Fiscal liberals

Indian Governor Jindal asked the GOP to "stop being the stupid party".  Most Indians like Governor Jindal vote for GOP not in the interest of the country or the community but for themselves. Jindal became a Governor by giving up his religion, his beliefs and his Indian heritage and it was worth it. 

There are few conservative Indians and yet many vote for GOP in their personal interest of lower income tax. But they do it with a sense of guilt because to vote for a "stupid party" sounds  stupid. I say that because I have heard so many Indians who vote republicans say the same sentence" I am a fiscal conservative and a social liberal". Fiscal conservative is a euphemism for " I want my taxes lowered". Don't we all want to pay lower taxes? Where are the fiscal liberals who want to pay higher taxes? 

It makes sense to vote for the "stupid party" to get your taxes lowered but you need a different euphemism to overcome the guilt of voting for the "Stupid party". 

Reward the successful and the hardworking

Give $1 to a successful and creative entrepreneur and he/she would create $5 worth of working capital to expand the business which generates jobs. Give $1 to Government and it turns it to zero.

Instead of rewarding the successful and the hardworking we are constantly punishing them by taking away their hard earned wealth not knowing that it will only hurt us by reducing economic growth.

We reward the losers and the lazy, instead, by letting them decide how much of the hard earned money  the successful and the hardworking can keep with themselves.

Should we not reward the entrepreneurs by giving them money instead of taking from them?  Should we not punish the lazy losers instead? Is it not in our economic interest to leave as much money as possible in the hands of job creators?

It is not fair to punish the successful when who really needs to be punished are the 47% of the lazy and the losers.

The entrepreneurs should be rewarded with an income tax rate of negative 10%. The more profit an entrepreneur makes the bigger the reward check they get from IRS.

Expiry date on the constitution?

The US constitution belongs in the history books. We should start from scratch and write a brand new constitution from scratch based on the needs of today's world. And in the next constitution we should put an expiry date no more than 50 years and possibly less because the world changes  too fast.

Freedom means the freedom to make your own laws and that should include the power to write your own constitution, at least once in 50 years!

I find it insane that the right to bear arms is considered as sacred as the right to free speech. If it is in the constitution it must be something good. The constitution that never expires keeps the stupid laws much longer than it should because people stop to think and simply believe that if it is in the constitution it must be good. The doctor prescribed it so it must be good.

It is unpatriotic to question the greatness of our constitution and the greatness of our founders. The flaws of the constitution are never discussed and do not get exposed as a result and bad laws continue. If constitution expired today, is there a chance that the new constitution will have right to bear arms?

" I believe in the second amendment" say all the gun owners. As long as there is no one saying the opposite :" I do not believe in the second amendment", nothing of consequence will be done.

In our divided government only those things can be done that make everyone unhappy and not making half the people happy and the other half unhappy.

 How many people really want guns for the original reason for which the original intent of the second amendment which was to let the public have guns to fight a renegade government?  So why do we still need the second amendment?

Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, and now Syria , did not need the second amendment to get rid of their dictators. When the US Government cannot control the flow of drugs, you think they can stop the flow of arms into the country if a dictator took control of the country.

The second amendment is only an excuse for gun owners to own guns for fun, a stupidity with a big price tag.

It is time to rewrite the constitution.

A lose lose deal

I have not been a great fan of the checks and balances in our political system. I am thinking of changing my mind. I think  the founders knew that in a democracy with two equally powerful political parties, it is only posible to please half the people. This is basically an unfair situation. To be fair, it is  better to displease everyone a little. In a divided  government this is what actually happens. The fiscal cliff was avoided with both sided losing a little instead of one side winning completely while the other side losing entirely.

In a democracy winner takes all may not be a good idea because of the potential of making some people really unhappy. Perhaps the fair thing is to make everyone unhappy!

Price of the "Freedom of stupidity"

I feel that the gun laws in the US are stupid. They belong to a different time in the history of the country when people kept slaves and the women were second class citizens who had no right to vote. This stupidity has survived because the constitution makes it so difficult to make any laws at all. Every law must survive the house, the senate, the president's veto, and the supreme court and if you want to change the constitution it is close to impossible. 

Love of guns is the stupidity that  is our tradition. But it It is also our tradition to allow stupidity because a majority vote should not decide what is stupid and what is not. Somethings simply should not be decided by a majority. "The freedom of stupidity" is one of them because in rare cases what looks stupid to people or common sense might be actually not stupid at all. The earth being flat or the Sun revolving around the earth and lately the Keynes theory of economics of depression which beats common sense. Keynes theory is still considered stupid by FOX news along with every other scientific idea. The idea of human beings having evolved from apes looked stupid to so many and still does. If such stupid ideas were banned where would we be?

Many of us would like to take away all the guns,  drugs,  religions, hate speech,  and every other stupidity? And it may not look wrong because a civilized society always restricts its people from doing certain things. 

The death of 20 innocents kids and 8 adults  is simply the price our society has just paid for this freedom of stupidity. Just as Hurricane Sandy made many believers out of global warming spektics, let us hope this is a wake up call to do something about gun laws. 

When the price of stupidity goes too high that freedom is not worth it. A civilized society gives up on many freedoms because the cost is simply too much to bear. What limits the freedom of stupidity is the price a society is willing to pay for such freedoms.

Truth shall set you free?

If you are looking for a rare color of a car you just cannot get it. Unless there are enough people who want the same color a car company does not make it. So it is with democracy. You have the freedom to get  whatever every body else wants.  By definition that should not be called freedom but we often want what others want and that is why democracy and freedom are considered synonymous but they are not. In fact democracy restricts your freedom to desire only what the majority wants.

It is well known that college and school kids start drinking much before the legal age. The majority of voting people obviously have decided to restrict this freedom for those below 21. As a parent I would probably have voted with the crowd when my kids were young but I feel differently now. If indeed an 18 years old person is an adult what right do I have of restricting the freedom of another adult?

So what do the kids do to get their freedom? Lie. They use fake ID's or get an older kid to buy alcohol. And what would a politician do  to get what they want? Lie to change people's opinion in their favor and what is wrong with that?

The more I think the more I am convinced that the value of truth is over rated. I do not even fret over the lies perpetrated by religion considering the fact that these lies make people happy. After life is one such lie that was invented a few thousand years back that is still helping modern people face death.

Truth shall set you free? What truth?

Lie boldy

And learn this from the Republicans. Michelle Bachman was being questioned by Fox news as to why she had said that the US is becoming a socialist country and the net worth of companies owned by the US Government stands at 51% of the total market value of all the US companies. This was a bold lie as it always is with Fox and the Republicans party but in this case Fox was being beaten by Michelle Bachman. How can anyone be bolder than FOX news in telling lies so they challenged her.  FOX news said that we have calculated it and it comes to only 1.5%. I thought she was going to embarrass herself but she came up with the name of some report by some person who had claimed this percentage. So if you want to tell a bold lie simply ask some non-entity to write it somewhere on the Internet and now you can keep telling the lie boldly. If you get caught just quote the source. In the same interview on FOX she was claiming that 30,000 people have died in US killed by NATO operation. When confronted with this preposterous claim she said her source was the Libyan Government's report in a Libyan news paper! Why on earth would she believe the Libyan government you have to ask.

The job of the opposition is to replace the current ruling party  "ruining the country" with itself and if lies are necessary to change the people's opinion, so be it.  It is all for a good cause!

Science and religion do not tolerate lies

After winning a fierce battle a king had a difficult problem on his hands. The kingdom had lost most of its young men in war. There were lots of young widows. These widows could not remarry because to the men of those days the idea of marrying a woman who had slept with someone else was repulsive. In any case there were not enough men. Widows could not be expected to spend the rest of their lives without getting married since they depended on men for financial and physical security.

The obvious solution was to let every married man marry a widow or two. But the religion did not permit that.

The king came up with a bright idea. He made up a story telling his subjects that he saw God in his dream who told him that it is okay for a man to have multiple wives. Also that God would be pleased with any man who married a widow. The king was respected by the subjects and no one suspected that he was telling a lie. The lie worked. So much misery was avoided.

The king was a politicians and in politics lying is a necessary evil and in this case I do not even see where the evil is. Even if people found out later that the king was lying, no one would care since the end justifies the means.

But what if this story had been told by Jesus and someone found out from his diary that he made it up.  Would Jesus be Jesus then?

What is not true is not a lie

A perfect lie is one that everyone believes is true except the person who is telling the lie. The lier knows whether it is a lie or not.

Many people believe that Obama is lying when he says he is a Christian. The right thinks he is a Muslim and the left thinks he is an atheist.

Obama's mother was agnostic and his father an atheist. Most people simply adopt the religion of their parents. Even scientists, including Noble laureates, who are theists only end up adopting the religion of their parents only. Which simply means that we do not use our minds in this matter. I have three PHD friends, a Sikh, a Hindu and a Jain. All three strongly argue for their own religion. It is extremely rare that an intelligent person would adopt any religion other than the one he was born in. Simply because people find every other religion silly except their own.

Only Obama knows if he is lying, but I would be disappointed if he is not.

Lies we like

A recent rumour on the Internet said that Jesus used to smoke weed. Those who strongly believe that we should legalize marijuana should try to spread this rumour to gain a few percent of Jesus loving voters that voted against Prop. 19 in California. What is wrong with that morally? If you sincerely believe that legalizing marijuana is good for the country but just 5% of people are blocking the reform then there is nothing wrong in spreading this rumour. Or is it? As it is, no one really believes that Marijuana is good for Glaucoma, or for pain, and for so many other ailments that people claim, but we all ignore these lies because it achieves what is right.

If freedom is about getting what you want but the power to do what is right is with people who are clearly wrong then it becomes necessary to use lies to convince them to vote for your cause. What is wrong with  fooling "bad" people who are against a noble cause?

Many Ayurvedic doctors in India mix herbs with well known miraculous drugs like Aspirin and the antibiotics for those who only want to be treated with natural herbs. After all curing people  is a good cause and profitable one too!

Thomas Jefferson once said that when the poor figure out they can loot the Treasury if they elect the right politicians, America is done. Fortunately, America has sold the American dream to the masses by giving anecdotal evidence of ordinary people who have made it big. Americans really believe that "anyone can do anything if only they work hard". So the taxes on the rich can be kept low because that would be punishing success.

Without the lies the 1% rich cannot convince the other 99% to give them what they want.

In politics lies are a necessary evil.

Is it dough or bread?

Put the dough into the oven, give it some time and it turns into bread. Exactly at what point does it become bread? What do you think of a person who insists that it is bread the moment it is put in the oven.

What if after putting in the oven the power went off and when you came in the morning the bread was still dough. A good baker might want to throw the whole batch in garbage. A lot of bread got wasted one might say. But is it really bread that was wasted or the ingredients? After all flour, water, sugar, salt, oil cannot be called bread." Who cares?" says the baker.  But to a person who is fanatically inclined not to waste anything it is a serious question. It had the potential of becoming bread so it is bread that got wasted. Could we have done something to save the bread? What happens if we turn on the oven now? You will get bread, right? "No" says the baker," I would not call it bread." It might be something that looks like bread but it is not what I bake every day that people love. "But it would still be bread though" insists the wastage  obsessed person. To which the baker says "No, it is not". And the argument continues.

When it comes to opinion based questions, the person who differs with you is always wrong. And rightly so.

................Based on John Stewart's really humorous monologue at the time of appointment of a new chef to the White House during the days of President Bush.

Why do I want to write a blog?

In fact why should anyone want to write a blog.  I think it is simply my open diary where I do my loud thinking. But I could write my own diary just for myself. Why do I want everyone else to read it? So I want to ask all the blog writers to please  tell me why you write blogs while I am still thinking about it.

The next question is what topics should I write about. If I am writing for myself then I would write about science, religion, politics, human rationality etc.

Is it reasonable to believe in science and religion at the same time?

Why do we tolerate lying in politics but not in any other profession?

Has democracy acquired the status of  a GOD that everyone must believe in?

What do you mean when we say we are a free society? Exactly what is it that we can do freely that people in non-free societies cannot?

Why people can come up with the exact opposite conclusion given the same set of arguments?

What is the source of irrationality in human beings?

Can higher education make you more rational? Or are the PHD's more rational than the non-PHD's?............................

Will think of some more later while I am still thinking about why I should write a blog at all!


Vinod