Posted by Mukesh Garg on Facebook
Braj is a region mainly in Uttar Pradesh of India, around Mathura-Vrindavan. Braj, though never a clearly defined political region in India, is very well demarcated culturally. It is considered to be the land of Krishna and is derived from the Sanskrit word vraja.
It’s not difficult to see the connections to the “yard of coffee” in South India.
I was reading the Reuters report about the fatwas issued by ISIS which apparently justify the harvesting of organs of apostates and infidels – even from living individuals – for the sake of transplantation into “good muslims”. There has to be a genetic component to “barbarism”. Then I saw the report of the Pope’s speech at his midnight mass yesterday attacking consumerism and all “bad things”. That got me to thinking that all the pretty speeches made by politicians and Popes, exhorting “good behaviour”, are all meaningless if actions to ensure and sustain “good behaviour” are not also taken. If humans mean that “good behaviour” is something to aspire to and work for, then we must also take the measures available to us which can improve, whatever we may define as “good behaviour”, from one generation to the next. If behaviour is entirely due to nurture then it just requires proper teaching (though the line between teaching and brainwashing is quite thin). But it is not just nurture, of course. There is little doubt, in my mind that there is a significant genetic component to the behaviour that is expressed by an individual.
Certainly there is no doubt that genetics defines the envelope of behaviours that is open to any individual. Normally the envelope of enabled behaviour is so wide that it allows both “good” and “bad” behaviour. Thereafter it may well be nurture and the peculiarities of each individual which determines which particular behaviour will actually be expressed. But the artificial breeding of pets and livestock shows that key behavioural (as opposed to purely physical) characteristics (aggression, curiosity, propensity to cooperate, playfulness, sensitivity, …) can be selected for. Even “intelligence” has been selected for among dogs with some measure of success. It follows that in addition to physical characteristics, the envelope of possible behaviours that can be expressed by an individual can also be altered by genetics. It is highly likely then, that modifying genetics and shifting the envelope will allow certain behaviours to be completely eliminated from the realm of the possible.
Of course it is primarily natural selection which has produced the humans of today and it is this evolution which gives the cognitive behaviour which favours the “compassionate society”. But in this compassionate society, all those who would otherwise have been deselected by natural selection are now protected. The advances of medical science allied with the development of our ethical standards of behaviour (concepts of “human rights”), mean that the physically and mentally disadvantaged are protected and enabled to survive and reproduce. But one consequence is that even those exhibiting “bad behaviour” are also protected and survive to reproduce. The “welfare society” not only protects the weak and disadvantaged, it also ensures that their genetic weaknesses – assuming that they exist – are carried forward into succeeding generations. The “compassionate society” sees to it that even murderous psychopaths (whose behaviour may well be largely due to genetic “faults”), are imprisoned for relatively short times and then permitted (even encouraged) to pass on their faulty genes to succeeding generations.
Something is not right here. To be a compassionate society and protect the weak and disabled is wholly admirable, I think. But when the protection of the weak and disabled extends to the preferential propagation of the weakness or the disability, then the “compassion” also becomes counter-productive and eventually unsustainable. From the perspective of the future survival of the human race, the unnecessary perpetuation of weaknesses and disabilities becomes stupid and suicidal. It may be that the same genes which give some perceived weakness also give some critical survival attribute, in which case there is a trade-off to be made and a call to be taken.
I like the analogy of genetic propagation being seen as a chemical or nuclear reaction. Run-away reactions are avoided if moderation is available. I am coming to the view that some method of moderation of propagation is actually a necessity. Now that natural selection has been neutralised by human compassion and can no longer provide a moderating influence on genetic propagation, then some other form of genetic moderation is needed to avoid “run-away” genetic explosions. That then requires some form of “artificial” selection as the moderator. We may not yet know the specifics and the extent of the genetic components of intelligence or behaviour, but it is a simple conclusion that without moderation, we may well be ensuring the dumbing-down of the human race or ensuring the propagation and expansion of “bad behaviour”. It may not be causal, but there is a clear correlation showing higher fertility rates with lower “intelligence”. It is an arithmetic certainty that, if there is a causal relationship between intelligence and lower birth rates, then the intelligence of humans will decline.
There is nothing fundamentally incompatible between being a compassionate society which protects the weak and the disabled of the current generation, while still ensuring that genetic weaknesses are not carried forward into succeeding generations. In fact, it could even be considered unethical to knowingly allow such weaknesses to be carried forward, especially if we had the knowledge and the means to prevent it. But that, of course, would be considered eugenics.
When the Israeli media themselves are disgusted, then the criticism cannot be just waved away as being ant-Semitic propaganda. To exult in and glorify the killing of a Palestinian toddler is not that far different to the obscenities of ISIS.
This from Haaretz:
The Judea and Samaria district police said on Thursday it opened an investigation into a video shot at a wedding which shows Jewish radicals stabbing a photograph of the Palestinian toddler who was killed in the Duma firebomb attack. A statement said the inquiry commenced a few days ago.
The police said they were looking into the “numerous and serious offenses seen in the video,” including those who were careless with their weapons. The police intends to question those responsible and to revoke their gun licenses.
The video shows Orthodox youths at a Jerusalem wedding singing songs of revenge and dancing with guns and knives. One masked youth holds up a firebomb, while another is seen stabbing a photo of Ali Dawabsheh, the toddler killed along with his parents in the West Bank arson attack earlier this year.
Radicalised, young, orthodox Jews are just as much brainwashed as those from the most rabid madrassas.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu
strongly condemned the “shocking images” displayed in a video recently seized by police, which shows Orthodox youths at a Jerusalem wedding dancing with guns and knives, stabbing a photo of Ali Dawabsheh, the toddler who was killed in the Duma firebomb attack that killed three members of the Dawabsheh family this past summer.
This video filmed at an Orthodox wedding three weeks ago, Netanyahu said, exposes “the real face of a group that poses danger to Israeli society and security.” He then went on to bolster the Shin Bet, by saying that the images publicized in the video “attest to the importance of the Shin Bet to our security,” Netanyahu said.
So politically correct, morally arrogant, mentally infantile campaigners at Cape Town and Oxford want all traces of Cecil Rhodes (statues, plaques …) to be torn down because Rhodes was such a heinous racist.
No different at all to ISIS in Palmyra or the Taliban’s destruction of the statues of the Buddha in Bamiyan.
But the really sad part is that part of the Cape Town University establishment, and some of the Oxford University establishment, give in to, or seriously entertain, such juvenile attempts to rewrite history.
Taxation is fundamentally a confiscation of private assets for public purposes. It may well be necessary. Tax laws may be fair or unfair. Good citizenship – individual or corporate – then requires that prevailing rules of taxation law be followed, due amounts calculated and paid. Individuals and companies are required to cooperate in calculating the taxes they owe to their tax jurisdictions under existing rules and to pay such amounts in a timely manner.
I find it irritating when the lawmakers then criticise taxpayers for the deficiencies of the laws they have formulated. It has become popular for politicians to criticise large companies and wealthy individuals for “tax avoidance” (which is perfectly legal) as being cases of “not paying your fair share of tax”. It strikes me as a rather irrational – if populist – argument. Tax laws are not inherently, and of themselves, “fair”. In fact the question of “fairness” is not a criteria when it comes to paying or not paying tax. It comes into play only in the formulation of the enabling law. Once a tax law is passed, all legal entities within the jurisdiction are required to pay – whether or not it is “fair” in somebody’s opinion. Many tax laws are intentionally “unfair” to try and implement some policy or other, or to encourage some particular behaviour. When politicians start referring to the “spirit of the law” not being followed, it is just a confession of their own incompetence in formulating laws to implement their intentions.
As law-abiding individuals and companies, we calculate and pay our taxes according to the rules that prevail. We use all available rules of allowable deductions and off-sets and deferred taxes and tax-breaks to minimise the amount of personal assets that are to be confiscated by the State. We use accountants and experts to navigate the complexities and intricacies of tax legislation. No individual is ever expected to pay more than the prevailing rules require. Any individual who does pay more than required, and assuming his perfectly rational objective is to minimise the tax to be payed, is fundamentally incompetent. Any company which pays more tax than it should also demonstrates incompetence and is not demonstrating due care of its investors’ assets.
Individuals and corporations are not required or expected to pay more than what is due under the rules prevailing. The issue of ethics is in play when the rules are formulated and is also involved in the following of the rules. The act of payment is an ethical issue but minimisation of tax due is a matter of competence, not of ethics. Paying more taxes than are due demonstrates incompetence and gains no ethical credits. So when there is criticism of companies for “not paying enough tax”, the real failure is with the politicians who have made the deficient rules – not with the individuals or companies who have followed the prevailing rules to their own best advantage.
I would certainly not wish to invest in any company which was not sufficiently competent to keep its taxes to a minimum.
Tax evasion is illegal and demonstrates a lack of ethics with the taxpayer. Tax avoidance is a measure of the incompetence of lawmakers and of the competence of the taxpayer. I would go so far as to say that to pay more tax than is due is not just incompetent, but also unethical in being deficient in the due care of resources to be expected of any responsible entity.
The US Presidential election beats the new Star Wars for plot and entertainment.
The latest Reuter’s rolling poll shows Carson and Cruz fading and Trump consolidating his position. Clinton-Trump match-ups are meaningless for the moment since the currently secret Democrats for Trump will start coming out of the woodwork only after he has won the nomination – and that will not be till July 2016. Trump’s support is now three times larger than that of his nearest rival.
Reuters Rolling Poll Republicans 22nd December 2015
The primaries start in February and there is little time left for the Republican establishment to stop Trump. I suspect that they will fall in behind Trump if he maintains this lead till March.
Republican primary schedule
I have a theory – which is a little far-fetched – that if it becomes a Trump – Clinton battle, the Democrats for Trump could include large chunks of traditional white, middle-class, liberals who are running a little scared of the demographic changes taking place. It might be thought that the immigrant communities would all be strongly Democratic, but Trump will play successfully to the entrepreneurial instincts that are so strong among many of them. In this scenario, a large section of these “immigrants” would prefer a lively Trump to a jaded Clinton. So, in my theory, Donald Trump could well split the white, liberal vote and even the “immigrant” vote while the Democrats will retain the bulk of the black vote and of the less enterprising immigrant community.
It’s just a theory, of course, but I expect an eventual Trump-Clinton fight to be much more favourable to Trump than the conventional wisdom allows. In any event, it could be a vastly entertaining election.
A good way to end 2015 will be the news that Ramadi has actually been retaken from ISIS (where the civilian population were advised yesterday by air-dropped leaflets to leave the town and where Iraqi troops are reported today to be entering the town).
ISIS lost Kobane earlier to Kurdish forces and after the Russian entry their northern territories in Syria are beginning to come under pressure. But it is when they lose Mosul and Raqqa and Palmyra that their losses will become irretrievable I think. Of course they are now trying to establish themselves in the confusion that is Libya.
IHS has a new map of the territories lost by ISIS
Islamic State territorial gains and losses in 2015 Graphic – IHS
The Islamic State has consistently lost territory month-on-month throughout 2015, according to new analysis released today by IHS Inc. (NYSE: IHS), the leading global source of critical information and insight.
Using open source intelligence including social media and sources inside the countries, the team at IHS estimates that the Islamic State’s ‘caliphate’ shrunk by 12,800 km2 to 78,000 km2 between 1 January and 14 December 2015, a net loss of 14 percent.
The Islamic State’s losses in 2015 include large swathes of Syria’s northern border with Turkey, including the Tal Abyad border crossing, which was the group’s main access point to the Turkish border from their de-facto capital Raqqa.
Retaking Mosul, Raqqa and Palmyra during 2016 will be a hopeful sign that ISIS can be reduced to less than the critical mass of territory under their control. But the idea of a Caliphate will remain as long as they have the tacit support and their inspiration from Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States.
The year of the Red Fire Monkey does not start till 8th February. But this year as a libertarian according to my definition, I choose to wish – all those who deserve it – the best of success and health and happiness and fortune in the name of the auspicious, scarlet primate. Christmas is just the birthday of the Sun but the fiery nature of the monkey this year 2016 takes care of my lauds to Sol Invictus.
But it should be noted that year of one’s birth sign is the most unlucky in the 12 year Chinese cycle, and requires all “monkeys” born in 1920, 1932, 1944, 1956, 1968, 1980, 1992, or 2004 to be especially careful during 2016. But 2016 should be the most fortunate time of the cycle for those born in the Years of the Tiger or the Rabbit.
Monkeys can be of “wood”, “fire”, “earth”, “gold” or “water”. Those born in 2016 are Fire Monkeys.
Monkeys should be particularly compatible with those born in Ox or Rabbit Years but should avoid those born in Tiger or Pig Years like the plague.
Whether the 12 year cycle of Chinese Astrology applies or not, certainly 2015 has demonstrated many of the baser instincts of humans.
If only evolution had direction.
It is only a mathematical model which predicts that a parasitic fly may drive Darwin’s finches to extinction. And the authors then suggest that human intervention is needed to “save” them because natural selection is just not potent enough or fast enough to allow them to adapt.
That’s all very well, but I feel compelled to speak up for the underdog – which is of course, the parasites. I note that Prof. Dale Clayton displays his prejudices when he says:
“They are maggots basically, is what they are,” said Prof Dale Clayton from the University of Utah, the senior author on the study. ….. “They are pretty nasty customers.”
Why the “specist” discrimination? Why should finches be in a privileged position compared to the flies? Their genes may not be threatened but they surely are more important, as a patently “fitter” species”, than those of the finches?
Another case of misguided conservation, where human intervention is proposed to protect an unfit species at the expense of a fitter species.
Mathematical simulations at the University of Utah show parasitic flies may spell extinction for Darwin’s finches in the Galapagos Islands, but that pest-control efforts might save the birds that helped inspire the theory of evolution.
The new study “shows that the fly has the potential to drive populations of the most common species of Darwin’s finch to extinction in several decades,” says biology professor Dale Clayton, senior author of the study published online Dec. 18 in the Journal of Applied Ecology.
But the research “is not all doom and gloom,” he adds. “Our mathematical model also shows that a modest reduction in the prevalence of the fly – through human intervention and management – would alleviate the extinction risk.”
Mathematical simulations at the University of Utah show parasitic flies may spell extinction for Darwin’s finches in the Galapagos Islands, but that pest-control efforts might save the birds that helped inspire the theory of evolution.
The new study “shows that the fly has the potential to drive populations of the most common species of Darwin’s finch to extinction in several decades,” says biology professor Dale Clayton, senior author of the study published online Dec. 18 in the Journal of Applied Ecology.
But the research “is not all doom and gloom,” he adds. “Our mathematical model also shows that a modest reduction in the prevalence of the fly – through human intervention and management – would alleviate the extinction risk.”
Darwin’s finches image Wikipedia
The authors justify their unjustifiable proposals by invoking the meaningless god of “global diversity”.
The case of the flies and finches exemplifies how “introduced pathogens and other parasites pose a major threat to global diversity,” especially on islands, which tend to have smaller habitat sizes and lower genetic diversity, the researchers write.
It is only another alarmist mathematical model. Yet the fundamental reality, whenever a species goes extinct, is that it no longer has any significant part to play in an ecology. If it was relevant and significant to an ecology then its survival would be implicit. And what makes an ecology containing 10 species any better or any worse than an ecology containing 100 species? Surely it is the effectiveness or sustainability of that ecology which counts and not the number of species it contains.
The papers have recently been full of a study from Carnegie Mellon University which purports to show that for lower greenhouse gas emissions, and therefore for the good of the environment, bacon is three times better than lettuce.
Greenhouse gas emissions from lettuce production are three times higher per calorie than from bacon, study finds .
Eating lettuce could be three times worse for the environment than bacon, scientists have claimed. Despite calls from celebrities including Arnold Schwarzenegger and Sir Paul McCartney for people to eat less meat to help save the planet, new research suggests that ‘healthier’ diets with more fruit and vegetables could actually be worse for global warming .
The study, by scientists at Carnegie Mellon University, compared the greenhouse gas emissions from the production of 1,000 calories of different foods. “Eating lettuce is over three times worse in greenhouse gas emissions than eating bacon,” Professor Paul Fischbeck, one of the report’s authors, concluded.
But for all my liking of bacon, I am not giving up on my lettuce. First I don’t believe that man-made “greenhouse” gas emissions have any significant impact on climate. Second, even if they did, the Paris conference has saved the world. Third the combination of bacon with lettuce is one of the greater discoveries of humanity.
But most importantly, my favourite sandwich is not a BLT but a BLET (Bacon, lettuce, egg and tomato). In a crisp and crusty baguette, the egg is better either scrambled or hard-boiled and sliced, but if space allows a fried egg is ideal. The de-luxe edition could also have melted cheese (which is then a BLETCH). Of course, the bacon is the centrepiece and should be just crisp but should not “crumble”. Back-bacon rather than crispy bacon would be my choice.
A BLET – image Pinterest
