Thursday, April 2, 2015

Dharmic socialists and other useful idiots: The Sad Decline of Andhra Portal


Andhra Portal used to be a very interested and unconventional resource about Andhra history  in particular and Indian history in general. You can be classify them as Hindutvadis in the political spectrum. I myself do not identify myself as such even if I subscribe to certain sections of their ideology but in general I find it too provincial, frankly ignorant and constricting.

But that in itself did not bother me as they had made many interesting ,insightful and often cutting observations that I could certainly agree with. Alas those days are long past. Just as William Buckley once said "A foundation that doesn't declare itself to be explicitly conservative will invariably drift leftist" .Hence a portal which doesn't embrace unconventional thinking as its forte invariably devolves in Hindutva talking points.
In this particular case- socialist economics with a dharmic sheen.
This is where I come in. I had a fallout with the author of the article and I ended up getting the Vadakayil treatment( ie banned) because I allowed myself to take his bait and indulge in a mud slinging contest. That is something I hold myself responsible for , no question.
However I do indulge in abuse pretty much only when my adversary is being dishonest and deceitful. Both the adjectives apply to the author of the following piece. I normally don't wish to pester my readers with my squabbles elsewhere unless they are relevant to the topics I discuss in the blog(which is why I deleted my fisking of a certain Iraqi woman who was quite deranged) but Dharma and economics do interest me a great deal so off we go. My comments are apart from the para and in italics.


Selfishness: The Real Root of All Evil


It is often said that money is the root of all evil.
Stop right there. In the Bible it states that the LOVE OF MONEY is the root of all evil rather than this popular but inaccurate rendition. As you can see there is a great difference between the two
We are already off to an auspicious start. So I guess its down hill from here!
 Some even point to lust as its origin. But the reality is that it is Selfishness: svaartha, that privileging of one’s own inclinations, interests, and desires above others, that is the true root of evil.
Not quite. Evil has a way of emanating from all sorts of sources be it lust ,pride, envy ,gluttony. That is what makes it so persistent and powerful in human affairs.
We’ve all seen the characters or come across such behavior. The stubborn fellow who has to have his way, others be damned.
Sometimes stubbornness is good. Abolitionists and civil rights campaigners were "stubborn fellows" in their time when being reasonable meant tolerating slavery and segregation.
The spendthrift wife who runs up her husband’s debt. The brutish husband that neglects his wife’s needs. The bulldozing billionaire fat cat who disregards the welfare of the community.
You are getting warmer to your theme. Anyway disregarding the welfare ie indifference is very different from demolishing or upending it. I am not responsible for the slum dwellers in my vicinity and therefore am not immoral in being uncaring about their predicament. However if I set their houses on fire then I deserve whatever retribution legal or otherwise is forthcoming.
The ambitious politician who destroys his own society.
An ambitious politician Lincoln destroyed a portion of his society to end the practice of slavery. To be sure he was not saintly as his modern day canonizers imagine him to be but was quite the wheeler and dealer but that doesn't mean he was selfish as you understand it.
All these examples are ingredients in the destruction of civilization. All represent unrestrained selfishness, Nihit Svaartha.
Actually many of these saved civilization in their midst. And in many ways Adolf Hitler was a very unselfish man. Sure he was a prima donna and a glory hound but he sincerely believed whatever he did for the greater glory of Germany and the Aryan Nation.
In our era of instant gratification, competition, and survival-of-the-fittest, many of our sophists and pseudo-philosophers may decry this deconstruction of selfishness as an attack on the “liberty of the individual” and an”obstruction of the talented“. The even more infantile may cry “John Galt!” like so many infants in a nursery.
Here we go with Ayn Rand bashing..
But the reality is such personages neither have a concept of liberty nor know what it truly means to be a member of society. Such self-absorbed troglodytes are all too happy to feed at the trough of publicly provided positive externalities (from schooling to roads to national defense),
Whoa wait a minute. Who ever said that libertarians were opposed to paying ANY taxes whatsoever? Even the most hardcore of anti tax crusaders will admit that infrastructure and defense are what government is supposed to do and taxes should be collected for the same. How much taxes and what level of defense expenditure is justified is a separate issue. Most American libertarians are dead set against expensive military procurement and defense budgets not to mention wars that needlessly waste blood and treasure but incur questionable levels of security to the tax payers.
Oh but the construction of strawmen has just started
when it suits them, but balk at having to give back to their communities, help the needy, or even look after their extended families.
If my community helped in raising me, I will help them if they need. I do help the needy,financially or otherwise. As for extended families, more often than not they are just parasites.
But all these points are moot as the author wants your taxes to do charity on your behalf whether you like it or not
 Indeed, what they are really asking for is not the liberty to be unoppressed, but the freedom to exploit and to harm as they will. In short, what they are in fact demanding is license and licentiousness.
 Sorry no, most of us just wish to be left alone. We do observe that our liberty ends where it ends up impinging on another's basic rights.
(Unneccesary illustration but whatever)
All human beings experience various desires and temptations. Men tend to be more prone to lust, and women to money (though we increasingly see the reverse these days),
I get the impression that you have neither money nor women.
but both experience temptation in the process. Nevertheless, it is the recognition of the rights of others and their mutual claim to Respect, that causes the person of conscience to curtail and ultimately master his or her desires.
Sorry our scriptures recognize our yearning and encourage us to attain kama(pleasure, sexual and otherwise) and artha(material wealth) in a reasonable manner. And Kautilya was no prude about kama which is why he regulated prostitution. But more on this later
 ( I hate quote memes taken out of context, don't you?)
Destructive natures are brought about when individuals begin privileging their own needs and interests above the rest of society. Indeed, Duryodhana is the classic example of this. For all his sins, he had a number of good qualities as well (such as generosity to his friends), but even these qualities were all ultimately subject to his Nihit Svaartha. It is this inability to put society above self that leads to destruction.
 Wait a minute. You say he was generous to his friends (especially Karna) and then you call him selfish. A tad contradictory what? Your knowledge of the Epics is seriously askew. Duryodhana had childhood grudges against the Pandavas due to plain old shooting cousins (as opposed to kissing cousins) which is as old as the hills and as time went on one event build on  another until it went kaboom.

(By posting a youtube video of a snippet of Mahabharat you have convinced me of your dharmic ways)
However, one need not turn to the Mahabharata to see selfishness on display. This ghor kaliyug is itself the manifestation of selfishness, so much so that pseudo-philosophers have verily turned it into a virtue…
Here we go..To set the record straight: I am NOT a fan of Ayn Rand. I find her to be a bit coarse in her hyper individualism and her the (often unneccesary) bulk of novels would make Leo Tolstoy look like a short story writer in comparision. But it doesn't mean that a lot of what she says isn't without merit. She chose such scandalous and incendiary titles in a time where the "selflessness" of socialism was killing and had killed tens of millions of people.
Some may be wondering, “Why this upadesh?”, “We all can’t be saints”, “One must be selfish to survive!“. But what they fail to realize is that selfishness not only affects those around them, but affects even politics and the destinies of nations. It is selfishness that drives an individual to privilege his ambition over the needs of the common good.
Very few say they have to be selfish to survive unless it is a really cut throat environment and you have no other options. If you cannot take care of your own basic needs, material or otherwise, then forget about helping others.
                                                                 (Goddamnit another stupid meme)
Once again WTF? Why exactly should I care about my neighbor.  I certainly shouldn't go out of my way to harm him. I have to duty to be pleasant and maintain my house and yard so that the property values don't drop and he suffers in the process. But what is this "neglecting" nonsense? Why cant he take care of himself? And if he cant how come he is living in a nice house next to me?
Some of our half-educated half-reads may declare “Vell, Adam Smith said invisible hand vill guide us—let each man pursue his self-interest! Fight for your right!”. But these morons have neither read Smith nor understand his philosophy.
Neither have you as it will become apparent.
First off, he didn’t speak of naked self-interest, but ENLIGHTENED self-interest. This means that an individual should weigh his interests in line with the common good. An example of this is the telecom debacle, where wealthy businessmen were advocating on behalf of foreign equipment manufacturers because…it was profitable. Even government officials were toeing this line. They cared nothing for the national security ramifications of giving possible future adversaries access to government lines of communication. So where then is this alleged “virtue of selfishness”?
Of course. There are certainly lines to be drawn in the case of national security. Of course merchants are often corrupt and those focus only on the bottom line. Adam Smith addresses this as does Milton Friedman.
Delivering shoddy products and services with wicked intent is not something a good free marketer would not do as the market would correct itself and harm his interests in the long term.
Second, even before he wrote the Wealth of Nations, Smith composed the Theory of Moral Sentiments. Many of our videsh-returned wunderkinds believe they’ve unlocked the secret to wealth creation in Italian suits, Milton Friedman, and iPhones.

You can practically taste the bitterness of envy and resentment. This sounds like a man who never had an Italian suit or iPhone and has to resort to making nations subscribe to economic policies so that even fewer will. That is socialism in a nutshell.

Indeed, a number of them have even opened up revenue generating retirement homes and grossly profitable gated communities to replicate their MBA model in India. But let’s take a look again at what the patron saint of Capitalism himself wrote in his earlier work:

I don't like retirement homes as a principle but if there is a demand for it its not the worst thing in the world. Its better than re education camps which socialists prefer I suppose

I don't see the issue with gated communities. More envy.
 “The laws of all civilized nations oblige parents to maintain their children, and children to maintain their parents, and impose upon men many other duties of beneficence”—Adam Smith TMS, p.81
And our Bhagvad Gita instructs us to slaughter our elders if they get too clingy with their inheritance!

Thus, even the philosophical poster boy for profit has advocated the importance of duty and beneficence (i.e. generosity, unselfish action), to one’s parents, children, and fellow man.

If he is the "poster boy for profit" why are you quoting him? Its like me quoting Hitler!

As such, calculation of one’s interest cannot be in a vacuum. Self-interest must be weighed with societal interest. Even when the cause is just, one must ask whether correction is advocated in the correct way. The current documentary controversy is perfectly illustrative of this selfishness.
Many of our half-educated shrilly cry that the documentary should not be banned. FOE is being infringed as is their right to watch (leave aside traditional speech law on defamation, obscenity, and time/place/manner restrictions). What’s more, some of our youth feel this is precisely what is needed to shake up chauvinism and rowdy-ism they’ve experienced in their lives. And that is precisely the problem: this perspective only looks at the issue from the immediate view, rather than the societal one. It refuses to take into account data showing lower rates of violence, higher rates of conviction, and under-reporting even higher in other countries. The immediate self-centered emotion of avenging personal injustice is privileged above national interest, even if their Fathers, Brothers, Husbands, and Sons are unfairly tarred and stereotyped, and culture, illogically labeled.
Now, to be sure, violence against women is indeed a problem, as is staring/leering. And others will declare that fighting crime against women is societal interest too (it most definitely is). But is the way to combat this by playing into the hands of the nation’s adversaries? One need not be some paranoid theorist to say that there are parties interested in smearing India’s culture.

All this stuff is completely irrelevant.
For those wondering precisely how invaders were finally able to establish kingdoms in India during the medieval period, they need only see the laundry list of alleged nationalists speaking out in support of this documentary. Like the Sindhi Kshatriyas angry at the rule of the Brahmin Raja Dahir, they gave their support to foreigners they stupidly thought would be fighting their just cause for them. Because you see, these videshis must really be acting out of a sense of “justice”…cause they really care!…so darn much! It is this gullible stridency in both men and women that makes it next to impossible to get anything constructive done. But then again, unrepentant stupidity has been almost an uniquely Indian quality for the past few centuries.

Sorry wrong wrong wrong. Back then there was no Sindhi identity as we know it today so there were no Sindhi Kshatriyas. And in Raja Dhahir times, he was ruling mostly Jats who were yeoman warriors so they weren't considered Kshatriyas strictly speaking.

Raja Dhahir himself was a usurper and extremely unpopular with the masses. He practically gave the Arabs a cassus belli as many of the pirates which harassed Arab ships were based in the ports of Sindh(hence Sindbad the sailor).

Many actually saw Mohd Bin Qasim as a liberator.

But why go on and on about Sindh as if that was some sort of beachhead of Islamic conquest.Most of Sindh was recovered and subsequent Arab attempts failed. It was not until nearly 400 years later with Mohd Ghori did Islam penetrate the heartland.
Duryodhana, the epitome of Selfishness, meets his doom
(Another random pic)

The infuriating and sinful disrobing of Draupadi fueled not only the Pandavas’, but Krishna’s desire for the destruction of the Kauravas. However, even Krishna achieved justice for Draupadi after weighing all the factors: When, Where, How, Who, What, Why. He did not merely advocate war immediately. He took into account the factors against and even tapasya required on the part of the Pandavas, before, in the name of all women,

In the name of all women? Really , how did Draupadi's disgrace affect other women?There is no opinion from Kaurava women so we can only assume that they approved.

 Duryodhana and Dushasana could be brought to justice. And brought to justice they were, in the most terrible of fashions. But this was achieved and societal attitudes corrected because even an humiliated and vengeful Draupadi patiently listened to the wisdom of Sri Krishna. Rather than putting her cause above Dharma, she focused on Dharma, which in due time, gave her the justice she so richly deserved.

Wouldn't it be much simpler if Bhima just went upto Dushasana and tore out his arms and drank his blood and presented to Draupadi ASAP instead of leading to war?
Sure it was not per protocol of Kshatriyas but wasn't it better than war where a lot more rules of Dharma were broken and not just on the Kaurava side?

That is because, no matter how just the cause, weighing and prioritizing of all interests (not just one) and correction of all crimes (not just one) is required.
Indeed, it is the failure not of pursuing one’s interests, or frequently even societal interests, but the failure and stubborn refusal to prioritize interest properly that frequently leads to problems not only for societies but even for relationships.

(goddamnit another fucking meme)
Nothing kills a relationship as quickly and easily as does selfishness. As even tragically beaten wives and cruelly cuckholded husbands can attest, it is not ill-treatment but pure and raw selfishness that destroys relationships and makes one feel alone. Nothing numbs love like neglect.
If you only prioritize your interest. If you only care about yourself. If you only look after yourself, how can your relationship, any relationship, survive? Romance isn’t dead today because modernity makes it impossible or obsolete.

Actually romance is dead because feminism killed it. Next question?

Rather, the Death of Romance took place because individuals (the constituent parts of a relationship) are too selfish to make the relationship work. What self-absorbed, selfish woman (no matter how physically beautiful) will inspire the continued romantic sentiment in her husband? What selfish brute of a man can continue to retain the romantic affections of his wife? Indeed, it is not compatibility, but selfishness and brutishness, that makes a relationship impossible. Even the classic English drama Pygmalion demonstrates this.
                              (You are beginning to get on my nerves)

If divorce rates are increasing, if violence against women is increasing, if isolation in society is increasing, it is because of selfishness and self-centeredness.  A nation of narcissists and selfish brats will not long last. And a nation of people that know not how to prioritize, will not become strong.
As we have previously demonstrated, reliance on laws and never-ending legislation may punish criminals–but they won’t reform them or even prevent their creation to begin with. Indeed, a just society is the one that requires the fewest laws.

Yes but what you recommend- ie near punitive levels of taxation and intrusion in the private realm which require the greatest number of laws. So I suppose you want to increase laws in order to create a just society which will lead to fewer laws?

Since you tormented me with so many memes , indulge me while I provide you one of my own.

This is because its population self-regulates its own behavior. Men restrained by Dharma do not selfishlessly justify their basest and even violent urges, let alone enact them. Likewise for Women educated in dharma. Thus, a society’s civilization and justness is not determined by the number and complexity of its laws, but by the virtue and selflessness of its populace. This is because the selfish man sees only objects of pleasure/utility, and behaves only as much as law or threat of punishment permit him in a given place. In contrast, the selfless man behaves properly irrespective of law or punishment or place.

Sure I agree. But you are the one who jumps up and down about selfish men not paying their due to society and wish to impose taxes and other regulations on them. Ah but the problem is retributive and punitive laws(and socialist laws often are) invariably do not target individuals but drag other parties to the prison, bankruptcy or the hangman's noose as the situation merits.
    (for gods sakes enough with this)

The way to dignity, justice, and respect for women is not through outside intervention, but internal reform.

None of us pleaded for "outside intervention".

From Adi Sankara to Basava to Vivekananda, voices rooted in the native and indigenous were the ones that most successfully appealed to our conscience and reformed society in the process. They didn’t look to outsiders to play arbiter, benevolently guiding our destinies. They recognized that while Indians were selfish and stupid, the outsider was selfish…but smart. Rather than playing into the hands of those who wished harm, they advocated internal reform and took inspiration from our own philosophies to ensure justice to all members of society. Acara is the building block for this, because it restrains our behavior for common interest.
From human trafficking to acid attacks to forced intercourse to everyday run of the mill lechery, women are overwhelming the victims of indecency and violence. But no amount of legislation can completely prevent such behavior in all settings. Only good conduct, Acara, teaches men (and women) respect for others and self-restraint. Thus, the mistake of these ladies is not in speaking out, but knowing where to speak out and how to correct and willingness to listen. So why single out the present generation of young women–who, however misguided, are nevertheless justifiably upset at world-wide violence against women, when there are those without such provocation, who seek out their own agendas. Sadly, even in the ranks of those who presume to speak out in favor of or in support of dharma do so only so far as it advances their self-interests. Even our self-proclaimed patriots and social media saviors are guilty of this sin of selfishness, and have even less reason for it.
One of the most tragic things in any hour, but especially during a late hour, when all of society stands at a precipice, is when those who proclaim to support dharma or righteous causes, nevertheless act in a selfish and opportunist manner. Rather than think of the common good, they prioritize advancing their own personal, career, and caste interests. Rather than do the hard work of building something from scratch, they seek to bandwagon on established efforts or gain entry into fashionable salons or seek the top position, while insulting/destroying any who stand in their way. They consume rather than contribute.

Socialists are the epitome of parasitical consumers.

If stupidity is the inability to prioritize, selfishness in many ways is about a refusal to prioritize (society above self).  That is the importance of dharma, not merely as a slogan or a convenient umbrella, but as a principle to be lived as part of a living culture. Thus, we once again come to culture as not only the glue for nations, but the nurturing soil that germinates virtuous sons and daughters, selfless leaders, and strong societies.
We all experience a selfish urge, or make a mistake from time to time. The point is not to make those poor souls wear a scarlet S for all eternity, but to encourage them and encourage ourselves to hear out and think in the common societal interest, before self-interest. Therefore, all those looking for benevolent videshis to fight their cause for them would do well to read what happened to Sindh in 711 CE.

Again with the bloody Sindh invasion. Are you aware of any other historical events?

The Chachnama gives plenty of lessons in just not what to do, and just what the ultimate cost of selfishness is to individuals and societies. As we’ve said before, you can be stupid, you can be selfish, but you can’t be both. As Indians are unlikely to match the sheer, diabolical shadyantras of videshis, their hope lies in being not quite so selfish.

Americans are alarmed that Indian Americans earn like Episcopalians but vote like Puerto Ricans. ie take advantage of the favorable business climate in U.S to earn a comfortable living and then vote in politicians who in turn demonize the private sector and enterprise.
Indians are not winning any popularity contests with their penchant for Wall Street and the legal professions.  Neither are they by any means under represented in the clique of the trouble makers and totalitarian minded "social justice" warriors and progressives.
Would you therefore accept expulsion of Indians as Americans are unable to withstand "the sheer, diabolical shadyantras" of desis?

The fate of the region, country, and civilization itself, depends upon it.
Let Nishkama Karma (selfess action) be your slogan as well as solace, for it will prove  ultimately to be your savior.

(Damn the meme industry didn't even spare Vivekananda. Did he really say this. If so I disagree)

 ( Below are the comments, the admin banned me for profanity though the author was heading in that general direction himself. No matter. Their forum, their rules. But AFTER I was blocked some of more pointed and relevant comments deleted , this guy comes back to give me a "moo thod jawab" in his mind knowing full well I am unable to respond.

Well I may not be able to do that there but I can here.

Scroll to the end for the comments thread and context. Right below is the comment to which I couldn't respond which I am doing now. My answers will be in parantheses

N.R.I.pathi says:
 April 1, 2015 at 1:04 am  


Truly hilarious. I never thought someone could be so oblivious to his/her own discrediting by so obviously and repeatedly losing his/her cool. Thank you for proving my point about how you’re a mental case who doesn’t even know his/her entire house of straw has collapsed upon himself/herself.

 (Whose  house has collapsed on whom will soon be apparent, Mr. wicked witch of the West)

Since you liked our Origins of Stupidity post so much, self-diagnose and stop being a sore loser–accept your dialectical defeat with some dignity.

 (Using words like dialectical will not make you sound any smarter)

  Here’s what you said above, dummy:

 “Nor are you familiar with the economies of ancient India. We had an almost free market approach which made us prosperous.”

( Indeed that is what I said)

 “Kautilya was quite free market”

 Here’s the section from the Arthashastra reprinted for your edification here:


p.236 “Merchants…are all thieves, in effect, if not in name; they shall be prevented from oppressing the people.” {4.1.65}

p.240 “Merchants for adding a profit margin higher than those prescribed or for making undue profit–>Punishments: 200 panas” {4.2.28,29}

 Game over.
( Hahaha QED I suppose. Well deduced Columbo. Except I mentioned specifically that merchants can often be the worst examples of capitalism. Adam Smith himself said so)
The fact that you ran away like a coward from the sections of the Arthashastra I cited only shows your intellectual bankruptcy (and schoolyard level insults above)–and you think you have the capacity to have a grown up conversation with me? Ha!

 ( I already acknowledged and addressed everything about the Arthashastra including his views on Prostitution and Merchants.
Who ran away like a coward when I pointed out that your hero Paul Krugman believed that alien invasion would stimulate the economy?
Who ran away from my queries as to your views on imports, trade tariffs, capital gains taxes, unions etc. You started rambling on about List and Beta options indices or what have you?
This reminds me of a time when I was tutoring a dull student who thought he was a genius because while he couldn't solve a quadratic equation , he was aware of an equation E=mc^2 , why he could recite by heart! I suppose by your standards that kid was a genius)

Twenty years of self-proclaimed online debate, yet a mental age of two…what a tragedy. Why cast aspersions on someone’s spouse? Did yours jilt you for “the profession”? It certainly would explain your loss of emotional control and lack of self-awareness. I pity you…looks like servicing all those Pakistanis all those years has clearly had an effect…

 (From all the talk of sexually frustrated and cuckolded men in your article, it is safe to draw some conclusions about your love life and it is not pretty)

Anyhow, you’re welcome to continue hanging on for dear life like a loutish loon, but it’s quite obvious you, like your beloved Ayn Rand and Chicago school economics, have been debunked.

(Time for another meme if you will indulge me)

 Why squeal about me not tackling even one of your puerile points, when here’s a litany of them:

 *You state a moronic claim about ancient India, and I disprove you with Kautilya, and you still pretend otherwise.

 (No you did not) 

*You still don’t understand that colonial britain had laissez faire policies in England, or understand how imperialism works (it pushed free trade only after it developed industry under protectionism and had captured the Indian market–That’s the List critique, you fool).

 (Yup but that is still not capitalism or free trade. There is no "capturing" in free trade)

 *You recognize you haven’t done the reading, but you stupidly critique my understanding. You obviously didn’t understand Smith as even he wrote of market regulation and market failure. You completely missed Kautilya’s motivation for regulating prostitution–it wasn’t for free market freedom of contract (do you even know what that means?) like your libertarian loonies, but to protect minors and the unwilling from exploitation.

 (It doesn't matter what Kautilya's motivation for regulating prostitution was. I remarked that Thomas Sowell was the way to go rather than cranks like Paul Krugman. And then you mocked Sowell for supporting drug legalization and prostitution. I then pointed out Kautilya himself favored regulation and legalization of prostitution. Now shift the goal posts by
1. Providing Kautilya with noble motivations for doing
2. Thereby assuming that libertarians do NOT have prostitutes(minors or unwilling) interests at heart

Strawmen upon strawmen...)


*Your reading comprehension is pathetic, since you clearly didn’t process that I wrote that Sowell favored decriminalization of drugs, which you conflate with prostitution above.

 (You mentioned that he favored both decriminalization and prostitution. The jury is still out on decriminalization but keep in mind that heroin, meth and cocaine were available in pharmacies a hundred years ago. And there were no cartels or an epidemic of addictions)


*You actually still think the 2008 crisis was caused by lending to black Americans! Good God, man (or woman). How cognitively defective are you? Keep fighting imaginary leftists everywhere, gunga din.

 ( That the housing crisis was caused due to defaulters who couldn't keep up on payments is well known. And also that most of these were minorities either black or Hispanic. And banks built a house of cards by securitizing these mortgages. This is common knowledge to everyone except your self apparently. And believing this somehow makes me a Gunga Din. )Once again


 *You’re too scared to answer my query about list, but you foolishly gloat of imagined manhood like a castrated catamite.
(Ooo someone got himself a thesaurus!)

* You didn’t even know the difference between being pro-wealth creation and pro-free market .

 (These types of semantics are just more dirty tricks by leftists of every stripe who think they can fool others by terming their ideology "pro wealth")

*And you’re so stubbornly stupid you actually wrote this: “As for Adam Smith, even the devil can quote scripture. So what?”—What he wrote is the point, dummy. It shows that selfishness can’t be the basis for our economic system. Even Smith wrote self interest must be Enlightened. But morons like you worship at the altar of Rand (and likely the devil) and make selfishness a virtue.
( I meant that you are the devil. Actually I retract ,atleast the devil is supposed to possess a formidable intellect)

This is what happens when you jump in guns blazing like a brainless wannabe without making an effort to ask and properly understand someone else’s position. You’re so pathetic, you didn’t even have the intellectual horsepower (donkeypower in your case?) to rebut me point by point above. You just ranted like a school child and vomited profanity in a vain hope to distract–exactly as I characterized you above. This is precisely what happens when people lose their culture. No etiquette, no decency, no brains

( Hey another question you didn't answer Mr. aadarshwaadi super patriot- why are you an NRI if you hate all those damn whiteys so much?)
But what else could be expected from a logically arrested, unctuous troglodyte who equates Ayn Rand with wisdom. It’s obvious your uneducated ego couldn’t take my critique of the patron saint of selfishness, that’s why you abandoned any pretence to civility in your first comment itself and continued long after convincingly making a delusional fool of yourself. By all means, keep declaring victory…it will make for a fine blooper reel.
(Yes keep using that Thesaurus. It may convince someone ,anyone that you have a few brain cells.)

Wannabes and never-will-be’s like you are a dime a dozen, so cry me a river.Fortunately, we already studied the pathology of your kind.

 ( I think we have seen from your post riddled with insecurities, envy and resentments as to who is a never-will-be. Anyway I am curious if I am this selfish Ayn Rand,Friedman spouting arch capitalism who eats babies for breakfast and bathes in the tears of the elderly , shouldn't I have something to show for it with my Italian suits and iphones. Cmon man grant me that much will ya?)

Oh, and while I didn’t deign to discuss your prolific and elementary spelling mistakes above, better luck with your TOEFL next time, since the phrase is in fact “poorly constructed English” as it refers to not only sentences, but paragraphs, and language usage in general. Awww….too bad…maybe more fair and lovely next time, and you too can join the likes of Dinesh D’Souza, and other assorted sepoys.
 (Ah pointing out typos. The first refuge of the desperate. As for Dinesh DSouza, he is a citizen of U.S, not India and that's where his loyalty lies. The end.  I am an Indian citizen even as I live abroad. Say which passport do YOU carry?

I have also seen your type. Heavy breathing hyper patriot who sings glories of India from NYC,LA, Silicon Valley,Seattle but never seems to relinquish his American green card/passport and go back.)

 We favor an open forum here, which is why despite your profanity, general lack of culture/manners and obvious irredeemable ignorance, I avoided editing your distasteful remarks until now. Thanks for providing the readership with an example of blockable/bannable behavior. Goodbye troll.

(Ah banning and blocking, the last refuge of the sore loser)

  2. With respect, I don’t think you have read neither Ayn Rand nor Milton Friedman. Nor are you familiar with the economies of ancient India. We had an almost free market approach which made us prosperous.
    Regurgitating codswallop of socialism and putting a Dharma shine on it will only take up back to the days of Indira Gandhi.
    You are correct however about Adam Smith. The gentleman with their iPhone ,Friedman and Italians suit may not be perfect but they are far better than the Gandhian balderdash which has deracinated and emasculated Indian society and economy.
    You want to live in a mud hut, spin the charkha and feel superior about yourself then be my guest. But I will fight tooth and nail that such wretch ideologies using the mantle of dharma do not take root in this soil again.
    1. Tough talk from someone who has read neither The Theory of Moral Sentiments nor the Wealth of Nations, leave aside Hume, Ricardo, Hayek, et al. Friedman and his monetarists were critiqued in their own era and were convincingly debunked in the 2007-2008 Western Financial Crisis. His work was required reading when I was in university. Try and circulate the Chicago School theories today and you will be laughed at by Westerners themselves.
      You think merely by reading the Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged you suddenly have a monopoly on wisdom? You think these are examples of wisdom? We read these as children. But please, continue to embrace this childish thinker whose views are mocked as the philosophy of underdeveloped teens. But then why take the word of a charkha-spinner? Since you worship ghora saab, take the word of one instead .
      The simple fact that you assume that disagreeing with capitalism or its degenerate associate theory of Objectivism means socialism only shows you understand none of these theories. And the fact that you think selfishness is a virtue only shows you understand nothing of society or morality.
      Assuming you have better manners the next time you comment…if you comment…then read this before assuming that everyone who critiques selfishness or capitalism is an anti-modern, anti-wealth luddite. Learn to disagree without being disagreeable.
      I have read the Arthashastra cover to cover many times, and in all likelihood, have studied Ancient Indian History in far greater depth and breadth than you. Our society was pro-wealth creation, not pro-free market. Understand the difference. Anyone who’s read Kautilya can see how he regulated certain industries, and protected others as crown industries. I will touch on this in an upcoming blog post.
      1. You assume a lot of things and make claims that I frankly find unbelievable
        There are those of Thomas Sowell who while not strictly of the Chicago school but has a lot in common with them who has been warning of the dangers of government hand in the housing market and MBS for years prior
        If you think the Chicago boys will be laughed at today, it shows how little you know of the Chicago school. The housing crisis occurred due to government intrusion and regulation of the housing market and compelled banks to give loans to minorities who were not eligible for them
        Instead of watching useless movies like Inside Job and other leftist propaganda, go straight to the source of the problem and see what transpired.
        What use is all your dharma talk when you talk like a leftist in economic terms? Thank you for not contradicting my point about Indira Gandhi.
        I have just a few questions to ask you to clarify your economic position
        What should the income tax rate for India
        What should be the capital gains tax
        What is your position on “luxury” imports
        What is your position of farmer subsidies, price controls?
        In what ways should government regulate factory production
        WHat is your position on unions
        Please answer these questions and formulate your position clearly rather than hazy socialism under the guise of dharma
        You are beyond an idiot if you think if I worship gora sahib. The best way to India to stand independent is to become wealthy then gora sahib will come to Her. Which is what I want.And btw the Charkha spinner Gandhi subscribed more to gora views of economics such as Marx and Luddites than a robust worldly Hindu capitalism
        If we follow your policies we will be reduced to beggars again when Indira Gandhi went hat in hand to Nixon(who referred to Indians as bastards and Indira as a witch)
        I don’t want such a scenario. Neither does a self proclaimed aadarshvaadi hyper heavy breathing patriot like you I assume but if we follow your views that is what we will get
        Kautilya was quite free market ,far more than Nehru or Indira apparently.
        But of course he wasn’t perfect as no one is and he belonged to another time when protectionism made sense in some limited context
        And btw I am not a fan of Ayn Rand as I find her characters to be one dimensional and tyrannical. But she was writing in an era permeated with the glories of socialism so used some hyperbole to get her point across.
        And just so you know she believe racism to be the crassest form of collectivism.
        1. Aww, did I strike a raw nerve? Is this why have you flown off the handle like a child?
          That you actually cared what Nixon called Indira, only shows how great your inferiority complex really is and how much you crave ghora saab’s approval. Many of her policies from crushing successful businessmen to raising bhindranwale were brain-dead…but nixon hated and insulted her because she outsmarted him in 1971. When self-interested foreigners praise you like obama praised manmohan…then you know you’ve really given away the farm…something useful “idiots” like you want to do.
          The simple fact that you center your “argument” regarding the 2008 financial crisis on Minority lending, shows you neither deserve to be taken seriously nor have your puerile questions dignified with an answer. It’s quite clear who’s bought propaganda of whatever shade and who’s actually tried to understand what’s transpired.
          Anyone with even an iota of understanding would clearly see the easy money policy, financial engineering and carry trade arbitrage, not to mention high level corporatism and capture as the driving factors. All this was coupled with a gutted manufacturing sector, high private/public debt ratios, and stagnant/collapsing real wages/employment. Minority lending was not the driving factor in 1929 or 2001 let alone 2008. In fact, Krugman and Roubini et al (leave aside Rajan) had all predicted the imminent collapse, with minority lending as merely sidenote.
          You may be used to poorly thought out emotional arguments, but we do more than skin level research before taking a position. The simple fact that you are obsessed with capital gains, and by association, FDI, shows how primitive your understanding of economics and economic history is. All the more so since you think economics is a binary between Indira Gandhi (whose policies we don’t favor) and Sonia Gandhi (everything for sale!).
          The fact that you don’t even have a rudimentary understanding of the foundational Adam Smith or capitalism leave aside Kautilya shows how asinine your position is. Anyone with a basic understanding of the Ancient Indian Economy can clearly see it was regulated. Only center-right, neo-liberal buffoons attempt to paint it out to be some Rajaji free market paradise, when anyone with at least half a brain can plainly see otherwise. Less Sandipan Deb next time, old chap.
          What you call “hazy socialism under the guise of dharma” is establishing principles before selecting policy, unlike Larry Lindsey clones like you who shop the same policy not matter what the circumstance: “Tax cuts because we can afford it!”…”Tax cuts to stimulate it!”…”Tax cuts to celebrate it!”. If you had any reading comprehension worthy of note, you would have understood that we’re not looking for solutions in the same model, but calling for a paradigm shift: neither Nehruvian collectivism nor neo-congressi Capture. The Chicago school was debunked. Even an elementary web search would show you how poorly its thought of today. Under what rock have you been hiding?
          Rather than attempting to quiz and lecture, first do preliminary reading of economic history rather than take talking points from Thomas Sowell, Ramesh Ponnuru, Kudlow&Cramer, or whatever other National Review/CNBC hack you get your “wisdom” from. Start reading serious economists like Krugman or Stiglitz or Roubini or even Robert Shiller or even domestic ones like Kanagasabapathi. Otherwise rather than casting me as a “failed economist” you just prove yourself to be a jobless or soon to be jobless ibanker who doesn’t know his beta ratio from behind.
          You didn’t even know the difference between being pro-wealth creation and pro-free market!
          It should be obvious to any “idiot” like yourself that it was my tangential critique of objectivism that set you off on this screw loose rant. You can pretend to not be another Ayn Rand zombie wearing his printed “John Galt” name badge, but then, you would only continue to provide greater and greater laughs. But yes, please continue to espouse and defend the “virtue of selfishness”. All you’ll get from anyone with the maturity level above a 3 year old is a great big “Ha”!
          1. Aww, did I strike a raw nerve? Is this why have you flown off the handle like a child? ”
            LOL you sound like a chick. And your reasoning and pathetic ad hominem attacks make you sound like an effeminate weirdo.
            If this was the era of Bahmanis you would immediately offer approach their harem and offer your services. Fighting neither physically nor intellectually is your forte. Change your avatar post haste.
            All you speak is leftist nonsense and propaganda. And repeat their garbage talking points
            You are pathetically grasping for straws just throw out terms left and right hoping to hit a target.
            I asked specifically what are your economic viewpoints and you promptly launced into this bizarre diatribe.
            May I remind you ,your beloved Krugman thought an alien invasion would be good for the economy as it would llead to government spending. LOLLLLL
            Enjoy this “analysis” . I suppose I will stick to the “lame” Thomas Sowell.
            BTW why are you quoting goras after pretending to hate them so much.
            Or for that matter what are you doing in a gora country?
  3. I am sure you have read all those works the same way I read some incredibly dull literature for my Composition class. Ie just because you read, it doesn’t mean you understand it. It is clear from your thorough ignorance in attributing the housing crisis to the Chicago boys that you understood nothing.
    Heck you are hardly unique, even Ben Bernanke and Alan Greenspan Im sure are more than familiar with their works and obviously they didn’t pay any heed. So why should you? At least you are august company of other failed economists LOL
  4. Oh my God…you really are clueless aren’t you? Alan Greenspan is a famous friend and disciple of…Ayn Rand! In fact, by citing him you only show how little you understand the relationship between economics and political philosophy, and how devastating her brainless theories are. You’ve just undercut your own argument and you don’t even know it! He didn’t pay heed because he was an overconfident market fundamentalists like you, who would sell off even babies if the price were right. And helicopter Ben only repeated the easy money mistakes of his forebears, compounded a trillion times over. Would you even know what I meant if i wrote “list” or “posner”?
    And just so you know, buddhu, Kautilya distrusted and kept merchants/businessmen on a short leash and Ayn Rand justified the genocide of the Native Americans–learn to read and research properly next time…. Critique my understanding all you want, you have neither done the basic reading nor have any understanding worthy of note…continue to hide your ignorance behind brainless bluster.
    Look, I’ve humored you and your juvenile questions like a grownup humors a high school student. I even said I don’t care if you don’t agree so long as you don’t do so disagreeably . But since you clearly aren’t intellectually equipped with the requisite understanding of political and economic history, I’ll just primarily recite sections of the Arthashastra from here on out to show how the ancient Indian economy actually functioned and what a clueless, free-market ideologue you really are.
    It’s a pity, since I like to engage with differing viewpoints, even if we just agree to disagree. But I don’t have time to converse with ignorant egomaniacs more concerned with selling 1 size fits all policy than comparing logical principles.
    1. Im sorry but you are seriously lacking in analytical skills. I would recommend you go back to your school and get a refund because you have learnt nothing
      WHat does it matter if Alan Greenspan claims to be a fan of Ayn Rand? Modi is a devotee of Shri Ramachandra , it doesn’t mean he would create a Ram Rajya LOL
      Mr fixing interest rates isn’t a paragon of a market fundamentalist. Watch the presidential debates of 2012 and how Ron Paul openly laughed at Herman Cain for praising Greenspan. Us folk are more along the lines of Paul Volcker.
      Jeez man this is free market 101
      As for Ayn Rand and native Americans, no she didn’t gloat abut their loss but justified the founding of America on the basis that most countries are formed on the basis of conquest of another.
      And if you are so upset about the native Americans and the evils of GORA worship NRI pathi, I suggest you relocate to the motherland post haste
      I may sound like a high school student but a supremely gifted one I suppose. And you do sound like a grown up. Well retards often are fully grown adults. So you maybe on to something.
      As for merchants and businessman, where do you get the idea Im for them blindly. From Adam Smith to Thomas Sowell, libertarian and free marketers despaired about the monopolistic tendencies of merchants and how they are the worst examples of capitalism.
      Do you even know the difference between a mercantile economy and laissez faire system?
      Never mind. I already know the answer to this question.
  5. Another thing when did I even mention minority lending was responsible for 1929 or 2001. Yet another strawman argument typical of brain dead leftists!
    As for Nixon, you keep proving yourself stupider than even before. I mentioned Nixons critique of Indira Gandhi to underscore her humiliation of pandering to that bigot despite her formidable resolve and will. I support Indira only for her leadership in the 1971 war and nothing else. He stood up to U.S and Nixon and Kissinger blinked and good for us.
    The fact that you equate my narrating of his utterances of my caring about his opinion only exposes your idiocy even further(if that were possible)
  6. LOL you actually believe Sonia Gandhi’s reign is the epitome of capitalism. hahahahaha you are a joke a minute
    Bark , leftist doggie, bark. Bark-“neo liberal policies’ ,bark -“stimulus” ,bark-“decline of manufacturing” hahahahaha
    Now how about your next trick- sniff Anna Hazares butt and then roll over and die
    Sonia Gandhi..hahahahaha
    Thank you for todays quota of entertainment
    I haven’t laughed like this since the last Brahmanandam Rajendra Prasad flick I had seen
    Have you considered a career in comedy. Regretably it is no longer Bahmani so bending over for foreigners is no longer an option. But Im sure something will open up under Owaisi’s reign….
    1. Wow, I had a feeling you had a screw or two loose. I didn’t realize until now it was full on derangement.
      **Points of Order **
      a.We’re all for free exchange of ideas, but recidivist abusive comments, trollery, profanity, and feed spamming can and may lead to editing/deleting of comments, blocking, and in the event of continuing misbehavior, banning.
      b.We don’t like implementing these policies, so as I said above, disagree without being disagreeable (or your case, being a manner-less boor).
      c.Instead of rattling off your repressed emotions in a machine gun burst of buffoonery, stemming from an inferiority complex, please avoid clogging up our feed with multiple comments. I won’t touch your current comments, but I reserve the right to aggregate them into one agglomeration of the asinine, in the future.
      d.This is a forum for collection, presentation and exchange of ideas and facts, not a policy think tank. Since you don’t understand the difference, let me explain in smaller words for you: We engage with ideas (researched, generally data driven, but not data delimited). These may lead to finished policy solutions in some cases, but the focus is to understand the logical basis for a construct or framework or philosophy–rather than being rote-reciting drones spewing received wisdom on policy without understanding its philosophical, economic, or historical basis.
      You may of course continue to comment if you so choose. But given your behavior thus far, you’ll only continue to embarrass yourself with your unrepentant stupidity.
      1. The fact that you don’t even understand how you disproved yourself by volunteering Greenspan–who acknowledges Ayn Rand’s deep influence on his economic thinking–only goes to show you don’t understand economics or political philosophy. He wasn’t just a fan, he was a disciple, you nut. He acknowledged her deep influence on his thinking and failed policy…good job.
      2. The fact that you don’t understand UPA I-II’s populist Sonia sops don’t cover up its neo-liberal firesale of assets under various scams, only shows you don’t have a firm grasp on reality. The highest form of capitalism is imperialism…or in her case, neo-imperialism. Neo-liberal nincompoops like you were too busy watching squawk box to realize what really happens in a fully free market. If you even had an education beyond grade school (“supremely gifted”? or supremely challenged?), you’d know the most laissez faire economy was colonial britain–and even it wasn’t perfect capitalism or a perfect free market. Good job…
      3. The fact that you don’t understand that the specie orientation of mercantilists vs the growth obsession of laissez-faire capitalism theorists is irrelevant to the present conversation on economics and selfishness, only shows you don’t understand economic history, period. The issue isn’t specie or growth…the issue is selfishness and greed. Without anti-trust regulation, a fully free market leads to oligopoly and monopoly due to greed…even Smith wrote about this (but hey, despite your bluster you obviously didn’t read him). So please, continue to pretend you know what you’re talking about.
      4. The fact that you don’t understand that pointing out minority lending wasn’t a factor in 1929 & 2001 casts doubt on your specious argument about its central impact in 2008, only shows you don’t understand logic. All the more so, since you’re clearly incapable of digesting my other 2008 crash points regarding financial policy and de-regulation.
      5. The fact that you’re too brainpower deficient to see that you yourself started the ad-homs by calling me an “idiot” above (I repeatedly highlighted this in quotes), only shows who’s confused about his (or her? ) gender…
      6. The fact that you were too scared to answer my conceptual question above, only shows how all you have is brainless bluster to hide behind.
      7. The fact that you didn’t even do basic reading on economic history and yet question my understanding, only shows how deserving you are of consignment to a lunatic asylum.
      8. The fact that you think only in terms of left-right binary (which we reject) and think I’m a leftist (you’re clearly not a long time reader), only shows how colonized your mind is not only by discredited economic theory but inapplicable political theory. If you think not being a center right, free-market fundamentalist automatically means you’re a leftist, it only shows you can’t hold more than two ideas at once in your tiny head.
      9. The fact that you think Indira Gandhi was pandering to Nixon rather than conducting public diplomacy in preparation for war (for which she had ample military backing from the Soviets) only shows you not only do not understand economic history, you don’t understand history, period, and clearly lost the plot and the debate.
      Now, I don’t care to discuss the alleged complaints American Indians have against this country. I believe, with good reason, the most unsympathetic Hollywood portrayal of Indians and what they did to the white man. They had no right to a country merely because they were born here and then acted like savages.
      And now as promised, the confirmation of your rank ignorance of economics and ancient Indian history, courtesy Kautilya:
      p.236 “Merchants…are all thieves, in effect, if not in name; they shall be prevented from oppressing the people.” {4.1.65}
      p.240 “Merchants for adding a profit margin higher than those prescribed or for making undue profit–>Punishments: 200 panas” {4.2.28,29}
      Hahaha, Kautilya free market fundamentalist indeed!
      Comment, don’t comment…don’t care. But since you clearly don’t understand dialectics, let me explain why you already lost. Setting aside your repeat displays of ignorance and poorly constructed english, he/she (or both in your case?) who loses his/her(both in your case?) cool, and illogically rants like a lunatic, loses the debate. Thanks for playing!
      1. You have not addressed a SINGLE counter argument I made except create even more strawmen!
        “Imperialism is the highest form of capitalism” ! hahahaha that is just comical.
        Adam Smith himself said that the conquest of India by the East India company undergoing at the time was an utter perversion.
        What is so capitalist and free market about Britain disallowing free trade from India to protect its industries? Hey clown that is called PROTECTIONISM and TARIFFS!
        I rather have “poorly constructed English”( rather than poorly constructed English sentences” but whatever I will let the doggie have this one bone)than a poorly constructed mind which is what you possess
        Your reading comprehension is simply and utterly pathetic. I kept repeating for the umpteenth time that I am on Indira’s side vs Nixon and you keep beating the same drum that I worship gora sahib
        I said specifically that I don’t believe minority lending wasn’t a factor in 1929 and 2001 and you comically cling to your belief that I did
        Also genius it is not just Sowell but your beloved Kautilya who wished to legalize and regulate prostitution.
        **Edited for Profanity** Scum like you only deserve abuse.
        As for Adam Smith, even the devil can quote scripture. So what?
        Give my regards to your Paul Krugman awaiting his much need alien invasion for stimulating the economy hahahahahahaha
  7. Another thing I have learnt from my nearly two decades on vigorous exchange on the net- it is always those who are desperate and flailing who start making grandiose claims such as “you have already lost! Give it up man” I remember when I was trying to explain to a Pakistani how Hindus were unique in that they didn’t fall to Huns,Greeks and Arabs when the rest of the civilized world did. It didn’t matter if I narrated the exploits of Yashodharman,Samudragupta, Chandragupta Maurya , Bappa Rawal, Chalukyas, Pratiharas etc etc, his response was “Hindus are losers, weak, cowardly…everyone knows this. give it up”
    **Edited for Indecency**
    Hey look Im charitable and dharmic and stuff!
  8. N.R.I.pathi

  1. Already blocked him.
    **Disgusting comments, profanity, uncivil behavior, and general trollery will lead to editing, deleting, blocking, and even banning. We believe in free speech, but have a Code of Conduct, which we will be posting in the coming weeks.**


  1. Wow that was one long dramatic argument ;)

    I do have to point out that even the free market cannot withstand without government intervention. For example. you had once pointed out that Reagan broke the monopoly of AT&T. The modern free market was invented by the Protestant Dutch Republic which had political freedom from the Holy Roman Empire and the Church.

    The English East India Company grew opium in India and exported it to China, screwing both countries simultaneously. The Chinese officials tried to block the import of opium (ie they engaged in protectionism) which led to the Opium wars. Because of the failure of Chinese protectionism, opium flooded the Chinese market and many people became addicts, ruining their lives. Ironically, drug vendors from China then entered Britain and established drug dens and now it was the Britishers' turn to become addicts. All of this happened under the guise of free market. I am not judging either way right now, just an observation.

    1. Good points which I will address

      You say that free market cannot exist without government intervention. I would say its more of the reverse , if it weren't for government, the default system tends to be the free market.
      What Reagan did was he reverted to what he say were the values of the free market ie squashing monopolies.

      As for the opium wars, as I said free markets should not be created with the barrel of a gun. Imperialism is not compatible with free markets. Adam Smith recognized when he despaired over the exploitation of the East Indian company

      Of course there are always areas where the government can draw the line and that is usually national security and the overall societal good.

      Of course both are debated by both sides. The government can claim that procuring defense hardware from foreigners is dangerous as they may be able to neutralize it since they are familiar with the technology(think stuxnet)

      The procurers may argue that it would be subjected to extensive security measures by our experts and ensure that will not transpire. They may even argue that the country doesn't have much choice as neighboring x country already possesses it and national security will be compromised in that manner.

    2. Even squashing monopolies was essentially an act of govt intervention, and the monopolies themselves were not created by the govt (I think). The exception is the East India Company for which monopoly was granted by the British Crown. I wonder, if this had not been done, may be British conquest of India would have never happened.

  2. Regarding the documentary controversy, the problem is not the opinion of the convicted criminal, but that of his lawyers who are not just trying to defend the rapist for money, but also because they share his views. I have heard these views being espoused by perfectly ordinary people.

    The nationalists' accusation that Leslie Udwin tried to defame India comes from their fear that India's current rise in the world stage might be hindered by this exposé. They are not really speaking from a conviction about the nature of our culture.

    1. I have not paid much attention to it because the hysteria from both sides turned me off from the get go.

      But I am familiar with what caused the controversy.
      Ordinary people in India to be sure have a patronizing view of women when it comes to their life choices. But advising them to exercise caution is another matter altogether.
      Wearing revealing clothes and getting intoxicated in the company of strangers increases the likelihood of rape . But how many women actually do this?
      Most women would rather drink in the company of men or women they already know rather well.

      As for the Delhi outrage on a bus, it was a rare freak occurrence which is why it garnered so much publicity

      As for the views of the convict, I mean really... a criminal rapist and sociopath on death row is really a bit of jerk. THIS is Ms. Udwin's bombshell

      The documentary is crude and sensationalist in the extreme. This is just a vulgar manner for Ms Leslie to prop up her failing career(she was a former actress, now has been)

      Social justice issues often give a new breath of life to has been actresses. C list Shilpa Shetty got a career boost in 2007 when some noname ugly loser English broad made some racist remarks against her in Big Brother. I mean who cares? Why should Shilpa Shetty with her looks and background care about the opinion of some ugly dyke looking woman with barely a high school education at the bottom of the socio economic ladder?
      But she rode this issue to international fame and glory.

  3. In other news, it has been reported that putin uses a huge army of online trolls to write positive comments about him, while trashing his opponents at the same time.
    Putin is lucky that there are also people such as Captain You-Know-Who to do the cheerleading for free

    1. Haha well said Edgardo,Capt does do a hell lot of free trolling for certain folks

    2. Selfish selfish selfish.... That's the summary of the original blogpost of NRI Pathi.When I was reading the last line ,I had to scroll all over again just to catch what he is trying to convey :) And all I got was selfish selfish and more selfishness :D In my college life I used to answer questions like this blogpost of Pathi,ie,creating huge answers out of a single point collected from one of my friends in the exam hall,the same point being repeated in a multitude of ways :) And that gave me a real long answer with zero substance.Here Pathi also seems to rely on a few points like the Sindh invasions.
      Your debate with Pathi was far more exciting than his whole crappy post.
      And Vivekananda did say that :) Here Pathi is not misquoting.

    3. The real problem with Pathi is that Nishkama Karma doesn't exactly mean selflessness.Selflessness is not possible within the creation of Maya.It might be possible when you transcend Maya into Vaikuntha,but not before that.Karma by nature is selfish,and this selfishness is inescapable in the world of Prakriti.However you can strive for Nishkama state of mind,which will allow you to undertake Karma with zero KarmaPhala or backlog.

  4. @YSV

    The Washington Post claims that the subprime mortgage crisis that led to the Great Recession was not caused by govt policies:

    Would you be kind enough to provide a response?

    1. I will do so in a day or two. Am a bit tied up and this deserves an elaborate response. The author makes some good points but also many of his positions are based on false premises and skewed data which lead to erroneous conclusions. Will articulate the same soon.

    2. Thanks a lot! Of course, answer at your convenience.