Pranab Mukherjee & Indira Gandhi.

In 1969 Indira Gandhi decided to hatao garibi, to remove poverty, from India. However, though properly served with notice to quit, Poverty showed no sign of budging.

Indira became furious and cut off her own head and shoved it up her arse.  It was as though a great darkness had fallen upon the land. Pranab Da humbly beseeched Indiraji to poop out her own head so that it could be reattached to her neck. 'But will I still be allowed to speak out of my arse?' Indiraji inquired. 'Ma'am' Prabab replied, 'By the grace of the Mahatma we can do nothing else'.

Thank you vs Arigato

The word 'thank' derives ultimately from the Proto Indo European word 'teng/tong'- for thinking/feeling.

'Thank is to Think as Song is to Sing.' 

Thus, thankfulness is a function of the thanker's level of sentience and capacity for refined sentiment and thus thanks offered can be ranked qualitatively on the basis of the thanker's status as well as the amount of effort, talent and creativity the thanker puts into formulating her thanks.
Prayer is a form of thanks and as St. Augustine of Hippo is often quoted as having said “He who sings, prays twice.”  The Latin cited for this is “Qui bene cantat bis orat” or “He who sings well prays twice”.
This attribution probably derives from the following passage-

Qui enim cantat laudem, non solum laudat, sed etiam hilariter laudat; qui cantat laudem, non solum cantat, sed et amat eum quem cantat. In laude confitentis est praedicatio, in cantico amantis affectio…For he who sings praise, does not only praise, but also praises joyfully; he who sings praise, not only sings, but also loves Him whom he is singing about/to/for. There is a praise-filled public proclamation (praedicatio) in the praise of someone who is confessing/acknowledging (God), in the song of the lover (there is) love.

The literal meaning of Arigato, however, is 'It is difficult to exist' and arises as something objective which the one being thanked has recognized as requiring some altruistic action on their own part. Thus, qualitatively,  thanks rendered can't be graded on the basis of the level of sentience or refinement of sentiment or degree of affection possessed by the thanker but, rather, it is the one being thanked who determines the quantum of thanks appropriate to his act of benevolence which is itself interpreted as a 'concession' (Suijo) to objectively discerned neediness, the transparent difficulty faced in simply carrying on existence, of the one who ought to render thanks and 'repay virtue' (Hotoku) but on whose behalf the collective is equally obligated and empowered to act.

Thus to say 'thank you'- not that us low class desi types ever say please or thank you- is to affirm one's own worth and status and creative talent. It is more than to sing for your supper. Rather it is to drunkenly grab the karaoke mike at the bat mitzvah you've thuggishly gate crashed and, quite madly, decided is actually a surprise birthday party for yourself.  What? Don't tell me you have no memory of doing any such thing. You are ten times worse than me. Fact is us desis can't hold our liquor. My old drinking pal, M.S Subbalaxmi, once got high on peppermint Schnapps at the Indian Consulate in New York and barged into the General Assembly and grabbed the mike from Gowdamma Iyer, first Tambram Prime Minister of Israel, and sang Nole Kidre in Raag Hindolam- thus deeply affronting  Gemal Abdul Nasser who had been practicing that same item all week. This led to the Yom Kippur War.

I am not guilty in any way. All I said to her was 'Arre gaa to'. That she chose Raag Hindolam is the fault of that Schopenhauerian Will which always works in such a way that what is most difficult is bare existence.

Does deliberative Democracy destroy information?

   The discursive dilemma highlights the fact there is no obvious way to reverse  map the framework of Judgement aggregations into the framework of Preference Aggregations. Oddly, this makes 'deliberative democracy' more not less compelling as an ideal. Indeed, it militates for Preferences to come under the discipline of Kantian Judgement as a regulative principle such that, by the pigeon hole principle, there is increasing canalisation till reverse mapping does in fact obtain.

Unfortunately this can cash out as Preference Falsification or Choice Blindness.

Does Deliberative Democracy destroy information?

That would mean reduced capacitance switching, reduced evolvability- i.e. systemic white elephant hedge betting.

Perhaps, Ethics is apophatic or not at all.

Arundhati's Roy's heart of darkness

Roy is a high caste Indian. She says that whereas the West has protested the shooting of Malala by the Taliban it took no action re. the anti-Dalit Khairlanji massacre of 2006 which resulted in six Backward Caste men being given the death sentence in 2008 (since reduced on appeal to 25 years rigorous imprisonment).
Why did the West give publicity to 15 year old Malala and not to a 40 year old woman killed in Khairlanji?
The obvious answer is that the Taliban is the enemy of the West. We spend money on drone attacks to kill the Taliban. Since the Taliban tried to kill Malala and Western Medicine restored her to life- we are entitled to praise her and give publicity to her cause (viz female education albeit private not publicly funded education).
The Kunbi caste of Maharashtra, however, is not the enemy of the West. We honestly don't know the difference between a Kunbi and a Mahar and are indifferent as to who should prevail in a dispute over a quarter acre of land. The truth is, they are not concerned with us and we are not concerned with them.
Roy has a different theory- she says
'Surekha Bhotmange and her children lived in a market-friendly democracy. So there were no “I am Surekha” petitions from the UN to the Indian government, nor any messages of outrage from heads of state. Which was just as well, because we don’t want daisy-cutters dropped on us just be cause we practise caste.'

The problem with Roy's theory is that Malala lived in a 'market friendly democracy'. Pakistan has an elected Prime Minister, same as India. The same Global Corporations which operate in India operate also in Pakistan. The Indian State caught the people who killed Surekha Bhotmange and sent them to prison. Pakistan has not been able to do the same thing for Malala's would be assassins. So what? India hasn't been able to bring to book plenty of terrorists of various stripes- including Islamists and Naxalites and other such heroes of Ms. Roy's.

Roy may believe that America drops 'daisy cutters' on people who practice caste. It may be that she has seen a version of Apocalypse Now in which Marlon Brando was practicing Caste in Vietnam and so Martin Sheen turned up and arranged for daisy cutters to be dropped all over the place. Similarly, what actually happened in Nagasaki was that the Americans got wind that someone was practicing caste in that city- probably some high caste Bong like Rash Behari Ghose- and so they dropped a nuke on it.

Americans are well known for such behavior. Yet, they are refusing not just to nuke India but even to drop a few daisy cutters even though India is practicing caste! Why?

The answer is that Arundhati Roy is a market-friendly practitioner of Caste.  Not content with killing off the innocent Dalit lover of the protagonist's mother in her novel, she is now raping and massacring millions of innocent Dalits if not personally then vicariously through the Cash Nexus. Why? So as to get intellectual property rights over Ambedkar (who belonged to same caste as Surekha) and empower and enrich herself by exploiting the poorest and most vulnerable.
Other writers, no worse than her, don't like practicing caste. So they emigrate from India and quickly change their passport. Arundhati remains Indian so as to kill and rape Dalit people and boast about it in the Western Press.

Hai! Please Obama Mama, drop daisy cutter on Arundhati Roy due to she has become a Kurtz like monstrosity in her own 'heart of darkness'!

About author-
Vivek Iyer attends Holy Angels School & Beauty Parlor. He is 51 years old. When he grows up he wants to become a Cost and Management Accountant.

Jason Brennan's false argument for killing F.B.I officers

This, for a change, is quite a thoughtful post by Jason Brennan on 'killing Government Agents'.

On the one hand, it is refreshingly free of obvious and egregious fallacies arising from ignorance of recent developments in General Equilibrium theory. 

On the other, it is utterly illiterate with respect to doxastic logic.

Thus, it rather neatly shows the bankruptcy of 'public reason liberalism'. The fact is Roman Law, which Hobbes, Locke et al, were well tutored in, recognised an over-riding 'culpa levis' obligation, regulated by synteresis as providentially set to omniscience, such that the Social Fabric be maintained and neither individual ethos nor collective ethne ever be unconscionably imperilled. 

Governments, thus, were not organic Leviathans but only superveniently, therefore competitively, so on that immensely defeasible fabric, ethos, or hypokiemenon of Mutuality's own inward demesne such that doxastic logic faced no dilemma and demanded no pharmakos.
By ignoring every rule of any possible doxastic logic, Brennan suggests otherwise so as to present us with the Girardian scapegoat or pharmakos of a 'Fed' we, as in a Computer Game, gain points for 'blowing away'.
Brennan, who teaches at Georgetown- yeah, Jesuit Georgetown- tells us we must be ready to kill a servant of the State to inoculate ourselves against...what? Ceasing to believe we really are 'Bleeding Heart Libertarians?'
What is the common sense view?
Briefly, it is right to kill officers of the State iff, at the margin, its alternative (Stalnaker-Lewis) possible form has greater, i.e. more compelling, Moral Reality and 'zero regret' militates to that end.
Example- for a black cunt like me, when General Dunphore declare's I iz no longer a slave, fuck I ought fight for King George, innit? Except them cunts is lying big time. So I stick with Washington and wait it out for Lincoln.
That's marginal analysis- without which Substantivism turns immediately to shit.
However, Brennan isn't at the margin. He is making a substantivist argument without a substantive theory of the State compatible with minimal Liberalism- thus mis-identifying the margin.
It is impossible to find a hermeneutic model for his assertions which isn't inherently nonsensical. 
Brennan doesn't really do Maths or Econ or Doxastic Logic but there seems to be some imperative force impelling him to talk nonsense.
What is it that he prizes? I confess, I don't know. I'd like to. Clearly this is a successful American Man. But what, apart from being successful, does he actually valorise? 
Social Contract Theory, being rooted in Roman Law, had not just a concept of 'culpa levis' but also a governing principle of synteresis. In other words, the Academic Availability Cascades which distinguish 'Virtue Ethics' from 'Consequentialism' or 'Deontology' and so on are simply silly in their hermeneutic claims.

Hymn to Narendra Modi

Because Eknath's modi Account Book by one adhela was unbalanced

Guru Janardhan's Momus window by Ecstasy was valanced

Though Egypt's Ikhwan seek Hierarchical Tamkin

Let Ind's albela prefer Hegira's Talwin.

Envoi-

Thou Indr among Men, upon Arafat, be lightning

 Atma from Jiva is a Partition too frightening.

Kannan & Canaan

'Entailing but Bondage on us Blacks; a slave-ship better sunk

'Thy Book is an Ark whose Noah is drunk!'

 Lord Krishna, Vivek, lustrates your libel

Illiterates, for His sake, save e'en your Bible!