Tuesday assorted links

Comments

2. So why stick your neck out for something that only brings in 13 custimers, and is a lightening rod for criticism? Its like if they gave out $50 coupons at the abortion clinic.

They proceeded to stick their neck out by eliminating it. No one likes an upraised middle finger.

Aren't you usually good at history? When was the NRA formed, and how did it's focus change in, say, the last 10 years?

One bit of history, the NRA supported the firearms act of 1938.

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.timeinc.net/time/4431356/nra-gun-control-history

So anyway, when you become more and more political, I think you should expect less and less mainstream corporate support.

"when you become more and more political, I think you should expect less and less mainstream corporate support."

No discuss Planned Parenthood

Sorry, now discuss Planned Parenthood

Sure, name an airline that thinks aligning with Planned Parenthood is cool. It is actually a bad idea for the same reason. Unrelated to core business. Divisive. Etc.

Oh, I thought we were talking about "mainstream corporate support", not just airlines.

Nice deflection though.

Huh? This is exactly the question an airline, or anyone else marketing to a broad national profile, should ask - does this assocation have appeal to a broad national profile?

I'm unaware of any state passing a law punishing an individual because they failed to pay tribute to Planned Parenthood. This isn't quite like a corporation pissing people off for giving away $50 abortion coupons....it's more like people getting pissed at a corporation for *NOT* providing $50 abortion coupons.

If a corporation has a 'religious freedom' to not offer birth control in its health package why should a corporation be compelled to give money to the NRA? Perhaps the GOP should have a special tax increase on all individuals who aren't NRA members.

I’m unaware of any state passing a law punishing an individual because they failed to pay tribute to Planned Parenthood.

True. Only the gay lobby has that kind of clout with our robed masters.

You're under the illusion that I might give a rip about the answer to any of your questions. You're also under the illusion that your response is something other than non-sequitur. At least you're more concise than prior_approval.

This mirrors the trope my uncle likes to throw out: "When I was a kid, the NRA was about sporting and safety! Now it's all politics."

Look, 95% of what 95% of people in the NRA do in relation to guns, is about sporting and safety. I've been a member for several years after looking into what they actually do, and I'm only glad for the political arm in that it protects the rest of the activity from the attacks of innumerate, CNN-gobbling nanny state prohibitionists.

If you can explain why drug and alcohol prohibitions fail but gun control is neat, please do.

This is a choice the NRA made, attacking "schools" and "mainstream media."

That is what changes the nature of corporate support. At this point, if you are not a guns or accessories company, why risk it.

Seeds + water is a lower barrier to market entry than manufacturing guns.

There is also the aspect of the money and turf related to prohibition, on the one hand creating a large turf within government that people will rationalize with various (mainly absurd and non-scientific) argumentation, and on the other hand a large turf among organized crime.

As opposed to people whose turf is in the trade of things which require seeds+water, or cheap chemical constituents (and in both cases competing with both legitimate and illegitimate usage of synthetic pharmaceuticals), small arms industry is fundamentally different. Somehow that's gotta be relevant.

Joe isn't always right, but when he's right ..

https://twitter.com/JoeNBC/status/971015959975809030

right! Lil ole media was just walking along the street minding its own business when suddenly the NRA attacked it.

Harun, can you think of any mainstream charity that has had to attack the whole media, or all the public schools?

Seems to me around the bend, which puts us back at the NRA not being a safe bland charity for mass-appeal businesses to support.

Anonymous: Can you really show where the NRA attacked schools??? I think you might just be low on your meds.

No as far as attacking the mainstream media; who in their right mind wouldn't?

"Seems to me around the bend, which puts us back at the NRA not being a safe bland charity for mass-appeal businesses to support."

Circular reasoning. Corporations wouldn't touch "women's organizations" with a 10ft pole if the media treated abortion advocacy with the same contempt, repetition, and all-around yellow journalism as it treats 2nd amendment advocacy.

TheRiver, I am pretty bored now, but I'll field that one. It is an NRA direct quote, and pure madness:

"They use their schools to teach children that their president is another Hitler."

I don't know where that comes from, maybe one teacher somewhere said something nutty about Trump as Hitler, but that should not generalize to "their schools" for any sane person.

The president of my large public university felt the need to virtue-signal and send out a message to everyone:

"Perhaps members of our community might find it in their hearts to amplify efforts by these children to save themselves in a context where gun violence is enabled by policy makers dependent on special interest money hiding behind an outdated interpretation of our constitution. Students who organize to save the lives of their classmates are involved in a noble cause that should finally reframe the focus of the gun control debate from Second Amendment rights to the power of money and greed evident in the U.S. firearms manufacturing machine. Does anyone doubt anymore that money is driving resistance to background checks, age limits for buying weapons, congressional prohibitions on taxpayer funded public health research involving guns, and bans on military style assault weapons? I hope not."

So the NRA attacking the agitprop being disseminated by "educational" institutions is hardly an unwarranted response.

"an NRA direct quote, and pure madness:

“They use their schools to teach children that their president is another Hitler.”

I have heard that quote. I don't remember from where but I doubt I heard it from the NRA. But why would you think it is madness if it in fact is true??? Your point seems to be that since 100% of the schools don't teach that then no harm no foul. But that is naive and a slippery slope. At what point would it bother you that they teach such a thing in a public school? 20% of them? 50%? Where do you finally conclude it is dishonest and biased to say things like that? Or do you agree with the quoute sitting there shrouded in your boredom

I’m a noob but seems to me Msgkings posted some erroneous info and should apologize, or doesn’t that happen around here?

The NRA didn't politicize each and every gun massacre since (what?) 1987.

Virtue-signaling has a price, which is never paid by the signaler. Delta shareholders will pay.

About 5,000,0000 real Americans and I are the NRA. Membership is soaring.

George Soros and Michael Bloomberg, a bunch of people they pay off, and a couple thousand infallibly-ignorant savants are the core of the anti-Second Amendment movement. It's mainly astro-turf and based on a huge hoax.

Get woke. Go broke.

Free (you get what you pay for) investment advice. Short sell Dick's; buy Sturm/Ruger.

The problem with Nelson Shields was that he was casting about for a socially-acceptable way to process the murder of his son and he hit on scapegoating gun hobbyists. Betwixt and between, organs like the Brady Campaign and the Violence Policy Center have shown a bovine indifference to measures which actually act (as a layman would expect) to reduce the quantum of violent crime or to consider how strong or weak is the vector in which they take an interest (the effect of gun laws on crime rates). It's kind of grossly manifest during these media lallapaloozas when you have a lot of blather about 'assault rifles' and no acknowledgement that long guns are used in fewer than 4% of the homicides which take place in this country.

And yet, long guns are used in almost 100% of the school shootings and over 80% of all mass shootings. And these are what grabs headlines. Most shooting deaths are suicides, accidents, and gang-related, and most of those are with handguns. So what?

"And yet, long guns are used in almost 100% of the school shootings and over 80% of all mass shootings"

This quote is a lie told by a lying liar.

"According to the FBI, rifles of all kinds accounted for just 3 percent of firearm homicides in 2016, while handguns accounted for 65 percent. Contrary to what you may have heard, handguns are also by far the most common choice for mass shooters. A Mother Jones review of mass shootings from 1982 through 2012 found that 66 percent of the weapons were handguns, while just 14 percent would qualify as "assault weapons" under the definition used in a 2013 bill sponsored by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.). More recent data show a similar pattern."

https://reason.com/blog/2018/02/15/an-assault-weapon-ban-wont-stop-mass-sho

msgkings is a blatant liar.

"Mass shooting" is a completely malleable term that may be redefined to prove whatever the speaker wishes to prove. Same, I think, with assault rifle.

Thomas, It's not MSGKINGS' and ANIONYMOUS' fault. They have has been taught/told lies their entire live and no one intervened.

In a perfect world, msgkings and Anonymous would not attack 5,000,000 law-abiding citizens and their legally-held inanimate objects for the fatal acts of one evil person. In that perfect world, the NRA would not be threatened for serving its membership and defending Americans' God-given, inalienable rights.

So they're being apolitical when they support gun control but are becoming "more and more political" when they decide to oppose gun control. That's an interesting definition of being political.

That is the NRA scam in a nutshell. If you don't support every last far right position they have, you are anti-gun.

In fact it is easy to be anti-NRA and pro-gun at this point.

All you have to do is support universal background checks.

http://www.politifact.com/ohio/statements/2018/feb/27/tim-ryan/after-parkland-shooting-ohio-congressman-said-70-8/

Sorry but what "far right" positions does the NRA take on anything except gun control? For some definitions of Far Right.

They are right in pointing out people who are anti-gun are anti-gun. They are good at it. And that is, as far as I can see, about it. If they have views on immigration or school vouchers or abortion I am pretty sure they are keeping them to themselves.

But I appreciate your concern trolling.

You might have phrased it as the more hardline the NRA becomes the more they alienate the middle (rather being any more "political"), but you're just a hack who does not have the excuse of being a lobbying group where some hackery is to be expected.

I think Delta's routes are mainly in the South, where lots of NRA members live, so I figure their pro-NRA stance is just an attempt to cater to these members. Keep in mind roughly 33% to 50% of all Americans are gun owners.

Delta took over Northwest some years back so they have a lot of northern routes now too.

Join 80,000 real Americans at the NRA Annual Membership meeting beginning May 5, in Dallas, TX.

Be there or be square.

Not like corporations have a right to freedom of speech!

They do.

They don't have a right to tax breaks, though.

That is a good argument. While I think the NRA has lost it, it is also true that state and local government give away too many tax breaks.

Rescinding the tax break is contingent upon Delta paying tribute to a favored interest group of the GOP. It would be one thing if this was a general reform to get rid of special tax breaks for companies who put their headquarters in a state.

And whatever you think of it as economic policy, giving Delta a break on jet fuel because they locate in Georgia is a policy done for the interests of Georgia's citizens in general.

"It would be one thing if this was a general reform to get rid of special tax breaks for companies who put their headquarters in a state."

Surely you had the same take on California banning government travel to SC.

Chick-fil-A was banned from opening any more stores in Chicago. It was banned from university campuses across America. Boston tried to get it banned in the city although I do not know with what success.

I am sure Boonton is on record as opposing any and all of these.

I have no problem with GA declaring it's legislators and employees shall use some other airline than Delta to travel on state business. CA banned travel to SC? How did that work? Did they attach GPS receivers to cause CA license plates to blow up should a resident drive thru SC?

"Surely you had the same take on California banning government travel to SC."

"CA banned travel to SC?"

Reading comprehension.

Fair point, missed that 'government' modifier to 'travel'.

So GA choose to screw their taxpayers $50M because Delta gave a minor benefit to a special interest group that only 13 or so of them actually used. When they did this, though, they claimed it was because Delta had brought lots of jobs to the state with their headquarters. When that benefit was stopped, GA took back the $50M.

Your comprehension is that this is great because taxpayers don't get screwed over for $50M. Reality check, GA is screwing their taxpayers for trivial benefits to ideological special interest groups and pretending they are doing it for some grand general purpose that benefits all the people of GA.

I would like the NRA to change, to drop politics, and to focus on marksmanship and safety.

Unfortunately NRA management has too good a business plan. They rile the far-right, collect donations, and stuff their own pockets.

If you are making millions of dollars a year, would you feel a great need to reinvent your business?

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/nra-ceo-compensation-jump-4-million-article-1.2968552

I would like the NRA to change, to drop politics, and to focus on marksmanship and safety.

You mean you would like them to behave in a manner convenient to you and quit representing their constituency.

Me and a lot of other people.

"Sixty-seven percent of gun owners polled said they either strongly or somewhat agree that the NRA has shifted from an organization dedicated to gun safety to one “overtaken by lobbyists and the interests of gun manufacturers and lost its original purpose and mission."

And from Politico we have...

" a new poll commissioned by an anti-gun-violence PAC found"

I cannot imagine why that wouldn't induce some inclination to ask the pollster to show his work.

All the polls had Hillary winning in November 2016.

lol. Such "brilliant" answers. Which reminds me.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/03/sam-nunberg-interviews-anchors-crazy-unwell/

You poor guys are self-selected.

If the NRA didn't "focus" on politics, there would be no guns to perform "marksmenship and safety" with.

"82 percent of surveyed Democrats say they favor a ban on semi-automatics, which would include not just rifles like the one used in the Feb. 14 Parkland massacre, which claimed the lives of 17 people, but also most handguns."

" “Do you favor or oppose … [banning] the sale of all handguns, except those that are issued to law enforcement officers.”

Forty-four percent [of Democrats] said they would support such a ban"

"That’s not all! The survey also found that Democratic respondents were loosely split on whether the Second Amendment ought to be repealed. Thirty-nine said they’d oppose it, while 41 percent said otherwise. The broader population, on the other hand, overwhelmingly opposed the idea by 60 percent to 21 percent."

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/survey-majority-of-democrats-want-to-ban-semi-automatics-half-want-to-ban-all-guns/article/2650543

Democrats want all guns banned and confiscated, end of story.

"Democrats want all guns banned and confiscated, end of story.'

To highlight the madness. That is not remotely true. Why do you think saying crazy things helps you?

"Democrats want all guns banned and confiscated, end of story."

Thomas is a lying liar.

Msgkings has stated on this very blog that he would support a ban of all guns capable of firing rapidly, which is every essentially except a musket. He also stated that he is a moderate on guns. I wonder what the extreme anti-gun advocates look like when the "moderates" support a ban on 99% of guns.

Thomas, just because you americans love your automatic and semi-automatic rifles, that doesn't mean it's the only game in town.

Where I'm from, there exists this thing called 'hunting rifles'. They're generally not even semi-automatic, and they don't need to be. And I have been in a marksman club in my youth, which was even fairly popular, which exclusively uses these rifles. There are also a lot of hunters where I'm from, who, unsurprisingly, also use them. On the other hand, I don't know a single person who owns a (semi-)automatic gun, not even a handgun, and they're afaik very hard to get here.

So even if you like guns, and think people should be allowed to own them, which I do, there is just no need for (semi-)automatic guns. Their danger far outstrips any reasonable freedom-associated argument. It's no coincidence that the handgun, which is easy to carry around & conceal and also semi-automatic, is the gun that causes most murders.

Bolt action rifles can shoot 30 times per minute in skilled hands. That's rapid. They would be subject to banning under the common-sense, moderate msgkings standard. Also if you don't support banning them, then you obvious want kids killed. Sorry to inform you on which line of wanting kids killed you stand according to moderates like msgkings.

I don't think they stuck there neck out at first, it is just something organizations do for no reason without thinking. For example, a bunch of organizations supposedly offer car rental discounts, but the rate is never as good as the online price via expedia or whatever. Lifelock is basically a scam, and the NRA was probably paid to let SYMC spam their members, but the members are clearly better off without the "affiliation". Progressives can't pick up on such nuances.

Ditching the NRA was a symbolic action and a bet that their blue state hubs are worth more than the red state ones or that liberals fly more on airliners.

The fact that the discount was economically insignificant means that Delta's action was equivalent to issuing an economically insignificant press release announcing that Delta supports gun control, opposes gun rights, and really dislikes the NRA. Then, the natural follow-up question is whether an airline (or a car rental company or sporting goods company) should opine about various political issues not directly related to their particular industry. Traditionally, firms such as these that engage in inherently apolitical businesses have been broadly inclusive of people across the political spectrum by remaining apolitical firms. It's hard to see how allowing politics to encroach into ever more aspects of traditionally apolitical arenas will alleviate the on-going rise of tribalism. We don't really need anti-gun airlines, pro-gun software companies, pro-life grocery stores, pro-choice auto mechanics,....

Pfft. The NRA is a gun lobby, but it is much more than that.

It is not at all anti-gun to oppose the NRA today.

"It is not at all anti-gun to oppose the NRA today."

The NRA is the sole organization standing in the way of a de facto 2nd amendment repeal.

That is the BS that makes $5,110,985 compensation packages at the NRA.

Be angry. Be scared. Send money.

Can you articulate your proposed gun control law that is not a de facto 2nd amendment repeal, and which is also effective at significantly reducing school shootings?

You can't. You won't. You're either ignorant or a liar.

#1: and right on the same page, Harvard announces it's graduation speaker will be John Lewis, a back-bench member of Congress who has over a period of 30 years compiled a perfectly undistinguished record (except for the occasional nutty slander lobbed at the opposition). Oh, he was chairman of a long disbanded collection of political agitators between 1963 and 1966.

Here's a suggestion: a constitutional amendment which bans outside graduation speakers and declares every honorary degree awarded in the last ninety years to be bumwipe.

Racist Much?

I give a precise description of what John Lewis has done with his life (and offer that outside speakers at graduation is the occasion for humbug we could do without). I take it you don't realize your response is self-indicting. (While we're at it, there are five a's in 'raaaaacist').

"Racist Much" is a pretty precise description of what you've done with your life.

Try some baby steps and start by defining 'racist'. You can do it, pumpkin.

If you say it five times fast, it makes it irrelevant.

Why? Because every raaaacist knows they are that smrt.

Say it five times fast and John Lewis is still an undistinguished back bench member of Congress (momentarily distinguished when he regurgitates gems like ""They're coming for our children. They're coming for the poor. They're coming for the sick, the elderly and the disabled." )

Troll me is a well known racist and sexist.

Excuse me sir, at long last, have you no dignity? No shame?

The honorable John Lewis is a legend and a great man.

He yelled at my friend many years ago while said friend was an intern on the hill.

He went off on a 5 minute rampage at my terrified 105 lb friend, ranting and raving in righteous anger about how he was not The Honorable Congressman Cunningham and was disgusted and insulted at her naive racism for confusing the two during a meeting of the CBC.

Mister Lewis has brought me nothing but joy.

Really? No! Really!

Logical fallacy much?

What evidence can you cite that the content of Art's comment is racist?

It isn't racist solely because you don't agree with it.

Why do you care so much who Harvard invites as it's graduation speaker?

I care just enough to bother 4 individuals and induce 3 of them into saying stupid stuff.

The graduation speakers burlesque is a pet peeve of mine. It's a peeve, Hazel.

2. Hilarious

#1 - theories of geology are new and don't have much pedigree ("This has been the canonical model for about 20 years”--only twenty years?!), and even plate tectonics only became conventional wisdom in the 1960s (Al Gore relates when he was a boy the TN teachers could not explain why South America looks like it used to fit into Africa). One latest theory, as of last year, which makes intuitive sense to me, is that the center of the earth is not just solid iron but at the very center is made of diamond. It makes sense since diamonds form under pressure and diamonds on earth shoot up through the mantle of the earth at supersonic speeds in pipes called kimberlite pipes.

Bonus trivia: what annoys me is that even in this late day and age the International Commission on Stratigraphy (ICS) still has not agreed on the start and end points of stratigraphy. Just when I memorized all the periods and epochs, in the last few years they changed the dates by a few million years, which screws up your memorization.

5. Just an example of "You cannot teach new tricks to an old dog." : old people don't understand bitcoin.

"You're just too stupid to understand the value here" sounds to me like a rather abrasive sales pitch. When I hear it coming from people who are not trying to sell me something directly, it sounds like someone trying to justify something to themselves that they are starting to have doubts about.

You're quite right. The pitch should be phrased as, "You DESERVE to profit from Bitcoin!"

Sounds so much better than "you're too [stupid/old/incompetent/unimaginative] to do so.

Then again, every trade has at least two sides.

Rogoff listed some serious flaws he sees with Bitcoin as a store of value and means of exchange. Calling him old is a very effective retort.

Oh boy, the irony of a hardcore Democrat saying this.

#5 It is possible to buy and sell Bitcoin futures. One wonders, does Ken Rogoff have enough confidence in his prediction to wager his own cash on it?

There are futures, but I believe only up to 3 months contracts. Rogoff was cautious enough to make a prediction of the price in 10 years. Everyone will have forgotten his prediction by then but if he is right he can remind them. :-)

To be fair, if he was dissing bitcoin while also holding a short position in it, wouldn't we be accusing him of a conflict of interest?

If you're short bitcoin you're a manipulator, if you're a no coiner you're full of it because you refuse to bet on your beliefs, if you believe in any other coin over bitcoin you're a shill, but if you own bitcoin you're impartial.

It's perfectly possible to think it will go up in the short term and way down in the long term, and if that happened shorting it could bankrupt him. Isn't simply not owning it a sufficient way of conveying he doesn't believe in it?

Let's hope people that bought it with credit card is not underwater today. That would be enough.

Long term futures markets that let you short asset classes far into the future do not exist for almost anything. There are plenty of things that one might want to take out a ten year short on (comic books, collectible 'franklin mint' coins, etc.), but there's no easy market to do so other than selling any you may have at the moment and sticking the money in a bank account.

I suppose, though, if Rogoff really does think Bitcoin's price may veer towards $0 in the long term future the most rational action for him would be to buy mining rigs today and automatically convert any coin he earns into cash or into an alternative cryptocurrency he thinks has a better shot at success.

Futures contracts in energy products are on the boards going out to around 2030. Natural Gas contracts expiring in 2027 have some open interest; Brent Crude has at least nominal prices into the mid-2030s. But to your point, executing in contracts that far out (either long or short) won't be pretty.

Fair enough but that's only a fraction of all possible assets. What if I want to bet against PA condos in ski areas? Classic comic books? How about even the S&P 500 10 years out? These seem like things that could exist in the market but they don't seem too...

2. When Cowen mentioned last week what he considered unreasonable criticism of Facebook and Google, little old me thought he was referring to criticism from the left (mea culpa). I was wrong: the criticism is coming from the hard right. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/06/business/media/paul-schweizer-google-facebook.html The irony is that the critics on the right would be mere farts in the wind absent Facebook and Google (which greatly expanded the critics' platform and reach). Here's the thing: Facebook and Google are in the advertising business (for those who don't know), and as a result they must respond to their customers, the advertisers. Yes, the customers of Facebook and Google are the advertisers, not the users (which are the product). Don't the advertisers have the right, the liberty, the freedom, to determine what's best for them and their business? Or does the hard right-wing have the right to control the advertisers as to where they advertise and what they advertise? Freedom, ideed!

Rogoff is criticizing a moving target.
We never had cryptocurrencies, we had a few proprietary crypto wallets. This was the great deception that is fooling Rogoff.
Last month this all changed. Today all assets, world wide, from your candy bar to your stock portfolio have a crypto bearer asset format, they are all not treated as bearer cash. The difference is the invention of the escrow router, now becoming a Web standard. The escrow router can guarantee safe swaps between any assets provided owners agree. The difference is that the exro router perfectly protects bearer assets from counterfeit.

So I ignore all the critics at this point

Hence,

5. also Bearish on Excel

+1 million. Its like Tony Blair talking about peace...

#4 Maybe if China gave up agression against other countries, those things would not happen.

4. Dilip D'Souza is a seasoned Social Justice Warrior of the superior sort, who is not the worst liberal to read among Indian liberals.

Here he finds it worthy to write a long essay bemoaning the internment of 3000 Chinese-Indians back in 1962. No problems with that. But I wonder if he will find it just as worthy to talk of this mass exodus of over 100,000 Hindus (incidentally high caste by the way) from the Kashmir valley over the past 30 years -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exodus_of_Kashmiri_Hindus

Good point. What happened to the plebiscite?

First of all, the Indian government doesn't acknowledge the validity of the plebiscite demand.

Also how can you have a fair plebiscite when the demographics of the valley have been forcibly changed by Pak sponsored terror - causing all Hindus of the valley to flee Kashmir.

Absurd.

It’s a majority Muslim area. It belongs to Pakistan. Why fight over it?

Pandits will not pick up a rifle and defend their homestead. This ain’t Rhodesia. This ain’t Boston 1776. Morality aside, it comes down to “will you defend your homestead”?

Pandits said no and they’re better off resettling in India.

It’s a majority Muslim area. It belongs to Pakistan. Why fight over it?

Of course, religion-based-nationality is tje way to go for Muslims, but every non-Muslim should play according to secular liberal politics.

@shrikanthk: Also how can you have a fair plebiscite when the demographics of the valley have been forcibly changed by Pak sponsored terror – causing all Hindus of the valley to flee Kashmir.

AFAIK the demographics of PoK has been changed too; unlike Indian Governments who did not settle Hindus in Kashmir, Pakistani government settled tonnes of Pakjabis there. And I think it is part of the terms and conditions for the plebiscite to be held - so it is not just about having a "fair plebiscite", but part of the conditions that were put forward.

I find it sad that India has so many valid points to make on Kashmir, yet our Pak-friendly media presents only the non-arguments, such as that some minister said "Kashmir is an integral part of India and will always remain so".

Aside: I know you aren't a big fan of Ambedkar, but don't you feel grateful to him for his stance on Article 370?

I understand he was opposed to it. But I am not sure why I should be grateful to him, because the article did make its way into the constitution despite him heading the Drafting committee. So his private stance did not matter at the end.

And it's interesting that "Potato" is deriding Pandits for not taking the rifle. If they did, then you can imagine the liberal media the world over branding them as brahmin terrorist group.

This is what you get for being good.

"I find it sad that India has so many valid points to make on Kashmir, yet our Pak-friendly media presents only the non-arguments"

That is to be expected when a country lacks confidence in its own civilizational identity and thinks of itself merely as an accidental constitutional republic borne out of erstwhile British rule. The English speaking media comprises largely of people who have been brought up in public schools where they have been brainwashed into buying this anti-septic "idea of india" - which is in vociferous denial of its undeniable Hinduness.

Things are changing now. We need a few decades of Hindu nationalism to undo the damage that has been done over the past 70 years, not just to govt and public policy, but to the collective psyche of the people.

Okay grateful is not the word: I still think his arguments lend weight to the case against 370, but I agree this perception is subjective. But do you feel that this points to the presence of a genuine virtue, of not being an IYI to go with the easy compromise in the situation like Nehru did?

I too was surprised to see this deriding of Pundits for not taking the rifle. I hear many hypocritical arguments from liberals on this one, but "Why did they not pick up the gun" is something I am hearing for the first time.

You are of course spot on that they would've been called terrorists if they did that.

Nehru was not even an Intellectual. So even IYI is too flattering a label for him :)

Ambedkar had his virtues for sure. Every person has some virtue.

Clearly a man of some erudition and enterprise.

But that's too low a bar. There are people from our past with far greater intellectual honesty, rigor as well as achievement, among both politicians and intellectuals

Alladi Krishnaswami Aiyar, C Rajagopalachari, Srinivasa Sastri, Jadunath Sarkar, Minoo Masani, Sivaswami Aiyar, PV Kane, VP Menon, Radhakrishnan, Madan Mohan Malviya,...I can go on.

Such sterling people. We can have better role models than Ambedkar.

I find it sad that India has so many valid points to make on Kashmir, yet our Pak-friendly media presents only the non-arguments, such as that some minister said “Kashmir is an integral part of India and will always remain so”.

I'm no fan of our media, but I fail to see what makes it "Pak-friendly". Care to elaborate?

Commenter "Potato" sounds more like an alt-righer than a liberal, based on the tenor of his other comments on this post.

It seems the Fox-Newsification of our discourse is complete.

Kris - The media ofcourse is not explicitly Pak friendly, being in India.

But when you refuse to even give voice to the Indian viewpoint on Kashmir, then how can you escape that label?

When was the last time you saw the Indian viewpoint on Kashmir clearly articulated on television? As blah said, the only thing you hear is "kashmir is an integral part of india" - a line that is parrotted like a mantra.

The Pandit question is seldom discussed on TV. Nor is the change in demographics, both in the Indian Kashmir valley and in POK. The nobility of the Indian govt, which has desisted from making a conscious effort to change demographics is not acknowledged either.

@shirikanthk,

Personally, I don't think it's "nobility" but rather "practicality" that dictates the Indian government's silence and inaction on the topic.

Witness the fact that we have a fairly large number of troops in the Valley, who can achieve little other than being bunkered up and targeted by jobless stone-throwing young men. The Kashmiri Pandits have virtually no hope of living secure lives back in their towns and villages; the best the Indian government can do is carry out reprisal attacks on militants in the area if Pandits get massacred; there will be immense collateral damage to civilians, and a huge outcry, and nothing will change. I think the Pandits know this full-well. I think the Indian government knows this full-well. The hostility for the local Muslim population towards India and the Indian government is too large for a rapproachement with their former neighbors (whom they tried to ethnically cleanse) to happen anytime in the near future. That's why no one talks about it.

As for PoK, I just don't care. I came under Pakistani control in 1947 and has remained so ever since, so I consider it part of Pakistan. In 1947, The princely states were up for grabs. We got part of Kashmir (and Jammu, and Ladakh). The Pakistanis got the rest, and I'm OK with that.

@Kris: I think Shrikanth answered your question to me well: the media portrays the Pakistani position on Kashmir very well, and not the Indian position at all.

Let us accept for a moment the contention that holding onto Kashmir is pointless. Does that excuse our media making India sound like a petulant child by not presenting its case well, and at the same time presenting Pakistan's view point much better?

And Kris, Just because an alt-righter came and talked to Shrikanth and me you say the fox-newsification of our discourse is complete? Can you imagine how you would react if you talked to an SJW and I made an analogous comment?

@blah:

I misread Shrikanth's comment as associating Potato with liberalism. My mistake! Right-wingers associating any opposition to their views with "liberalism" is a pet peeve of mine, and I'm very sensitive to it, as I believe liberalism (of the classical form) has a non-ideological component that should be conserved and everyone (lefties, righties, nationalists) can subscribe to while disagreeing on a lot of other stuff.

@blah:

Back to Kashmir. How exactly would you make India's case to the world that would make the world sympathetic to our position? Our position is based on the fact that Kashmir is and has always been a part of historic India, geographically, civilizationally, politically, culturally, and it also has important pilgrimage locations that are dear to our people. On the other side of the ledger you have the fact (and really, anyone who has followed the issue knows this is a fact) that the vast majority of the population in the valley is hostile to us and wishes to secede. That they have not done so is because our military has a heavy presence there.

There is little in current international law that would prompt foreign countries from prioritizing the former over the latter, especially as "self-determination" arguments have been made, and rights exercised, ever since WW2 (including by us.) There have been lots of precedents of countries separating since then, even those countries that took their territorial integrity for granted. Our cultural and emotional ties to Kashmir are not going to appeal to, nor be shared by, foreign countries. All the "international community" will be willing to do is tolerate big important countries (like us, China, Russia) holding on to restive provinces. No more, and no less. I don't see any clamor for India having to give up Kashmir from anyone other than Pakistan, and frankly, I think that's because the Indian media has made a reasonable enough case that we are not the devil incarnate. I don't see how our media could do better, which is why your characterization of it as Pak-friendly still puzzles me.

Okay, so it is not your fault: you yourself do not know what some of the arguments favoring India on Kashmir are. I already mentioned the plebiscite (Pakjabi settling) issue, which the media doesn't highlight.

Let me present one another case for India to have Kashmir based on - wait for it - liberalism.

Liberalism doesn't recognize the right of a group of people to form a Government and legal system of their choice. It recognizes the rights of exactly one kind of entity - the individual!

*Every single* leader supporting Kashmiri independence is anti-democracy, anti-secularism; you don't need to believe me - they openly say so in about as many words. The media which repeatedly raises hue and cry whenever a Hindutva leader says something crazy, chooses to keep mum on how regressive the Azadi folks are. They never ask what would happen to Kashmiri women if Azadi is realized.

I find it astounding, flabbergasting, that the same people who claim to stand for the right of the individual, the sort of person who would find it unimaginably atrocious if a Hindu village in India wants to live under some Hindu traditional jurisprudence, find it so absolutely normal to think in terms of the right of a "group of people" to live under their preferred consitution, however oppressive and undemocratic.

This doesn't address international law; the relevance of international law is topic for a different debate.

BTW I'm no a liberal, I don't even agree with the classical liberal "common minimum programme" you mentioned above, but that is again stuff for another debate.

That was to justify my comment on the media, by telling you of another strong case which I would have expected the media to regularly debate if it wanted to discuss points in favor of India.

The "fact" that Kashmiri Muslims want to secede from India is not something set in stone.

I am not sure if that was the reality maybe in the 1970s or 80s when inisurgency in the area was non-existent.

My parents had their honeymoon in Kashmir back in 1979, and they mostly have memories of peaceful, friendly locals who felt very much Indian.

It was a state with very significant Hindu presence, a syncretic culture, that was hardly radicalized or militant.

When we discuss the so-called demand for self-determination and secession, we need to consider the changes that have happened in the area since 1990 -

a) Insurgencies encouraged directly by Pak forces against India

b) Growth of radical Islam since the Iranian revolution (1979) - which didn't spare Kashmir.

c) The Exodus of Kashmiri Hindus from the valley - changing the demographics and the cultural climate of the region.

So yes, there is hostility towards India today. But this wasn't always the case. And this is a direct consequence not merely of some misdemeanors of Indian army but largely a result of the growth of militancy in the region and change in demographics - both triggered by Pak intervention

That is a good point too. You ask how exactly they started hating Indians, and then you find that the elephant in the room - the movement that started it all - needs to be addressed. Which the media won't, of course. It is easier to just highlight nasty incidents from people on one side, and address everyone of the rest as "the people of Kashmir", which is as meaningful as people's democratic republic of Korea.

First, you need to understand how much the concept of self-determination means in the world we live in. That is: if it's almost certain that an overwhelming majority of people in a defined geographic region seek a separate country, the default sympathy goes to them. So every argument you make on the opposite side must be measured against this desire. I'm not saying this is right, I'm just saying this is the case. Of course, if the enclosing country is powerful enough and doesn't want to allow secession, no one is going to do anything about it, but that will not erase the default sympathy they will feel for the secessionists.

Let me address some of your points:

-- The fact that an independent Kashmir will be illiberal, and probably enforce a virulent form of Sharia is highly likely. To me, you are preaching to the choir. But there are already a number of independent countries that are highly illiberal or authoritarian. If you are arguing that behavior trumps the right to self-determination, that won't cut ice with anyone. The British made the same excuses when they conquered India. Bush and the neocons recently made the same arguments; the US's international standing plummeted, though of course no one could do anything about it.

-- The plebiscite argument, and the fact that the Pakistani occupation of PoK has muddied the waters, is actually the strongest point in favor of India maintaining the status quo and the UN not being able to do anything about it. That argument has always been in our favor and has been used by us to thwart any foreign intervention, so I'm not sure why you think it's been a losing one. But if we do conduct a plebiscite today, you do know what the outcome will be, right?

-- I'm not criticizing the Indian army at all. I think they have had a thankless job, and it would have been hard to do too much better, given Pakistan's monomaniacal obsession with the region and the virtual impossibility of our being able to wage war against them on the grounds of interference (it WILL turn nuclear.) But the very nature of their mission means they can never be popular and they can never trust the locals (a vicious cycle), so the locals will continue to see them as an oppressive force. Who after all likes an army presence interfering with everything they do? That's what keeps the Palestinian grievance in the West Bank alive too.

-- Sure, Kashmir may have been a lot more peaceful, and even friendly, in the 70s. But that's just not relevant now. Again, it doesn't trump the self-determination argument by itself. So many other former provinces of various countries have fallen off with their erstwhile "cousins" and are now independent; there's ample precedent for this. Scotland may secede from the UK on precisely these grounds (the Scots were the biggest beneficiary of the worldwide English-driven empire.)

Unlike both of you, I don't really think we need to make a case or petition the "international community" on this issue. The dual argument of our deep civilizational ties with Kashmir and our military ability to hold on to the place, however unpopular that hold may be to some people, is enough for me. I would, in addition, try to minimize military antagonization of the local population, and further economic integration, so that by and by, the quest for secession decreases.

Kris,

1(a). See, you don't even know why the analogy with Brits is not valid, which reinforces my point on Indian media presenting things selectively: the key word is "taxation without representation". They taxed us without giving representation in their parliament or letting us elect anyone into their parliament. If Britain considered India a part of Britain with Indians getting in principle the same shot at ministry, I don't think these issues would have arisen.

1(b). This "self-determination" thing is very illiberal. Say suddenly a geographical section in India says we want to live according to Manu Smriti - suppose these people have not only vocal support, but also a clear majority in the region. Is it liberal to allow them to break away? Kashmir was with India, mostly peacefully, till the late 80's. Suddenly they used force and terror, and that is a reason why you will grant them "right to self-determination" which you won't grant to Hindu groups?

2. About the plebiscite being invalid: my limited point was that the media was not articulating it, so a surprisingly large number of Indians don't know about it: the media has successfully kept it away from the populace.

3. The dual argument of our deep civilizational ties with Kashmir and our military ability to hold on to the place, however unpopular that hold may be to some people, is enough for me.

Strangely, though I am the Hindutvavadi here, the "civilizational ties" is an argument is one that does not resonate with me at all. I think Kashmiris are shitty people who suck away huge amounts from us as largesse and give us hatred and shit in return, and I don't like them to pollute my nation with their citizenship; if there was nothing else at stake I would have been happy to let them go and rot in their hell that they richly deserve. But I am afraid letting them go will fracture the nation further. More secessionist movements will mean much more bloodshed (and here is part of why I said I don't agree with classical liberalism: if classical liberal axioms will lead to future bloodshed, I don't want it), further deterioration of trust between Hindus and Muslims in the rest of India etc. So yeah, it is absolutely not about any desire to have that extra piece of land.

blah : That's one of the best comments on MR. Excellent.

Just to nitpick - The only point I'd like to make is that this "right to self determination" has no basis in classical liberalism.

I don't think Locke, Hume, Smith or Mill (or any other "classical liberal") have ever talked of the "right to self-determination" as being central to nation formation.

You can correct me if I am wrong.

"Say suddenly a geographical section in India says we want to live according to Manu Smriti – suppose these people have not only vocal support, but also a clear majority in the region. Is it liberal to allow them to break away?"

Actually I was discussing in a jocular vein something similar to this with a friend. Let me declare at the outset that I don't support this.

But suppose for a moment that all the "twice born" castes (Varnas 1+2+3) + some highly sanskritized shudra castes get together and form a Hindu republic (of about a couple of hundred million) and leave the rest of India to the other groups (which can comprise of all the OBCs / Dalits who don't want to join the Hindu republic as well as Muslims / Christians) - I wonder how the two countries will fare?

I think the hypothetical Hindu republic of 200-300 million people, freed from all ethnic and religious tensions (except lingual) will do pretty well! I guess it will be a middle-income country at the very least (with a PCI easily exceeding $15K). I also think it will be a liberal state in the best sense, and its homogeneity will let it pursue policies that will be in the general interest (as opposed to pandering to specific groups).

I also think this will help the other country (non Hindu India) a lot. I would expect that country, liberated from the psychological hold of those conceited upper castes and the brahminical religion), to convert en-masse to Christianity (excepting muslims). And I am sure it will do these people a world of good. They won't have anyone to hate. And that's a great thing.

Kris / blah - I understand this is just not feasible given that all castes are distributed across every village and this hypothetical two nation theory does not lend itself to territorial demarcation. But even Pak vs India sounded equally crazy in 1940 and yet it was achieved against all odds.

And I am too attached to the idea of one India to support this. But what do you guys think?

@Shrikanth - Regarding classical liberalism - thanks; I was talking from an feeling about general principles of classical liberalism; I haven't personally read the work of people like Mill, Hume etc.

Now about the hypothetical republic, which is of course the more interesting question here :) - I expect that country to do better, due to homogeneity. It is of course dishonest to say "diversity is our strength" when every available evidence shows that diversity is a disease that hurts the economy (though this may well be a disease with the property that every cure is worse than the disease). Most of the problems of India are due to diversity; each time I come across someone treating India as shitty, I think of diversity.

But there is another reason why I think that republic will be a success - I don't agree with liberals that India does better than Pakistan because it is secular-liberal on paper thanks to the chacha; rather, I think you can't do much with paper, these things ultimately go back to the nature of the citizenry in general, and that India does better because intrinsically Hinduism is more tolerant than Islam (of course I am talking relatively).

That said, I certainly don't want a republic on varna basis, but it may not be bad to have one on religion basis. As you know, I consider Dalits to be a part of the Hindu fold and won't want to leave them out (those who don't want to be Hindu, I think of them the same way as I think of secular liberals).

I am not as attached to "the idea of India" as you seem to be: I won't mind if someone carves a Hindu republic out of India, with the Hinduness hardwired into the constitution, which will deny citizenship to "samuday-vishesh" (unless of course they convert), the rest of India becoming a secular republic where all liberals can happily live with the peacefuls, without subhuman Hindus and their ugly superstitions and what not to bother them, only awesome urdu poetry, beautiful minarets etc. (and then they can honor Kashmir or whatever other Islamic republic they like within that).

For this reason, sometimes under mood fluctuations I feel optimistic about the consequences of a Kashmiri secession: may be eventually, breaking of Kashmir might actually help if that also ends up carving a Hindu republic out. That may be the only way Hindu human rights can be ensured in future; so the point here is; in the special case where a Hindu republic will also be carved out, Kashmiri secession might augur for the good.

That will also teach the liberals a lesson: imagine their frustration when they find that their attempts to destroy Hinduism and
nationalism ends up succeeding in destroying Hindu nationalism, only to find it replaced with Hindu separatism! Oh man!

Note: I am only speculating about possibilities, not explicitly endorsing any break up. Narayan Narayan.

Thanks for the comment.

Sorry if my Varna based nationhood sounded too distasteful. The reason I put it that way is because the schisms I see within Hinduism are really eating us up and preventing us from giving our best as a nation. And it's not just about Dalits. But also several OBCs.

Which is why I thought - how about a more strongly Hindu nation of around ~300MM comprising of only those communities that nurse no hang-ups or aversions against the "upper castes".

i do get your point that a Hindu republic has a better chance of being carved out than the smaller more strongly Hindu nation that I speculated about.

Dear Shrikanth, Agreements and disagreements aside, the question of "distasteful" doesn't arise. I am better equipped than most if not all commenters on this blog to interpret your statements in context: it is obvious that you are not proposing any discrimination against any group of people, and are just intellectually speculating possibilities in view of extant schisms (which cannot be wished away, though people differ in how much they exist and matter). I am not a liberal to try to censor inconvenient but insightful thought experiments by intimidation in terms of political correctness.

Actually, the plebiscite is dependent on fulfilment of some conditions. One of them is that Pakistan will remove its nationals from POK and then India will reduce it's forces in Kashmir. Since Pakistan will never fulfil the the pre condition, there is never going to be a plebiscite.

Sad to see you indulging in whataboutism, Shrikanth.

One could turn around and ask you why you chose to comment on this particular post and not on any of the other myriad posts that Tyler and Alex write on a daily basis.

I comment on just about every other post on MR. I am a regular poster here

I think you completely missed the point. My comment wasn't a criticism of your choice (or not) to comment, but rather your passing judgment on someone else's commentary. You chose to attack their motives (based on your speculation) rather than their arguments. It's the kind of thing that makes a mockery of discourse and of news itself.

No. It doesn't.

Because bias exists across the board. Dinesh is biased. So is Tyler. So am I. So are you.

We are just countering one form of bias with another.

The news report / opinion piece per se is not biased. But bias operates in the reports you choose to highlight or the opinions you choose to voice. These are biases of omission not commission.

The exodus of Pandits is very much a real issue, not a fake thing. It doesn't get highlighted because the Pandits are an enterprising upwardly mobile community who are apolitical and not so interested in crying over spilt milk like a few other demographic groups one can think of.

"This week, Georgia lawmakers removed a jet fuel tax break worth about $50 million from a bill after the airline distanced itself from the NRA."

As I see it, Georgia voters spent 40 million on 13 gun nuts. If this is the typical Georgia Republican, then we are doomed. The idiocy goes beyond anything rational and speaks to direct theft from taxpayers.

My suggestion is we launch a naiona investigation of Republican theft and fraud in Georgia. How an anyone call these idiot sane?

+1

removed a jet fuel tax break = didn't spend

Yeah I noticed that too, if anything GA voters just saved $50 million. So, if anything, they should be thanking Delta.

Didn't they *save* $50 million on behalf of 13 gun nuts?

Revealed preferences. GA claimed the original tax cut was supposedly because Delta had their headquarters there. But since they rescinded the cut for ditching the NRA, the reality is GA was spending $50M in taxpayer dollars for the benefit of 13 NRA members getting slightly lower airfares.

Eliminating corporate welfare is desirable only if it is intended to soak corporations or to promote the latest diversity of perversity group consecrated by the left.

YAWN, the GA lawmakers have said Delta can have it's $50M in corporate welfare back if they give those 13 NRA members reduced airfares again. No doubt other corporate welfare beneficiaries have noted the price for retaining their cut of fleecing taxpayers is to pay tribute to GOP interest groups, not serve the public at large.

2. "Only 13 People Actually Used Delta’s Discount For NRA Members"
sounds unlucky, thought I don't know for who(m).

#3. this is probably unenforceable, for multiple reasons: many of the carriers of internet traffic bound for users in washington state are not located in Washington state, the FCC will almost certainly assert that internet traffic is interstate commerce, and I doubt the bill is written in a way that doesn't accidentally making things like CDNs and tiered service illegal.

Not to mention federal preemption. No way this thing survives. The FCC order expressly preempts inconsistent state and local law.

1. Can anyone explain this theory in layman/dummy terms? I didn't come away from reading the article with a clear understanding of what's being proposed.

The traditional model of how the moon was formed is:

1) The Earth got hit by something big
2) This created a lot of debris in orbit, but left the Earth still basically intact
3) The debris in orbit formed a ring (like Saturn's) which condensed into the Moon

If I understand their theory right, it goes like this:

1) The Earth got hit by something big
2) The outer layers of the Earth were vaporized
3) The debris formed a doughnut-shaped cloud around the remains of the Earth
4) The outer layers of that debris formed the Moon while they were still hot. The inner layers cooled down, and then congealed onto the remains of the Earth.

So the big differences are what shape the debris formed and whether the Moon formed before the Earth (re)formed.

Can we all agree that Trump saying "we are going to win a trade war" is one of the dumbest things a president has ever said? Particularly given that if you analyze the evidence you have Smoot-Hawley as a warning.

If Trump gets the hard left to identify protectionism with racism, then he will be the greatest president since Lincoln.

If he gets free trade agreements to be the politically correct answer, we’re winning.

If the next generation believes free trade with all is the answer, then he’s unintentionally done us a massive favor.

You really think that once the left regains political control they won't return to their stupid protectionist ways?

#4: In an otherwise interesting article, the following sticks out like an eye-sore: But when war broke out with China in 1962, India’s President S Radhakrishnan signed the Defence of India Ordinance, allowing authorities to arrest people suspected “of being of hostile origin.”

Look at the clever, snide way of bringing in S Radhakrishnan here. India's president is a formal post, and the ordinances s/he signs are decisions of the Prime Minister and his cabinet, who bear the primary responsibility for the ordinance.

It is clear why left-liberal Dilip D'Souza wants to do this: to absolve Prime Minister Nehru of his sins.

India's left-liberals: any good thing that happened post 1947 is due to Nehru, but the responsibility for any bad action of Nehru should be blamed on other Indians or "India" as a whole.

Excellent catch!

Yeah, this is sloppy (or worse) writing, but it doesn't negate his entire column. I know, from my now-departed grandparents, than the miniscule number of Chinese-Indians in my hometown had a hard time in '62, and they weren't defended by their neighbors. Americans behaved equally badly with their naturalized Japanese population, and rightly had to acknowledge those injustices.

Thanks to Tyler for posting this part of Indian history unknown to most Indians. Sounds like the Nehru government picked on these Chinese Indian families, to appear tough after Nehru’s failure to anticipate the real Chinese threat across the border. Doubt very much these families represented any real internal threat. It may have also been a preventive measure to minimize violence against these families by Indians excited by anti Chinese sentiments during the war. I fear however this may be more likely today if another war breaks out. And unlike Nehru Modi seems more likely to tolerate such violence. Lets see how he responds to these families.

114 childhood flu deaths reported for 2018, as of a few days ago. But these kids died one at a time so no big media/political push. Just an example of how we pick and choose our crises.

1. An interesting hypothesis. Theia animation in related link clarifies the synestia model. Prevailing theory is only as good as our best detection methods. Technology and increasing diversity of scientists are bound to alter our perspective.

1. Their novel theory may very well be true, but the initial argument is fallacious. Finding that the current theory relies on a less likely angle of collision doesn't undermine it or even make the theory less believable. Given enough time, the possible becomes the inevitable. The fact that the Earth and moon exist, as they are, is evidence that a highly unlikely event actually occurred.

Suppose I told you I won a 300 million to 1 against lottery and provided you substantial circumstantial evidence that I did: a large boost in my reported taxable income, expensive purchases commencing around the same time, contemporaneous news reports of someone in my area winning. Maybe, as an alternative hypothesis, I actually ran a meth lab. Your discovery that the lottery odds were actually 500 million to 1 should not alter your conclusion in the slightest. It would be an ecological fallacy.

I was expecting battling astronomers but only 2 comments

4. “But now, some Chinese-Indians are wearying of the silence.”

Yes - most Indians don't really know about this part of their history. Moreover, there is no evidence that the Chinese government did anything like this to Indians in China at the time.

In fact, most Indians know little about the 1962 war or its reasons - and the above topic is part of a larger trend of ignorance. The only thing they know is what they've been fed, that China "stabbed us in the back" and India was the "innocent victim of Chinese aggression". And this attitude has largely prevailed in the west. India and Hinduism are associated with so many things ‘positive’ and ‘peaceful’: Yoga, Gandhi, Non-violence, The Beatles. China, on the other hand, is considered a stereotypical expansionist nation, those damn commies that crush their people under tanks, while India is the prototype of peaceful, Gandhian civilization.

Historically, India has been holding up the resolution of the dispute for years. And the ‘democratic’ patriotic fervor and media-led jingoism in India (worse than even the US) ensures that a compromise with China is never reached. While China was willing to convert the current ‘status quo’ borders into the international boundary (keeping only 25% of its total claim), India wanted ALL the disputed territory for itself.

I have written about it here and here, if anyone's interested. The border dispute was based on a line (McMohan Line) drawn arbitrarily - and unilaterally (without getting Chinese agreement) - by a British official and subsequently considered as gospel truth by Nehru. China agreed that that line could be a basis for negotiations, but Nehru insisted that there could be no negotiations - the line was set in stone and that was to be the international border.

The ultimate irony was reached when Zhou Enlai actually used the same McMohan line to successfully resolve China's border dispute with Myanmar, simply because they agreed to negotiate without pre-conditions. The irony being that even without any pre-conditions, the final border still ended up being largely along the McMohan line. This could have happened with India too, if Nehru would've swallowed his pride. Tiny Myanmar received far more territory than China did in the final treaty. China was not after land, it was after a properly demarcated border.

Nehru's arrogance was what actually caused the war. Who can forget his famous statement: "I have ordered the army to throw the Chinese out". Contrary to popular imagination, there is overwhelming evidence (and agreement by historians) that it was India that was aggressively nibbling into disputed territory in the late 50s and early 60s, which is what caused China to "invade" in 1962. After China pushed India back from the disputed territories (now Arunachal Pradesh), one would’ve expected China to keep the land that it claimed as spoils of war. But to everyone’s surprise, China declared a unilateral ceasefire and retreated. It had no desire to gain one inch of territory from winning the war. It was not territory that China sought – but a resolution of the dispute and a properly demarcated border.

The historical evidence is so skewed against India, that it is no surprise that facts about the war - and the fate of Chinese Indians - are not known to many in India.

Talking about this issue without mentioning the word "Tibet" is like talking about World War II without mentioning the word "Jew".

That guy is the Chinese Thiago Ribeiro, though I should also say better informed.

Translation: "I can't refute his facts, so let me try a feeble ad-hominem comment instead."

Tibet was an issue, but hardly a major one. Chinese concerns about Tibet were entirely justified, since the CIA was working actively to support Tibetan independence. And Indian intelligence was helping it.

Moreover, then, as now, India recognizes Tibet as part of China, so Tibet is not a major factor in the negotiations. It is a factor in the history of the dispute, but has little bearing on the future outcome.

India's position in the dispute is a fundamental contradiction. It recognizes Tibet as part of China, but still recognizes the validity of the McMohan Line. Both views cannot be held at the same time. If the McMohan Line is valid, then Tibet is/was independent. I have explained this in the 2nd link in my earlier comment above.

This was exemplified by the statement by the Dalai Lama a few decades ago that Arunachal Pradesh was part of Tibet (and hence China). He later backtracked under pressure from the Indian government. And then recently in an interview with NDTV, he gave a flimsy excuse for his support of the Indian position: that China retreated from Arunachal Pradesh after the 1962 war, and that's why the territory is Indian, he implied.

Tyler, speaking of Ken. When are you two going to play a rapid match, maybe like 4 G/25? ELO suggests you might draw a game or two, but you've both been out of it for awhile, so maybe an opening novelty might net you a point.

Comments for this post are closed