"When someone tells you who they are, believe them"

One of the many movie lines (almost) that Ronald Reagan used was the one about the most terrifying words in the English language: "'I'm from the government and I'm here to help."

His party loyalists cheered him.

The reality is far from that.  In fact, it is closer to what Maya Angelou said: "When someone tells you who they are, believe them."  Almost always, except when the chief executive is from the GOP, the government is here to help.  Under the GOP Presidents, it seems true that those are some terrifying words.

Back when tRump was merely one of the contenders in the GOP primary, when he launched his blitzkrieg, his supporters cheered him on and some even defended him by saying that the media and his critics were taking tRump literally but never seriously.

But, those of us who adopted the Angelou guideline, took him literally and seriously.  How could we not?  He was so obvious. So transparent in what he said and did.

"When someone tells you who they are, believe them."

And here we are, when the President and his government machinery cruelly turns away the asylum seeking desperate people!

Caption at the source:

A protester holds a sign during a demonstration outside of the James R. Browning United States Courthouse on June 11th, 2019, in San Francisco, California. Dozens of activists staged a demonstration in support of restoring protections for asylum seekers.

tRump proves that reagan was right about the terrifying words in the English language.

The good thing is that the majority of my fellow citizens will not play his cruel games.  We may not be Jesus-loving Christians, but we practice a lot more of Jesus's preaching than they do when they support tRump.

A majority of my fellow Americans are like the jurors in the recently concluded trial in Arizona, where Scott Warren was accused as being a danger to the country all because he is a humanitarian. A Good Samaritan.  He provided water and food to migrants in the harsh desert.  That was his crime.

In the closing argument, the US Attorney--from the government to help us--said this:

“He gave them food, he gave them water, he gave them a place to stay...He did a bad thing.” -- Anna Wright, @USAO_AZ in her closing argument that #ScottWarren should be convicted. pic.twitter.com/jm67RYlzX1

— No More Deaths (@NoMoreDeaths) June 7, 2019

He did a bad thing, for which the government wanted to send him to prison for 20 years!

The jury didn't buy that argument.  It ended in a mistrial.

For now, at least, tRump and his terrifying government have been held under check.  My hope is that the reign of terror will end soon.  We will return to the days of a helpful government.

Quote of the day: on life

the most important thing about myself is that my life has been full of changes. Therefore, when I observe the world, I don’t expect to see it just like I was seeing the fellow who lives in the next room. There is this complexity which seems to me to be part of the meaning of existence and everything we value.

Chinua Achebe

BTW, in the interview, reference is made to the incident at Jos.  A horrible massacre, which is, unfortunately, the latest one in a long series of violent incidents:

332 bodies were buried in a mass grave in the village of Dogo Na Hawa, the Nigerian Red Cross said Wednesday. Human rights groups and the state government say that as many as 500 people may have been killed in the early hours of Sunday morning, in three different villages.
Sunday’s killings were an especially vicious expression of long-running hostilities between Christians and Muslims in this divided nation. Jos and the region around it are on the fault line where the volatile and poor Muslim north and the Christian south meet. In the past decade, some 3,000 people have been killed in interethnic, interreligious violence in this fraught zone. The pattern is familiar and was seen as recently as January: uneasy coexistence suddenly explodes into killing, amplified for days by retaliation.

Religion .... blogging on a topic, against my better judgment?

Secular Right had three interesting posts, and I am blogging all the three here ... (BTW, Secular Right is a contrast to the "Religious Right" and one of the people at Secular Right is one heck of a sharp mind, Heather Mac Donald.  She is way too much a libertarian/conservative for my preferences, but that does not stop me from her reading her essays!)

So, the first one is about how rationalists in India seized on the opportunity when "a famous tantric guru boasted on television that he could kill another man using only his mystical powers"

At first the holy man, Pandit Surender Sharma, was reluctant, but eventually he agreed to perform a series of rituals designed to kill Mr Edamaruku live on television. Millions tuned in as the channel cancelled scheduled programming to continue broadcasting the showdown, which can still be viewed on YouTube.

First, the master chanted mantras, then he sprinkled water on his intended victim. He brandished a knife, ruffled the sceptic’s hair and pressed his temples. But after several hours of similar antics, Mr Edamaruku was still very much alive — smiling for the cameras and taunting the furious holy man.

The second one is about the continuing saga of the Danish cartoons on Islam and the Prophet:

UP TO 95,000 descendants of the prophet Muhammad are planning to bring a libel action in Britain over “blasphemous” cartoons of the founder of Islam, even though they were published in the Danish press.

The defamation case is being prepared by Faisal Yamani, a Saudi lawyer acting for the descendants, who live in the Middle East, north Africa and as far afield as Australia.

Mark Stephens, a British lawyer who has seen a “pre-action” letter sent by Yamani to 10 Danish newspapers, said it “specifically says” he will launch proceedings in London.

Yamani is expected to justify the action by claiming that the cartoons, including one of Muhammad wearing a bomb-shaped turban, were accessible in Britain on the internet.

The third one?

some American Christians are fostering religious strife abroad. They mean well, but the damage they’re doing can be seen all the way from Nigeria, where Christians and Muslims are killing each other, to Malaysia ...

The Times story is about an outreach technique that some Baptist missionaries use with Muslims. It involves stressing commonalities between the Koran and the Bible and affirming that the Allah of the Koran and the God of the Bible are one and the same.

I suppose we non-believers are all the more convinced!

Jon Stewart and Aasif Mandvi respond to Brit Hume and Faux News :-)

Simply awesome!

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
The Temple of Hume
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

Love and marriage, in India

India is changing, and rapidly too. Naturally, this is reflected in marriage as well. My marriage to a non-Hindu was a pretty big deal years ago. I don't think such issues matter that much anymore. Since my marriage, here is the listing of a few "non-traditional" ones (out of the eight younger cousins):

• Male cousin married a non-Tamil/(not Brahmin too?)
• Female cousin married a non-Tamil (not Brahmin too?)
• Female cousin divorced--a first in the family
• Female cousin married a non-Tamil-Christian

Four of the eight--50%--have stepped outside the traditions, even though only one out of these is outside India. The rest live in India, and all are professionals. So, all the more for me a reason for me to think that this writer in The Hindu is on to something:

[Let] us take a look at the “New Indian”, a recently emerging metropolitan creature who is perfectly happy to live in India, warts and all. Even if an overseas work assignment is sought it is more for the experience, the independence away from the family and for enhancing the résumé than for leaving the homeland for good. Apparently, the grass is green enough on this side. Paav baji and masala dosa are as much enjoyed as pizzas and hamburgers; Kumbakonam degree coffee as much as Cappuccino; tender coconut water as much as energy drinks; Shah Rukh Khan as much as George Clooney; the salsa as much as the garba; Art of Living as much as Stephen Covey. In other words, the New Indian does not reject India and Indian. Other things from other parts of the world just get added on. The New Indian’s patriotism is not of the jingoistic, chest-beating variety. Being an Indian is just a fact of life. It’s who s/he is. It doesn’t need to be cried out from the rooftops, nor does it need to be a well-guarded secret.
The New Indian is more pan-Indian in perspective, perhaps on account of leading a more mobile life. Born in Ludhiana, educated in Kolkata, MBA from Lucknow, working in Chennai and married to a Hyderabadi is no longer an exceptional scenario. The New Indian does not make a big deal about language; it is seen as only a tool for communication and no longer defines identity. The New Indian lives life more consciously. As a result, relationships are more emotionally intense and personal experiences more meaningful. However, the New Indian is also impatient, brash and in-your-face. Frustration tolerance is poor. Instant gratification is demanded and the tendency towards impulsive decision-making is high.