Tagged: rape in India
Law 29: Demonetizing Bin Laden
Buddhism is the true religion of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). Let me explain. Gautama opposed the caste system and was attacked – although not persecuted – by the Brahmins. Since then, Savarkar (1883-1966) and other proponents of Hindutva ideology have played down the caste system, to the point of presenting it as a deviation from true Hinduism or Hindutva. Therefore, as they oppose the caste system, they must be Buddhists, unless they are Westernized revisionist brains.
Demonetizing Bin Laden
“Center [Indian Government] had justified the decision of demonetization stating it was taken to crack down on fake currency, black money and terror financing.” (Hindustan Times, YouTube, Jan 2, 2023)
Some governments can’t take any action without justifying it by a necessity to fight terrorism. A potent justification as far as illiterate mobs are concerned, certainly. In 2019, EU stopped issuing its 500-euro banknotes, the highest euro note; these were called “Bin Ladens” because they were allegedly used in criminal transactions (and Western media know of no other criminal than Bin Laden, although mafias have been thriving all over the place for decades). 500 euros is about 45,000 Indian rupees, and one can understand that transactions that must remain cash (because they are unlawful) need high-value notes, but what proportion of “Bin Ladens” were used by Al-Qaeda compared to mafias? – India fighting terrorism with excavators (demolishing for encroachment the property of alleged terrorists running free [see Law 28: “Bulldozer Crackdown”]) and demonetization…
However, Modiji demonetized 1,000 INR notes to replace them with 2,000 notes†, that is, he replaces high-value notes by even higher-value notes. Criminals need cash for their high-value criminal transactions. You and I need cash for groceries; for more expensive purchases we usually make bank transfers. The 2,000 note is evidence that the demonetization has nothing to do with war against crime.
“People seeking to exchange their banknotes had to stand in lengthy queues, and several deaths were linked to the rush to exchange cash. … The move reduced the country’s industrial production and its GDP growth rate. It is estimated that 1.5 million jobs were lost.” (Wkpd: Indian banknote demonetization) Congratulations, Modiji!
†To be quite precise, demonetized 500 and 1,000 INR notes were replaced by new 500 and 2,000 notes.
The Delhi Car Drag
“Delhi erupts in rage after car drags woman for 7 kilometers; Murder or accident?” (Hindustan Times, YouTube, Jan 2023)
Some constitutional considerations
“Delhi chief minister demanded death penalty for the accused.” In all countries, it would be senseless for a member of the executive to tell courts what their decision should be, at any stage. But to demand death penalty is even more senseless in India, where, although death penalty exists, only eight executions have been carried out since 1996, that is, death penalty in India is a mockery.
Delhi chief minister (CM)’s demanding a death sentence for what has been said, so far, to be an accident, is senseless. But given Indian Supreme Court (SC)’s decision Bachan Singh v State of Punjab (1980), even if it is, in fact, a gruesome murder, the demand would still not be in line with actual law, that is, said Supreme Court’s decision, which limits death sentence to “rarest of rare crimes.” These include crimes involving the “security of the state” and I therefore disagree with SC’s ruling. There exists no reason to make a difference between crimes based on state security. Such a line simply cannot be drawn, unless it means that the life of a public official has more value than ordinary citizens’ lives – an abhorrent idea.
Delhi CM talks in the present case of “rarest of rare crime” indeed, the condition for a death sentence. According to the Indian Supreme Court, there is a rarest of rare crime when, to begin with, a “murder is committed in an extremely brutal, grotesque, diabolical, revolting or dastardly manner so as to arouse intense and extreme indignation of the community.” This cannot be a valid definition. Homicides committed in anger or fear are usually more brutal and violent and dastardly than premeditated murders committed in cold blood, and yet it is a well-established principle that premeditation makes a crime more heinous. By emphasizing the graphic element of a crime, the definition overlooks other major aspects, just like a mob reacting to a crime.
However, the attempt by SC to define “rarest of rare” contrives a definition that denies the very name “rarest of rare”: “[I]f the motive betrays depravity and meanness, or if a backward or minority community member is killed not for personal reasons but to arouse social wrath, the accused should get death. Other crimes which technically fall into the rarest of rare cases are bride burnings and dowry deaths, a child victim, the assassination of a public figure for political reasons [security of the state, discussed above], or killing a defenseless person because of old age or infirmity.” Hate crimes, political crimes, infanticides, etc. Such a large definition for rarest of rare. – Given that among the only eight people executed since 1996 in India, we find a gang of rapists who later killed their victim, one is bound to think, unfortunately, that rarest or rare are the cases properly brought before a court.
Two female friends, Anjali and Nidhi, left a hotel in Delhi at 1:30 am on a scooter. Later, street cameras show Anjali’s body dragged by a car. Crowds rioted in anger when they learnt police reported the incident as an accident.
It looks like an accident, but even so the men in the car would be culpable of hit-and-run and manslaughter.
Had the men stopped the car after the accident, the car would not have dragged the body. It remains to be seen if a car can drag a body with the occupants not noticing at once; experts will tell.
a-a) Passengers’ v. driver’s responsibility
There is 1) the accident but also 2) the hit-and-run. The other occupants of the car beside the driver would have to convince a court they did their best to prevent the hit-and-run, otherwise they are accomplices in it. If they failed to report the incident, complicity will be retained.
If a car passenger does not report to police after the incident (without good reason), he will be presumed to have supported the hit-and-run. What if they were caught by police while still in the car? Obviously, a passenger cannot stop the driver without risking an accident, so if one passenger urges the driver to stop and the driver won’t listen, there is probably not much else the passenger could do; in this case, the passengers should not be presumed accomplices. Passengers can stop a driver but there is always a risk of accident, as the driver is in control of the car.
If passengers were stoned from alcohol or otherwise, and didn’t even realize there was an accident, then again, they are not accomplices.
When actor Salman Khan’s chauffeur was found guilty of a hit-and-run while Salman, as passenger, got away with it, I assume the court had good reasons for a decision I find counterintuitive, because Salman was the boss, and the chauffeur his employee, so at first I would assume Salman gave his chauffeur the order to keep driving rather than the chauffeur took Salman “hostage.” But perhaps the chauffeur was so afraid of the consequences of the accident that he did not listen to his boss urging him to stop the car. Possibly.
This is not only an accident but also a hit-and-run, and not only a hit-and-run but also manslaughter. The difference with murder is that the driver and passengers probably didn’t intend to kill Anjali by dragging her, they had rather hoped the body would detach, alive, from under the car so they could drive away, released from this “burden.” However, the drag was an act of violence causing injuries that resulted in death: the definition of manslaughter.
Someone, a YouTube user, said “[the accused] having knowledge” is enough in Indian law to characterize murder, “not only mens rea” (a legal term for intent). Knowledge of what, he did not tell, but I think I can connect the dots, and that puzzles me because it means Indian law has no proper distinction between murder and manslaughter, which, if true, would be a shortcoming. In the present case, for instance, the men probably knew they were committing a violent, potentially lethal act, but death was not their intent (mens rea); their intent was more likely to have the body released from the car or the car released from the body, although, in their recklessness, they were certainly aware this could provoke death†.
Delhi CM, who demands a death sentence for them, seems to have another appreciation of the facts; he may think they dragged a person unknown to them with the purpose of taking her life, that they had a design to choose a random prey to torture and kill her or took the opportunity of an unexpected traffic accident to satisfy murderous instincts and they enjoyed it. But neither the chief minister nor I is a judge of the facts. The jury will settle it. In the meantime, as the chief minister talks his mind, I talk my mind too. The facts of the case as known so far from reports by Indian media seem to point to manslaughter rather than murder, unless the men knew the victim, a point the police said they are investigating. If the men knew the victim, the police may find biographical elements in their relationships that could constitute a plausible mens rea for murder, for instance if they bore her a grudge for some reason or other. Absent a previous relationship, there seems to be no other possible mens rea other than, for instance, a murderous mindset oriented toward random gruesome acts (but if the men don’t have a criminal record, this will hardly obtain, unless a psychiatric report points to the same) or a hatred for women that would make the case a femicide, a hate crime (which the Commission for Women has hastily presumed without, in my opinion, good reason, if not the assumption that Indian males, or all males, are prone to roaming streets for killing women – but is this assumption or prejudice? To be sure, Anjali’s clothes had been torn by the long drag, and this could make think of rape.)
† Knowledge that an act might provoke death cannot be sufficient for the distinction because all violent acts are potentially lethal, even a punch or a kick, so we would have to assume that every violent act causing death is a murder if the culprit is found responsible of his acts; that is, the manslaughter category would become so residual that it would not even be correct to talk about it as a standing category. Yet the use of violence can be elicited by many reasons other than a wish to kill, therefore the manslaughter category is necessary. That its suppression may help deter violence overall cannot, even if the effect were ascertained, off-balance the distortion that would be imposed on facts and reality by such a conception. Furthermore, the distinction does not preclude a probabilistic approach that pronounces indictment for murder for acts from which death were likely to occur. It is not the same to punch or stab or shoot at someone in anger; when the act committed was likely to cause death, an intention to kill is more difficult to discard. What about a slow-motion car drag? As cameras show, the driver tried to release the car from the body by driving at slow speed, presumably because he thought that a higher speed would be fatal; that is, the vehicle’s motion hints at the driver’s intent not to kill Anjali.
c/ Police conduct
As for police conduct, which has been questioned, we heard that a first police report talked of an accident, and this triggered street demonstrations or riots. If there was only “accident” in this report, then truly the report seems light, as a hit-and-run was also obvious. But a hit-and-run is not yet, per se, a murder/manslaughter either. Assuming the report was about accident and hit-and-run, one could still be puzzled and ask: How did the men not notice there was a body under their car? I have been watching Indian channels on YouTube these last days, and since the Anjali case surfaced, already two other car drag incidents occurred in India, as in Hardoi (Uttar Pradesh) yesterday, Jan 6, when a cyclist was dragged by a car over one kilometer before the driver stopped. On videos, we see pedestrians rushing toward the vehicle to alert the driver that he was dragging somebody; apparently, the driver had not noticed it at once. In the Delhi case, some people say a “decent” driver’s not noticing is impossible, but is it so certain? For one, it depends on the condition of the roads: where a car ceaselessly bounces up and down due to the road’s unevenness, it probably takes longer to notice the presence of a dragged burden under one’s car. Nevertheless, in case police did sloppy work, this is no evidence of coverup, rather than incompetence or neglect, yet. Even if police try to protect a politician among the car passengers (or is he the driver? – one of the accused is a local BJP politician), Nidhi’s interview in front of cameras can be of no help in that regard, as far as I can see, contrary to what is said by some: Nidhi’s testimony as we know it (see iii) can’t cast the least shadow of a doubt on the main facts.
Assuming police are trying to protect the BJP politician, their best asset for this at the present stage would be Nidhi, that is, they would shift attention from the men to Nidhi. She would be the one responsible for the accident and the men would have noticed nothing, neither the accident nor the drag, they’re cleared. If police staged Nidhi’s interview, as some suggest, they would have knowingly induced her to tell lies, such as her claim that “Anjali was drunk and I wasn’t, and yet she insisted to drive” which would, unanticipated by her, later be dispelled by forensic expertise (no alcohol found by the postmortem) and cast serious doubts on her personality. Therefore, if the claim is police interference, insistence on charging Nidhi is not quite consistent, because Nidhi’s words may have been staged: apparently an attempt to clear herself but in fact a trap diabolically laid for her by police.
The victim’s friend
Nidhi was witness to a hit-and-run that would likely result in homicide, seeing Anjali dragged away under a car. She probably ran for her life, thinking: “If these monsters notice me, a witness to their crime, they’ll want to kill me too, so indifferent are they to strangers’ life.” Then she went back home. Why not to the police? At 2 am in the morning, the safest was straight home. Perhaps she didn’t even know where the police station is, nor was there anybody around to tell her, or she didn’t dare ask, for that would have shown she was helpless, and men could have raped her. And she didn’t have police number on her phone: who cares about that at 20 something? So, Hindustan Times says she went home, probably thinking of asking for advice. She then did nothing for the next two days: if this means she reported on her own initiative after three days, then she finally reported. Why so long? Perhaps the first day she was completely out of her mind, then the second day she thought it was already too late and she hoped she would escape investigation, and the third day she had remorse and reported.
But Nidhi’s behavior is a secondary and minor question, just as the accident is secondary in importance to the possible crimes, hit-and-run and manslaughter. Absent further elements that may surface later, in the previous paragraph I attempt an explanation. Some added in the meantime elements about her criminal record (drugs), and the hypothesis that she hid for two days to allow time to erase traces of alcohol or drugs in her blood (she would have been the one intoxicated and not, as she said, Anjali). But all in all, it is not clear how her behavior could be of great relevance to the main issue, unless one nurtures the idea of a premeditated murder of Anjali in which Nidhi would be implicated. Even if Nidhi were found liable for not reporting and/or the accident (cf. the allegation that cameras show she had her hands on the handle a few moments before the accident), that wouldn’t change the elements regarding hit-and-run and manslaughter.
The Commissions for Women
Does the National Commission for Women make a statement each time a woman dies a violent death in India or is there something special here?
The Commissions for Women, national commission and Delhi commission, added fuel to the fire; I suspect one or the other instigated or incited the riots, or at least provoked them by making provocative statements. Who first claimed it was a femicide, with rape and what not, in defiance of the police report? (Anjali’s clothes were torn due to, according to expertise, the drag, but as the body was half-naked people at the CW immediately said it was a case of rape and murder.)
Delhi Commission then sharply criticized Nidhi’s interview and threatened her with legal action for her “character assassination” of Anjali (who Nidhi said was drunk and yet insisted on driving the scooter). Is it character assassination when Delhi chief minister demands death penalty for the men in the car, who are still presumed innocent (like all accused before a judgment)? Is it character assassination when one or the other Commission for Women spins a femicide yarn out of thin air? Bureaucrats would be the only ones allowed to talk? – Obviously the Commission for Women is embarrassed by their femicide spin in defiance of the preliminary police report. So-called “character assassination” is allowed in a trial and then (in a trial) it is no slander: when you are accused of something, you are allowed to defend yourself, and that may mean to shift responsibility onto others’ shoulders. (Of course, if you are found to be lying, your defense will be disregarded.)
“Rave Parties in Saudi Arabia: Crown Prince MBS Stuns the Old Guard with Modernization Push.” (Hindustan Times, YouTube, Jan 2023)
At the same time, Italy criminalizes rave parties. In Italy now, organizing a rave party will owe one up to six years imprisonment. The law has just been passed. Italians have had enough and know better than MBS.
Rave party means hundreds or thousands of people gathered in the dark with loud music covering everything. Alcohol and drugs will circulate uncontrolled in Saudi raves because tourists are now welcome in the Kingdom, which did not deliver tourist visas until a couple of years ago. But the main concern is probably the opening of the land of Islamic holy sites to cultural forms that are increasingly considered, in the very West where they originated, as repellent and degenerate –even if rave parties did not imply invasion of property and noise pollution on several square kilometers–, so much so that it’s just got banned in Italy.
I don’t know the rules about alcohol and tourists in KSA but I know the United Arab Emirates (UAE), where tourists can get alcohol at hotels and private homes. I am told the rules are not the same. However, KSA, the new tourist destination, will likely follow UAE’s example, for you can’t invite a drunkard to your place and deprive them of their booze.
P.S. “Woman Who Went Topless After Argentina’s World Cup Win Escapes Arrest in Qatar. An Argentine woman, seen flashing in videos from the stadium, has appeared to have escaped any action.” (News18, Dec 22, 2022)
One of the strange things about the moon is that, while you need launch pad and rocket to escape Earth’s atmosphere, it only takes a little aluminum foil bug to escape the moon’s. I know gravity is not the same but you’d almost believe a man will get lost in the lunar skies instead of remaining on the lunar surface, so easy it is to escape the satellite’s atmosphere.
“China Restarts ‘Mission Nepal’ Against India. A purported China dove has been made Prime Minister.” (Firstpost, YouTube, Jan 2023)
A combined invasion of India by China and Nepal would be dramatic for India.
A medical use of cannabis was contrived as a wedge for recreational use. At Woodstock, no one said a word about medical use but they had a lot to say about recreational or existential or philosophical or whatever use. Medical use was contrived by people who had smoked weed at Woodstock and were looking for a way to make their new pastime accepted by society. That is, they perjure the Hippocratic Oath. From recreational and illegal to medical to recreational and legal.
The Air India Flight’s
Urinating and Indecent Exposure Case
“Drunk man on Air India’s New York-Delhi flight urinates on woman co-passenger.” (HT, YouTube, Jan 2023)
The regulator wants sanctions against the “negligent” cabin crew, but pay attention that the crew is also a victim of the indecent exposure (“After urinating, the man continued to stand there, exposing himself”), even if they were not urinated upon (this a crime I am unable to define legally at this stage, having no example in mind). Air hostesses and even stewards were in a state of shock, as victims themselves, and could not properly handle the passenger who was shamelessly exposing his parts to them. All in all, I think the National Commission for Women should make a statement.
The indecent exposure dimension of the incident has been completely played down so far and this is shocking in its own right. Crew hostesses have a right to damages, just like the lady who was urinated upon in addition to damages for being urinated upon. Indecent exposure is in the Indian criminal code (sadhus being outside the purview of the considered section). Therefore, you can’t sanction the crew as if they had not endured something foul themselves.
“Indian criminal code is not applicable in aircraft flying over foreign airspace. Also, if the man is a foreign citizen and he urinated when the aircraft was flying over foreign air space, then India does not have any jurisdiction. It is the country in whose airspace the aircraft was when the crime was committed, that has the right of jurisdiction and the right to conduct investigation and trial in that country’s court and punishment in that country’s jail.” (B.) – It is the Indian national regulator wants sanctions against the “negligent” crew; therefore, I assume the sanctions must be taken with due consideration to Indian legislation.
The crew evidently reported the incident to their management, and it is the managers who didn’t report. One must not confuse two different things: 1) the handling in the cabin of a crazy man who was a danger to everybody. If you think that intentionally urinating on people is common and does not betray an altered, potentially dangerous state of mind, just let us know. Then, 2) the report to authorities, and it is the management or direction’s duty, because clearly this kind of decision is deferred to the latter. I am therefore confident the company’s management or direction will be sanctioned for not reporting the dreadful incident to authorities and the cabin crew will get damages for being harassed by a sex freak.
Had a steward knocked the freak out, he would be the one prosecuted, for assault and battery. And the crew are not pledged to protect from piss a passenger’s body with their own bodies. “Preventing this [a crime] from happening,” as a YouTube user wants it, by “pinning him [the freak] down” is no more the crew’s than the passengers’ responsibility, it’s called a citizen’s arrest. If their employment contracts include arrest power, like contracts of bouncers in nightclubs, then all right, the cabin crew may be sanctioned, but I doubt the contract of an Air India hostess includes such things.
Insult To a Foreign Head of State
and French Hypocrisy
“Iran threatens France over Charlie Hebdo’s ‘offensive’ cartoons of Khamenei.” (HT, YouTube, Jan 2023)
“U.S. backs France on freedom of expression.” Why did the United States not stand up for freedom of expression when French President Macron filed a complaint against a poster depicting him as Hitler? (See Law 27) Was there no concern about freedom of expression then? Let’s wait and see French government’s response to Iran, but if their answer is that freedom of expression is guaranteed in France, I urge the media to ask them why Macron lodged a complaint when he saw a picture of him as Hitler, and about several other recent instances of executive attempts at stifling speech.
As far as hate speech is concerned, it tends to be permitted in France to abuse Islam, but not other communities. This is the problem, which in fact makes Iran’s overall position not contrary to freedom of speech as far as France is concerned, since their demand amounts to asking the same legal protection from hate speech for Islam as other communities have in France, that is, to stop state discrimination against Islam. If France is a free-speech country, Iran’s demand is that France be a nondiscriminatory free-speech country.
French law represses speech, make no mistake about it. As to the present controversy, there existed in France a crime of insult to heads of foreign states (like Ayatollah Khamenei) until 2004, when France was condemned for this legislation by the European Court of Human Rights. But as with the specific crime of insult against the national President, which was cancelled in 2013, again after a condemnation of France by the ECHR, and replaced by the general crime of public insult, a foreign head of state is still allowed to sue people in France for insulting them. This is to let Ayatollah Khamenei know that French laws unreservedly support his concern, and he is welcome to sue Charlie Hebdo and ask for damages.
The saffron bikini in Pathaan movie, which has aroused anger among Hindus, is a useless provocation. Artists must pay heed. The ire was certainly anticipated by all in the business and yet they did not refrain. An excuse such as “We thought the color was nice for the dance scene” would be frivolous; another color, less charged with sensitive symbolism, would have been as fine. So why?
Saffron bikini v. national flag bikini
Excerpts from All India Roundup, Aug 13, 2015: “10 celebrities who insulted the Indian national flag.”
“[Tennis player] Sania Mirza was pictured sitting with her bare feet that appeared to rest on a table next to an Indian flag. Isn’t [it] shameful!”
“[Cricket player] Sachin Tendulkar was accused of insulting the Indian flag, when pictures of Tendulkar celebrating his birthday on March 2010 by cutting a tricolour cake went viral.”
“Back in 2000, designer Malini Ramani also landed herself in trouble when she wore a flag dress.”
“Bollywood’s bold actress Mallika Sherawat got embroiled in legal trouble when she draped herself with the tricolour.” [She was nude but draped in the flag.]
“King [Shahrukh] Khan was booked by Pune police for allegedly insulting the national flag. He was booked on the Compliant of LJP national secretary Ravi Brahme that SRK allegedly insulted the tricolour in a video uploaded on youtube.”
“However small-time actress and model Gehna Vashisht must be severely condemned for her indecent act and was rightly taught a lesson by the people by wearing a tricolour like a bikini.” [She was assaulted by an angry mob and then arrested by police.]
“A case was filed against Bollywood star Amitabh Bachchan for covering his body with the national flag in a manner insulting the national flag.”
“Narendra Modi…has been accused of insulting the national flag by a social worker of Pondicherry, who has lodged a complaint against Modi for wiping his face using the tricolour scarf he was wearing.”
So much sensitivity over national symbols in that country, but saffron bikinis are fine even though saffron is also a symbol? If those complaining about a national flag bikini don’t see a problem in a saffron bikini, they are double-faced.
“‘I killed 25 Afghans and I am not sorry’: Prince Harry’s chilling confession.” (HT, YouTube, Jan 2023)
If HT got its content from the leaked Spanish version, I think there is a translation mistake. Prince Harry did not “serve in the army,” the army is serving him as hereditary Prince of the British Kingdom. However much I would like to think he is a citizen like the others, and a soldier like the others, the medieval concept of his hereditary function is an obstacle to such a feeling. I might not be the only one.
Prince Harry is the only one thinking he did war like the others. Come on, guys, break the news to him. – I will believe a British Prince did a soldier job when he dies on the front, but it never happens.
Any military command knowing what military intelligence is would never send such a sensitive target on a military front. Imagine the Taliban getting intelligence that Harry is in chopper #9: all Taliban rockets on the spot would be for poor Harry. No, he must have comfortably enjoyed his trip across the beautiful land.
Specialist in Albanian B Movies (Tweet Anthology 4)
April-May 2017. Others’ tweets are in italics.
A Fascist is anyone with the wrong shoes.
Imagine calling yourself grand dragon, cyclops, wizard &c straight from the books of the kiddies’ room. What would people think of you?
KKK’s Emperor W.J. Simmons on the Jew (1923): “His people is the chosen of Almighty God.”
Kool Kwality Klothes at Harry Karp’s; Kohn’s Korrect Klothes (advertisement posters, The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews vol. 2, NOI Research Department, 2010, p. 418)
The Birth of a Movement: How Birth of a Nation Ignited the Battle for Civil Rights, by Dick Lehr (United Black Books)
“The greatest of the Hollywood movie studios, Metro Goldwyn Mayer (MGM), was started by Jewish mogul Louis B. Mayer with the profits he earned from distributing the film.” (The Secret Relationship vol.2, p. 414)
[I also comment on The Secret Relationship vol. 1, 1st ed., 7th printing, pp. 203-4. Slavery among ancient Hebrews was not always as lenient as stated by the Jewish scholars quoted, for instance 1 Kings 4:6 “Adoniram son of Abda—in charge of forced labor” was Solomon’s overseer of the hosts of slaves who built the Temple of Jerusalem, quite Pharaoh-like. (One of the scholars quoted is a Dr Feingold claiming that Biblical slavery ‘’was of a precapitalist variety and had virtually no commerce connected with it. Unlike the situation in the plantation South, it did not shape the pastoral economy of ancient Israel which in any case found little use for masses of slaves.’’ So much for the little use.)
Intriguingly, on p. 220, one reads that white abolitionist senator Benjamin F. Wade called Jewish Confederate Judah Phillip Benjamin ‘’an Israelite with the principles of an Egyptian,’’ thus overlooking himself the Pharaoh-like slavery in vigor under Solomon for the latter’s monumental, pyramide-like projects. It is a little disappointing that people –Puritans– who seem to have read but one book do not even know it well.]
AJUpFront talks to a former Trump campaigner about why the majority of evangelical Christians voted for Trump. (Al Jazeera English)
Because they think he’s a Jew.
If you’re a woman on birth control, stop taking them. Embrace femininity and reject feminism. Have beautiful children and find true love. (David Duke)
Students are led to believe there are no jobs with a liberal arts education and that employment is the sole purpose of education. (Historian Andy Hernandez)
There are no jobs for liberal arts degrees as “culture is the occupation of the leisure class.” (Economist Tibor Scitovsky, in The Joyless Economy)
While I take your point, there are a growing number of employers wanting adaptability and critical thinking–hallmarks of the liberal arts.
Employers were already saying that in the 1950s: cf The Organization Man, by William H. Whyte. People take liberal arts degrees because they hate the idea of working for business.
Read Does Altruism Exist? (2015) by David Sloan Wilson if only to understand Ayn Rand’s both success and intellectual mediocrity.
Was Darwin an altruist (High-PRO), or would have mankind lost big if Darwin had spent his time helping others in his neighborhood? – Was deaf loner Beethoven prosocial?
Will the global village, i.e. the end of all subgroups, be the end of between-group competition–and altruism?
You [D.S. Wilson] have made an eloquent demonstration that altruism is the tool of supremacy–if there are to be several groups–, as individual altruism is the way one group becomes dominant among other groups.
You and I are no different. As a biologist you’ve studied worms, as an historian I’ve done the same.
If I’m a slave with no prospects of mating, shall I sacrifice my life for a chimp knowing he’ll reproduce and possesses 98.5% of my genes?
The Red Queen
“There is nothing inevitable about human nature.” (The Red Queen, by Matt Ridley) A fact often stressed by evolutionists and never accounted for by them.
Is there anything inevitable about chimpanzee nature?
As, at the same time, evolutionists call such isolating of humans from other animals ‘’hubristic,’’ they deprecate themselves (as evolutionists).
Environment pressures allow win-win situations but the Red Queen [sexual selection seen as an ‘’arms race’’] discards them. Your optimism does not seem rational, in fact. [Matt Ridley calls himself a ‘’rational optimist,’’ which is the title of one of his books, The Rational Optimist.]
The figures that you showcase [in The Evolution of Everything], global wealth, life expectancy, etc, are fundamentally immaterial because… of the Red Queen.
It’s fascinating that my hair receding is a good argument against my facts. (Matt Ridley, in reply to being called by someone a ‘’balding old Lord.’’)
You could also try to be above quoting the silly and to reply to reasoned objections. [Earlier, in February, I had quoted Ridley’s book The Evolution of Everything (2015); the quotes are in order here now: “The police have come to resemble an occupying army who see the citizenry as the enemy.” (p. 241) Yet our times have their Robin Hoods: “One of the reasons of the recent decline of violence in the U.S. may be that gangs have managed to impose slightly more order on the drug trade.” (p.238) & P. 199: Mendel’s laws “ought to have killed eugenics stone dead. Particulate inheritance and recessive genes made the idea of preventing the deterioration of the human race by selective breeding greatly more difficult and impractical.”
‘Tis strange, therefore, that selective breeding gives results with animals at all. Your views on eugenics are based on an ‘’exogenous’’ moral viewpoint, of which I suggest you try to account for ‘’endogenously’’ in a next book.
To the first sentence Matt Ridley replied:
No. Domestic animals have shorter life cycles and start with smaller populations. I carefully did not say “impossible”.
Beyond the number of people sterilized, there exist no assessments of the eugenic policies that were conducted, of their effects on the populations. Taboo. You endorse the taboo with all your heart, like a salvation-army major parading as a scientist.
(He did not say ‘’impossible,’’ as he stresses it, yet it is the impossibility, not the difficulty of a thing that kills that thing ‘’stone dead.’’ Rereading the sentence, ‘’greatly more difficult’’ seems to hint at something stated before, and in the light of his reply it would make sense that it means that eugenics is greatly more difficult than animal breeding; thus Ridley would in fact have prevented my remark, had I read more carefully, but then I have perused the whole passage again and found no object of comparison whatever.)]
Could Bolivia become the ‘Saudi Arabia of lithium’? (Al Jazeera English)
Bolivia was the Saudi Arabia of silver in colonial times, and then the Saudi Arabia of tin, but the country has remained poor.
Dear journalists worldwide, I wish to create a “Change for the Sake of Change Award” to help you sell paper. Help me help you.
Rape in India
Explain to me why mass media only report rapes when they happen in India.
Interestingly in India there are 1.8 rapes per one lakh population. USA 23.3 per lakh. European countries on an average 24 per lakh.
Yes, that makes this media practice even more questionable. Perhaps it means rape is so rare in India that India is the only country where rapes make news…
But these stats are from women who actually report rape, Asian countries are lower because the women are afraid to actually report it?
We could also imagine it’s because Asian women are consenting more… [Not to exclude first off, unless with good reasons.]
The reason why people in the U.S. smile more than people in other countries. (The Science of Us: link)
Because Americans are closer than others to chimps, for which smiling is a threat and, as capitalists, Americans like to threat one another all the time.
Some psychologists now argue it’s irresponsible to suggest a link between violent video games and mass shootings. (The Science of Us)
It’s always irresponsible to fingerpoint a lucrative business, we all know that, don’t we?
Media violence and gore exposure shifts the acting-out borderline toward the middle of the psychoticism bell curve (Eysenck). For all others, it turns them into… cowards (Kenrick & Griskevicius).
[I don’t even know why I defend these views publicly since I still watch horror movies in my fourties and I consider horror movies to be art for art’s sake…]
Are the US and France fighting the ‘War on Terror’ in Africa, or simply competing for natural resources? (Al Jazeera English)
The answer is different for each. 1/US wants the resources. 2/France has no clue whatever.
Buddhists are atheists and clerical, just as Puritans are theists and anticlerical.
One can be fleeced by a religious organization and still get more net money than others. Devout Freemasons will tell you, if you can have them speak.
The best way to silence a chicken: talk about freemasons. Hush hush…
Unite against secret societies! #RiyadhSummit May 2017
“Freemasonry is illegal in all Arab countries except Lebanon and Morocco” (Wkpd)
Freemasonry historically has been banned in authoritarian governments. @KsigMason
Secret societies have no place in transparent societies.
What, a university in Tasmania! There are universities in every backwater hole and I couldn’t get a chair!
Reading this article [by Matt Ridley–again] about obesity on The Times online, you may find it interspersed with juicy ads for junk food–depending on your cookies.
About 200 mothers breastfeed their babies at Beach Park in Fuzhou, Fujian province on Saturday to advocate the importance of breastfeeding. (People’s Daily, China)
Read Dr Robin Baker about the constitution and health losses that a bottlefed baby incurs (compared to a breastfed one), and curse the West. [See here]
What Was That Glowing Orb Trump Touched in Saudi Arabia? (SMHub News)
As the Kaaba’s Black Stone comes from outer space, perhaps the Saudis salvaged more parts from the spacecraft, like that eerie orb…
Pre-programmed likes and retweets, pre-defined welcome messages: Amazing the amount of interactions I’ve got with actual machines on Twitter.
Not to mention the machines that offer to tweet garbage, usually shallow quotes, for you.
Among other things, AI means millions of tweets that are bot-generated, and millions of users accepting that bots tweet in their name. [They must be millions, as one provider of such services boasts over a million customers.]
How to program your tweeting AI bot to send your prayers to future terror attack victims. Follow to know more.
Saudis take to social media to thank King Salman for successfully hosting two big summits. #RiyadhSummit (Saudi Gazette)
How to program your tweeting bot to send your deepest appreciations to King Salman for Riyadh Summit and future events. Follow to know more.
10,000 prayers a day by our AI Internet bot for your departed beloved–one month: $10, two months: $18. Feel free to ask our brochure.
Already one bot liked this tweet!
How do you know you’re not dealing with an AI tweeting bot? Answer: The guy sounds so weird.
It is good form to overlook that your interlocutor is an AI bot.
The fascinating world of Twitter Turing Test LIVE!
Make no mistake, already people are learning the practice and art of tweeting from AI tweeting bots.
Sometimes you think you’re being harassed by an otaku pervert and it’s an upbeat AI tweeting bot.
Already people are imitating AI bots on Twitter. They think like bots already!
The pronoun for a man-of-war is she.
Unless it’s a Portuguese man-of-war, in which case the pronoun is it.
The 7 Most Awkward Moments From Trump’s Israel Trip.
My favorite moment is when Trump said nothing about moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem.
Lazy politicians must stop telling people to work.
For previous entries in the series, see Index. May 24, 2017