...but first some background. Before I leave for work each morning, I quickly glance at the headlines of one US newspaper and one Indian newspaper. The New York Times does it for me as far as local news goes. And since no self-respecting Indian with even half a brain will read The Times of India, I read http://www.rediff.com/ to get the lowdown on India.
This morning, I was expecting the Indian newspapers to be full of news from Delhi. I was expecting see a few reports on the explosions, perhaps some sort of writeup on the Islaami-Inquilabi Mahaz outfit, some analyses from the movers and shakers, the impact on the peace process with Pakistan, preventive measures, general outrage. Things of that nature. In short, I expected the newspapers to be in a tizzy.
I would say that this is not an unfair expectation, given that the explosions took place on Saturday evening and today is only two days later. Everyone remembers how everybody, including the Indian media, went batshit after the London blasts, yes? So I was expecting a bit of media chatter.
Here are the top headlines on rediff today:
• Dhoni demolishes Sri Lanka
• Noted Indian writer Amrita Pritam passes away
• Death penalty awarded in Red Fort attack case
• Delhi blasts toll: 62, Compensation doubled
• Did Jobs kill the iPod mini too soon?
In my opinion, it says a little something about a country and its people when the top news story two days after a terrorist attack that wipes out sixty people gushes about how wonderfully our cricket team is doing.
I was a little surprised at the general sense of calm and poise among the editors of Rediff. Then a thought crossed my mind, "Maybe the folks at Times of India, in an uncharacteristic fit of journalism, are covering this story better."
I saw the following headlines on http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/:
Suniel Shetty has a bumpy ride: Onlookers peer at the star’s imported 'Hummer'
Army rushes in to help Chennai tide over rain waters
Court reserves order on JN Yadav's bail plea
Your old pals are dead, find new ones
Gulshan Grover to beat up Bond
Indian faces racist brunt in UK
When Prince Harry dropped his pants
Nothing about the bomb blasts. Zip, zilch, nada. Then I noted that the entire web site was dated October 27. And I remembered the first commandment of journalism: A daily newspaper shalt not feel the urgency to update its web site more frequently than once a week, especially after a human tragedy.
I smacked my forehead, a little ashamed at my general lack of smarts, and moved on. I did not go very far.
My next stop was http://in.indiatimes.com/usdefault.cms, from the TOI group again, and they seemed current and up to date. I have no idea why TOI has two web sites; my guess is that they maintain one for those who are merely braindead, and the other for those who are beyond all repair. The top headlines were:
Dhoni rains sixes as India thrash Lanka
Dhoni is the king, Gilly goes for a six
In pics: hits and misses of the 3rd ODI
We have a lot more options now: Dravid
Noted writer Amrita Pritam passes away
Ms Perfect: send birthday wishes to Ash
Tabu @ 33: 33 leaves from her album [Author's Note: Whaa?]
Shahid Kapoor does a Mr India!
In the loop: 20 times sexier in desiwear
Indra Nooyi all set to lead the world
Vani Kola: an NRI success story
I will now request the few readers of my blog to join me in raising a toast to Mr. Dhoni. As you can see, he has done admirably. I moved on to Indian Express. Their web site was dated October 30. Out of time and patience, I went to work.
So where's the prayer? That comes tonight. To be continued, for sure.
a moment of silence
Sixty people perish in Delhi bomb blast.
A little known terrorist group from Kashmir called Inquilab has claimed the responsibility for snuffing out the lives of sixty ordinary men, women and children who were going about their business, doing their Diwali shopping on a Saturday evening.
Pakistan lost no time in strongly condemning the terrorist action.
I don't know about you, but it warms my own heart to see the prompt and compassionate heedfulness of our brothers from across the border. I heard the following in a Mafia movie once. Two gangsters are attending the funeral of an executed mob boss, and one of them says to the other: "If you want to know who ordered the hit, see who sent the first flowers."
The Minister of State for Home Affairs, Mr. Sriprakash Jaiswal, has promised to "get them" in 48 hours.
It's not that we don't trust you Mr. Jaiswal, but excuse us if we don't hold our breath.
A little known terrorist group from Kashmir called Inquilab has claimed the responsibility for snuffing out the lives of sixty ordinary men, women and children who were going about their business, doing their Diwali shopping on a Saturday evening.
Pakistan lost no time in strongly condemning the terrorist action.
I don't know about you, but it warms my own heart to see the prompt and compassionate heedfulness of our brothers from across the border. I heard the following in a Mafia movie once. Two gangsters are attending the funeral of an executed mob boss, and one of them says to the other: "If you want to know who ordered the hit, see who sent the first flowers."
The Minister of State for Home Affairs, Mr. Sriprakash Jaiswal, has promised to "get them" in 48 hours.
It's not that we don't trust you Mr. Jaiswal, but excuse us if we don't hold our breath.
i have decided to switch to all lowercase titles
And you run, and you run to catch up with the sun, but it's sinking
Racing around to come up behind you again.
The sun is the same in a relative way, but you're older
Shorter of breath and one day closer to death.
-- Pink Floyd, Time
This post is a continuing thread from the previous post. It contains some random thoughts which are just rehashes of old theist and atheist positions. I doubt this covers any new ground.
Here goes.
(1) It is unfair to ask atheists to prove the non-existence of God, as is sometimes done.
To prove the non-existence of X, one must search the entire universe of discourse (in this case, the entire universe) for X, and when X is not found, only then the conclusion can be drawn that X does not exist. It is a negative search. And very expensive to do.
On the other hand, it is not so unfair to ask a theist to prove the existence of God, because this is a positive task. Someone needs to find only one instance of God and produce him to prove his existence.
Of course the standard response to this is that God is unknowable and all mysterious and such **wooooooooh**. The curtain usually falls on rational discussion at this point.
(2) There are problems with the definition of "God".
First of all, there seems to be a wide lack of consensus on what God is. Ask a Hindu, Christian, Jew, and Muslim individually what God is, and you get very different answers. Some of the answers are scary.
Even so, there are some common attributes that most people assign to God. One of these attributes is: Omnipotent. Apart from the obvious question of, "How on earth can you possibly know that?", another question can be brought up. If God is omnipotent, can he create a Being that is more powerful than himself? If he can, then he is not omnipotent because he must now bow to this newly created entity. And if he can't, then he is clearly not All-Powerful.
You've heard this before. Can God create a stone that is too heavy for him to lift?
Omnipotence suffers from self-reference. One way to reconcile this is to admit that God cannot be omnipotent--he has his limits. The other way to reconcile it is to suspend logic and disbelief. If there is a third way, do tell.
Omnipotence is also often fucked up the ass by the Problem of Evil, but that is another post.
(3) I don't know why certain people like Behe mess around with science and try to prove its inadequacy to prove the existence of God.
Proving the inadequacy of something does not prove the adequacy of something else, unless you live in a binary universe. It reeks of insecurity. People should simply have the intellectual honesty and the courage of their convictions to say, "I believe in God because I believe in God. It gives me comfort. I have absolutely no idea why, and can provide no explanation. Besides, I don't need to provide an explanation, so there."
This argument will be equally compelling to most fair-minded folks. Instead, these people bash up on science and point to gaps in our knowledge as if that will prove something.
Here's what I would say to Behe and others like him. Do not resort to pseudo-scientific nonsense and tell me that there is evidence all around us that points to an omnipotent, omniscient, and loving God. Do not state conclusively that the complexity of the world can be explained only if we accept the presence of a mysterious yet fair-minded father figure.
Instead, do the following. Either:
(A) Stop being so smug and express doubt.
OR, if that does not appeal to you:
(B) Plump for your belief unabashedly by brazening it out. Do not offer hesitation. And for heaven's sake, do not appeal to logic.
Anything else is dishonest and invites scorn. Oh, and if you do decide to follow the second approach, recognize and respect the fact that other people might have different, equally inexplicable, and cherished beliefs. So leave the automatic weapons at home.
(5) Balajee says: "Most of the Athiests I know have a more condescending attitude towards the rest of humanity."
I recognize this to be true but not universally so. And I would like to point out that atheists don't have the monopoly on condescension. Have you ever told a Pentecostal that you are a Hindu and see no reason to be otherwise? He'll offer you a choice among condescension, distaste, disdain, and pity. Atheists haven't cornered the market on condescension yet.
(6) Some people express surprise at an atheist, "You are godless. You don't believe in prayer. What do you use to draw comfort from in difficult times. What do you use to pick yourself up when you are down?"
Coffee.
(B) Plump for your belief unabashedly by brazening it out. Do not offer hesitation. And for heaven's sake, do not appeal to logic.
Anything else is dishonest and invites scorn. Oh, and if you do decide to follow the second approach, recognize and respect the fact that other people might have different, equally inexplicable, and cherished beliefs. So leave the automatic weapons at home.
(5) Balajee says: "Most of the Athiests I know have a more condescending attitude towards the rest of humanity."
I recognize this to be true but not universally so. And I would like to point out that atheists don't have the monopoly on condescension. Have you ever told a Pentecostal that you are a Hindu and see no reason to be otherwise? He'll offer you a choice among condescension, distaste, disdain, and pity. Atheists haven't cornered the market on condescension yet.
(6) Some people express surprise at an atheist, "You are godless. You don't believe in prayer. What do you use to draw comfort from in difficult times. What do you use to pick yourself up when you are down?"
Coffee.
Response to Balajee, Part Something
Balajee commented:
I will selectively and conveniently pick one statement from your comment to focus on. More discussion of the other points in your comment will follow.
You said: I'm not agreeing with ID, but maybe our approach to experimenting ID is not right.
I want to clarify if you are referring to the same ID that Michael Behe holds a brief for. I want to clarify because I think there is a big difference. Or at least, there ought to be.
Balajee, I am philosophically and culturally a Hindu. As far as I can tell, you are too. For any Hindu to back Behe's version of I.D. would be like putting up all his money on a blackjack bet when he is holding a bust card and the dealer is showing an ace.
I will bet my last dollar that Behe's version of I.D. is quite different from yours. What Behe is championing is thinly disguised evangelism masquerading rather unconvincingly as science.
Behe seems to be saying, "Yes, there is an Intelligent Designer." I will throw in my last remaining cents on the wager that if pressed, he would go on to say, "Yes, there is an Intelligent Designer, and Jesus is his Son."
If unopposed, he would add, "You devil-worshipping Hindus and godless atheists are going to Hell anyway, unless you repent. Yea, verily. You can, however, draw comfort from the fact that it will be an intelligently designed Hell."
Behe is an insult to science, not to mention the fact that he is also an insult to the larger section of average fair-minded Christians. In my personal opinion, he and his sort are giving Christians a bad name. I only hope that Lehigh University does not make the mistake of removing him from his teaching duties. What we do not need is another martyr like Judge Roy Moore. Did you know that Roy Moore is running for governor of Alabama?
The scientific community is doing a stellar job of showing up Behe's non-scientific, logically untenable mumbo-jumbo for what it is. But that is because they can still get to him since he is still part of the scientific community. Once out of his teaching job, I think we'll only see him on Evangelical cable channels, safely out of reach of scientific peer review and doing far greater damage as a result.
People like you and I do not fit into Behe's worldview. It would be a serious error thinking that he is doing this for science, or for theists around the world, or for the larger section of humanity, or whathaveyou. His list of beneficiaries is not that long.
I don't claim to know your mind, but I am aware of the general worldview of a Hindu theist. I would be a fair bet that when you--as opposed to a Behe--talk about an Intelligent Designer, you are talking about a Greater Force, an Unit Law that does not discriminate against a particular section of humanity because they read the wrong book.
*Filed along with the 'Flying Sphagetti Monster' Theory*
I liked the Stuhring theory. Clearly, ID has a lot of holes. Holes that are conveniently filled by non-falsifiable notions.
Just one thought though - If you consider all the work, time and effort that mankind has put into documenting religion today - hundreds of thousands of pages of manuscripts, stories, sacred texts, institutions, its mind numbing. Why does it seem to be that 98% of mankind is in some form of grand delusion? Could there possibly be something in there that does not quite fit the scientific framework? It's like looking for life in outer space that fits our definition of intelligence. Why should it fit our definition of life? If the only tool you have is a hammer, all the problems start resembling nails.
I'm not agreeing with ID, but maybe our approach to experimenting ID is not right.
But what do I know? My biggest problem right now is figuring out what to do for Lunch.
I will selectively and conveniently pick one statement from your comment to focus on. More discussion of the other points in your comment will follow.
You said: I'm not agreeing with ID, but maybe our approach to experimenting ID is not right.
I want to clarify if you are referring to the same ID that Michael Behe holds a brief for. I want to clarify because I think there is a big difference. Or at least, there ought to be.
Balajee, I am philosophically and culturally a Hindu. As far as I can tell, you are too. For any Hindu to back Behe's version of I.D. would be like putting up all his money on a blackjack bet when he is holding a bust card and the dealer is showing an ace.
I will bet my last dollar that Behe's version of I.D. is quite different from yours. What Behe is championing is thinly disguised evangelism masquerading rather unconvincingly as science.
Behe seems to be saying, "Yes, there is an Intelligent Designer." I will throw in my last remaining cents on the wager that if pressed, he would go on to say, "Yes, there is an Intelligent Designer, and Jesus is his Son."
If unopposed, he would add, "You devil-worshipping Hindus and godless atheists are going to Hell anyway, unless you repent. Yea, verily. You can, however, draw comfort from the fact that it will be an intelligently designed Hell."
Behe is an insult to science, not to mention the fact that he is also an insult to the larger section of average fair-minded Christians. In my personal opinion, he and his sort are giving Christians a bad name. I only hope that Lehigh University does not make the mistake of removing him from his teaching duties. What we do not need is another martyr like Judge Roy Moore. Did you know that Roy Moore is running for governor of Alabama?
The scientific community is doing a stellar job of showing up Behe's non-scientific, logically untenable mumbo-jumbo for what it is. But that is because they can still get to him since he is still part of the scientific community. Once out of his teaching job, I think we'll only see him on Evangelical cable channels, safely out of reach of scientific peer review and doing far greater damage as a result.
People like you and I do not fit into Behe's worldview. It would be a serious error thinking that he is doing this for science, or for theists around the world, or for the larger section of humanity, or whathaveyou. His list of beneficiaries is not that long.
I don't claim to know your mind, but I am aware of the general worldview of a Hindu theist. I would be a fair bet that when you--as opposed to a Behe--talk about an Intelligent Designer, you are talking about a Greater Force, an Unit Law that does not discriminate against a particular section of humanity because they read the wrong book.
And the presence of this one Greater Force seems conceivable to me. It sounds like a fair conjecture. As a matter of fact, it may also be a cooperative effort by several Greater Forces that makes things so. Why only one?
But an atheist's position is this. He affords zero belief when presented with zero evidence. He does not reject the possibility that a Greater Force exists but he does not accept something at the present time, in the belief that evidence for this something will be available in the future. I hope this sounds fair to you.
I share your surprise that 98% of humanity does not take a similar position as the one I have outlined above.
But an atheist's position is this. He affords zero belief when presented with zero evidence. He does not reject the possibility that a Greater Force exists but he does not accept something at the present time, in the belief that evidence for this something will be available in the future. I hope this sounds fair to you.
I share your surprise that 98% of humanity does not take a similar position as the one I have outlined above.
I have a Problem with Gravity
I have a problem with Gravity. It does not strike me as a particularly satisfying organizing element of the space-time continuum. I have a theory that I want taught alongside Gravity in public schools in the United States. I developed it over the course of a particularly insightful afternoon and without the help of any mind-altering drugs whatsoever.
I am calling it the Stuhring Theory. It is a needlessly complex theory and even I don't understand it completely even though I theorized it. But the essentials are quite simple.
At its heart, it makes this simple and smug statement: We are not held down by Gravity or centripetal force or what have you; we are held up by stuhrings.
It says that we are all--each man jack of us--held up by invisible lines of force called stuhrings. This is why we are able to stand up straight, walk around, and flap our arms and stuff. This is what makes birds fly and airplanes go up and planets and stars go around.
Somebody up there that I am for the moment calling Gus (Great Underhanded Stuhring-puller), has all the stuhrings attached to his hands ... no wait, what I meant was, he has all the stuhrings affixed to his tentacular extremities; yes, that sounds more scientific. And since we are all held up by stuhrings, we move and shake when he pulls on these stuhrings. Gus also is, what we refer to in scientific terms as, a "mean ol' nasty", because he sometimes makes me fall down.
I will now submit that my Stuhring Theory be taught in public schools. Why not? The complexity of the Space-Time Continuum cannot be explained by Gravity alone. Scientists themselves admit this. Therefore it can be explained by stuhrings.
I take my cue from Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design follows a similar reasoning. Some people say: Biochemical complexity cannot be explained by evolution, hence Intelligent Design should be taught as science in schools.
Now substitute "The complexity of the Space-Time Continuum" for "Biochemical complexity", "gravity" for "evolution", and "Stuhring Theory" for "Intelligent Design" and we reach the same square on the chessboard.
I have a request of you. Please take a close look at my Stuhring Theory and tell me exactly how it is any less or any more suitable for teaching than Intelligent Design. I'm serious, tell me where the holes are. I will then patch 'em up, refine ze theory and submit it to the Dover School Board--or whatever the heck passes for the Dover School Board--and respectfully ask them to teach it alongside Gravity.
You see, opening the door of the Science class in public schools a tad too wide is a little risky because it lets in assorted nutcases like me. And that my dears, is a scary thought. Even to me.
I am calling it the Stuhring Theory. It is a needlessly complex theory and even I don't understand it completely even though I theorized it. But the essentials are quite simple.
At its heart, it makes this simple and smug statement: We are not held down by Gravity or centripetal force or what have you; we are held up by stuhrings.
It says that we are all--each man jack of us--held up by invisible lines of force called stuhrings. This is why we are able to stand up straight, walk around, and flap our arms and stuff. This is what makes birds fly and airplanes go up and planets and stars go around.
Somebody up there that I am for the moment calling Gus (Great Underhanded Stuhring-puller), has all the stuhrings attached to his hands ... no wait, what I meant was, he has all the stuhrings affixed to his tentacular extremities; yes, that sounds more scientific. And since we are all held up by stuhrings, we move and shake when he pulls on these stuhrings. Gus also is, what we refer to in scientific terms as, a "mean ol' nasty", because he sometimes makes me fall down.
I will now submit that my Stuhring Theory be taught in public schools. Why not? The complexity of the Space-Time Continuum cannot be explained by Gravity alone. Scientists themselves admit this. Therefore it can be explained by stuhrings.
I take my cue from Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design follows a similar reasoning. Some people say: Biochemical complexity cannot be explained by evolution, hence Intelligent Design should be taught as science in schools.
Now substitute "The complexity of the Space-Time Continuum" for "Biochemical complexity", "gravity" for "evolution", and "Stuhring Theory" for "Intelligent Design" and we reach the same square on the chessboard.
I have a request of you. Please take a close look at my Stuhring Theory and tell me exactly how it is any less or any more suitable for teaching than Intelligent Design. I'm serious, tell me where the holes are. I will then patch 'em up, refine ze theory and submit it to the Dover School Board--or whatever the heck passes for the Dover School Board--and respectfully ask them to teach it alongside Gravity.
You see, opening the door of the Science class in public schools a tad too wide is a little risky because it lets in assorted nutcases like me. And that my dears, is a scary thought. Even to me.
Intelligent(?) Design
[Jyoti and Rob have a few comments on my last post called "The Dilemma". I tried to respond as best as I could. This response of mine, which is in reply to Rob, became too long and so becomes a post. Rob's comments are in blue italics below.
Let me also take this opportunity to say a little something about Rob, whose blog is here. I started reading his blog because he made me think. He is a South Park Republican, something that was new to me at the time. Many of his posts are interesting examples of a South Park Republican's views. His description of himself on the blog is priceless: "Geek, Musician, History Buff, South Park Republican. I don't blindly subscribe to either party's full agenda- just enough of each to piss off the other."]
Let me also take this opportunity to say a little something about Rob, whose blog is here. I started reading his blog because he made me think. He is a South Park Republican, something that was new to me at the time. Many of his posts are interesting examples of a South Park Republican's views. His description of himself on the blog is priceless: "Geek, Musician, History Buff, South Park Republican. I don't blindly subscribe to either party's full agenda- just enough of each to piss off the other."]
Rob answered my question about whether deeply religious folks are comfortable in the company of science-minded folks:
Oh, heavens no. At least not the one's I've met. They have too many precious assumptions challenged. That makes them squirm.
Yes, that was my suspicion too.
I guess was referring more to the proponents of Darwinism, as opposed to pure science-minded individuals.Proponents aren't nessearily scientists- Just in need of a handy soap box.
I am not sure who exactly fits the description of "proponent of Darwinism". Does being a proponent of Darwinism prevent you from being science-minded? Some people like Stephen Gould who are scientists by profession are proponents of Darwin's theory of evolution. A much smaller number subscribe to Lamarck's theory. Are they are not science-minded?
It is true that proponents aren't necessarily scientists. However, just as you don't have to be a mathematician to do math, you don't have to be a scientist to be science-minded. For instance, I am not a scientist by profession, but I nevertheless see the value of the scientific method.
Rob says about scientists:
Science? You're right.. If given enough evidence to test, they would do what they do.. Which is quantify that which is in front of them. In the case of Creationism/Intelligent Design, there's more of a sneaking suspicion than actual empirical evidence.
If I have my theories correct, I believe that Creationism and Intelligent Design are two different things. I am not sure why you club them together. My post referred to Creationism, not Intelligent Design.
Michael Behe, a professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania who champions Intelligent Design, explains the difference: "Creationism is a theological concept but intelligent design is a scientific theory. One can be a creationist without any physical evidence. That's 180 degrees different from intelligent design."
So there you have it. Creationism does not depend on evidence, in the professor's own words.
And of course, when you jettison the requirement that something needs evidence to be accepted by fair-minded people, the possibilities become limitless.
So much for Creationism.
The professor was not done, however. He went on to make several other interesting statements about Intelligent Design.
He said that he personally believes the designer is God but said that belief is not part of his intelligent design theory.
If you understood the above statement, do explain it to me in some detail. I would much appreciate it.
Meanwhile, let me take a stab at it. The professor seems to be saying that there is evidence of intelligent design but that each of us is free to insert his or her own belief into the slot where the actual designer is supposed to be sitting. Since the professor has opened up the floor, once again the possibilites boggle the mind. John might say, for example, that the designer is a bored alien named Bob from the fourth binary system in the Crab Nebula, while Jim will counter that he has a nagging suspicion that it is Pat Robertson's janitor.
Oh, heavens no. At least not the one's I've met. They have too many precious assumptions challenged. That makes them squirm.
Yes, that was my suspicion too.
I guess was referring more to the proponents of Darwinism, as opposed to pure science-minded individuals.Proponents aren't nessearily scientists- Just in need of a handy soap box.
I am not sure who exactly fits the description of "proponent of Darwinism". Does being a proponent of Darwinism prevent you from being science-minded? Some people like Stephen Gould who are scientists by profession are proponents of Darwin's theory of evolution. A much smaller number subscribe to Lamarck's theory. Are they are not science-minded?
It is true that proponents aren't necessarily scientists. However, just as you don't have to be a mathematician to do math, you don't have to be a scientist to be science-minded. For instance, I am not a scientist by profession, but I nevertheless see the value of the scientific method.
Rob says about scientists:
Science? You're right.. If given enough evidence to test, they would do what they do.. Which is quantify that which is in front of them. In the case of Creationism/Intelligent Design, there's more of a sneaking suspicion than actual empirical evidence.
If I have my theories correct, I believe that Creationism and Intelligent Design are two different things. I am not sure why you club them together. My post referred to Creationism, not Intelligent Design.
Michael Behe, a professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania who champions Intelligent Design, explains the difference: "Creationism is a theological concept but intelligent design is a scientific theory. One can be a creationist without any physical evidence. That's 180 degrees different from intelligent design."
So there you have it. Creationism does not depend on evidence, in the professor's own words.
And of course, when you jettison the requirement that something needs evidence to be accepted by fair-minded people, the possibilities become limitless.
So much for Creationism.
The professor was not done, however. He went on to make several other interesting statements about Intelligent Design.
He said that he personally believes the designer is God but said that belief is not part of his intelligent design theory.
If you understood the above statement, do explain it to me in some detail. I would much appreciate it.
Meanwhile, let me take a stab at it. The professor seems to be saying that there is evidence of intelligent design but that each of us is free to insert his or her own belief into the slot where the actual designer is supposed to be sitting. Since the professor has opened up the floor, once again the possibilites boggle the mind. John might say, for example, that the designer is a bored alien named Bob from the fourth binary system in the Crab Nebula, while Jim will counter that he has a nagging suspicion that it is Pat Robertson's janitor.
Now this sort of free association sounds like a very fun activity to do, but it is surely not science, is it? Or is science defined a little differently in the United States than in other parts of the world?
The professor then went on to contradict himself by saying that the theory of intelligent design would be undermined without the existence of God.
He then inserted his foot deeper into his mouth by saying, "You can't say that because you don't have a natural explanation for something now, you won't in future."
Please note that going by this logic, I can say all manner of unnatural things right now, based on flimsy suspicion in the fond hope that the future will take care of making me look less like a blubbering halfwit. I can further insist that said things without natural explanation be taught to impressionable young children in schools using public money. But isn't that kinda the same as saying that our children should be taught about supernatural things in school? In Science class?
The professor then went on to contradict himself by saying that the theory of intelligent design would be undermined without the existence of God.
He then inserted his foot deeper into his mouth by saying, "You can't say that because you don't have a natural explanation for something now, you won't in future."
Please note that going by this logic, I can say all manner of unnatural things right now, based on flimsy suspicion in the fond hope that the future will take care of making me look less like a blubbering halfwit. I can further insist that said things without natural explanation be taught to impressionable young children in schools using public money. But isn't that kinda the same as saying that our children should be taught about supernatural things in school? In Science class?
Well, then why not teach the GS Theory, i.e Ghosts-n-Spooks Theory, also? Evidence, you say? Pish-tosh, we know how much value that has. According to Professor Behe, none.
I now know which college my child is NOT going to.
Okay, let's brush aside everything that I just said. Let's wipe the slate clean.
I personally think that there is some meat to the ID theory. Maybe there is a chance that there exists a Great Force--An Unit Law if you will--that describes the complexity of nature as we see it. But why do we assume that this Unit Law is something called God that is also worthy of our worship? It may be a blind, idiot, and mindless force, maybe something like Gravity. Why do we automatically assume that it is a benevolent, kind, and just force that from time to time speaks to us words in Hebrew and Sanskrit. Words that we then furiously scribble down in 500 page books. Why do we assume that this God, when it so pleases him, sends prophets down to earth for our salvation? And what the heck is salvation anyway?
Why do we call this theory Intelligent Design? I know why the good professor Behe calls it so. He says that the complexity of the world cannot be explained by Darwin's theory. Fair enough. He says that the complexity of nature indicates that there is an intelligent creator. Fair enough.
Now, since we are free-associating, this is what I think. I have noticed that the world is not only complex, it is also flawed. Many species are flawed in design and become extinct. Even within a particular survivor species, there exists large differences in natural endowments. This ensures that some individuals within the species are more handicapped than others and don't make it.
I now know which college my child is NOT going to.
Okay, let's brush aside everything that I just said. Let's wipe the slate clean.
I personally think that there is some meat to the ID theory. Maybe there is a chance that there exists a Great Force--An Unit Law if you will--that describes the complexity of nature as we see it. But why do we assume that this Unit Law is something called God that is also worthy of our worship? It may be a blind, idiot, and mindless force, maybe something like Gravity. Why do we automatically assume that it is a benevolent, kind, and just force that from time to time speaks to us words in Hebrew and Sanskrit. Words that we then furiously scribble down in 500 page books. Why do we assume that this God, when it so pleases him, sends prophets down to earth for our salvation? And what the heck is salvation anyway?
Why do we call this theory Intelligent Design? I know why the good professor Behe calls it so. He says that the complexity of the world cannot be explained by Darwin's theory. Fair enough. He says that the complexity of nature indicates that there is an intelligent creator. Fair enough.
Now, since we are free-associating, this is what I think. I have noticed that the world is not only complex, it is also flawed. Many species are flawed in design and become extinct. Even within a particular survivor species, there exists large differences in natural endowments. This ensures that some individuals within the species are more handicapped than others and don't make it.
Then why do we call it Intelligent Design? Can I submit a new theory called Brain-dead Design? Can I say that yes, there may be a greater force, but that it is quite likely an idiot. Or at least designs like an idiot some of the times? Can I further insist that this BD theory should be taught to your children, using your tax dollars, in public schools?
Why not?
Why not?
The Dilemma
There is a logic trap that most of us fall into at some point in our lives: the False Dilemma. The False Dilemma occurs when a limited number of options are presented, when in reality more exist. It is also called a False Choice.
The False Dilemma works on the basis of an over-simplification of choices. I might say: Something is not A, therefore it must be B. This is a false dilemma because it ignores the possibility that the something may be C, D, E or a zillion other things.
In multi-valued logic, saying something is not A only implies that it is not A. It does not automatically follow that it is B.
Take the current rumble between Creationists andDarwinists everybody else. A Creationist's entire brief revolves around proving that Darwin is wrong. Okay, let's make this simple. Let's say that Darwin is wrong. So what? How does that make Creationism right?
Another example is this. When I watch TV, I sometimes flip channels and I hit these Christian Evangelical channels. Sometimes I linger and watch these shows (and believe me, they are shows). One time, there was this guy sitting with flipcharts and whatnot explaining how radiocarbon dating does not date things reliably beyond ten thousand years. Hence, he said loudly, this world must have been created not more than ten thousand years ago. That is a false choice.
I am guessing that the only people more brain-dead than flipchart guy must be the people who watch flipchart guy with devotion and straight faces. At least flipchart guy is getting paid.
If we follow these false choices all the way through, many interesting claims can be made. And by interesting, I mean fucking stupid.
For example: "Radiocarbon dating has limits; hence there is a Creator God." You will notice that I can substitute almost anything for the phrase "hence there is a Creator God" and it will make precisely zero difference to the truth of the statement.
I could say for instance, "Radiocarbon dating has limits; hence the founders of Ben & Jerry's are really purple aliens."
Or, "Radiocarbon dating has limits; hence smearing pineapple jam on your toes in a slow circular motion will make you smarter."
Or, "Radiocarbon dating has limits; hence polyunsaturated fats are bad for you." In this case, the two clauses are individually true, but the link is bogus.
When you do not respect the causality between a premise and a conclusion, you can say anything followed by anything else. Maybe somebody will even give you your own TV show.
The False Dilemma works on the basis of an over-simplification of choices. I might say: Something is not A, therefore it must be B. This is a false dilemma because it ignores the possibility that the something may be C, D, E or a zillion other things.
In multi-valued logic, saying something is not A only implies that it is not A. It does not automatically follow that it is B.
Take the current rumble between Creationists and
Another example is this. When I watch TV, I sometimes flip channels and I hit these Christian Evangelical channels. Sometimes I linger and watch these shows (and believe me, they are shows). One time, there was this guy sitting with flipcharts and whatnot explaining how radiocarbon dating does not date things reliably beyond ten thousand years. Hence, he said loudly, this world must have been created not more than ten thousand years ago. That is a false choice.
I am guessing that the only people more brain-dead than flipchart guy must be the people who watch flipchart guy with devotion and straight faces. At least flipchart guy is getting paid.
If we follow these false choices all the way through, many interesting claims can be made. And by interesting, I mean fucking stupid.
For example: "Radiocarbon dating has limits; hence there is a Creator God." You will notice that I can substitute almost anything for the phrase "hence there is a Creator God" and it will make precisely zero difference to the truth of the statement.
I could say for instance, "Radiocarbon dating has limits; hence the founders of Ben & Jerry's are really purple aliens."
Or, "Radiocarbon dating has limits; hence smearing pineapple jam on your toes in a slow circular motion will make you smarter."
Or, "Radiocarbon dating has limits; hence polyunsaturated fats are bad for you." In this case, the two clauses are individually true, but the link is bogus.
When you do not respect the causality between a premise and a conclusion, you can say anything followed by anything else. Maybe somebody will even give you your own TV show.
Dear Anon
Dear Anon: Thanks for your comments and questions. The answers are quite simple really and follow. A word of caution: the answers are not interesting even though the questions are. Apologies in advance since the shortcoming is entirely mine. A profitless note to you: You really should get a name. It gets hard to tell you apart from the other Anons after a while.
The questions:
Interesting reads Sougata and Balajee (must allow anon comments B). you sound fierce.
How about a post from you 2 to cool some of that rage, say, a post with a line or 2 commenting on these:
music that you like,
how you met your wife,
your fav pic of yourself-c'mon post just one,
if you had a million $$ would you still work where you do,
your pet peeve,
your high school sweetheart,
what you think death is,
if you could undo one thing
...Then we can seethe on....
The answers:
I like Kishore Kumar and rock ballads.
I met my wife by chance.
I will look for my fav pic, but this may take a while because all my pictures are terribly unflattering. Since I am not above small vanity, picking out the most acceptable picture is not going to be an easy task.
Yes, I think I will choose to work. I have the sinking feeling that it's no longer strictly about the money.
My pet peeves will not fit into this one post; that is why I maintain this blog.
I cannot imagine why anybody would be curious about my high school sweetheart. In any case, there is nothing to tell.
Here's how the Oxford dictionary defines death: 1 the action or fact of dying. 2 an instance of a person or an animal dying. 3 the state of being dead. 4 the end of something. I believe the Oxford dictionary.
I would not undo a single thing. What's more important, I cannot undo a single thing. We are ruled by entropy, my dear anonymous friend. And entropy is quite the bitch about letting us undo stuff. Because it likes to always and necessarily increase to a maximum. And sadly, it is irreversible. You cannot turn smoke and ash back into a tree.
The questions:
Interesting reads Sougata and Balajee (must allow anon comments B). you sound fierce.
How about a post from you 2 to cool some of that rage, say, a post with a line or 2 commenting on these:
music that you like,
how you met your wife,
your fav pic of yourself-c'mon post just one,
if you had a million $$ would you still work where you do,
your pet peeve,
your high school sweetheart,
what you think death is,
if you could undo one thing
...Then we can seethe on....
The answers:
I like Kishore Kumar and rock ballads.
I met my wife by chance.
I will look for my fav pic, but this may take a while because all my pictures are terribly unflattering. Since I am not above small vanity, picking out the most acceptable picture is not going to be an easy task.
Yes, I think I will choose to work. I have the sinking feeling that it's no longer strictly about the money.
My pet peeves will not fit into this one post; that is why I maintain this blog.
I cannot imagine why anybody would be curious about my high school sweetheart. In any case, there is nothing to tell.
Here's how the Oxford dictionary defines death: 1 the action or fact of dying. 2 an instance of a person or an animal dying. 3 the state of being dead. 4 the end of something. I believe the Oxford dictionary.
I would not undo a single thing. What's more important, I cannot undo a single thing. We are ruled by entropy, my dear anonymous friend. And entropy is quite the bitch about letting us undo stuff. Because it likes to always and necessarily increase to a maximum. And sadly, it is irreversible. You cannot turn smoke and ash back into a tree.
Note to Balajee: Please Turn on Anon
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 directed at you.
Also, please gather from the comment that either you or I (or both) have been advised to just cool it. Pretty sane advice, if you ask me.
Also, please gather from the comment that either you or I (or both) have been advised to just cool it. Pretty sane advice, if you ask me.
La Nuit Bengali
Balajee has a very nice post on his blog. He talks about his daughter who'll come into this wonderful and complex world of ours in six weeks. I wish him and his wife Anu the best with their approaching parenthood. He also talks about how India has changed since he last saw it three years ago. It is a very interesting read.
He also asks some pointed questions about Indian cricket, including one directed at me. The question, slightly paraphrased, is: Why do Bengalis insist on supporting Ganguly, given his obvious incomptence as a batsman and his inability to captain the team to success?
It is an interesting question. Why indeed do Bengalis support Sourav Ganguly? I think there are two reasons.
Part of it is parochial regionalism laced with a healthy shot of narrow chauvinism. Who cares about the team, as long as a person from MY state gets to lead it, I suppose. And part of it is because Bengalis are idiots. Let me prove that second part.
When it becomes necessary to prove something true, it is sometimes easier to start with an assumption which is the opposite of what you believe, and prove that to be false.
Let us start with the assumption that Bengalis are NOT idiots.
(3) Rhetoric aside, this is what I truly believe. The intelligence of Bengalis is normally distributed with the same skew and kurtosis as the intelligence of any other group of people. Yes, I know my statistics; ha, ha. Put simply, they are no smarter or dumber than any other group of people. I would bet that if you took the normal curve of Bengali IQ and superimposed it on the normal curve of say, Bihari IQ, they would be indistinguishable. Nature is equally kind (or equally unkind, depending on your point of view) to every group of people. It is Nurture/Conditioning that makes our natural attributes appear different. And conditioning is a very powerful force. As a small example, consider the former East Germans and West Germans. Similar groups of people with similar natural attributes. Yet it took only two generations of good old Soviet-style conditioning to make them appear quite different from each other.
He also asks some pointed questions about Indian cricket, including one directed at me. The question, slightly paraphrased, is: Why do Bengalis insist on supporting Ganguly, given his obvious incomptence as a batsman and his inability to captain the team to success?
It is an interesting question. Why indeed do Bengalis support Sourav Ganguly? I think there are two reasons.
Part of it is parochial regionalism laced with a healthy shot of narrow chauvinism. Who cares about the team, as long as a person from MY state gets to lead it, I suppose. And part of it is because Bengalis are idiots. Let me prove that second part.
When it becomes necessary to prove something true, it is sometimes easier to start with an assumption which is the opposite of what you believe, and prove that to be false.
Let us start with the assumption that Bengalis are NOT idiots.
Now picture this. It is the decade of the 70s in Bengal. The Mass of Bengalis (MOB, for short) who live there is doing its day job, sitting around, talking about cricket, scratching its ass, and generally getting on with life. Life is good. A few hiccups here and there, but the script is being mostly followed. One evening, as MOB is getting ready for dinner, it hears a knock on the door. A little ticked off, it being dinner time and all, it gets the door in a bit of a huff. And finds a greying old man, wearing a twinkle in his eyes and black horn-rimmed glasses on his nose, standing outside the door in the gloomy light of the late evening.
Five years pass. Bengalis are a little poorer, thanks in no small measure to the System. It is not too much cause for alarm yet, but a few large industries have closed their doors or moved their shops elsewhere because trade-unionism is getting just a wee bit out of hand. Adult literacy isn't even crawling slowly upwards, it's frozen. What was merely a trickle of illegal immigrants from across the Bangladesh border has become a steady and strong stream. Rumor has it that the old man is in the know and on the take about this immigration thing. He encourages it in exchange for support for his System by the immigrants. The state of West Bengal, which usually ranked in the company of a Maharashtra or a Gujarat when considering human development indices, is now increasingly being mentioned alongside a Bihar or a Uttar Pradesh.
Sure enough, after five years, Bengalis hear a knock on the door. The Old Man stands there, looking a little sheepish.
We know how this story ends, don't we? That Old Man is the Communist Party of India. And he has been in charge of Bengal's destiny for over two decades now, and counting. Bengal is near the bottom of the heap today--economically and culturally. Years of the Grand Old Man's dirigiste communism has beggared Bengal. Yet the Grand Old Man is in charge. Why? Because Bengalis have repeatedly elected him as their leader. And he didn't even have to resort to hard sell.
A group of clever, perceptive, foresighted people cannot keep choosing corrupt, rapacious goons to lead them. Goons that have made it a business of systematically impoverishing those that they rule. But Bengalis have repeatedly done this very same thing. Ergo, Bengalis are idiots. Not only that, they are masochists to boot.
IMHO, asking whether Bengalis are smart is like asking if the management of Apple Computer was smart. Both of these people took a promising something (a lead in technology in the case of Apple, an economy in the case of Bengalis) and totally blew it. Going by that rubric, no we are not smart.
Folk wisdom tells us that stupid people don't get rich. But how stupid do you have to be to actually travel in the reverse direction, to go from riches to rags?
At the time of independence, Bengal had a few things to boast of. What Bengal thinks today, India thinks tomorrow, and all that sort of thing. Or so I have been told.
And then we elected the Communists. And there was no looking ahead after that. Too, we didn't elect them just once, we elected them again. And again. And again. There are limits to how much one can flog himself, I would think. But no such luck here.
Today, Bengal is an economic basket case full of defeated people. It's industrial base is gone, thanks to rampant trade-unionism that has paralyzed manufacturing. Even it's much talked about "culture" is now flapping in the wind. I remember a time when Hindi cinema stole liberally from Bengali cinema (now they have switched to stealing from the South, the unoriginal bastards). Giants like Ritwick Ghatak, Bimal Roy, and Satyajit Ray strutted about. Now it's the reverse. Bengali cinema now looks to tired Bollywood movies for inspiration. Bengali literature hangs on, but only just. Adult literacy is barely over 50 percent.
There is glimmer of hope. The Leftists in Bengal are waking up, taking a whiff, and making noises about creating a pro-investment environment so that they don't miss out on the incumbent software boom. Having missed out on every other boom before this, they are not taking any chances with this one. But alas, I am a realist. Does the proverbial leopard change his spots? Nuh-uh. Do people really change? Nuh-uh. I have a feeling that the Commies are not quite done with Bengal yet.
Rather Lengthy Postscript:
(1) I do not write the above with any pride or glee. I am a Bengali and it brings tears to my eyes to see my people reduced. I have seen the hopelessness and helplessness. For quite some years, I lived it. So I know what I am talking about. And remember that I come from a background that is more privileged than most. I shudder to think of the Bengalis living close to subsistence under the Leftists.
(2) Any Bengalis reading this blog and intending to jump down my throat please note that starting to fix something is a two-step process. You have to first recognize that something is wrong with it, and then, determine what is wrong with it. And sometimes one must resort to rhetoric to get the first task done. The tale of the downfall of Bengal is not a splendid one. It cannot be told gently. I'm sorry.
Old Man: I'll get down to business without beating around. Guys, I don't know how to break it you gently; but you have made a frickin' mess of running things for yourselves here.
Bengalis: Beg pardon?
Old Man: A snafu, if I ever saw one. You, my dear misguided friends, need help. In my personal but studied opinion.
Bengalis: What the heck are you talking about? What mess? I think we've done quite well for ourselves. Our per-capita is among the highest in India. We have thriving heavy industries. It was a bit of bother losing that large chunk of land to East Pakistan during Partition because it was a good farmland and a source of raw material to feed the industry, but I think we'll live. Literacy is not great but increasing. It is in any case not significantly lower than any other state. Our educational institutions still rank among the best in India. So what gives?
Old Man: And that is your story?
Bengalis: Well, actually there's more. Not to boast, but our recent history is rather glorious, wot. We were considered to be the leaders in the fight for independence. From within us emerged veritable giants like Swami Vivekanada, Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose, Sri Aurobindo Ghosh. Spiritually, politically, intellectually, economically, we were
pretty much swingin'. And the future looks good, we dare say.
Old Man: Snap out of it, guys. You haven't done squat. I have here with me what I call *fanfare* The System(TM). All I ask is that you try The System for sometime. Say about five years or so should do it. It takes a little time to work; what good thing doesn't? But if you think you are prosperous now, come meet me in five years after you've tried my System.
Bengalis: Well, okay.
Old Man (blinking): Huh? Okay? Did you just say ok?
Bengalis: Yeah, you heard us. Okay, we'll try it. You have an honest face.
Five years pass. Bengalis are a little poorer, thanks in no small measure to the System. It is not too much cause for alarm yet, but a few large industries have closed their doors or moved their shops elsewhere because trade-unionism is getting just a wee bit out of hand. Adult literacy isn't even crawling slowly upwards, it's frozen. What was merely a trickle of illegal immigrants from across the Bangladesh border has become a steady and strong stream. Rumor has it that the old man is in the know and on the take about this immigration thing. He encourages it in exchange for support for his System by the immigrants. The state of West Bengal, which usually ranked in the company of a Maharashtra or a Gujarat when considering human development indices, is now increasingly being mentioned alongside a Bihar or a Uttar Pradesh.
Sure enough, after five years, Bengalis hear a knock on the door. The Old Man stands there, looking a little sheepish.
Old Man: Okay, alright, before you jump down my throat, let me say it out loud myself. I know things are not so hot.
Bengalis: We wouldn't exactly put it that way.
Old Man: Alright, alright, go easy on me man. Sheesh. So things are super suckass. You happy now?
Bengalis: What's up with you? We think you've done a great job. Look around you. Things are so nice. We've never had it better. Here's our check, we'll buy another five year's supply of The System.
Old Man: (faints)
We know how this story ends, don't we? That Old Man is the Communist Party of India. And he has been in charge of Bengal's destiny for over two decades now, and counting. Bengal is near the bottom of the heap today--economically and culturally. Years of the Grand Old Man's dirigiste communism has beggared Bengal. Yet the Grand Old Man is in charge. Why? Because Bengalis have repeatedly elected him as their leader. And he didn't even have to resort to hard sell.
A group of clever, perceptive, foresighted people cannot keep choosing corrupt, rapacious goons to lead them. Goons that have made it a business of systematically impoverishing those that they rule. But Bengalis have repeatedly done this very same thing. Ergo, Bengalis are idiots. Not only that, they are masochists to boot.
IMHO, asking whether Bengalis are smart is like asking if the management of Apple Computer was smart. Both of these people took a promising something (a lead in technology in the case of Apple, an economy in the case of Bengalis) and totally blew it. Going by that rubric, no we are not smart.
Folk wisdom tells us that stupid people don't get rich. But how stupid do you have to be to actually travel in the reverse direction, to go from riches to rags?
At the time of independence, Bengal had a few things to boast of. What Bengal thinks today, India thinks tomorrow, and all that sort of thing. Or so I have been told.
And then we elected the Communists. And there was no looking ahead after that. Too, we didn't elect them just once, we elected them again. And again. And again. There are limits to how much one can flog himself, I would think. But no such luck here.
Today, Bengal is an economic basket case full of defeated people. It's industrial base is gone, thanks to rampant trade-unionism that has paralyzed manufacturing. Even it's much talked about "culture" is now flapping in the wind. I remember a time when Hindi cinema stole liberally from Bengali cinema (now they have switched to stealing from the South, the unoriginal bastards). Giants like Ritwick Ghatak, Bimal Roy, and Satyajit Ray strutted about. Now it's the reverse. Bengali cinema now looks to tired Bollywood movies for inspiration. Bengali literature hangs on, but only just. Adult literacy is barely over 50 percent.
There is glimmer of hope. The Leftists in Bengal are waking up, taking a whiff, and making noises about creating a pro-investment environment so that they don't miss out on the incumbent software boom. Having missed out on every other boom before this, they are not taking any chances with this one. But alas, I am a realist. Does the proverbial leopard change his spots? Nuh-uh. Do people really change? Nuh-uh. I have a feeling that the Commies are not quite done with Bengal yet.
Rather Lengthy Postscript:
(1) I do not write the above with any pride or glee. I am a Bengali and it brings tears to my eyes to see my people reduced. I have seen the hopelessness and helplessness. For quite some years, I lived it. So I know what I am talking about. And remember that I come from a background that is more privileged than most. I shudder to think of the Bengalis living close to subsistence under the Leftists.
(2) Any Bengalis reading this blog and intending to jump down my throat please note that starting to fix something is a two-step process. You have to first recognize that something is wrong with it, and then, determine what is wrong with it. And sometimes one must resort to rhetoric to get the first task done. The tale of the downfall of Bengal is not a splendid one. It cannot be told gently. I'm sorry.
(3) Rhetoric aside, this is what I truly believe. The intelligence of Bengalis is normally distributed with the same skew and kurtosis as the intelligence of any other group of people. Yes, I know my statistics; ha, ha. Put simply, they are no smarter or dumber than any other group of people. I would bet that if you took the normal curve of Bengali IQ and superimposed it on the normal curve of say, Bihari IQ, they would be indistinguishable. Nature is equally kind (or equally unkind, depending on your point of view) to every group of people. It is Nurture/Conditioning that makes our natural attributes appear different. And conditioning is a very powerful force. As a small example, consider the former East Germans and West Germans. Similar groups of people with similar natural attributes. Yet it took only two generations of good old Soviet-style conditioning to make them appear quite different from each other.
Explanations
The recent bombings in London have created a lot of talk about radical Islam. A lot of illiberal talk. This must stop. Yes, you heard that right. This hate-mongering must forthwith stop. So what if these guys sometimes blow up women and children? There are some second-order benefits of Radical Islam (RI, for short) that are lost on you folks who like to bash it. There are some definite upsides to RI that the gullible among you just don't get. Time to fix that hole.
Every cloud has a silver lining. This, munchkins, is also true of Radical Islam. Because RI has vomited up...er, what I mean, is...spawned a shiny new profession that gainfully employs many. That is the benefit. These professionals proudly call themselves the Apologists for Radical Islam, or ARIs for short. This is not quite the same as dhimmis. Dhimmitude is lowly and passe; ARI gets you spots on TV shows.
Skeptics should note that being an ARI can be quite profitable. Witness the wise and noble Fareed Zakaria, editor of Newsweek and one of my absolute favourite heroes (hey, there's no accounting for taste, to each his own and all that), who recently appeared on Jon Stewart's Daily Show and forwarded a rather interesting theory of why exactly British Muslims are inclined to terrorism. He said that we must keep in mind the general underprivileged condition of the Muslims in Britain before pointing our forefingers in their direction and jumping up and down like we have a colony of fire-ants in our pants.
Another ARI: Richard Bennett commented on rediff.com about the cause and effect between the London bombings and the war in Iraq. "If in Iraq you play, London must pay." He didn't write that pome, I did. Nice, no?
Or take another personal favourite apologist of mine called Ms. Teesta Setalvad, who heads a very liberal (and I use the word "liberal" in the sense of "illiberal bigoted fundamentialist") organization called Sabrang Communications or somesuch. This is the person who wagged her carefully manicured finger at us after the Godhra train-burning and reminded us that yes, fifty-nine innocent people were incinerated including women and small children, but we must not forget the provocation. Exactly what sort of provocation this was that justified the barbecuing of sixty-odd human beings, she did not say. I guess I am slow so I still don't quite get it.
I would request all to note at this point that all ARIs are not necessarily Muslims. In fact, some of the biggest and loudest ARIs are often non-Muslim.
The more illiberal of us like to point out that these ARIs are--either knowingly or simply because they are logically-challenged cretins--bearing out the unfortunate law of unintended consequences.
Third, it occurs to me that ARIs often ignore Occam's Razor. One should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything. Poverty and outrage over Iraq are needlessly contrived explanations for radical Islam. The insight that a statistically significant section of Islamic folks preach virulence against non-Muslims, coupled with the fact that the much larger section of moderate, educated, peaceful, spineless, yellow-to-the-core Muslims sits there with its head stuck firmly up its ass in fear of fatwas and such, is the simplest explanation for radical Islam that I would personally buy.
Every cloud has a silver lining. This, munchkins, is also true of Radical Islam. Because RI has vomited up...er, what I mean, is...spawned a shiny new profession that gainfully employs many. That is the benefit. These professionals proudly call themselves the Apologists for Radical Islam, or ARIs for short. This is not quite the same as dhimmis. Dhimmitude is lowly and passe; ARI gets you spots on TV shows.
Skeptics should note that being an ARI can be quite profitable. Witness the wise and noble Fareed Zakaria, editor of Newsweek and one of my absolute favourite heroes (hey, there's no accounting for taste, to each his own and all that), who recently appeared on Jon Stewart's Daily Show and forwarded a rather interesting theory of why exactly British Muslims are inclined to terrorism. He said that we must keep in mind the general underprivileged condition of the Muslims in Britain before pointing our forefingers in their direction and jumping up and down like we have a colony of fire-ants in our pants.
Another ARI: Richard Bennett commented on rediff.com about the cause and effect between the London bombings and the war in Iraq. "If in Iraq you play, London must pay." He didn't write that pome, I did. Nice, no?
Or take another personal favourite apologist of mine called Ms. Teesta Setalvad, who heads a very liberal (and I use the word "liberal" in the sense of "illiberal bigoted fundamentialist") organization called Sabrang Communications or somesuch. This is the person who wagged her carefully manicured finger at us after the Godhra train-burning and reminded us that yes, fifty-nine innocent people were incinerated including women and small children, but we must not forget the provocation. Exactly what sort of provocation this was that justified the barbecuing of sixty-odd human beings, she did not say. I guess I am slow so I still don't quite get it.
I would request all to note at this point that all ARIs are not necessarily Muslims. In fact, some of the biggest and loudest ARIs are often non-Muslim.
The more illiberal of us like to point out that these ARIs are--either knowingly or simply because they are logically-challenged cretins--bearing out the unfortunate law of unintended consequences.
Good intentions don't always lead to desirable consequences. The unintended consequence in this case is that the ARIs are doing the very large section of average moderate Muslims a huge disfavour by attempting to rationalize the behaviour of a deranged minority. They are also contributing to the fog of war by distracting us with non-issues and therefore shielding Islam itself from critical examination and reform.
Most ARIs suffer from a peculiar kind of hubris. They don't consider the rest of us to be too bright. Hence, out of the goodness of their tender hearts and strictly for our edification, they point out a few "root causes" that sometimes cause Islamic terrorists to lovingly place powerful explosives within easy reach of children.
Let us consider some of these causes that are cast about hither and thither.
(1) Yes, what the terrorists did in London was wrong, but they were simply acting out of the sense of outrage that they felt about the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Now far be it from me to question the general intelligence behind that reasoning, but my limited grasp of logic leads me to conclude that the speaker of that above sentence is kinda...like...you know...saying that a British Muslim identifies more with a Muslim in Iraq than with his own British countrymen.
Or put another way, religious identity takes precedence over national identity. And that we should be understanding of this.
Now I always try to revere wise men and imbibe their wisdom. And the best way to do that is to imitate them devotedly. I will be more than simply understanding about this.
So thus, without further ado, and purely in the spirit of emulation, I sincerely request all my fellow Hindus in India to start identifying with our Hindu brothers in Bangladesh more than our own Muslim Indian citizens. In fact, I would ask them to lovingly displace one Muslim from India for each Hindu displaced from Bangladesh. I would request them to gently and thoughtfully dishonour exactly one Muslim woman for each Hindu woman abducted in Bangladesh. I would also like them to, with tender care, level exactly one mosque for each temple desecrated in Bangladesh.
I would also like to apply this guiding model of Hindu behaviour retroactively, so that we take into account all Hindus brutalized in and displaced from Bangladesh (and oh by the way, Pakistan) since 1947. And when my dear Hindu brothers reach this stage of evolution, I would request the likes of Mr. Zakaria and Ms. Setalvad and other assorted liberal folkses to kindly be understanding about this.
There is a lot one can learn by simply paying attention to these clever ARIs, no?
(2) We must understand and empathize with the fact that the general poverty of the Muslims in Britain and elsewhere leads to their radicalization.
Yes, of course. And once again, having internalized that sage piece of observation, I would like to make an observation of my own. I have noticed that there are a lot of poor Hindus in India. And to these poor oppressed brethren of mine, I would like to extend a call to arms. Any Christian in India who is richer than you is fair game, my poor Hindu friend. Every Muslim who is more prosperous must be stripped of his wealth and made poor (so that he, in turn, can take up arms against you).
Yes, I like this logic. Very appealing. And I am, as the days go by, filled with admiration for these ARIs who take such pains to educate us about the finer points of liberalism and go to such lengths to keep us honest.
Fucking worm-infested, regressive cretins.
Postscript and Disclaimer: I am not suggesting that Hindus actually do any of the things that are suggested above. That would be stupid. My intent is to point out, with a parallel, the utter ridiculousness of suggesting that anybody should be understanding of terrorism.
Second, it should be noted that when people of the likes of Zakaria--who is a high-profile editor of an influential magazine--make excuses for radical Islam by appealing to poverty or when someone else brings up Iraq to justify terrorism, it sets a dangerous mood. Because it implies that terrorism is a justified policy tool for expressing social or economic dissatisfaction and political disagreement. It implies that I am within my rights to go blow up uninvolved bystanders simply because I disagree with my government's foreign policy, or because I don't have a job. No right-thinking person would do this. These are not root causes; these are dangerous cop-outs.
Most ARIs suffer from a peculiar kind of hubris. They don't consider the rest of us to be too bright. Hence, out of the goodness of their tender hearts and strictly for our edification, they point out a few "root causes" that sometimes cause Islamic terrorists to lovingly place powerful explosives within easy reach of children.
Let us consider some of these causes that are cast about hither and thither.
(1) Yes, what the terrorists did in London was wrong, but they were simply acting out of the sense of outrage that they felt about the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Now far be it from me to question the general intelligence behind that reasoning, but my limited grasp of logic leads me to conclude that the speaker of that above sentence is kinda...like...you know...saying that a British Muslim identifies more with a Muslim in Iraq than with his own British countrymen.
Or put another way, religious identity takes precedence over national identity. And that we should be understanding of this.
Now I always try to revere wise men and imbibe their wisdom. And the best way to do that is to imitate them devotedly. I will be more than simply understanding about this.
So thus, without further ado, and purely in the spirit of emulation, I sincerely request all my fellow Hindus in India to start identifying with our Hindu brothers in Bangladesh more than our own Muslim Indian citizens. In fact, I would ask them to lovingly displace one Muslim from India for each Hindu displaced from Bangladesh. I would request them to gently and thoughtfully dishonour exactly one Muslim woman for each Hindu woman abducted in Bangladesh. I would also like them to, with tender care, level exactly one mosque for each temple desecrated in Bangladesh.
I would also like to apply this guiding model of Hindu behaviour retroactively, so that we take into account all Hindus brutalized in and displaced from Bangladesh (and oh by the way, Pakistan) since 1947. And when my dear Hindu brothers reach this stage of evolution, I would request the likes of Mr. Zakaria and Ms. Setalvad and other assorted liberal folkses to kindly be understanding about this.
There is a lot one can learn by simply paying attention to these clever ARIs, no?
(2) We must understand and empathize with the fact that the general poverty of the Muslims in Britain and elsewhere leads to their radicalization.
Yes, of course. And once again, having internalized that sage piece of observation, I would like to make an observation of my own. I have noticed that there are a lot of poor Hindus in India. And to these poor oppressed brethren of mine, I would like to extend a call to arms. Any Christian in India who is richer than you is fair game, my poor Hindu friend. Every Muslim who is more prosperous must be stripped of his wealth and made poor (so that he, in turn, can take up arms against you).
Yes, I like this logic. Very appealing. And I am, as the days go by, filled with admiration for these ARIs who take such pains to educate us about the finer points of liberalism and go to such lengths to keep us honest.
Fucking worm-infested, regressive cretins.
Postscript and Disclaimer: I am not suggesting that Hindus actually do any of the things that are suggested above. That would be stupid. My intent is to point out, with a parallel, the utter ridiculousness of suggesting that anybody should be understanding of terrorism.
Second, it should be noted that when people of the likes of Zakaria--who is a high-profile editor of an influential magazine--make excuses for radical Islam by appealing to poverty or when someone else brings up Iraq to justify terrorism, it sets a dangerous mood. Because it implies that terrorism is a justified policy tool for expressing social or economic dissatisfaction and political disagreement. It implies that I am within my rights to go blow up uninvolved bystanders simply because I disagree with my government's foreign policy, or because I don't have a job. No right-thinking person would do this. These are not root causes; these are dangerous cop-outs.
Third, it occurs to me that ARIs often ignore Occam's Razor. One should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything. Poverty and outrage over Iraq are needlessly contrived explanations for radical Islam. The insight that a statistically significant section of Islamic folks preach virulence against non-Muslims, coupled with the fact that the much larger section of moderate, educated, peaceful, spineless, yellow-to-the-core Muslims sits there with its head stuck firmly up its ass in fear of fatwas and such, is the simplest explanation for radical Islam that I would personally buy.
10 Kinds of People
There are 10 kinds of people in the world -- those who understand binary numbers, and those who don't.
Category: Attempted Humor
Balajee commented on my last post that the job of God is up for grabs and George Bush and Sonia Gandhi have submitted their resumes.
Balajee, I was thinking. Maybe we can persuade Monisha Koirala to apply. She'd make one hubba-bubba Goddess. It'd be fun worshipping her, wot?
I mean, I’ll let you folks be the judge, okay? Here are your candidates for God(dess). Take a good look-see and then tell me if there is any room for doubt.
God Candidate #1: Mata Anandmayee Pujjya Sri Sri Sri Sonia-ji-ji-ji (A single Ji can scarcely convey the reverence an average Indian feels for her.)
God Candidate #2: Dubya
God Candidate #3: Monisha, in her God work clothes (left) and in her chill-out, "I so Human" clothes (Right)
Balajee, I was thinking. Maybe we can persuade Monisha Koirala to apply. She'd make one hubba-bubba Goddess. It'd be fun worshipping her, wot?
I mean, I’ll let you folks be the judge, okay? Here are your candidates for God(dess). Take a good look-see and then tell me if there is any room for doubt.
God Candidate #1: Mata Anandmayee Pujjya Sri Sri Sri Sonia-ji-ji-ji (A single Ji can scarcely convey the reverence an average Indian feels for her.)
God Candidate #2: Dubya
God Candidate #3: Monisha, in her God work clothes (left) and in her chill-out, "I so Human" clothes (Right)
It is not even remotely a contest. Oh, and in case Monisha is busy and cannot be bothered, my next vote would go to the entire Russian women's tennis team.
In a related development, upon hearing that George Bush and Sonia Gandhi have applied for the position of God, (A) Bin Laden, (B) Mr. A. B. Vajpayee and, (C) all Democrats who rooted for John Kerry, have submitted their own nominations for the post of Satan.
This just in. In a late move, Ralph Nader, seeing how it was an election and all, has submitted his nomination also. In an even later move, both he and his Ego have been stripped naked, whipped raw and chased out of town by some seriously pissed-off Democrats.
Postscript: Here's some food for thought, though. If Monisha does indeed become Goddess and her administrative skills are anything like her acting skills, we are looking at serious trouble.
In a related development, upon hearing that George Bush and Sonia Gandhi have applied for the position of God, (A) Bin Laden, (B) Mr. A. B. Vajpayee and, (C) all Democrats who rooted for John Kerry, have submitted their own nominations for the post of Satan.
This just in. In a late move, Ralph Nader, seeing how it was an election and all, has submitted his nomination also. In an even later move, both he and his Ego have been stripped naked, whipped raw and chased out of town by some seriously pissed-off Democrats.
Postscript: Here's some food for thought, though. If Monisha does indeed become Goddess and her administrative skills are anything like her acting skills, we are looking at serious trouble.
The Boon
One evening I sat and called on the Big Guy. You know, the Big Guy in the Sky. The Head Honcho. The Big Cheese. They say you really gotta pray long and hard to get his...beg pardon, His, attention. And even that is iffy.
They are wrong. It took about fifteen minutes. And He was standing in front of me.
He was smaller than I expected and several pounds overweight. He needed a shave.
"Wazzup?" He said.
"I need a boon."
He belched. He had onion on his breath. And alcohol.
His shirt was half-buttoned; looked like he might have put his clothes on hastily.
"Yeah well, who doesn't?"
"So you'll give me a blessing then?" I asked.
He scratched his stubbly chin and looked at me with a shrewd eye, sizing me up. Then He shrugged, "Awright, let's boogie. But make it quick. You kinda caught me in the middle of something."
We had a short conversation then.
He offered comfort. I asked for strength.
He offered fame. I asked for sweat.
He offered love. I asked for respect.
He offered friends and lovers. I asked for loneliness.
He offered peace. I asked for pain.
He offered More. I asked for Less.
He offered to make me a ruler of Men. I asked Him to make me a ruler of Myself.
He shrugged and said that He didn't have these things to give that I asked for, I was on my own on this, so sorry. I smiled and said that I understood completely.
He said that I was a little weird. I thanked Him for his time.
He didn't stay long.
I sat by myself after He left and thought of cabbages and kings. Outside, it grew dark as the ebony night slowly strangled the yellow evening.
They are wrong. It took about fifteen minutes. And He was standing in front of me.
He was smaller than I expected and several pounds overweight. He needed a shave.
"Wazzup?" He said.
"I need a boon."
He belched. He had onion on his breath. And alcohol.
His shirt was half-buttoned; looked like he might have put his clothes on hastily.
"Yeah well, who doesn't?"
"So you'll give me a blessing then?" I asked.
He scratched his stubbly chin and looked at me with a shrewd eye, sizing me up. Then He shrugged, "Awright, let's boogie. But make it quick. You kinda caught me in the middle of something."
We had a short conversation then.
He offered comfort. I asked for strength.
He offered fame. I asked for sweat.
He offered love. I asked for respect.
He offered friends and lovers. I asked for loneliness.
He offered peace. I asked for pain.
He offered More. I asked for Less.
He offered to make me a ruler of Men. I asked Him to make me a ruler of Myself.
He shrugged and said that He didn't have these things to give that I asked for, I was on my own on this, so sorry. I smiled and said that I understood completely.
He said that I was a little weird. I thanked Him for his time.
He didn't stay long.
I sat by myself after He left and thought of cabbages and kings. Outside, it grew dark as the ebony night slowly strangled the yellow evening.
Good going, Mr. Singh
The Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh met with the U.S. President George Bush in New York and minced no words when he pointed out that Pakistan was still being cozy with terrorists. Mr. Bush looked suitably surprised.
"You don't say", were his exact words.
They also fruitfully discussed cooperation in the nuclear sphere between India and the United States.
According to reports, while greeting the prime minister, Bush said, "You are a good man and I can do business with you."
"Why do you wear that funny hat?" he later added.
"You don't say", were his exact words.
They also fruitfully discussed cooperation in the nuclear sphere between India and the United States.
According to reports, while greeting the prime minister, Bush said, "You are a good man and I can do business with you."
"Why do you wear that funny hat?" he later added.
All Hail The Mother
I hear they are making a movie on the life and times of Sonia Gandhi. This of course makes her a bit of a living legend as far as politicians go. Even Rajeev Gandhi did not get this sort of honor. Neither did Indira. No one decided to make a movie about their lives while they were still alive. And a movie about Vajpayee? Yes, I hear the laughter too.
I will watch this movie of course. I will watch it closely and try to get a sense of the attributes that someone must possess or cultivate to enable her to rule over a nation of a billion people. A billion foreigners.
I personally think that the Imperial British needlessly committed a lot of money and troops in their troubles to conquer and rule India. It could have been done rather simply and without much fuss, as Sonia has just demonstrated so convincingly. All it needed was a bit of social engineering.
All Hail Sonia, the Brilliant White Mother Goddess. We bow to Thee.
And thank you for governing us skinny brown assed bastards. May your rule be long and fruitful.
I will watch this movie of course. I will watch it closely and try to get a sense of the attributes that someone must possess or cultivate to enable her to rule over a nation of a billion people. A billion foreigners.
I personally think that the Imperial British needlessly committed a lot of money and troops in their troubles to conquer and rule India. It could have been done rather simply and without much fuss, as Sonia has just demonstrated so convincingly. All it needed was a bit of social engineering.
All Hail Sonia, the Brilliant White Mother Goddess. We bow to Thee.
And thank you for governing us skinny brown assed bastards. May your rule be long and fruitful.
The Solution
One day Mal-2 asked the messenger spirit Saint Gulik to approach the Goddess and request Her presence for some desperate advice. Shortly afterwards the radio came on by itself, and an ethereal female Voice said:
YES?
"O! Eris! Blessed Mother of Man! Queen of Chaos! Daughter of Discord! Concubine of Confusion! O! Exquisite Lady, I beseech You to lift a heavy burden from my heart!"
WHAT BOTHERS YOU, MAL? YOU DON'T SOUND WELL.
"I am filled with fear and tormented with terrible visions of pain. Everywhere people are hurting one another, the planet is rampant with injustices, whole societies plunder groups of their own people, mothers imprison sons, children perish while brothers war. O, woe."
WHAT IS THE MATTER WITH THAT, IF IT IS WHAT YOU WANT TO DO?
"But nobody Wants it! Everybody hates it."
OH. WELL, THEN STOP.
-- From the Principia Discordia
Rant #567 (And Some Bad Poetry)
I have nothing meaningful to contribute so I shall rant. Rather weakly, too.
I noticed today with a tingling feeling all over that www.rediff.com, an otherwise excellent source of news about all things Indian, has decided to go all politically starched and straight on us. They are now publishing stuff from assorted Pakistani columnists.
In itself, this ain't so bad a thing. There are many balanced, insightful Pakistani journo-types out there who can make a point. Ayaz Amir comes to mind. Besides it is always useful to throw out an opposing point of view. You know, just to mix it up a little.
But when you start reprinting utter drivel written by an established moron and position that as an opposing opinion, a reality check might be in order.
Okay, some background. Rediff did a piece on the 1965 war between India and Pakistan. Two pieces in fact. One by an Indian strategic analyst and one by an odious, mixed-up, halfwit Paki.
I will not post the link to the Paki rant which loudly proclaimed that the Pakis won the war [Aside: Most military analysts--as opposed to jingoistic fundamentalist vapid half-literate cretins--agree that it was a pointless, short war that ended in bit of a stalemate for both sides]. Here are some excerpts from the idiot:
I wrote a comment on the article and sent it to Rediff. They will delete it. Because they are a rather prop-ah sort of magazine, you see. They have low tolerance for people like me.
Here's the short comment, for the record:
I noticed today with a tingling feeling all over that www.rediff.com, an otherwise excellent source of news about all things Indian, has decided to go all politically starched and straight on us. They are now publishing stuff from assorted Pakistani columnists.
In itself, this ain't so bad a thing. There are many balanced, insightful Pakistani journo-types out there who can make a point. Ayaz Amir comes to mind. Besides it is always useful to throw out an opposing point of view. You know, just to mix it up a little.
But when you start reprinting utter drivel written by an established moron and position that as an opposing opinion, a reality check might be in order.
Okay, some background. Rediff did a piece on the 1965 war between India and Pakistan. Two pieces in fact. One by an Indian strategic analyst and one by an odious, mixed-up, halfwit Paki.
I will not post the link to the Paki rant which loudly proclaimed that the Pakis won the war [Aside: Most military analysts--as opposed to jingoistic fundamentalist vapid half-literate cretins--agree that it was a pointless, short war that ended in bit of a stalemate for both sides]. Here are some excerpts from the idiot:
Ayub Khan's political strength also weakened. Like Winston Churchill, he won the war but lost the elections after the war. The US was also against Khan.
...
Nishan-E-Haider (Pakistan's highest military award) Aziz Bhatti became our hero. He died defending the lines near Lahore and became a legend. Many novels have been written on him. [All of them raging best-sellers, I'm sure -- Sougata]
Outside the Lahore radio station a post box was kept in which people would submit patriotic poetry. I wrote poetry too. A poem I wrote for the Pakistan Air Force became very popular:
Yeh hawa ke rahion/Yeh badalon ke sathion/Harfanshan Mujahidon/Apni jaan pe khel kar/Tum bane salamati/blah,blah,rot,rot
I wrote a comment on the article and sent it to Rediff. They will delete it. Because they are a rather prop-ah sort of magazine, you see. They have low tolerance for people like me.
Here's the short comment, for the record:
Aziz Bhatti -- what a funny name.
Sir, your poetry is incomprehensible, if not reprehensible. It is also indefensible (See, I can be a bad poet too!). It is also laughable. Among other things.
Sir, please give it a rest.
Rediff, I have no problem when you decide to reprint a Paki's rants. But did you *have* to get a idiot Paki? Couldn't you get a decent, rational, well-informed one? One whose head wasn't firmly stuck in the sand. Or up his own you-know-what. There do exist some such, you know.
Oh, and a note to whoever does the screening of comments: Before deleting this comment, please show it to your sainted boss or editor or whoever and ask him to pay attention to the above paragraph. It'll improve the quality of the magazine and not drive away existing eyeballs. Please do not become unselective in an effort to become balanced.
Eighty-Twenty
Give me a fruitful error any time, full of seeds, bursting with its own corrections. You can keep your sterile truth for yourself.
A generalized rule followed from this observation: eighty percent of an effect is usually accounted for by twenty percent of the set of causes. For example, 80% of the revenue of a business is generated by 20% of its products. Or 80% of the time to manufacture a widget is taken up by 20% of the set of processes required to manufacture it. A company can use a Pareto distribution in each case to identify its most profitable products or improve its most inefficient processes.
This general law of statistical distribution, which seems abundantly obvious to us now in hindsight, has become a widely used tool for things like root-cause analysis and studies of economic and social phenomena. In manufacturing root-cause analysis, for example, it is found that eighty percent of production errors are caused by twenty percent of the process. A Pareto distribution can be used in this case as a prioritization tool in order to focus on and amend the errors with the highest severity.
Pareto also contributed to the study of the (micro-)economics of consumer choice by forwarding theories on utility maximization and indifference curves.
The 80-20 rule, by the way, is another example of hindsight bias. The rule seems so patently plain to us today because we have assimilated its wisdom over time. As a matter of fact, it almost seems like an insult to the intelligence of the readers of this blog to describe it in any detail. "I knew that, annoying cretin," is the average reaction I suppose, "As a matter of fact, I could have discovered it myself if this Pareto bloke hadn't beaten me to it."
Perhaps. But then again, perhaps not.
By George
I think it's the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.One of my favorite stand-up comics is George Carlin. Irreverent, outrageous, with malice towards all; he is a treat to watch. If you have Comedy Central on cable you can sometimes catch his shows. You are all Diseased is a good show. Please note that if you do watch him, remember to bear with him. He starts slow, but like most things worth the mention, he's good in the middle.
Here are some opinions that George holds. He holds them rather loosely but, and will give them to you readily:
If it's true that our species is alone in the universe, then I'd have to say that the universe aimed rather low and settled for very little.
I don't like to think of laws as rules you have to follow, but more as suggestions.
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
Some national parks have long waiting lists for camping reservations. When you have to wait a year to sleep next to a tree, something is wrong.
The IQ and the life expectancy of the average American recently passed each other going in opposite directions.
The very existence of flamethrowers proves that some time, somewhere, someone said to themselves, "You know, I want to set those people over there on fire, but I’m just not close enough to get the job done."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)