It all started with George Fernandez, as visiting Indian defense secretary being strip searched by American airport authorities in DC and another place twice in 2002 and 2003, and I thought....nah...must be April fools.....then ex-President Kalam is ID frisked on an American airline on his way to India more recently.......then the same to Azim Premji apparently, the billionaire IT businessman who is also a celebrity in India......Aamir Khan strip searched too in Chicago 2002, the most creative of new wave Hindi movie actors and directors........and SRK questioned for 66 minutes about certain unknown matters.......SRK says 2 hours, and that his name had triggered the questioning for 2 hours........"Is you name Khan" ....."Yes"....."Where are you from"......."India".............2 hours of this?.........Do all Khans from around the world who visit the USA go through this for 2 hours?........................Muslim name of Central Asian origin that originates from Ghengiz Khan.............and is a very popular name for Muslim's in Afghanistan, Pakistan, India and Bangladesh.
Could you imagine the Russian defense secretary being strip searched??? Or the Brazilian defense secretary?? Of course not..........there would be serious diplomatic repercussion; diplomatic expulsions....and so on. Brazil has already responded like with like.....reciprocity, "OK gringo you fingerprint our nationals visiting America, so we fingerprint your nationals visiting our country."
So the explanation?
Often this mistreatment against Indian public figures is explained in terms of 9/11 and the new "situation" in America.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/FG14Df05.html
But I do not accept this, since presumably all other senior government figures from around the world of 192 nations should also logically be treated the same way as Fernandez. But there isn't a deluge of stories around this happening to other Public officials in other countries.
Because of Islamic names.................George Fernandez an Islamic name? Azim Premji stands out as an Islamic name?
Could it be simple racism? Yes but again there are many brown people countries, great and small around the world, and one does not hear stories of ill-treatment at airports against such people.
So what is going on?
___________________________________
1. Cases of this kind does not appear to happen to senior officials, and public figures of other nations great and small........unique to Indian Public Figures ONLY......of obvious public status, usually involving men who are clearly near retirement stage...........Grey hair, frail in the case of some....old, .................we are not talking of 20 something, 30 something stooges/patsies of Western intelligence out to do harm to little defenseless ole America.
2. Could be a simple issue of racism......brown country....though one should add that the USA will become a brown country by 2050, and is already a considerable mutli-racial society (34% non-European). But it does not seem to happen to important public figures of other brown country peoples, the bigger nations or the smaller ones....so whats up?
3. Some sections of American society are envious of India's rising status within the global society both as a military power, and an economic power, and by doing such things it is an expression of their dislike, and frustration at the gradual rise to prominence of India as a significant nation in the world............equally significant that these things have been happening very recently as in the last few years, in parallel with the rise of India's profile in the world........
Explanation number 3 seems to be most likely.
___________________________________
Thursday, May 26, 2011
Sunday, May 15, 2011
RS 5 HIKE IN PEROL
India is rich. Its actual economy measured by PPP is around $3600--3800 billion; the fourth richest nation on earth, and which will become the third richest in just a few years. India has money and India has resources. The Indian government frequently spends billions on worthless foreign defense equipment...billions...billions...billions, when focus should be made on domestic production of defense equipment, even if its substandard.
This practice carries on by all parties because it makes certain politicians, netas, senior military officers and arms middlemen in India rich, and they deposit the money in off shore accounts (Indira Gandhi and her family have been implicated, as have others)..............now imagine this elite putting the same amount of effort into securing India's gas & oil needs, by investing the necessary funds and implementing the necessary policies to make India self sufficient in gas and oil.
BUT they won't .
What is 3,000 crore fuel subsidy by the government?.......0.05% of GDP ($638 million) of the official Indian economy of $1300 billion. According to Karan Thapar this subsidy bill will rise to 98,000 crore or $20 billion in this financial year which the Indian government allegedly can't sustain.
Unfortunately this subsidy bill is seen as a COST, a burden on the state, rather than seeing it as another indicator of the India's economic rise, and booming economy.............like the Ambani building his $2 billion penthouse; Shobha De bragging on about her latest foray into a luxury hotel in India and outside........or India spending $10 billion or is it going to be eventually $20 billion on a 4th generation jet fighters whose technology will soon be out of date, from a foreign country.
Seeing fuel subsidy for the masses as a COST and burden which the government can't pay for is a neo-liberal alien Western concept. $20 Billion or 98,000 crore estimated fuel subsidy bill this year is still 0.5% of the real Indian economy as measured by PPP of $3600--3800 billion.
The Indian Budget of $200 billion is woefully too small. Only 15% of the official GDP...........a neo-liberal paradise. The government thus must find serious strategies to increase the budget to GDP ratio from the current 15% to at least 25% of GDP, through an effective new tax regime. Then in such a prosperous confident India governments won't feel mean spirited about spending a paltry 1% on fuel subsidy.
Subsidies are the only way, in the complete absence of a SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM to give a little help to the masses.
Thus I support annual subsidized national health-care to the tune of 4-5% of GDP.
I support annual subsidized national education for all up to the age of 16, spending 6% of GDP on education.
I support annual subsidized national development and infrastructure investment to the tune of 10% of GDP.
I support annual subsidized agricultural policies to the tune of 3% of GDP.
I support annual subsidized fuel to the tune of 1% of GDP, at least.
These can only be achieved by governments who accept that in power and in government they have a moral duty to uplift the masses beyond paying lip service to their needs, whilst privately pursuing neo-liberal banana republic policies which slowly steals even the meager basics of the masses, such as food and fuel.
This practice carries on by all parties because it makes certain politicians, netas, senior military officers and arms middlemen in India rich, and they deposit the money in off shore accounts (Indira Gandhi and her family have been implicated, as have others)..............now imagine this elite putting the same amount of effort into securing India's gas & oil needs, by investing the necessary funds and implementing the necessary policies to make India self sufficient in gas and oil.
BUT they won't .
What is 3,000 crore fuel subsidy by the government?.......0.05% of GDP ($638 million) of the official Indian economy of $1300 billion. According to Karan Thapar this subsidy bill will rise to 98,000 crore or $20 billion in this financial year which the Indian government allegedly can't sustain.
Unfortunately this subsidy bill is seen as a COST, a burden on the state, rather than seeing it as another indicator of the India's economic rise, and booming economy.............like the Ambani building his $2 billion penthouse; Shobha De bragging on about her latest foray into a luxury hotel in India and outside........or India spending $10 billion or is it going to be eventually $20 billion on a 4th generation jet fighters whose technology will soon be out of date, from a foreign country.
Seeing fuel subsidy for the masses as a COST and burden which the government can't pay for is a neo-liberal alien Western concept. $20 Billion or 98,000 crore estimated fuel subsidy bill this year is still 0.5% of the real Indian economy as measured by PPP of $3600--3800 billion.
The Indian Budget of $200 billion is woefully too small. Only 15% of the official GDP...........a neo-liberal paradise. The government thus must find serious strategies to increase the budget to GDP ratio from the current 15% to at least 25% of GDP, through an effective new tax regime. Then in such a prosperous confident India governments won't feel mean spirited about spending a paltry 1% on fuel subsidy.
Subsidies are the only way, in the complete absence of a SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM to give a little help to the masses.
Thus I support annual subsidized national health-care to the tune of 4-5% of GDP.
I support annual subsidized national education for all up to the age of 16, spending 6% of GDP on education.
I support annual subsidized national development and infrastructure investment to the tune of 10% of GDP.
I support annual subsidized agricultural policies to the tune of 3% of GDP.
I support annual subsidized fuel to the tune of 1% of GDP, at least.
These can only be achieved by governments who accept that in power and in government they have a moral duty to uplift the masses beyond paying lip service to their needs, whilst privately pursuing neo-liberal banana republic policies which slowly steals even the meager basics of the masses, such as food and fuel.
Friday, May 13, 2011
WHY CULTURES DIE....BU J.D.UDWIN
Why Cultures Die
With the breakdown of sexual morality, the blood ties that unite a nation are dissolved as the people treat sexual reproduction as an aspect of simple pleasure and breed with immigrants and strangers - and thereby the nation and culture is destroyed.
Sexual Restraint and Social Energy in Diverse Cultures:
The Findings of J.D. Unwin
Scholar J.D. Unwin, Ph.D., in his seminal work Sex and Culture,* draws a connection between the flourishing of cultures and the sexual norms present at the time those cultures flourished. He studied over 80 different societies and repeatedly came to the same conclusion: When a society limited sexual freedom for an extended period of time, the society flourished; it expanded its territory, thrived intellectually, advanced technologically and progressed architecturally. When few or no regulations were placed on sexuality for an extended period of time, societies made little technological, intellectual and architectural advancement, ceased to expand and were at times even conquered. In short, sexually lax societies lacked what Unwin calls social energy.
The term social energy is important for understanding Unwin's work. He refers to two types: expansive social energy and productive social energy. The first includes "territorial expansion, conquest, colonization and the foundation of a widely flung commerce" (p. 315). This type of energy is directed not simply to what is going on within society - the energy is extended outside of the very country in which it originates. Productive social energy, on the other hand, 'develops the resources of its habitat and by increasing its knowledge of the material univers bends nature to its will" (p. 315). Productive social energy measures advancement within society. "Productive social energy was displayed . . . by the Moors when they invented algebra and the compass, and by the Western Europeans who discovered the use first of steam, then electricity, then of wireless communication" (p. 316). Societies that possessed social energy were said to "flourish." Hence, the flourishing of the Roman Empire is descriptive of its social energy.
It is important to understand that inquiry into the sciences, development of technology, accomplishments in art and the advancement of architecture are things which only men achieve. Animals do not boast of solving problems in calculus; they do not have computers; they do not paint masterpieces; they do not build temples. The reason for this is that men possess the ability to reason, whereas animals do not. Natural impulses, such as the desire to eat, sleep and have sex, are desires that both men and animals share. Men, however, also possess a rational intellect (the ability to reason) and a will (the ability to act according to reason). Animals, because they have no ability to reason, act always upon impulse. When they are hungry, they hunt. When they are thirsty, they drink. There is nothing internal that can dissuade them from acting upon impulse. Men, because they have reason, can make a decision to reject an impulse that arises in order to do something which they perceive as more important. The doctor will put off sleeping in order to study for his exam; a man will fast from eating in order to have his colon examined.
If men never did these things, that is, if they immediately acted upon every arising impulse or desire, there would be little to differentiate them from the animals. When men do not place any restraint on their impulses, they spend a great deal of their time indulging in pleasure for its own sake, and their societies tend to be built solely around the activities of eating, drinking, sleeping and having sex.
However, if society discourages the immediate satisfaction of these impulses through strict sexual norms, men will have energy and time to work on other goals which they would not have had if they had expended this energy on their own useless pleasure. Anyone who has played on a sports team recognizes that discipline of these natural desires is key to achieving great things. Men must refrain from taking breaks whenever they please and show up for practice even when their bodies simply want to sleep. To achieve things as a community, it is generally acknowledged that men must deny themselves some individual pleasures.
Unwin refers to Freud to explain this connection between sexual restraint and the flourishing of societies. Freud says that with natural impulses and desires comes energy to satisfy those desires. Freud says, however, that rather than always satisfying their impulses, men can “sublimate” those desires, which means they can direct their “sexual energy” in some other way than just sexually. In other words, they redirect the energy. Since the sexual urge, according to Freud, contains the most energy of all the impulses, sublimation of a sexual desire would allow for the use of greater energy in another sphere of life.
(Note: While we do not accept all of Freud’s psychological theories concerning man’s nature, his ideas concerning sublimation of sexual energy still contain merit.)
What do these men do, then, when they refrain from satisfying their sexual urges whenever and with whomever they please? History repeatedly shows that they use this energy to achieve more distinctly human goals. They further the sciences, produce artistically, accomplish architectural feats and conquer nations.
Presented for your consideration is the infamous society of the Romans. The Roman Empire is especially important in Unwin’s work, due to the fact that its history is generally known and accessible to the public. When the plebeians rose to power in the 3rd century B.C., they implemented strict sexual principles (p. 393). Following this political change, Unwin calls the energy of the Romans “tremendous.” They took hold of Italy and conquered the entire Mediterranean area. As a distinction has already been made regarding different types of social energy, the reader will recognize this as expansive social energy. Unwin further acknowledges that it is frequently posited that the Roman Empire was “at its strongest” in the second century A.D. (p. 398). “Then in their turn,” Unwin states, “the provincials reversed the habits of their fathers by extending their sexual opportunity” (p. 398-399). Following these changes he asserts that the energy of the empire declined, and that this is clear in 3rd century A.D accounts. Not long after, the Western Empire fell, and we are left to ponder its remains.
This pattern exhibited in the Roman empire is not unique. As regards the Sumerians, Babylonians, Athenians, Anglo-Saxons, and Protestant English, Unwin states:
These societies lived in different geographical environments; they belonged to different racial stocks; but the history of their marriage customs is the same. In the beginning each society had the same ideas in regard to sexual regulations. Then the same struggles took place; the same sentiments were expressed; the same changes were made; the same results ensued. Each society reduced its sexual opportunity to a minimum and displaying great social energy, flourished greatly. Then it extended its sexual opportunity; its energy decreased, and faded away. The one outstanding feature of the whole story is its unrelieved monotony.
The idea that the sexual act is purely private and has little to do with anyone other than the individuals involved is, quite frankly, false. Unwin’s work is sociological proof that the “free love” mentality is detrimental to society in every sphere. Aside from the private repercussions to individuals who sleep around at whim, sexual laxity produces social laziness, which eventually puts a society as a whole at risk.
Abstinence and marriage education, which seeks to re-instill a sexual norm of restraint, is not religious propaganda; even from a merely sociological view, this type of education has the society’s best interest in mind. Indeed, when societies uphold norms which elevate the sexual act to its proper place in marriage, they benefit in ways that reach far beyond the sexual fulfillment of its citizens.
With the breakdown of sexual morality, the blood ties that unite a nation are dissolved as the people treat sexual reproduction as an aspect of simple pleasure and breed with immigrants and strangers - and thereby the nation and culture is destroyed.
Sexual Restraint and Social Energy in Diverse Cultures:
The Findings of J.D. Unwin
Scholar J.D. Unwin, Ph.D., in his seminal work Sex and Culture,* draws a connection between the flourishing of cultures and the sexual norms present at the time those cultures flourished. He studied over 80 different societies and repeatedly came to the same conclusion: When a society limited sexual freedom for an extended period of time, the society flourished; it expanded its territory, thrived intellectually, advanced technologically and progressed architecturally. When few or no regulations were placed on sexuality for an extended period of time, societies made little technological, intellectual and architectural advancement, ceased to expand and were at times even conquered. In short, sexually lax societies lacked what Unwin calls social energy.
The term social energy is important for understanding Unwin's work. He refers to two types: expansive social energy and productive social energy. The first includes "territorial expansion, conquest, colonization and the foundation of a widely flung commerce" (p. 315). This type of energy is directed not simply to what is going on within society - the energy is extended outside of the very country in which it originates. Productive social energy, on the other hand, 'develops the resources of its habitat and by increasing its knowledge of the material univers bends nature to its will" (p. 315). Productive social energy measures advancement within society. "Productive social energy was displayed . . . by the Moors when they invented algebra and the compass, and by the Western Europeans who discovered the use first of steam, then electricity, then of wireless communication" (p. 316). Societies that possessed social energy were said to "flourish." Hence, the flourishing of the Roman Empire is descriptive of its social energy.
It is important to understand that inquiry into the sciences, development of technology, accomplishments in art and the advancement of architecture are things which only men achieve. Animals do not boast of solving problems in calculus; they do not have computers; they do not paint masterpieces; they do not build temples. The reason for this is that men possess the ability to reason, whereas animals do not. Natural impulses, such as the desire to eat, sleep and have sex, are desires that both men and animals share. Men, however, also possess a rational intellect (the ability to reason) and a will (the ability to act according to reason). Animals, because they have no ability to reason, act always upon impulse. When they are hungry, they hunt. When they are thirsty, they drink. There is nothing internal that can dissuade them from acting upon impulse. Men, because they have reason, can make a decision to reject an impulse that arises in order to do something which they perceive as more important. The doctor will put off sleeping in order to study for his exam; a man will fast from eating in order to have his colon examined.
If men never did these things, that is, if they immediately acted upon every arising impulse or desire, there would be little to differentiate them from the animals. When men do not place any restraint on their impulses, they spend a great deal of their time indulging in pleasure for its own sake, and their societies tend to be built solely around the activities of eating, drinking, sleeping and having sex.
However, if society discourages the immediate satisfaction of these impulses through strict sexual norms, men will have energy and time to work on other goals which they would not have had if they had expended this energy on their own useless pleasure. Anyone who has played on a sports team recognizes that discipline of these natural desires is key to achieving great things. Men must refrain from taking breaks whenever they please and show up for practice even when their bodies simply want to sleep. To achieve things as a community, it is generally acknowledged that men must deny themselves some individual pleasures.
Unwin refers to Freud to explain this connection between sexual restraint and the flourishing of societies. Freud says that with natural impulses and desires comes energy to satisfy those desires. Freud says, however, that rather than always satisfying their impulses, men can “sublimate” those desires, which means they can direct their “sexual energy” in some other way than just sexually. In other words, they redirect the energy. Since the sexual urge, according to Freud, contains the most energy of all the impulses, sublimation of a sexual desire would allow for the use of greater energy in another sphere of life.
(Note: While we do not accept all of Freud’s psychological theories concerning man’s nature, his ideas concerning sublimation of sexual energy still contain merit.)
What do these men do, then, when they refrain from satisfying their sexual urges whenever and with whomever they please? History repeatedly shows that they use this energy to achieve more distinctly human goals. They further the sciences, produce artistically, accomplish architectural feats and conquer nations.
Presented for your consideration is the infamous society of the Romans. The Roman Empire is especially important in Unwin’s work, due to the fact that its history is generally known and accessible to the public. When the plebeians rose to power in the 3rd century B.C., they implemented strict sexual principles (p. 393). Following this political change, Unwin calls the energy of the Romans “tremendous.” They took hold of Italy and conquered the entire Mediterranean area. As a distinction has already been made regarding different types of social energy, the reader will recognize this as expansive social energy. Unwin further acknowledges that it is frequently posited that the Roman Empire was “at its strongest” in the second century A.D. (p. 398). “Then in their turn,” Unwin states, “the provincials reversed the habits of their fathers by extending their sexual opportunity” (p. 398-399). Following these changes he asserts that the energy of the empire declined, and that this is clear in 3rd century A.D accounts. Not long after, the Western Empire fell, and we are left to ponder its remains.
This pattern exhibited in the Roman empire is not unique. As regards the Sumerians, Babylonians, Athenians, Anglo-Saxons, and Protestant English, Unwin states:
These societies lived in different geographical environments; they belonged to different racial stocks; but the history of their marriage customs is the same. In the beginning each society had the same ideas in regard to sexual regulations. Then the same struggles took place; the same sentiments were expressed; the same changes were made; the same results ensued. Each society reduced its sexual opportunity to a minimum and displaying great social energy, flourished greatly. Then it extended its sexual opportunity; its energy decreased, and faded away. The one outstanding feature of the whole story is its unrelieved monotony.
The idea that the sexual act is purely private and has little to do with anyone other than the individuals involved is, quite frankly, false. Unwin’s work is sociological proof that the “free love” mentality is detrimental to society in every sphere. Aside from the private repercussions to individuals who sleep around at whim, sexual laxity produces social laziness, which eventually puts a society as a whole at risk.
Abstinence and marriage education, which seeks to re-instill a sexual norm of restraint, is not religious propaganda; even from a merely sociological view, this type of education has the society’s best interest in mind. Indeed, when societies uphold norms which elevate the sexual act to its proper place in marriage, they benefit in ways that reach far beyond the sexual fulfillment of its citizens.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)