Your Life Under the Saffron Shadow - II

Hang down your head, India, hang down your head in shame!

Once again, misogynistic vigilantes have resorted to terrorizing women in Karnataka, a state ruled by the conservative Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). A group of Hindu arsonists under the guise of upholding the honor of a long dead king (if he had ever lived) named Rama, his consort, Sita, and their devotee, Hanuman, went on a rampage in a pub in Mangalore, India, and assaulted women who dared to be different. At least two women have been hospitalized, according to the news reports.

Two rivaling outfits, the so-called Sri Ram Sena and the Bajrang Dal, separately claimed the honor for the attack:

Claiming responsibility for the attack, State deputy convenor of the sene Prasad Attavar told that it was a “spontaneous reaction against women who flouted traditional Indian norms of decency”. He said these women were Hindus who “dared to get close to Muslim men.”

Kumar Malemar, district convenor of the sene challenged the Bajarang Dal’s claim and insisted that the attack was carried out by his outfit.

So, what if these women were hanging out with the Muslim men? Which article of the Constitution of India denies the right of a woman to date a worshiper of a different religion? Who gave the right to these fellows to question whom she shares her lunch, bed, or whatever with? In case these fools with the mental acumen of a two year old don't comprehend, neither the Manu Shastra, nor the Shariat, is the law of their land — not yet.

Talking of the "traditional Indian norms of decency", has anyone of these thugs from the Sri Ram Sena ever cared to read the classical literature and history of the sub-continent? What do these fellows really know about the drinking and sexual norms in the days gone by? Quoting from Kumarila Bhatta's Tantra-Vanika, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar writes of women consuming alcohol in his Revolution and Counter-Revolution in Ancient India:

That the drinking of intoxicating liquor was indulged in by Brahmin women, not to speak of women of the lower Varnas, as late as the seventh and eighth centuries A.D. in the Central region of Aryavarta, is clear from Kumarila Bhatta's Tantra-Vanika I (iii). 4. which states, "Among the people of modern days we find the Brahmin women of the countries of Ahicchatra and Mathura to be addicted to drinking. "Kumarila condemned the practice in the case of Brahmins only, but not of Kshatriyas and Vaishyas men and women if the liquor was distilled from fruits or flowers (Madhavi). and Molasses (Gaudi) and not from grains (Sura).

Dr. Jyotsna Kamat writes in Drinking in Ancient Karnataka:

Drinking was undertaken leisurely, with a method under pleasing surrounding and decorated pavilions. Goddess of wine (Madhudevate) was invoked and the Mother Earth was propitiated. Draughts of liquor were put on the head (as mark of respect). Then it was poured into artistically shaped bowls with bird heads and carved from mother pearls, beautiful shells etc. and offered to elders. Then it was turn of youngsters to help themselves. Lovers, married couples, family members, friends and relatives joined in drinking bouts.

And, on the question of sexual freedom for women in BCE and CE, do these fellows have any idea of the circumstances in which Bharata, after whom their country is named, was conceived? Or, for that matter, do they even know whether "Bharata-mata", the mother of Bharata, was conceived in or out of wedlock?

For your information, Messers Bajrang Dal, Kunti, mother of the Pandavas, was not exactly a virgin bride. And, Karna, her eldest son, was not the result of an immaculate conception, either. Why, none of the Pandavas, not one, had any claim to the lineage of the bigamous Pandu, Kunti's husband! All of them, including Yudhishtra, aka Dharma, were conceived from the extra-marital relationships that Kunti and Mathri had with their respective god-paramours.

If these fellows were ignorant of why Pandu was impotent, they should read the story of the births of Dhrutharashtra, Pandu, and yes, Vidhura, too. All three were the sons of Vyaasa, the head priest of the Kauravas. And, please, spare me that crap about these relationships being of a transcendental nature, meant only for procreation and little else. If you have any doubt, check out why Vidhura was born without any deficiency, unlike his two brothers. Lest these Rama-bhakthas should dismiss it all as rampant promiscuity in the days of the Mahabharatha, their idol, Rama, was not really fathered by King Dasaratha, either!

That a woman's libido is no less than that of a man, shines through much of the classical Indian literature. Lakhina Thakurani, a poetess from Mithila wrote:

Attacked with the severe onslaught of the God of Love is she,
Distraught like a craft or a fish in a dry place is she,
Oh; Thou bull-minded one...
She feels pain like that of a scorpion bite.,
Surely, let the result of married life relieve her.
— M. Krishnamachariar. History of Classical Literature. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1970, p.395.

Dr. Ambedkar writes a gentle reminder to these amnesiac morons, who call themselves the guardians of India's social and cultural heritage, on the sexual traditions in the ancient India:

If any woman [in ancient India] came there and expressed a desire for sexual intercourse and asked the sage to satisfy her, the sage used to cohabit with her then and there in the open on the Yadnya Bhumi. Instances of this may be mentioned; the case of the sage Parashara who had sexual intercourse with Satyavati and also of Dirghatapa. That such a custom was common is shown by the existence of the word Ayoni. The word Ayoni is understood to mean of immaculate conception. That is not however the original meaning of the word. The original meaning of the word Yoni is house. Ayoni means conceived out of the house i.e. in the open. That there was nothing deemed to be wrong in this is clear from the fact that both Sita and Draupadi were Ayonija.

Come on, the Mangalore girls were only having lunch with their boyfriends in that pub in Mangalore. It doesn't even come close to the fun that the apsaras and the princesses must have had in that bygone golden age! For the life of me, I can't understand why instead of rejoicing in the traditions of the sexually liberated India, these fellows seem to be bent upon restoring the repressive traditions of the alien cultures and religions that reigned over that country.

Of course, the politicians of the non-saffron hues and the self-proclaimed champions of secular India have been quick to make the most hay off this sordid episode. Considering that the election is shining brightly on the horizon, this is hardly surprising. The UPA Minister for Women and Child Development, Ms. Renuka Chowdhry commented:

"This (the incident) is an attempt to Talibanise India. There is no place for these kind of acts in India as it is a democracy," Chowdhry said, adding that the BJP leaders should condemn the incident. The Minister also said it is time for Karnataka Chief Minister B S Yeddyurappa to "wake up" and take action against the culprits.

Where were you, Ms. Chowdhry, when the Taliban of Hyderabad assaulted Taslima Nasreen for writing against the oppression of women in Islam? When I last heard, Asaduddin Owaisi, whose party, All India Majlis-e Ittihad al-Muslimin, was behind the assault, remained a honorable member of the Indian Parliament. How about your coalition partner and the ruling party in Tamil Nadu, the DMK, which watched in silent admiration, the harassment of actors Kushboo and Suhashini, whose only crime was to advise safe sex to sexually active young men and women?

Perhaps, India was not a democracy then, was it Ms. Chowdhry?

Read More...

Where in the World is Freedom of Expression?

Geert Wilders, a member of the Dutch Parliament and producer of the short film Fitna, should be prosecuted for insulting Islam and instigating hatred of Islamic worshipers, a court in the Hague, Netherlands, has ruled:

"In a democratic system, hate speech is considered so serious that it is in the general interest to... draw a clear line," the court in Amsterdam said.

Fitna — you can watch the entire film here — is a documentary that presents several controversial Qu'ranic verses, juxtaposed with pictures of Islamic terrorism and speeches from radical Islamists. A sampling of the relevant verses:

"4.56": (As for) those who disbelieve in Our communications, We shall make them enter fire; so oft as their skins are thoroughly burned, We will change them for other skins, that they may taste the chastisement; surely Allah is Mighty, Wise.

"47.4": So when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then make (them) prisoners, and afterwards either set them free as a favor or let them ransom (themselves) until the war terminates. That (shall be so); and if Allah had pleased He would certainly have exacted what is due from them, but that He may try some of you by means of others; and (as for) those who are slain in the way of Allah, He will by no means allow their deeds to perish.

The irony in the Dutch Court's ruling is astounding. Tell me, what's more incendiary — these verses in Qu'ran that incite murder and terror against anyone who disbelieves or criticizes Muhammad and his commands, or a 15 minute film that shows up these verses for what they are, and alerts us to the dangerous consequences of submission to the hateful ideology that they represent?

---

And, this from Thailand:

An Australian writer was sentenced to three years in prison Monday for insulting the Thai monarchy in a self-published novel.

Harry Nicolaides, 41, originally received a six-year sentence, which the court said it reduced because he had pleaded guilty. The book, "Verisimilitude," was published in 2005 and reportedly sold fewer than a dozen copies.

The case was brought under the country's strict lèse-majesté laws, which call for a jail term of up to 15 years for anyone who "defames, insults or threatens the king, the queen, the heir to the throne or the Regent."

I must admit that I have not read Mr. Nicolaides' Verisimilitude, but from its descriptions on the web, it does not sound so alarming. For example,

[Mr. Nicolaides'] new novel – VERISIMILITUDE – is a trenchant commentary on the political and social life of contemporary Thailand. It is an uncompromising assault on the patrician values of the monarchy, the insidious infiltration of religious missionaries in the education system and the intimate relationship between American foreign policy and Thailand’s battle against Muslim insurrections in the south.

Well, how can I complain about a fledgling democracy that is struggling to break free from centuries of totalitarian rule by its α-males, even when the very nations that gave birth to freedom and democracy are perfectly willing to compromise them in the face of economic exigencies?

---

Amidst the threats to freedom of expression from a mature democracy and an infantile one, a silver lining from a much vilified nation — Israel:

The High Court of Justice overturned Wednesday the Central Elections Committee's decision to disqualify the Arab parties, Balad and United Arab List-Ta'al from taking part in the next Knesset race.

The Central Elections Committee explained its decision by saying that since neither party recognized Israel as the Jewish homeland, they were not eligible to bid in the nearing general elections.

Fair enough, but the cautionary words from the Chairman of Israel's Beitenu party are worth repeating to the governments of Netherlands and India, which recently exiled writer-doctor, Taslima Nasreen for being critical of Islam's treatment of women:

Chairman Avigdor Lieberman condemned the court's decision: "(Former Chief Justice) Aharon Barak once said that democracy doesn’t have to kill itself to prove it was alive. The court threw that sentiment out today, and virtually gave the Arab parties permission to kill Israel's (character) as a Jewish and democratic state.[emphasis mine]

I don't agree with the "Jewish" part in Mr. Lieberman's condemnation, but hey, nobody is perfect, right?

Read More...

Dubai's Rule of Law

Believe me, I was not aware of Marnie Pearce's conviction for adultery, and her subsequent appeal to the Emirates Appeals Court, when I wrote about the vagaries of the "rule of law" in Islamic countries.

Ms. Pearce was accused by her Egyptian ex-husband, Ihab El-Labban, of having an adulterous affair with her British boyfriend. She was convicted in November last year, and sentenced to six-months in prison. The Appeals Court upheld the conviction, but reduced Ms. Pearce sentence to three months in prison. The Court also fined her 3000 Dirhams ($800+), and ordered that she be deported from Dubai.

In the United Arab Emirates, considered by some as a moderate Islamic country, Sharia is the rule of law in the social sphere. If a man and a woman, who are not blood relatives or legally married, shared a flat, room, or even sat in a tinted car, they would be committing a crime, even if they did not have a sexual relationship. According to Dr Adel Khamis Al Mimari from Al Itazan Consultant and Advocates:

... they are being punished in accordance with Sharia law. The clause is known as “Tawajed” or “Tahseen Al Ma’asiya”. These couples have been punished under this clause: sharing a closed place and encouraging sin even though they shared no relationship.

He mentioned: “The bottom line is awareness. Many foreigners are not familiar with Sharia law and hence they are punished. If these couples go unnoticed, then there is no trouble. But if the authorities for some reason or another know they are sharing a 'closed space’ they can be punished. This is the law.”

There you have it. If you chose to visit, work, or reside in Dubai, you must respect its law. Even if that law is based on the Quranic logic of a misogynistic vintage. Even if you are not a Muslim.

Ms. Pearce should, however, consider herself lucky. If she had been convicted of adultery, a few hundred miles north or west, her fate might have been sealed with a dozen stones on the streets of the Islamic Republic of Iran or the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, in compliance with their "rule of law".

Reacting to the Appeals Court's verdict, Kate Allen, of Amnesty International, said:

Criminalising the sex lives of consenting adults is never right, let alone using this to back up family laws which already discriminate against women. If Ms Pearce is jailed, Amnesty would consider her a prisoner of conscience who should be released immediately.

Tell that to Mr. Miliband, your Foreign Secretary, who insists on criminalizing the sex lives of half the population of Kashmir as the way to stop Islamic terrorism against India. Tell him to focus his energy instead on liberating a billion and more lives from the clutches of Sharia.

Read More...

Mr. Miliband's Rule of Law

In a speech focusing on the terrorist attack in Mumbai, the British Foreign Secretary, Mr. David Miliband, asserted that the idea of "war on terror" is "misleading and mistaken". In a concurrent article that appeared in the Guardian, Mr.Miliband repeated this assertion, and then, more. Shorn of the usual platitudes that one expects these days from liberals and appeasers from around the world — strictures against targeting minorities when combating terrorism, ‘an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind’, etc. — there are still a couple of things in the speech that I find worth blogging.

The "war on terror" also implied that the correct response was primarily military. But as General Petraeus said to me and others in Iraq, the coalition there could not kill its way out of the problems of insurgency and civil strife... We must respond to terrorism by championing the rule of law, not subordinating it, for it is the cornerstone of the democratic society. [emphasis mine]

Diplomats are known to select the words they use carefully. Nuances are exploited fully, both to illuminate and obfuscate the ideas that are communicated. Note that Mr. Miliband stops with championing the rule of law. Why not champion democracy, of which the rule of law is but only a cornerstone? A lame attempt to distance oneself from a lame-duck president?

Not withstanding Mr. Miliband's hesitation on democracy, championing the rule of law looks like a reasonable proposition. I don't, however, believe that "championing the rule of law" is the exclusive domain of the good guys here. The bad guys — the terrorists — are also campaigning for the rule of law. Only, the rule of law that they champion is quite distinct from what the good guys think is the rule of law.

Whose rule of law should prevail? A theocratic constitution that proclaims a state religion, subordinating the former to the latter, or a secular constitution? Should it be the Indian Penal Code or the Shariat, that determines the punishment for crimes? What constitutes a crime and what does not? Should criticism of the alleged gods and their messengers be deemed a crime? Would you prefer that adultery be punishable by stoning to death, or be valid grounds for a divorce? What if the law, not only condoned terrorizing and killing the infidels, but also mandated it as the cardinal duty of the believers? Such details are, of course, beyond the pale of diplomatic prevarication and political correctness.

Let's ignore the effeteness of Mr. Miliband's proposal to champion the rule of law. How precisely does he intend to go about implementing it? The magic word is "cooperation".

... on my [Mr. Miliband's] visit to south Asia this week, I am arguing that the best antidote to the terrorist threat in the long term is cooperation. Although I understand the current difficulties, resolution of the dispute over Kashmir would help deny extremists in the region one of their main calls to arms, and allow Pakistani authorities to focus more effectively on tackling the threat on their western borders.

It is interesting that the above proposal on Kashmir appeared in the Guardian article, but was not mentioned in Mr. Miliband's speech in Mumbai, a day later. Did Mr. Miliband change his mind in-flight to India, or is it yet another example of diplomatic double talk, bearing in mind the sensitivities of the audience at hand?

To his credit, Mr. Miliband recognizes that cooperation may not amount to much in a Hawk-Dove game, as it may in a Prisoners' Dilemma. What should India do if the terrorists refused to voluntarily convert to Ahimsa [non-violence]? It should yield Kashmir to the Sharia hawks, Mr. Miliband declares in carefully camouflaged phrases, and the rest of India will live in peace and harmony ever after. How naive can a Foreign Secretary of a permanent member of thw UN Security Council be?

Mr. Miliband's fellow citizen, Ghiyasuddin Siddiqui, leader of the Muslim Parliament in Britain, said this of his religion:

... Islam does have an ideology which is very deep-rooted separatist and isolationist, based on the belief that unless jehadis fight against non-believers, their mission is not complete. This is sheer madness, and the time has come for the Muslim community to come out and confront these ideas on a religious and theological basis.

The linkage between Quran and the Caliphate is undisputed in the Islamist circles. An attack on the Caliphate is considered an attack on Islam. And, a revival of the old Caliphate is considered a great leap forward for Islam in its mission to conquer the world. Witness the events during the Khilafat movement in India in 1920. A mere rumor that the Caliphate has been restored with its capital in Delhi, was enough to cause the Muslims to erupt in violence, setting the path to the Moplah Massacre of Hindus in Kerala. Madame Annie Besant remarked on this:

They [Moplahs] murdered and plundered abundantly, and killed or drove away all Hindus who would not apostatise. Somewhere about a lakh (100,000) of people were driven from their homes with nothing but their clothes they had on, stripped of everything… Malabar has taught us what Islamic rule still means, and we do not want to see another specimen of the Khilafat Raj in India.

In the twenty-first century, the Islamic Republic of Iran has emerged as the self-proclaimed torch-bearer for a global caliphate. As recently as January 9, speaking in Kabul, Iranian President Ahmadinejad has this to say on jehad:

"There is no truth on earth but monotheism and following tenets of Islam and there is no way for salvation of mankind but rule of Islam over mankind" said Ahmadinejad in a meeting with Afghan Sunni and Shiite ulama at Iranian Embassy in Kabul. He said that the world is on verge of a great upheaval and ulama at this juncture shoulder a heavy responsibility that is introducing genuine Islam as it is. "Nations today have no haven but religion," the Iranian president announced, cautioning Muslim nations against enemies' divisive plots. He said, "All of us have the duty to resist the enemy by closing our ranks."

For anyone who is willing to take off their blinkers of appeasement, it's unmistakable who is the enemy that Mr. Ahmadinejad is referring to. And, it's amply clear that the terrorists are not about to lay down their bombs because Mr. Miliband and his ilk plea for cooperation. AlQaeda, Hamas, Jemaah Islamiyah, Lashkar e Taiba, or whatever they choose to call themselves depending on the time of day and place, will not end terrorism until the entire world is brought under the rule of law. Their rule of law.

Rule of law is a necessary condition for democracy, but it is not sufficient. If it is, every Islamic Republic or Kingdom — Iran, Malaysia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia... — where the Shariat rules, will be a democracy. It is not. It's the phrase, "championing the rule of law", which is misleading, and mistaken. Not the phrase "war on terror", which is quite clear about what its intentions are.

Update

Taking the cue from Mr. Miliband, the chairman of the Hurriyat, Mirwaiz Umer Farooq, has declared that the dream of peace in the sub-continent will remain just that until the Kashmir issue was resolved according to "the aspirations of the Kashmiri people".

Aspirations of the Kashmiri people? What may these aspirations be? Become an acclaimed rocket scientist, and the President of India? Perhaps, the highest paid lead actor in the Bollywood? An opportunity to learn computers, ride a bike, watch movies... for Mehnaaz, Nargis, and Shagufta? Or, could it be that Mr. Farooq is implying an unfullfilled desire to have acid thrown on the face, for not covering it with a burqua, or worse, for daring to attend school?

Read More...

Double Indirection

No, I am not talking about any object-oriented programming concept.

As if it is not enough of a violation of a woman's sexual and reproductive rights to be forced by her parents into a marriage against her will, the radical Islamists, a.k.a. Taliban, have now expropriated the right to determine to which terrorist a Pakistani Muslim woman's "hand should be given to". Taliban new dictum: Marry daughters to militants:

On the heels of their crusade against girls going to schools, the Taliban have now issued new dictum in the areas under their sway asking parents of the grown up daughters to marry them to militants or ‘face dire consequences’.

I say, either the Taliban, with the world getting tougher and tougher on terrorist, has discovered that this is the only way to ensure a continuous supply of human fodder for their suicide bombing expeditions, or worse, the heaven is running out of virgins!

---

Hat Tip: anonymous e-mailer.

Read More...

Jobless Atheists

It is not often that I can criticize the secular credentials of the American Democracy, as I do those of the Indian Democracy. From the treatment meted out to Taslima Nasreen to religion-based allocation of its Plan outlays, religious discrimination is rampant in secular India, almost always under the guise of protecting the rights of chosen minorities. Not so in the United States of America, I thought, despite the intermittent rabble roused by the nation's Christian wing-nuts. That was before I discovered in the state statutes, official discrimination against a minuscule minority — infidels like me.

At least eight of the fifty states have explicit proscriptions against those who challenge the existence of a god:

Arkansas State Constitution:

Article 19, Section 1: "No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any court."

Maryland State Constitution:

Declaration of Rights
Art. 36. "That as it is the duty of every man to worship God in such manner as he thinks most acceptable to Him, all persons are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty; wherefore, no person ought by any law to be molested in his person or estate, on account of his religious persuasion, or profession, or for his religious practice, unless, under the color of religion, he shall disturb the good order, peace or safety of the State, or shall infringe the laws of morality, or injure others in their natural, civil or religious rights; nor ought any person to be compelled to frequent, or maintain, or contribute, unless on contract, to maintain, any place of worship, or any ministry; nor shall any person, otherwise competent, be deemed incompetent as a witness, or juror, on account of his religious belief; provided, he believes in the existence of God, and that under His dispensation such person will be held morally accountable for his acts, and be rewarded or punished therefore either in this world or in the world to come."

Art. 37. "That no religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this State, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God..."

Mississippi State Constitution:

Article 14, Section 265: "No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office in this state."

North Carolina State Constitution:

Article 6, Section 8: "Disqualifications of office. The following persons shall be disqualified for office: First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God...."

Pennsylvania State Constitution:

Declaration of Rights, Article 1, Section 4: "No person who acknowledges the being of a God and a future state of rewards and punishments shall, on account of his religious sentiments, be disqualified to hold any office or place of trust or profit under this Commonwealth."

South Carolina State Constitution:

Article 17, Section 4: "Person denying existence of Supreme Being not to hold office. No person who denies the existence of the Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution."

Tennessee State Constitution:

Article 9, Section 2: "Section 2. No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state."

Texas State Constitution:

Bill of Rights, Article 1, Section 4: "RELIGIOUS TESTS: No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being."

I never had any delusion about holding an elected office —not even as a member of the local school board — in this overwhelmingly religious country. I must admit that I was tempted to apply for a political appointment in the Obama Administration, but abandoned it after Mr. Obama had to scramble in sack cloth and ashes (pun intended) to recover from his remarks about the "real Americans" clinging to religion when faced with adversity. Nevertheless, I am appalled that those who deny the existence of the non-existent can be constitutionally excluded from public offices, despite their First and Fourteenth Amendment Rights.

The landmark judgment in the Torcaso v. Watkins case in 1961 was a victory of sorts for my fellow atheists. The U.S. Supreme Court then held that the First and the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal Constitution overrode these religious tests in the state constitutions. Reversing the earlier judgment of the Maryland Court of Appeals upholding the State's requirement of belief in god for public office, J. Black wrote for the unanimous Court:

We repeat and again reaffirm that neither a State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally force a person "to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion." Neither can constitutionally pass laws or impose requirements which aid all religions as against non-believers, 10 and neither can aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs.

The judgment appears to guarantee that any discrimination against the non-believers by these eight states will be held illegal, even if the relevant articles remained unaltered in their constitutions. That, unfortunately, is small comfort to those who are willing to stand up for what they don't believe in while seeking public office in these states.

Read More...

We, the People...

Of every age, color, gender, and sexual preference,

For freedom to choose, and rule of reason,

By minds without fear, hate, or, bigoty,

We shall overcome!

Read More...

A Terrible Waste

I am not a flower power peacenik. I am sickened by Gandhi's advocacy of mass suicide to Jews after Hitler's Auschwitz: "The Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher's knife. They should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs." I don't believe in sacrificing my life and the lives of others to satisfy the irrational motives of some terrorist thug. I understand perfectly well that a bullet costs just a few pennies, and it's either his life or mine. I do believe that "an eye for an eye saves the other eye" has a point.

Having said that, I do wish that there's no war. I dream, as John Lennon did, of a world that is not divided into pigeon holes by gender, language, ethnicity, nationality, and above all, religion and blind faith in irrational and inhuman ideas advanced by men dead and gone eons ago. Therefore, when I read Ewen Callaway's report in the New Scientist that intelligent soldiers were most likely to die in battle, I was dismayed:

Being dumb has its benefits. Scottish soldiers who survived the second world war were less intelligent than men who gave their lives defeating the Third Reich, a new study of British government records concludes.

The 491 Scots who died and had taken IQ tests at age 11 achieved an average IQ score of 100.8. Several thousand survivors who had taken the same test - which was administered to all Scottish children born in 1921 – averaged 97.4.

The unprecedented demands of the second world war – fought more with brains than with brawn compared with previous wars - might account for the skew, says Ian Deary, a psychologist at the University of Edinburgh, who led the study. Dozens of other studies have shown that smart people normally live longer than their less intelligent peers.

Does this counter-intuitive result apply to the modern day terrorism, too? Perhaps, not. Really, how high could be the IQs of the suicide bombers who blow themselves up to meet with the 72 eternal virgins waiting for them? The bin Ladens, the al-Zawahiris and the Sheikh Mohammeds — the behind the scene puppet masters — must be the smart ones who hide and survive, right?

If the results were indeed reversed for the terrorists, it should stack the odds in the war on terror against the good guys. In the recent Mumbai terror attack, Officers Ashok Kamte, Hemant Kharkare, and Vijay Salaskar, and Major Sandeep Unnikrishnan, and quite possibly 180 other bright minds, not counting the hundreds of injured who might have lost the capacity to get the most from their minds, all in exchange for nine pawns with vacuous heads — how long should such exchanges be accepted, and at what cost?

"A mind", as the United Negro College Fund logo admonishes, "is a terrible thing to waste". From New York to Tel Aviv to Mumbai to Bali, what a terrible waste!

Read More...

Yes, Sasha can!

What a wonderful way to usher in the New Year! Boston Globe reports:

It seems fair to say that the passengers who boarded Northwest Airlines Flight 59 in Amsterdam yesterday did not expect that by the time they landed in Boston seven hours later they would have new faith in themselves, and almost certainly not in the state of humanity. But as they jubilantly disembarked at Logan, they clapped one another on the back, hugged, and talked of life-changing experiences and renewed beliefs in the goodness of people.

"The spirit of America is alive," beamed Dr. Natarajan Raman, a radiation oncologist from Minneapolis.

Of course, but let me add, "The spirit humanity is alive". Susan of Ugandan origin, helped by Dr. Raman and Dr. Thakkar of Indian origin, and flight attendants of unspecified nationalities, giving birth to Sasha, received in a blanket held by Phil Jones and Susan MacDonald of Danvers, MA, on a Northwest Airlines flight from Amsterdam, Netherlands to Boston, deemed a Canadian citizen because she was born in Canadian air space!

Sasha will do John Lennon proud:

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace

You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one

Read More...