Gun Shy

"There is no reason for anyone in the country, for anyone except a police officer or a military person, to buy, to own, to have, to use, a handgun. The only way to control handguns use in this country is to prohibit the guns. And the only way to do that is to change the Constitution."

-- Michael Gartner

NY Times: Daily gun deaths in USA

Gun control is probably one of the most controversial debates in current day United States. After LGBT rights, abortion and possibly the death penalty, gun control is probably the most hotly debated issue. A pacifist for as long as I have thought about this question, everything seemed black and white. People for the right to bear arms have always struck me as a little crazy.

My first experience with a handgun was not so long ago. Even though it wasn’t loaded, the safety was on, I felt a bit like a geeky teen at the prom, just approached by the prettiest girl; apprehensive, panicky and definitely sweaty. I was silently relieved when the firearm was put back into its gun safe. Okay, not so silently. I even made it a point to vocally point out how uncomfortable I was, if my body language hadn’t already betrayed the fact.

Don’t get me wrong, I have always been in reverence of handguns. During my high school years (Junior college back home) I was quite the gun enthusiast, admiring their inherent beauty, while awestruck at their immeasurable power, but always too much of a pussy to ever venture into the real world of guns. Forensic science and firearm forensics especially, held me captivated. Fortunately, I told myself, firearms let go that strangling grip, of an invention that definitely would have been the end of me, and from a career that would definitely be a dead end. My knowledge of firearms, therefore, always remained nascent and underdeveloped.

It has been said that fear always springs from ignorance. It could be argued that this was the case with me and firearms. They would be right. I was soon to re-discover and re-think firearms; though not as blue eyed as my teen self. Having been on the Pro-gun control side of the issue, the arguments for gun control were sufficiently convincing to me. After all, who needs more guns in the hands of the corrupters of society?

But things would turn gray soon. Thanks in part to an “indie” movie that I accidentally came across (a sign from god? *^%K, I’m republican) tackling the very issue of gun control. Dear Wendy, probably one of the most hated movies (because it is “ideologically doctrinaire on the one hand and a wannabe hot youth movie on the other”) seemed to make sense to me. I guess I am THAT insane. The movie is about a pacifist youth, exploring guns, his fascination for it, and the eventual demise of his pacifist views when he is forced to use his guns, and on the law too!

People dislike this movie, because it is supposedly anti 2^nd amendment, and “talks about an issue the filmmakers know nothing about”, but for some reason I found it the exact opposite (again, only cranial misfirings to blame). The movie was a romanticized commentary on perceptions of guns, pacifism, pacifism and guns, their incompatibility etc. And for me, it began the dreaded thought process of the “morality” of gun culture.

While the movie had barely begun to make me think, barely budging me out of my comfort zone, another incident would force me on a fast track to reconsider my stance. The Mangalore Pub incident (where 40 politically backed psychopaths violently evacuated a pub of all its women, while battering them and assaulting any men that came to their aid, all in the name of Indian culture, while media and law enforcement paraded and silently witnessed, respectively) while initially leaving me unaffected and unruffled, as my capacity to withstand Indian stupidity and idiocy was assumedly at its limits; would soon turn to shock and squeamishness, as I witnessed the videos of the act. This was further compounded by the reactions to the incident, which I thought Indians would unanimously find revolting. What I was to discover, painted a very different India, from the one I was exposed to, during my formative years in three of India’s four metropolitans.

Apart from an unprecedented culture shock (one that I didn’t even notice when I first stepped onto US soil), these incidents forced me to empathize, (not with the women, for that would be patronizing) with the men that tried to protect their women (be it sister, girlfriend or just out of humanitarian kinship). I was forced to relive the scenario, for the terrible fear that gripped me, warned me of my unpreparedness for such an eventuality. “What would you do under these circumstances?”

The answer would not come, possibly because I really was unprepared, not just physically, but mentally and emotionally as well. And being as physically advantaged as I am, there was no recourse in sight. That is when I came across Thomas Jefferson’s own views over guns. He opined that guns (as a symbol of power) are necessary for every citizen to hold onto, not to shoot down their neighbors dog, but to make sure no one else gets to shoot him down, or his rights.

A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks.
--- Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 1785.

It can be argued, and rightly so, that Jefferson was in an era of the Wild West, where an honor code was sufficient to keep people from killing each other, which has been eroded away by people and, I hypothesize, their religion. In fact, since we are quoting Jefferson, here are some more, to get some perspective:

We may consider each generation as a distinct nation, with a right, by the will of its majority, to bind themselves, but none to bind the succeeding generation, more than the inhabitants of another country.

"We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."

--Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816.

While the debate in America is a lot more complicated than Jefferson could have visualized, with all the (religious) nuts that roam around freely, I feel that India, which is in this regard more than a 100 years behind it’s time (arguably more), is yet to embark upon its true revolution. We are yet to fight for our freedom, and show that we will not stand for an aggressor, whether it is from within the state or from outside of it. All Gandhi did, was show to the world that we have the capacity to withstand immeasurable amounts of cruelty and injustice. And while Gandhi’s non-violence might have earned us some brownie points in international opinion, on our non-violent and non-aggressive stances, it has long been nullified with the history of violence since then. It is time; I think, that Indian’s re-evaluate their stance on guns. It is time we lose our sheepish naiveté, our misplaced mistrust of guns and our indoctrinated fear of revolutions.

She's No Mother Of Mine

Mother Teresa is well known for having founded the Missionaries of Charity and her ‘good work’ in the “slums of Calcutta”. And all is hunky dory, as the questions raised by those more skeptical of her are suppressed by the heavy hand that is religion. And the list of people that are skeptical is not merely limited to the “religious bigots” of the VHP, but can find a resounding aye amongst the most revered thinkers of our times, including Richard Dawkins, Sanaal Edamaruku (first president of the Rationalist International and Secretary General of the Indian Rationalist International), Walter Wuellenweber (who published an article on Teresa’s first death anniversary in the German Magazine STERN) and more importantly Seiku Murmu. The list on non-believers goes on, from the prominent to the experienced, and it can be easily shown that the believers choose not to see all that surrounds the sainthood of Teresa.

A lot of people will claim these people are jealous of her having become a saint, and prior to that regarded as one in the eyes of millions. Or perhaps that she has shown the “strength” to do what they could not. But the so called strength Teresa showed during her ‘good work’ in the slums is the same strength that propels the mad-men at Gaza, at Al-Qaeda camps and the religious crazies that whip themselves to feel ‘closer to god’.

What about the Nobel peace Prize she has? Isn’t that the greatest sham on earth? I think so. I am not claiming that all other Nobel prizes are sham, but just this one.

The right to submit proposals for the Nobel Peace Prize, based on the principle of competence and universality, shall by statute be enjoyed by:

1. Members of national assemblies and governments of states;

2. Members of international courts;

3. University rectors; professors of social sciences, history, philosophy, law and theology; directors of peace research institutes and foreign policy institutes;

4. Persons who have been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize;

5. Board members of organizations who have been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize;

6. Active and former members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee; (proposals by members of the Committee to be submitted no later than at the first meeting of the Committee after February 1) and

7. Former advisers appointed by the Norwegian Nobel Institute.

If you read it carefully, any religious bigot could nominate her and in the face of her public popularity there isn’t much contest. But where in this list do we find Mahatma Gandhi, probably the greatest expounder of peace. I may not agree with everything that he did, but little debate can be made over whether he was deserving of a peace prize.

The Vatican is also out to win a popularity race. With so many Christians demanding her beatification, it was easy to have done, considering the office of “Advocatus Diaboli” has been abolished, to allow for instant sainthood. The traditional role of AD was replaced by a single anti-Teresa voice, that of Christopher Hitchens. They saw no need to seek the opinion of more important people, core to this issue and witnesses of the supposed miracle. So predetermined was their need and intent to see her as a saint, that they didn’t deem unethical or unholy (as is their kind) to take away credit from the medical practitioner that put in the effort to cure her. Neither did they seek the witness of the husband, Seiku Murmu, who has constantly maintained that the whole miracle aspect is bullshit and who has gone on record that it was the doctors and no pseudo-saint that cured his wife.

But all of this is concerned with whether she should be granted sainthood. Some would say that it doesn’t matter and that her work speaks volumes to her perseverance and generosity. In response to that, all I can do is hang my head in shame that so many people see what they want to see. Teresa was a fraud. There remains millions of charity money with the Vatican intended to alleviate the condition of the poor in the slums of Calcutta and elsewhere. Most of this money comes from the most “evil” of people like Robert Maxwell and many of them see it as a quick fix for all their moral crimes. Not to mention that it’s the best way to launder money.

Teresa’s and Nirmala’s (the one who now heads the freak show) own statements, show clearly that they are not here to help the poor. Anyone who has bothered to look beyond the pristine white saree and blue border knows that the poor have been harmed more than helped. Those that have delved deeper into the working and psyche of Teresa and the missionary begin to see all that is fucked up with the way they work.

In the end, the supposed good that they missionaries have done in Calcutta is a bunch of bullshit. Ask the people in the slums of Calcutta. Thousands of independent interviewers have penetrated the façade that is the picture of the generous mother. There are thousands of charitable organizations in India that do more. They do not seek to convert the sick and weak of will, but truly put in their efforts to improve the living conditions of those they touch. In conclusion, Teresa has harmed India more than she has helped her. I am not indebted to her and her missionary for anything.

I feel it is impossible to illuminate all the facts that go to show Teresa is a fraud. Especially not within a blog post. The over whelming pages of evidence would be far more if religious organizations were more transparent in their financial dealings. When sisters of the missionary start to speak out (those that still believe strongly in the Christian faith) people should begin to wonder if all is as it seems on the surface.

Pannalal Manik also has doubts. "I don't understand why you educated people in the West have made this woman into such a goddess!" Manik was born some 56 years ago in the Rambagan slum, which at about 300 years of age, is Calcutta's oldest. What Manik has achieved, can well be called a "miracle". He has built 16 apartment buildings in the midst of the slum -- living space for 4000 people. Money for the building materials -- equivalent to DM 10000 per apartment building -- was begged for by Manik from the Ramakrishna Mission [a Indian/Hindu charity], the largest assistance-organisation in India. The slum-dwellers built the buildings themselves. It has become a model for the whole of India. But what about Mother Teresa? "I went to her place 3 times," said Manik. "She did not even listen to what I had to say. Everyone on earth knows that the sisters have a lot of money. But no one knows what they do with it!"

The Britishers referred to Mahatma Gandhi as `Mr Gandhi'. Why should we call her `Mother'?
- Giriraj Kishore

On the issue of abortion, Mother Teresa's was a fundamentalist position, one that was firmly allied with the Pope's hard-line position. Mother Teresa went so far as to appeal to victims of rape during the Bangladesh war not to terminate their pregnancies; the Pope, naturally, wanted the more recent victims of rape in Bosnia to follow the same course. At a public Mass in Knock, Ireland, in 1992, Mother Teresa said: "Let us promise Our Lady who loves Ireland so much that we will never allow in this country a single abortion. And no contraceptions."

All this irritates Monica's husband Seiku. "It is much ado about nothing," he says. "My wife was cured by the doctors and not by any miracle."
- Seiku Murmu, husband of "miraculously cured" Monica Besra

Suggested further reading:
Op-ed: The unblessed of Calcutta

Indian rationalists call Mother Teresa's miracle hocus-pocus

Calcutta-born doctor speaks out: 'Mother Teresa did more harm than good

India has no reason to be grateful to Mother Teresa

Intellibriefs

What's Mother Teresa Got to Do with It?

Mommie Dearest: The pope beatifies Mother Teresa, a fanatic, a fundamentalist, and a fraud.

Mother Theresa - Where are her millions?

Neurologist: Sodomy "Common" in Mother Teresa's Orphanage

This Last one, is thanks to Bhavna. She brought this book to my notice and a quick search on google and I had found the book. Just goes to show how many people would like to know the truth.

Mother Teresa The Final Verdict By Aroup Chatterjee

Mediocre Criticism

I keep feeling that we as a species are mediocre, satisfied by it, if we aren’t too busy glorifying it. I too, suffer from the same ailment; mediocre at best at the things that I do. But this isn’t about doing, this is about critics.

What is a critic’s job? Is he supposed to judge an action or performance based on the mediocre standards we set for ourselves or with the elite few that surpass our standards many fold? I guess that would depend on many factors. Perhaps the level of interest would be one. I would not judge an amateur act against a professional act, simply because of the amount of time they invest in learning their specific skill sets. I am sure I could come up with a bunch of other “guidelines” I implicitly use to gauge an action.

But this brings me to my question, What if something is mediocre after compared to those that fall within its most comparable sub-sets? A professional football player would be judged with another player, of the same era and then decided if mediocre. But this takes the “discussion” to a totally different course. So I shall steer clear of the fine line of what that appropriate “sub-set” really is.

But having identified that sub-set, and having judged an action as mediocre compared to the other actions from within those most alike, is it fair to elevate the performance based on the fact that the critic is incapable of that level of performance? I have had this argument thrown in my face that I should reserve my comments unless I was capable of out-performing the person whose act I am criticizing. This argument actually amazes me, since it denies the very nature of a critic and the logic that governs it. Movie critics are not the cream of movie directors, actors, editors, writers etc. Some perhaps have no experience in the movie making industry and all knowledge is purely academic.

If you can't take a good kicking, you shouldn't parade how much luckier you are than other people.
Charles Saatchi