PHLaggie

i'm responding to individual replies. you don't have to read it or respond to it.

why not? most of its reportage is laced with political lean, and its op-eds are definitely a no-holds-barred anti-Hindu. It has one yardstick for its own domestic politics, and another for the unwashed ex-colonies. The fact that it's been wrong and hysteria-inducing is the shit-icing on the cake.

population jihad, population bomb. it's up to you to notice, or not. Indian decadal statistics have shown that the rate of Muslim population growth far outstrips all others, and this certainly has a noticeable impact in all sorts of social economy of an area, state, country. You not noticing it won't make it go away, because its dynamics have been playing out for a long time. I said don't bring your predisposed idea of Mexian identity onto an Indian identity conversation; the two are different. That doesn't make me anything other than a realist.

That's your take on what I think. Because you want to fit me into your narrative of reality. Apparently my references went way over your head, either because you're not following what's happening in Indian-American communities and the religious politics being played out, or you're feigning ignorance. On Kashmir and on CAA, the progressive wing of Democrats have been haranguing Hindus and India in an almost rabid and Islamist way; turns out, when you look deeper, their constituencies and their circles are full of Islamist people, so it's not a surprise that they would take such stances. The resultant alienation of Hindus in America towards Democrats will be natural. For me, personally, I would want nothing more than complete religious freedom and equality. And yet, we see that conservative Jews run patrols in parts of NYC. and now, so do Muslims. We may soon see Sharia Patrols similar to the ones in British cities; maybe bearded fellows will tell white women to cover up or to not walk in front of a mosque anymore. These are talking points from a freedom absolutest like Christopher Hitchens, who spoke openly against imposition of "Islamophobia" by the Left.

I've not written much, if anything, about the United States on this board or in this tread. So I'm not sure what you'd be basing that comment off of.

may be globalized free trade isn't all that its cracked up to be. there are winners, sure, and then there are losers too and the losers also get to vote. and then there's this: https://www.bloomberg.com/amp/opinion/articles/2020-02-21/coronavirus-forces-a-rethinking-of-supply-chains

btw, independent statistics show that Indian-American favor Democrats by close to 80% margin. Same was true for British-Indians, until recently, when Jeremy Corbyn decided that Labour will love Islamist story over everything else. Maybe the diaspora in America too will start to turn away from the Democrats. Just like Tories have been unsavory for a long time, Republicans too have been unlikable for most Indian-Americans. But maybe the ground is shifting ever so slightly. Especially with the "progressive" wing of Democrats going full mental with hijabi types and canned Islamist apologia.

leftist insistence of viewing every thing from an Islamist-grievance prism not going away.

why would i care about that topic at all? unlike you, i actually have an ability to see nuance in different parts of the world and their peculiar circumstances and histories and present status quo.

Do "minority rights" include legal Islamic polygamy, the Islamic "instant divorce" with no alimony, the insistence on running parallel sharia courts? More importantly, do "minority rights" mean that majority's places of worship be legally controlled by state governments, their revenues and donations become part of state treasury to be used for welfare as they see fit? Does it mean majority's educational institutions must take quotas on teachers and students from all religions but the minority institutions can legally discriminate on who they take, even though they get government funding?

Do you know how India actually works, or you base you insights on what you read in The Economist rag? Do you know how Indian constitution treats Hindu endowments, Hindu places of worship, Hindu schools? especially as opposed to how it treats Muslim and Christian versions of the same? Do you know the Hindu population impacted by Islamist violence in border districts of West Bengal, or that of Kerala and Kashmir states? Perhaps you know that entire districts in parts of India have newly been converted to Christianity via the Joshua Project. 5 of the 7 northeastern Indian states are already Christian-majority, and the Baptist church has funded separatists in Nagaland and Tripura for a few decades now?

Why do you say that? He just won a bigger national election than his earlier victory in 2013. India did push for a smaller trade deal but U.S. side held off. Maybe because America is getting what it wants piecemeal anyway, especially in the strategic/defense sectors, with India signing up for billions in new deals for helicopters, howitzers, etc.

So you're not a nationalist. that's fine. But don't impost Mexican/Texian identity lens on India, in that case. Or don't turn it into same-same monkey balancing argument. That's not what I am saying. India is a constitutional republic that guarantees freedom of religion for everyone, implicit in that is also the matter of saving Hindus from messianic fundamentalist missionary book religions. If you're going to compare Texas/Spanish, then the more apt comparison would be for Hindus of Sindh and Buddhists and Shivites of Kashmir to take back what is theirs, which was forcibly taken away from them by Islamist Urdu speakers. As it is, the Hindus are fighting a battle just to survive within a truncated India post-1947.

Share us the news reporting of the surge of violence against Christians, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists in Pakistan and Bangladesh. I'll wait. These are joined at the hips. India's "Muslim problem" is a historical artifact that can't be wished away. The Islamic separatism isn't a myth, and surely America is in for interesting times down the road too, just let population-jihad work its way. Unless moderates within Islamic groups don't take it up against their Islamist brethren, it's not going to get any easier. Many parts of Europe already seeing this, and therefore also seeing the normal backlash to it.

Where do begin? If we're going by last night's show, he left out the details that aren't convenient to his set narrative. Details, such as the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) is indeed geared towards 6 minorities of 3 neighboring Islamic countries with historical population and cultural connections to present-day India. The CAA excludes Muslims because of the historical facts, because the 6 minorities are the ones affected in Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Afghanistan. The Muslims from these 3 Islamic countries aren't barred from coming to India or even seeking asylum in India; in fact, a famous Bollywood signer (Adnan Sami) did just that--and the current BJP government even conferred him one of the highest civilian awards (Padma Bhushan) this past Republic Day. But the CAA is geared towards those religious minorities that have historically faced persecution in Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Afghanistan-- and who already are in India by their tens of thousands, but who still don't have Indian citizenship. He failed to mention that the cut-off for the CAA for the 6 minorities of the 3 islamic countries is set by that law at December 31, 2014. Meaning, you would have already had to have come into India illegally from these 3 Islamic countries. And if you're a Hindu, Sikh, Christian, Parsi, Jain, or Buddhist, then if you have already lived in India for 5 years, then you are eligible for Indian citizenship. The law is for those who fled religious persecution in their erstwhile homelands which are now overrun by Islamists. It has nothing to do with existing Indian citizens of any religion. It is a legal remedy for the tens of thousands of mainly Hindus but also Sikhs, Buddhists, and Christians and Jains who fled the creation of Bangladesh in 1971 and the many subsequent porgroms against these people by Islamists in west Pakistan and east Pakistan; Afthanistan was also included because of the historical population of Sikhs and Buddhists and Hindus there that have faced harsh attacks on them by Taliban. For these people, India is the only and natural refuge and homeland. And the current government has finally moved legislation to provide them legal papers for their citizenship after they having lived already in India for decades. It eases the life somewhat for these people, without taking away any rights of anyone else. He failed to mention that U.S. too has exactly such a citizenship law geared towards a selected set of religious minorities that faced historical persecution in the Former Soviet Union, and then expanded that law to cover a set of religious minorities in Iran-- but mostly varieties of Christians. That law is called Lautenberg Amendment of 1989. And it doesn't list, for example, Hindus facing persecution in Russia. So is it discriminatory? The same way, the CAA is. He also then jumps to the National Register of Citizens (NRC). Which hasn't even been put in the national parliament as a bill yet, nevermind talking about it as if it's already the law. He conveniently quotes Amit Shah from one of his election rallies-- if we start quoting boisterous Indian politicians at their rallies, The American Leftist love affair with Isalmists might get chagrined. For example, many Islamic leaders in that same election last year talked about Islamic power, about how Islam ruled over Hindus for 800 years and they are rightful owners and will rule again. Is that provocative? You bet. But Time Magazine's Atish Taseer (A Muslim himself) will never quote that in his reportage! The NRC that took place in one northeastern state bordering Bangladesh was part of the 1985 Assam Accords which Indian national government signed with the student movement of Assam back then; the Assamese have been agitating against massive population infiltration of illegal Bangladeshis to the point of taking up arms and leading Assam into open bloodshed. The NRC in Assam was one of the requirements of the Assam Accord, which all previous national governments kept putting off for their own vote-bank politics and narrow interests. The Supreme Court of Indian finally, from 2012 litigation onward, insisted that the NRC exercise begin and be completed in a time-bound fashion. The BJP government simply followed that Supreme Court order. The result has been about 1.8 million people have been found to have been illegals. Most Indians laugh at how small that number is, knowing full well that the number of illegal Bangladeshis residing in India, with fully faked out voter i.d., ration cards, etc is likely in tens of millions. Now, you may believe in open borders or what have you, but don't let that color how you see the economic and cultural migrations affecting demographics of Northeast India. Assam, as it so happens, was eyed by Pakistan Movement in the early 1940s and they have never been happy that Assam ended up in India, except for the Sylhet district which voted to joining East Pakistan (later to become Bangladesh in 1971). Assamese, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, and of dozens of various tribes, all support NRC and the keeping of Assamese identity intact. Therefore, the CAA has a cut-off of 2014. The NRC for nationwide enumeration hasn't even been tabled in parliament yet; nobody knows what type of paperwork it will require. And in any case, the two are totally separate exercises. There is much more on this that can be written.

that Time piece is written by who? so what if he is "Hindu nationalist"? Nobody calls Obama or Trump "Christian nationalists" simply for following their agenda. It's a hollow term that once you actually get into the nitty gritty, means little to nothing. India is a Hindu civilization and a nation of Hindus. Its constitution, on the other hand, is an anti-majority apartheid constitution and several significant parts of it were amended by Indira Gandhi during the 1975-77 "National Emergency" despotic rule. So unless yo know more about it, you're basically going by the bias inherent in much of India reporting: either an Islamist bias, or a Left-Liberal bias, or a Christian-persecution bias.

what's the point of trying to tell anything to someone when they're trying to build their liberal bona fides on the backs of some country's internal issues that they have next to zero clue about? If you're actually open to being educated, that's a different matter.

did you learn that from last night's Last Week Tonight? lol

For a more serious take on U.S.-India relations, the trade issues and where they stand, and strategic issues, and where China fits in on this stuff (Trump already made a big swipe at China in his speech at the stadium).

ok, just grabbing your attention with that headline. some neat science news... more ancient humans having hot sex with other human-like species, this time in western Africa. https://www.npr.org/2020/02/12/805237120/ghost-dna-in-west-africans-complicates-story-of-human-origins About 50,000 years ago, ancient humans in what is now West Africa apparently procreated with another group of ancient humans that scientists didn't know existed. Browning notes that the ghost DNA appears frequently in the genetic material. "That tells us that these archaic populations might have had some DNA that did some useful stuff that's proved to be useful to the modern population," she says. But at the moment, Sankararaman says, it's not possible to know what, if any, role these genetic materials have for modern humans who carry them. "Are they just randomly floating in our genomes? Do they have any kind of adaptive benefits? Do they have deleterious consequences?" he added. "Those are all questions which would be fantastic to start thinking about."

so is this Eric at least LGTQ-friendly?

Beach is good. Smells good. Kramer approves.

they're working on making room for his office. herman-with-hammer.gif

tauliaa be pretty soon like... https://tenor.com/view/towelie-southpark-gif-5240158