest that you publish.
Some people consider a homicide to be unnatural death. Do you consider that human death caused by another human is somehow more unnatural than death caused by bacteria? A human being is as much an agent of nature as is a bacterium. So what is unnatural about this? It may be sad, horrible, or illegal; but it is not unnatural.
Maybe what people really mean by unnatural death is premature death. But premature how? What would cause maturity in a person so that when he dies by whatever means, people no longer consider his death unnatural? Age? Reaching some sort of a goal?
What age makes a death natural? Or what goal does a human need to get to which will no longer make the rest of us classify his death as unnatural?
Getting to have sex?
Having children? (How many?)
Landing a good job?
Gathering wealth? (How much?)
Having made the world a better place? (Too vague; what makes the world a better place?)
So this entire business of what is natural or unnatural about a death seems to boil down to the question of some sort of a purpose of a human life, which when completed, makes us a little less uncomfortable about its end and stops us from calling it unnatural or unreal or whatever. So what is the purpose of a human life?
And no, "42" is not a good answer. And yes, I need a meaningful hobby.
What is an unnatural death? All death is natural. As a matter of fact, it seems to be mandated by nature. No exceptions. If you know of an exception, I would suggest that you publish.
Some people consider a homicide to be unnatural death. Do you consider that human death caused by another human is somehow more unnatural than death caused by bacteria? A human being is as much an agent of nature as is a bacterium. So what is unnatural about this? It may be sad, horrible, or illegal; but it is not unnatural.
Maybe what people really mean by unnatural death is premature death. But premature how? What would cause maturity in a person so that when he dies by whatever means, people no longer consider his death unnatural? Age? Reaching some sort of a goal?
What age makes a death natural? Or what goal does a human need to get to which will no longer make the rest of us classify his death as unnatural?
Getting to have sex?
Having children? (How many?)
Landing a good job?
Gathering wealth? (How much?)
Having made the world a better place? (Too vague; what makes the world a better place?)
So this entire business of what is natural or unnatural about a death seems to boil down to the question of some sort of a purpose of a human life, which when completed, makes us a little less uncomfortable about its end and stops us from calling it unnatural or unreal or whatever. So what is the purpose of a human life?
And no, "42" is not a good answer. And yes, I need a meaningful hobby.
Enough is enough!
I'm sick and fucking tired of a particular conversation that keeps happening between me and those who believe. The conversation goes roughly as below.
So what is wrong with that conversation, you ask. It seems like a natural conversation between an atheist and a believer. But it is not a natural conversation. It is a perverted, upside-down discourse. To see how that is so, let's turn that conversation on its head.
But the second conversation is not the norm in polite company, and the first one happens regularly. Do you know why? Because it is somehow assumed that the default position is the belief in a God who is all-loving, yet who sometimes unaccountably shoves giant tsunami-shaped dildos up humanity's ass to demonstrate his love. If wholesale and indiscriminate slaughter of men, women, and children is love, then fuck that shit. I spit on that love.
It is assumed that the default position is theism and we the skeptics are the deviation from this position. That is so assbackwards and fucked up that the mind boggles.
We are all born atheists. So that is the default position. And then, depending on which group of people get to brainwash you before you reach the age of consent, you start believing in an invisible sky bastard with the head of an elephant, or in a murderous goat-fucking Middle Eastern God pimped by a child molesting medieval Arab death merchant, or in a two thousand year old Jewish zombie who had to get nailed to a fucking tree just so you could safely screw over your friends and co-workers all your life, beat up your wife, jack off thinking about the neighbour's pre-teen daughter, and still get to go to heaven. It is so retarded that just the thought makes me want to throw up in my mouth a little.
Yet ninety percent of humanity believes in variations of this mind-numbing nonsense because it is easier and more comforting to simply accept the lies and bullshit fed to you by your family and peers instead of taking the harder road of thinking for yourself and making independent decisions about yourself. Pathetic.
Doesn't it strike you that if indeed there existed an omni-everything god with oversight of all humanity, the knowledge of this god would be uniform? That there would not be the need of pre-adolescent brainwashing by your well-meaning family and friends that turns you variously into Hindus, Muslims, and Christians. That you would instinctively be able to figure out which one the One True God is and not have to cut each other's throats to prove whose god is the bestest. You cannot do this automagically today because there is no fucking god.
No you see, I am not a skeptic. I am a regular average guy. You are fucking gullible.
Me: I don't believe in a God as is popularly defined.
You: Ah, so you are a skeptic. Skepticism is all well and good, but don't you think that there is something higher than you?
So what is wrong with that conversation, you ask. It seems like a natural conversation between an atheist and a believer. But it is not a natural conversation. It is a perverted, upside-down discourse. To see how that is so, let's turn that conversation on its head.
You: I believe in God.
Me: Ah, you're gullible. Gullibility is all well and good, but don't you think that the stark reality is that this is all that there is? No one is responsible for you but yourself.
But the second conversation is not the norm in polite company, and the first one happens regularly. Do you know why? Because it is somehow assumed that the default position is the belief in a God who is all-loving, yet who sometimes unaccountably shoves giant tsunami-shaped dildos up humanity's ass to demonstrate his love. If wholesale and indiscriminate slaughter of men, women, and children is love, then fuck that shit. I spit on that love.
It is assumed that the default position is theism and we the skeptics are the deviation from this position. That is so assbackwards and fucked up that the mind boggles.
We are all born atheists. So that is the default position. And then, depending on which group of people get to brainwash you before you reach the age of consent, you start believing in an invisible sky bastard with the head of an elephant, or in a murderous goat-fucking Middle Eastern God pimped by a child molesting medieval Arab death merchant, or in a two thousand year old Jewish zombie who had to get nailed to a fucking tree just so you could safely screw over your friends and co-workers all your life, beat up your wife, jack off thinking about the neighbour's pre-teen daughter, and still get to go to heaven. It is so retarded that just the thought makes me want to throw up in my mouth a little.
Yet ninety percent of humanity believes in variations of this mind-numbing nonsense because it is easier and more comforting to simply accept the lies and bullshit fed to you by your family and peers instead of taking the harder road of thinking for yourself and making independent decisions about yourself. Pathetic.
Doesn't it strike you that if indeed there existed an omni-everything god with oversight of all humanity, the knowledge of this god would be uniform? That there would not be the need of pre-adolescent brainwashing by your well-meaning family and friends that turns you variously into Hindus, Muslims, and Christians. That you would instinctively be able to figure out which one the One True God is and not have to cut each other's throats to prove whose god is the bestest. You cannot do this automagically today because there is no fucking god.
No you see, I am not a skeptic. I am a regular average guy. You are fucking gullible.
Morality is temporal
This morning, I listened to a man on radio who argued against same-sex marriage. I don't recall his name and I can't be arsed to find out, but he has apparently made a bit of a career defending the institution of marriage, i.e. he has written a book.
I don't recall the name of the book and I can't be arsed to find out, but I have it on good authority that it has pages and stuff.
The man was a guest on a liberal talk show, and so most people who called in asked unfriendly questions. Someone pointed out that marriage is a social contract. The definition of many social contracts has changed over time and people have changed their minds with it. So why didn't the guest be a little flexible and change his mind?
The guest answered that people have changed their minds when some worthy social issue was in question. If this was, say, giving women the vote, he would have changed his mind, but he would definitely not change his mind about men poking at each other's bums. No siree.
As I was listening to the guest on radio, it suddenly occurred to me that no matter what he says now, the guest would NOT have changed his mind about the things that he says are worth changing ones mind about. No matter what he says, a hundred years ago, he would have been up on a platform arguing that he fails to see why women will ever need to vote. Two hundred years ago, he would have been arguing that those dirty negroes have no damned business working for pay outside of a cotton field. Someone who loudly prescribes discrimination against a group of people today based on what end of a human they prefer to stick their willy into is not likely to have displayed liberal views yesterday.
But why dwell on a random conservative guest on talk radio? What happens when we raise the mirror to ourselves?
A lot of us possess this sort of a self-image bias. We believe that we are better than we really are. A lot of us believe that we are more moral, more liberal, more intellectual, and more talented than we are.
Morality is temporal. Most of us are completely comfortable defending the morality of long established notions. Even gay rights has been around for some time. But how many of us would have stood up for something when it was just a renegade idea? Today we support a woman's right to vote because somebody else fought for and won that cause. We express our approval of the result, not necessarily the cause. When we defend the equality of sexes, or the equality of races, or separation of religion and state, we defend a result. It is easy--and superfluous--to defend a victory. How many of us would, were we to be magically displaced in time, fight to actually win that victory? And how many of us, like this guest, would actually have fought against the cause that seems so natural now?
Don't see what I am saying? Well, consider these ideas which are not popular today and see how many of them you can get behind. How many urban Indian men would be comfortable with the idea of the complete sexual liberation of Indian women? Or at the very least press for a sexual standard for women equal to that applied to themselves? How many Indian men that you personally know would, in your estimate, take as completely normal the prospect of a marriage to someone with five previous relationships? How many Muslims in Islamic countries would stand up and defend the right to apostasy? How many Hindus still consider caste to be an important factor in marriage and sometimes in employment? And how many other Indians simply humour this first group and go along with the plan, instead of informing them, in straightforward language, that they are fucking idiots?
How many American politicians can publicly discuss their atheism without at the same time risking their careers? How many people would endorse the legality of completely polygamous relationships where many husbands live with many wives and raise unmarked children in a communal way, out of personal choice?
These ideas are not popular in their respective cultural domains because their time has not come. At some future time, when somebody has won the cause, we will vigorously defend these ideas. Some of us will appear on future talk shows and hold up these ideas as worthy causes, while simultaneously arguing against a an even futurer(?) idea. Almost certainly. But the question is, would we fight for them now?
I don't recall the name of the book and I can't be arsed to find out, but I have it on good authority that it has pages and stuff.
The man was a guest on a liberal talk show, and so most people who called in asked unfriendly questions. Someone pointed out that marriage is a social contract. The definition of many social contracts has changed over time and people have changed their minds with it. So why didn't the guest be a little flexible and change his mind?
The guest answered that people have changed their minds when some worthy social issue was in question. If this was, say, giving women the vote, he would have changed his mind, but he would definitely not change his mind about men poking at each other's bums. No siree.
As I was listening to the guest on radio, it suddenly occurred to me that no matter what he says now, the guest would NOT have changed his mind about the things that he says are worth changing ones mind about. No matter what he says, a hundred years ago, he would have been up on a platform arguing that he fails to see why women will ever need to vote. Two hundred years ago, he would have been arguing that those dirty negroes have no damned business working for pay outside of a cotton field. Someone who loudly prescribes discrimination against a group of people today based on what end of a human they prefer to stick their willy into is not likely to have displayed liberal views yesterday.
But why dwell on a random conservative guest on talk radio? What happens when we raise the mirror to ourselves?
A lot of us possess this sort of a self-image bias. We believe that we are better than we really are. A lot of us believe that we are more moral, more liberal, more intellectual, and more talented than we are.
Morality is temporal. Most of us are completely comfortable defending the morality of long established notions. Even gay rights has been around for some time. But how many of us would have stood up for something when it was just a renegade idea? Today we support a woman's right to vote because somebody else fought for and won that cause. We express our approval of the result, not necessarily the cause. When we defend the equality of sexes, or the equality of races, or separation of religion and state, we defend a result. It is easy--and superfluous--to defend a victory. How many of us would, were we to be magically displaced in time, fight to actually win that victory? And how many of us, like this guest, would actually have fought against the cause that seems so natural now?
Don't see what I am saying? Well, consider these ideas which are not popular today and see how many of them you can get behind. How many urban Indian men would be comfortable with the idea of the complete sexual liberation of Indian women? Or at the very least press for a sexual standard for women equal to that applied to themselves? How many Indian men that you personally know would, in your estimate, take as completely normal the prospect of a marriage to someone with five previous relationships? How many Muslims in Islamic countries would stand up and defend the right to apostasy? How many Hindus still consider caste to be an important factor in marriage and sometimes in employment? And how many other Indians simply humour this first group and go along with the plan, instead of informing them, in straightforward language, that they are fucking idiots?
How many American politicians can publicly discuss their atheism without at the same time risking their careers? How many people would endorse the legality of completely polygamous relationships where many husbands live with many wives and raise unmarked children in a communal way, out of personal choice?
These ideas are not popular in their respective cultural domains because their time has not come. At some future time, when somebody has won the cause, we will vigorously defend these ideas. Some of us will appear on future talk shows and hold up these ideas as worthy causes, while simultaneously arguing against a an even futurer(?) idea. Almost certainly. But the question is, would we fight for them now?
Beautiful World
My my my it’s a beautiful world
I like swimming in the sea
I like to go out beyond the white breakers
Where a man can still be free (or a woman if you are one)
I like swimming in the sea.
My my my it’s a beautiful world
I like drinking Irish tea
With a little bit of lapsang souchong
I like making my own tea.
--Colin Hay, Beautiful World
I like acoustic sounds. I've always liked the acoustic versions of Colin Hay's songs. The song Overkill (acoustic version) has just three guitars. And the wondeful thing is that you can separate the sound of each guitar in that song. Like a tapestry in which each individual thread is brilliant and distinct, yet blend pleasingly. How's that for being poetic, bitches?
Beautiful World is one of my favourites. Listen to it if you can.
Waiting for My Real Life to Begin is brilliant.
And if you have ever, ever loved somebody, you should listen to the song I Just Don't Think I'll Ever Get Over You. It puts to music what you have always wanted to tell her, but couldn't find either the words or the humility.
Listen to the dead Greek, Part II
Somewhere in the middle of the rant that was my last post, I held forth that: ...no matter how informed or involved you are, at a bare minimum you must be informed and involved about the politics of discrimination, because it always either affects you or a friend.
Someone pointed out in an email that this statement is straight from the Department of Redundancy Department because any politics always affects you or a friend.
Not really.
Someone pointed out in an email that this statement is straight from the Department of Redundancy Department because any politics always affects you or a friend.
Not really.
Consider: Pujya Mahamanya Mata Sri Sri Sri Sonia-ji-ji-ji (a single "ji" cannot even begin to describe the respect an Indian feels for her) decides that she is tired of the scenery. She therefore makes up her mind to swap out Manmohan Singh and bring in Arjun Singh for the job of Prime Minister. This is undeniably politics, but in real terms, it changes nothing. It means nothing to me or you. Rentboys are, by defintion, freely transposable.
Listen to the dead Greek
One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors.
-- Plato
Everyone is not uniformly political. I suppose that like many other things, political awareness is also normally distributed in a population. Take me, for instance. I am averagely aware of the politics of India. I am aware that a faux-Centrist, faux-secular party called Congress (I) rules my country. I am also aware that it is embarassingly indicative of an organization's history of personality-cult politics and insecurity when it feels compelled to tack on the initials of an important member at the end of its name. It's like if the Republicans called themselves Republican Party (L), or if Microsoft called itself Microsoft (WHG-III).
I am also vaguely aware of the political positions that this party takes (something about some sort of worship of a pale goddess) and the party's organizational structure and functioning (something about some sort of worship of a pale goddess).
I know that the top job in my country is held down by a gentleman known as Manmohan Singh, who, as some people tell me, has high-quality education coming out of his ears. I am also aware that said people are completely unaware of the tremendous amount of instructive irony involved when you tout the lofty academic credentials of a nominal vertebrate.
I know what greases the wheels of the political machinery in some of the states of India. I know what drives the averagely informed voter to make his choices because I am averagely informed myself. I am also averagely involved because I occasionally express my opinions in the presence of company or on this blog. I also sometimes sign petitions. Let that be known. God alone knows who reads those petitions, but hey, I've never been stingy with my autographs, okay? I cannot vote any more because I am non-resident, but I try to make up for that by being a little more vocal than is socially pleasing.
So I am averagely informed and averagely involved. And there are some who are far more aware than I am, and some who are far less so. But I think that no matter how informed or involved you are, at a bare minimum you must be informed and involved about the politics of discrimination, because it always either affects you or a friend. Caste and religion based affirmative action is discriminatory politics.
A recent conversation that I had with someone somewhere went somewhat like this.
I, Sougata: Have you heard? Manmohan Singh has proposed religion-based reservations in education and employment (both private and public sectors).
[Please gather from the above that I sometimes speak in parantheses.]
Person I just met: Really?
I, Sougata: Yes. Isn't that terrible?
Person I just met: I wouldn't worry. These days it's getting difficult to push such things through. They don't take things lying down any more. Don't worry. They'll fight it. It won't happen.
He thus dismissed my fears and the conversation ended there. It takes interest on both sides in something to maintain a conversation about that thing.
I like this guy's faith. He says "They" won't let it happen.
Yes, I am sure "They" won't.
I like his detachment. He says "They" will fight.
Oh, "They" are just itchin', I imagine.
You know, it is easy to live in a world where others fight your fights. It is easy to live in a world where other people change the world by marching with a banner that has your desires scribbled on it. I want to live in that world, because it is warm and full of steaming hot chocolate and kittens that will never grow into mangy, horny cats.
I have a question: Who is this amorphous "They"? I get the distinct impression that there is this large and mysterious organization resident in India with a huge payroll that is registered under the official name "They", and that the sole revenue-earning activity of said organization is to actively oppose the
There is no "They". There is no payroll. There is only "Us". Ya gots to get up and feel the feelin', luv. Others may or may not do it for you. Ask not for whom the bell tolls, it doth ring apeshit-crazy for you.
A little paranoia is sometimes good.
As an afterthought, it occurred to me that I have just bitched and moaned at length about the length of a conversation I had with someone. Now if that's not a new low in my already very low social life, I don't know what is. Therefore, without further howdo, I'll climb off my soapbox and stop whining like a Bob Dylan song.
The Joys of Polygamy
This post is really a follow-up to Balajee's comment on my previous post. I have wondered too, as Balajee does, about when certain reforms to a certain religion (which we shall coyly not name until the next paragraph) will take place.
Actually, the real question is: why should we care if Islam carries out marital reforms, specifically? Well, apart from the obvious human angle, there is a personal side. What if one of our daughters or sisters decides to marry into Islam? Will she have an adequate safety-net in case the marriage goes south? What if she marries a non-Muslim who migrates to find work in an Islamic country and who then on a lark decides to convert and take a second (and third, and fourth) wife? These are questions worth thinking about because these hypotheticals are not so much of a stretch, really.
What I find particularly scary is that even in a supposedly progressive society such as India, a Muslim woman will probably find it difficult to get things like alimony from an unwilling husband. Especially so if the issue can be politicized enough.
I seriously don't understand women who naively defend what can only be called thinly veiled (no pun intended) misogyny. I was reading an article written by someone named Shaheen Ahmed (who is most certainly a woman) and is called American, Ambitious, and Muslim. The article is quite on the mark for the most part and talks about the unfair stereotypes that Muslim women have to tolerate in the United States, especially post 9/11.
And then somewhere in the middle of the article, the objectivity breaks down and the author starts lamenting the absence of Sharia in the United States. Here's one paragraph:
I find it bizarre that the author hints that the United States should recognize polygamy to solve the problem of marital rights of Muslim women.
Funny, I would have thought that the solution lies in precisely the opposite direction. Instead of suggesting that the rest of us reform and recognize polygamy, we should suggest that Islam reform and refuse to recognize polygamy.
But the latter and more humane solution is opaque to the author. What can I say? Such is the condition of the brainwashed, Balajee. As I live and learn, I find that conditioning is a very powerful force. More powerful an influence on a human being than anything I have personally seen. Every emotion bends in defeat to conditioning--humanity, compassion, fellow-feeling, love... you name it. Conditioning conquers all.
Those with the no backbone no minds of their own are most affected by conditioning, of course, but I suspect that none of us are completely immune to it.
Edit: The article spoken of can be found here.
Actually, the real question is: why should we care if Islam carries out marital reforms, specifically? Well, apart from the obvious human angle, there is a personal side. What if one of our daughters or sisters decides to marry into Islam? Will she have an adequate safety-net in case the marriage goes south? What if she marries a non-Muslim who migrates to find work in an Islamic country and who then on a lark decides to convert and take a second (and third, and fourth) wife? These are questions worth thinking about because these hypotheticals are not so much of a stretch, really.
What I find particularly scary is that even in a supposedly progressive society such as India, a Muslim woman will probably find it difficult to get things like alimony from an unwilling husband. Especially so if the issue can be politicized enough.
I seriously don't understand women who naively defend what can only be called thinly veiled (no pun intended) misogyny. I was reading an article written by someone named Shaheen Ahmed (who is most certainly a woman) and is called American, Ambitious, and Muslim. The article is quite on the mark for the most part and talks about the unfair stereotypes that Muslim women have to tolerate in the United States, especially post 9/11.
And then somewhere in the middle of the article, the objectivity breaks down and the author starts lamenting the absence of Sharia in the United States. Here's one paragraph:
Muslim women also find that it can be hard to achieve their Islamic rights in the United States because religious law is not recognized. For example, women who marry under Islamic law and who do not obtain a civil marriage license find themselves at a loss when that marriage is not recognized in the American courts. Wives of polygamous husbands have no marital rights in the United States since polygamy is considered illegal. The second, third or fourth wife is considered to be in a common law marriage and her children illegitimate. As such, she has some of the same rights as a woman who has "lived together" with her boyfriend and can challenge her Islamic husband to pay child support. However, the question of alimony can be particularly difficult. The onus is on the wife to prove that they lived together as partners and she, at least, thought she was married.
I find it bizarre that the author hints that the United States should recognize polygamy to solve the problem of marital rights of Muslim women.
Funny, I would have thought that the solution lies in precisely the opposite direction. Instead of suggesting that the rest of us reform and recognize polygamy, we should suggest that Islam reform and refuse to recognize polygamy.
But the latter and more humane solution is opaque to the author. What can I say? Such is the condition of the brainwashed, Balajee. As I live and learn, I find that conditioning is a very powerful force. More powerful an influence on a human being than anything I have personally seen. Every emotion bends in defeat to conditioning--humanity, compassion, fellow-feeling, love... you name it. Conditioning conquers all.
Those with the no backbone no minds of their own are most affected by conditioning, of course, but I suspect that none of us are completely immune to it.
Edit: The article spoken of can be found here.
As if on cue...
A story from South Africa: Divorced over phone, Muslim woman moves court.
If you read that article, be sure to note the efforts of a Mr. Sulaiman Dangor, a university professor who is attempting reform. He is a good man. Note what he says in the last paragraph of that article.
I idly wonder how a reformer such as he would be treated in India. And how would an Indian court rule in such a case, if it happened now? Would Indian politicians influence that ruling? Should we turn to the Shah Bano case to answer some of these questions? Or have times changed since then? I am not being sarcastic here, just wondering about the what-ifs. I hope the answers will be in line with my strong faith in the secular credentials of the Congress government.
You know, it occurs that I may have lied about the sarcasm bit, because that last sentence there just might have been sarcasm.
If you read that article, be sure to note the efforts of a Mr. Sulaiman Dangor, a university professor who is attempting reform. He is a good man. Note what he says in the last paragraph of that article.
I idly wonder how a reformer such as he would be treated in India. And how would an Indian court rule in such a case, if it happened now? Would Indian politicians influence that ruling? Should we turn to the Shah Bano case to answer some of these questions? Or have times changed since then? I am not being sarcastic here, just wondering about the what-ifs. I hope the answers will be in line with my strong faith in the secular credentials of the Congress government.
You know, it occurs that I may have lied about the sarcasm bit, because that last sentence there just might have been sarcasm.
And Meanwhile, Down Under...
The following story appears in the Adelaide Times: Women take stand on sexual attacks.
The summary is that a popular Islamic cleric in South Australia has recently weighed in with his considered opinion on why assaults against women occur. His opinion is that the victims--namely, the women--are to blame because they invite the assaults by being dressed inappropriately. He drives home that point with a nice fond analogy that compares women with meat. Real classy stuff, if you happen to live in the 9th century.
Here's a quote from the learned cleric:
So the solution is simple, women. Stay at home, if possible in a single room. And preferably with a blanket wrapped around yourself, exposing only your nose so you can breathe, and your mouth so that you may ask for food. Because of course the sight of any other sort of skin might trigger an assault by incredibly aroused drooling men. Wait...speaking of drooling, the cleric might have a problem with the mouth bit too. So let's take that off the list. Sorry.
Also, don't talk to any grown men other than your husband. That might be dangerous.
The men of course are pure snow and not to be blamed. After all, who can fault them if they can't control their Allah-given libido and therefore feel free to violate women as they see fit.
I wonder. What exactly does this sort of an Islamic worldview offer women? Do any women go to this mosque that the cleric preaches in? If so, why?
Oh, I do understand that all this is a sweet deal for men. Consider some of the perks for men in strictly Islamic societies:
(1) They have the religious sanction to take and discard spouses as they please. Alimony? Pish-tosh.
(3) They have disproportionately less chances of being stoned to death even though it takes two tango, so to speak.
(4) They are free to marry women from outside the religion, especially if she belongs to a category known as "People of the Book", but a Muslim woman is not allowed a similar courtesy.
So my question must be: I understand why men of whatever faith defend Islam, but why do some women jump to defend it? Are they just incredibly stupid, or simply don't want to acknowdge that it is ultimately self-defeating to defend a philosophy that treats your kind as chattel?
Here's my gentle and respectful personal opinion. Any society that considers gender as sufficient grounds for disrespect of an individual and thinks that it is a bright idea to keep 50% of its population oppressed, confined and pregnant is brimming with shit. Any individual who does the same is a fucking moron.
The summary is that a popular Islamic cleric in South Australia has recently weighed in with his considered opinion on why assaults against women occur. His opinion is that the victims--namely, the women--are to blame because they invite the assaults by being dressed inappropriately. He drives home that point with a nice fond analogy that compares women with meat. Real classy stuff, if you happen to live in the 9th century.
Here's a quote from the learned cleric:
"If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street or in the garden or in the park, or in the backyard without a cover and the cats come and eat it . . . whose fault is it, the cat's or the meat?" he reportedly told his congregation. The uncovered meat is the problem," he said. "If she was in her room, in her home, no problem would have occurred."
So the solution is simple, women. Stay at home, if possible in a single room. And preferably with a blanket wrapped around yourself, exposing only your nose so you can breathe, and your mouth so that you may ask for food. Because of course the sight of any other sort of skin might trigger an assault by incredibly aroused drooling men. Wait...speaking of drooling, the cleric might have a problem with the mouth bit too. So let's take that off the list. Sorry.
Also, don't talk to any grown men other than your husband. That might be dangerous.
The men of course are pure snow and not to be blamed. After all, who can fault them if they can't control their Allah-given libido and therefore feel free to violate women as they see fit.
I wonder. What exactly does this sort of an Islamic worldview offer women? Do any women go to this mosque that the cleric preaches in? If so, why?
Oh, I do understand that all this is a sweet deal for men. Consider some of the perks for men in strictly Islamic societies:
(1) They have the religious sanction to take and discard spouses as they please. Alimony? Pish-tosh.
It is my understanding that in Malaysia, it is permissible to divorce your wife via text-messaging, as long as the message is clear (da fuck?). In other words, e-Talaq.
(2) They are often absolved by their religious leaders such as the cleric above from the burdensome task of reining in their libido. The onus is on the women to not tempt them.
(3) They have disproportionately less chances of being stoned to death even though it takes two tango, so to speak.
(4) They are free to marry women from outside the religion, especially if she belongs to a category known as "People of the Book", but a Muslim woman is not allowed a similar courtesy.
So my question must be: I understand why men of whatever faith defend Islam, but why do some women jump to defend it? Are they just incredibly stupid, or simply don't want to acknowdge that it is ultimately self-defeating to defend a philosophy that treats your kind as chattel?
Here's my gentle and respectful personal opinion. Any society that considers gender as sufficient grounds for disrespect of an individual and thinks that it is a bright idea to keep 50% of its population oppressed, confined and pregnant is brimming with shit. Any individual who does the same is a fucking moron.
Hallelujah
I've heard there was a secret chord
That David played and it pleased the Lord
But you dont really care for music, do ya?
It goes like this
The fourth, the fifth
The minor fall, the major lift
The baffled king composing hallelujah.
Your faith was strong, but you needed proof
You saw her bathing on the roof
Her beauty and the moonlight overthrew ya
She tied you
To a kitchen chair
She broke your throne, she cut your hair
And from your lips she drew the hallelujah.
...
Maybe there's a God above, but all I ever learned from love
Was how to shoot at someone who outdrew ya
And it's not a cry you can hear at night
It's not somebody who's seen the light
It's a cold and it's a broken hallelujah.-- John Cale, Hallelujah
The original song was written and sung by Leonard Cohen. The above is the version by John Cale. Jeff Buckley has a version too. I have never been able to listen to that song without something twisting itself into a knot inside me.
If you have iTunes or Napster or Yahoo! Music, I can think of worse ways to spend 99 cents. You should definitely get both versions--Cohen and Cale. They are different and both are uniquely beautiful.
If You Must Point, Make Sure your Nails are Long and Shapely
An extremely cute person sent me the following story about India's intent to share evidence with Pakistan on the recent bomb blasts on Mumbai trains:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3815302a12,00.html
For those pressed for time, the story is headlined "India to share Mumbai bombs evidence with Pakistan", and says that India has strong evidence linking Pakistan to the Mumbai train explosions and will present this evidence to Pakistan.
Why are we doing this?
It does not come as a surprise to me that Pakistan is involved in terrorism. But presenting Pakistan with hard evidence of their own shittiness will serve very little purpose as long as the United States continues to be Pakistan's sugar daddy. It is a waste of time. What India should do is articulately present said evidence to the WHOLE FUCKING WORLD in the distant hope that at least some countries are embarrassed into distancing themselves from Pakistan. It is a distant hope, but it is at least better than presenting some sort of evidence to Pakistan in the even fonder hope that we will embarrass Pakistan.
I would like to stress the fact that we need to present the evidence articulately because as with most other things, international diplomacy is very much about good form. Also, it so happens that this evidence needs to be presented to the Western world primarily, for no other reason than the fact that the Western world pulls more than a few strings, and that a lot of those strings are attached to Pakistan.
But the attention span of the Western world is about two minutes when it comes to matters involving third world rabble such as India and Pakistan (unless of course the matter involves caste wars, religious decapitations, incineration of widows, or cows walking the streets) A few hundred Indians who ended up dead when their train went boom don't bother the average American or European much.
This is where the good form comes in. Style and drama are as important as content when presenting a case. Put a pretty face on the screen, for chrissakes, and have her describe the horror. Hire a bloody Miss India if need be. Those people must be good for something besides mouthing inanities about "franship" and "world peace" and selling two-rupee shampoo satchels. Recruit them and press them into service for a good cause. Since the Western world's attention span goes up dramatically in proportion to the amount of cleavage presented on-screen, that should be an attention-getter.
We talk loudly about globalization. Why not globalize a case against terrorism?
Yes, it should be targetted to a global audience, not a subcontinental one. And it should preferably be done by a well-dressed, well-spoken diplomat; not by a Natwar Singh clone.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3815302a12,00.html
For those pressed for time, the story is headlined "India to share Mumbai bombs evidence with Pakistan", and says that India has strong evidence linking Pakistan to the Mumbai train explosions and will present this evidence to Pakistan.
Why are we doing this?
It does not come as a surprise to me that Pakistan is involved in terrorism. But presenting Pakistan with hard evidence of their own shittiness will serve very little purpose as long as the United States continues to be Pakistan's sugar daddy. It is a waste of time. What India should do is articulately present said evidence to the WHOLE FUCKING WORLD in the distant hope that at least some countries are embarrassed into distancing themselves from Pakistan. It is a distant hope, but it is at least better than presenting some sort of evidence to Pakistan in the even fonder hope that we will embarrass Pakistan.
I would like to stress the fact that we need to present the evidence articulately because as with most other things, international diplomacy is very much about good form. Also, it so happens that this evidence needs to be presented to the Western world primarily, for no other reason than the fact that the Western world pulls more than a few strings, and that a lot of those strings are attached to Pakistan.
But the attention span of the Western world is about two minutes when it comes to matters involving third world rabble such as India and Pakistan (unless of course the matter involves caste wars, religious decapitations, incineration of widows, or cows walking the streets) A few hundred Indians who ended up dead when their train went boom don't bother the average American or European much.
This is where the good form comes in. Style and drama are as important as content when presenting a case. Put a pretty face on the screen, for chrissakes, and have her describe the horror. Hire a bloody Miss India if need be. Those people must be good for something besides mouthing inanities about "franship" and "world peace" and selling two-rupee shampoo satchels. Recruit them and press them into service for a good cause. Since the Western world's attention span goes up dramatically in proportion to the amount of cleavage presented on-screen, that should be an attention-getter.
We talk loudly about globalization. Why not globalize a case against terrorism?
Yes, it should be targetted to a global audience, not a subcontinental one. And it should preferably be done by a well-dressed, well-spoken diplomat; not by a Natwar Singh clone.
No frothing at the mouth, no wild-eyed accusations; just damning evidence presented with a certain flair. Have you seen Israel's Benjamin Netanyahu in action? He is a former Prime Minister who later served as Israel's Foreign Minister under Ariel Sharon. He was, and still remains, an articulate and sharp spokesman who lays out a case and pulls no punches. That is the sort of person we need. This link: http://www.hbo.com/billmaher/video/, contains an interview with Mr. Netanyahu. It is about fifteen minutes long, but I think you should watch it. What Mr. Netanyahu says at the end of the interview about "perfect victims always being perfectly moral" is strikingly true. You may not agree in the entirety with what he is saying (or even at all), but just note how well he says it. Unfortunately, given the general shallowness of this world that we live in, that counts for a lot. The Indian government needs to understand this.
Postscript: Here's a late thought. We have a thriving, mammoth movie industry that can be lucid at times. Movies like Monsoon Wedding, Bend it Like Beckham, and Fire seemed to get some international play. So why can't we leverage that and increase awareness of terrorism through Bollywood? Where are the Deepa Mehtas and Gurinder Chadas? If a movie about some random Indian wedding is worth making, then so is a movie on Pakistani terrorism. If a Monsoon Wedding's time has come, surely a Bombay Mayhem is overdue.
Postscript: Here's a late thought. We have a thriving, mammoth movie industry that can be lucid at times. Movies like Monsoon Wedding, Bend it Like Beckham, and Fire seemed to get some international play. So why can't we leverage that and increase awareness of terrorism through Bollywood? Where are the Deepa Mehtas and Gurinder Chadas? If a movie about some random Indian wedding is worth making, then so is a movie on Pakistani terrorism. If a Monsoon Wedding's time has come, surely a Bombay Mayhem is overdue.
Visiting India? Please Mind the Elephant Dung
In the comments section of a blog, I came across this link. If you are an Indian and have nothing better to do, it may be interesting to follow the link and read this blogger's blog entries on India and the comments that follow those posts. Not that you necessarily need the glimpse, but if you follow the link, it will give you a glimpse into the mind of an average American tourist visiting India. Unless the blogger in question is below average, in which case all bets are off.
To quote a snippet from one blog entry:
At first blush, if one were an Indian, one would be tempted to think less than flattering thoughts about the blogger's judgment. For example, she says, possibly for effect, that she found people urinating everywhere in Bangalore. This is, of course, objectively untrue. It is no different than if I visited New York, mingled with the natives, and then declared loudly and publicly that New York is a city of crack-whores. A New Yorker would surely be within his rights to question this conclusion. And perhaps my sanity, if he thought I was being serious.
I personally have lived for several years in a solidly middle-class neighbourhood in Bangalore and not once have I seen a guy unzip and take a whizz against a wall. Now if it were Calcutta...maybe, but not Bangalore. Perhaps the nice neighbourhood that she was holed up in wasn't so nice after all.
Some of the comments following the entries are priceless, and I suppose in a bizarre way, amusing. Someone wished an asteroid wipes out India. I sometimes wish that too. But then, I always extend that wish to the whole of humanity, so that probably doesn't count.
It is normally useless to dwell on something like this, but I sometimes feel a sense of impotent rage when I read stuff this. Because at least some this stuff is, on the face of it, true. And a lot of it is driven by simple economics. An impoverished nation cannot afford to be proper for the sake of American tourists. Where millions of people don't have access to a glass of safe drinking water, even public toilets is a major infrastructure project.
I feel impotent rage at the British who impoverished India. They fed their Industrial Revolution with cheap raw material produced with forced labour. In India they found both a source of raw material and a captive market for finished goods. They stole. Shamelessly and mercilessly. Actually wait...I use the wrong word. They didn't steal, they took. The strong don't need to steal stuff from the weak; they can simply take it. Incidentally, that is why one should never ever be weak. The guns vs butter question is a non-question. You need both. It is not an either/or proposition. If you don't have the guns, chances are that the butter will go bye-bye soon.
And by the way, do let's bitchslap the historically-challenged motherfuckers who sometimes harbour the fond notion that the British were somehow "civilized" imperialists. They were most emphatically not. They were brutal. To cite just one example, The Bengal Famine of 1943, with five million dead was a wilful genocide through negligence by the British. I don't know why it's not classed as such.
I feel impotent rage at the invaders who repeatedly brutalized India and beggared it so that a large section of its population needs to go do their business on the streets and on railway tracks. But more so I feel impotent rage at ourselves. We who meekly bent over and greased up for anybody willing to take the trouble to cross the Khyber Pass or sail a ship to Cochin.
Here's the litany of complaints. Indians are ignorant of history. Indians have lacked a collective will and a strong racial memory. A pathetic lack of a sense of nationhood rounds out the portfolio. Read the details of the Bengal Famine, o woefully ignorant Indian. Read and tell me how many Indians you know are awake enough to even know their own fucking near-history.
I feel impotent rage at the Nehruvian Socialism that followed British colonialism and hobbled India with a pathetic 2-3% growth over fifty years. India was saddled with policies that neglected universal primary education and subsidized secondary education at the cost of primary education. Population growth continued unchecked and the people were kept ignorant. The only thing better than a lot of voters is a lot of ignorant voters.
I feel impotent at how little individual pride we have. I feel impotent rage at our lack of critical thinking that makes us repeatedly bring to power those who rob us. I feel impotent rage at every old woman who miserably touches the feet of the politician who is the cause of her misery. How do you teach someone pride? What is pride? Is it concomitant with wealth? Is it a consequence of wealth, or is it a cause? Do the proud become wealthy? Or is it the other way around?
And is it all economics? Did this blogger pay every man, woman, and child who "mobbed" her while she was there and posed for photographs with her? She herself says that she would have to pay people in certain other countries for photographs. So what benefit did the Indians she met derive from making an ordinary American feel like a celebrity? No, it is not all economics.
I shudder to think what it is.
To quote a snippet from one blog entry:
Well, today I leave India. I have to admit that I am rather glad to leave Bangalore. If I had seen other places in India I may have had a better impression of the place. Mysore was nice, but Bangalore reminds me of Mexico City, but even more dirty and chaotic. Maybe a slum in Mexico City is a better comparison to this city. The streets of the "nice" neighborhood that I am staying in are filthier than the streets of the favelas in Rio. People urinate everywhwere, there are signs to discourage it but if there are no public toilets, what is one to do? Not to mention the cows, PACKS of stray dogs and other misc. animals roaming around doing their business where they feel like it. Cows have a much easier time crossing the road than I do. At least the cars stop for them. Speaking of cows, you see them all over munching on piles of trash, which are also everywhere, including in this "nice" neighborhood. At least in Latin America the nice neighborhoods are clean(er). The best tip I got before I came over here was to wear closed-toed shoes.And some more:
BTW, they have this thing in India about taking off your shoes in homes and temples and even here at the palace [Mysore Palace] we had to take off our shoes. I was glad i was wearing socks, because it would not have been nice to step in elephant dung with no shoes on.Then there are some photographs of some locals with the following notes by the blogger about how everybody on the streets practically doted on her:
Gotta love the kid who tells me he's from India. BTW, in Peru if you want to take a picture of kids in native dress, they will charge you. Here they practically beg me to take their pics.
People, all I can say is that I really feel for celebrities now. All the attention was fun at first, but it got old fast. I lay low for a few days after this (partly because of stomach issues--used to have an iron stomach when I flew to South America with Delta, but it's been 2 years now). Am still a little hesitant to venture out on my own. Managed to go to a shopping mall without getting mobbed, but I had to avoid all eye contact and pretend not to hear people calling to me.
At first blush, if one were an Indian, one would be tempted to think less than flattering thoughts about the blogger's judgment. For example, she says, possibly for effect, that she found people urinating everywhere in Bangalore. This is, of course, objectively untrue. It is no different than if I visited New York, mingled with the natives, and then declared loudly and publicly that New York is a city of crack-whores. A New Yorker would surely be within his rights to question this conclusion. And perhaps my sanity, if he thought I was being serious.
I personally have lived for several years in a solidly middle-class neighbourhood in Bangalore and not once have I seen a guy unzip and take a whizz against a wall. Now if it were Calcutta...maybe, but not Bangalore. Perhaps the nice neighbourhood that she was holed up in wasn't so nice after all.
Some of the comments following the entries are priceless, and I suppose in a bizarre way, amusing. Someone wished an asteroid wipes out India. I sometimes wish that too. But then, I always extend that wish to the whole of humanity, so that probably doesn't count.
It is normally useless to dwell on something like this, but I sometimes feel a sense of impotent rage when I read stuff this. Because at least some this stuff is, on the face of it, true. And a lot of it is driven by simple economics. An impoverished nation cannot afford to be proper for the sake of American tourists. Where millions of people don't have access to a glass of safe drinking water, even public toilets is a major infrastructure project.
I feel impotent rage at the British who impoverished India. They fed their Industrial Revolution with cheap raw material produced with forced labour. In India they found both a source of raw material and a captive market for finished goods. They stole. Shamelessly and mercilessly. Actually wait...I use the wrong word. They didn't steal, they took. The strong don't need to steal stuff from the weak; they can simply take it. Incidentally, that is why one should never ever be weak. The guns vs butter question is a non-question. You need both. It is not an either/or proposition. If you don't have the guns, chances are that the butter will go bye-bye soon.
And by the way, do let's bitchslap the historically-challenged motherfuckers who sometimes harbour the fond notion that the British were somehow "civilized" imperialists. They were most emphatically not. They were brutal. To cite just one example, The Bengal Famine of 1943, with five million dead was a wilful genocide through negligence by the British. I don't know why it's not classed as such.
I feel impotent rage at the invaders who repeatedly brutalized India and beggared it so that a large section of its population needs to go do their business on the streets and on railway tracks. But more so I feel impotent rage at ourselves. We who meekly bent over and greased up for anybody willing to take the trouble to cross the Khyber Pass or sail a ship to Cochin.
Here's the litany of complaints. Indians are ignorant of history. Indians have lacked a collective will and a strong racial memory. A pathetic lack of a sense of nationhood rounds out the portfolio. Read the details of the Bengal Famine, o woefully ignorant Indian. Read and tell me how many Indians you know are awake enough to even know their own fucking near-history.
I feel impotent rage at the Nehruvian Socialism that followed British colonialism and hobbled India with a pathetic 2-3% growth over fifty years. India was saddled with policies that neglected universal primary education and subsidized secondary education at the cost of primary education. Population growth continued unchecked and the people were kept ignorant. The only thing better than a lot of voters is a lot of ignorant voters.
I feel impotent at how little individual pride we have. I feel impotent rage at our lack of critical thinking that makes us repeatedly bring to power those who rob us. I feel impotent rage at every old woman who miserably touches the feet of the politician who is the cause of her misery. How do you teach someone pride? What is pride? Is it concomitant with wealth? Is it a consequence of wealth, or is it a cause? Do the proud become wealthy? Or is it the other way around?
And is it all economics? Did this blogger pay every man, woman, and child who "mobbed" her while she was there and posed for photographs with her? She herself says that she would have to pay people in certain other countries for photographs. So what benefit did the Indians she met derive from making an ordinary American feel like a celebrity? No, it is not all economics.
I shudder to think what it is.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
The Cutest Human
Yeah, I am biased, but this is my daughter when she was seven or eight. Cute as a bug. This came up in a memories spotlight in Google Photos...
-
I sometimes go and idly look at the noisy, vast, labyrinthine spiderweb of the blogosphere. Some blogs are truly awe inspiring. A hundred li...
-
How fast are you moving right now? If you are reading this on your desktop computer, you might reply that you are not moving at all. If you ...
-
Balajee: I don't know if you are in the habit of reading the comments on my posts. Please see comment #5 on my last post, which is also ...