Monday, March 06, 2006

The Miracle that is India

Ishtiaq Ahmed wonders at the new giant on the block. Here's a particularly uplifting quote:

For a nation constituting the most varied religious, cultural, ethnic and caste mosaic in the world to transcend its grinding poverty and other social and cultural problems and start moving towards unstoppable economic growth is truly a man-made miracle. The miracle is the result of a futuristic vision that is practical and realisable. Quite simply the Indians want to attain a leading position in the world.

These are heady days. The sunny optimism is perceptible everywhere. So what kind of catastrophe could derail us? Full-blown war with Pakistan? Terrible policy?


Kaunteya said...

So what kind of catastrophe could derail us?

Sonia/UPA coming back to power.

Primary Red said...

Versus who?

Best regards

Anonymous said...

A bad decision by the Indian Supremes on the Mumbai mill land case

Construction of the planned malls on this land will wreak havoc on the environment of Mumbai. How quickly is July 26 2005 forgotten. Only in India can the nexus between the politician and the builder be ratified by the Indian Supreme Court.

doubtinggaurav said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Primary Red said...


Even as Indians are dying, your first instinct is to make a disgracefully petty political point. Then, realizing how absurd you sounded, you've erased the message. Simply pathetic.

Sir, you cannot even begin fathoming the harshness that we feel about terrorism, as we have frequently written here -- the last thing we need or will accept is lectures from people like you on this issue.

So, please get lost, and since you dislike our views so much, do us the courtesy of never coming back.

Good day.

doubtinggaurav said...


I had written that comment in a rage, I deleted it on second thoughts.
But since you have raised it,very well, I will say it again.

"Even as Indians are dying, your first instinct is to make a disgracefully petty political point"

No it is Hindus who are dying. Stop this bloviating.Your band of secularists couldn't care less for Hindus.

"you cannot even begin fathoming the harshness that we feel about terrorism"

I doubt it very much. I am not easily sold on rhetoric.

"the last thing we need or will accept is lectures from people like you on this issue."

Lecturing a Nehru-Gandhi loyalist will be wasting my time.

The only goal of secularism in India is to destroy Hinduism and make dhimmis of Hindus.

"So, please get lost, and since you dislike our views so much, do us the courtesy of never coming back"

Whatever !

libertarian said...

dg: clearly the Varanasi thing ticked you off. As it did me. But ranting about "Hindus dying" is right up there with the misplaced rage at the suffering of some distant Palestinians. Think about it rationally and you'll likely come to the conclusion that we're much better off protecting the interests of all Indians rather than breaking it along religious lines.

I'd rather harbor a quiet, simmering anger than a loud ephemeral rage - the kind of anger that powers the relentless pursuit of these cowards - strategy that would gladden the hearts of Chanakya and Sun Tzu. And when we cull the slime that did this, we need to be ruthless and precise.

Just remember that the folks who did this were looking for exactly the reaction they saw from you.

doubtinggaurav said...


No Varanasi has not me ticked off, I was ticked off much before, and I knew at that what would happen, and that is what is happening.

Terrorism is spreading from J&K to whole of India.

And still elites are not alarmed at competitive minorityism (If you doubt witness the protest during bush's visit or a minister declaring fatwa for Danish)

We are neglecting the rot and it is creeping, waxing eloquence in a rarefied circle can not styme it.
And yet that is what our ruling clique is doing.

Majority of attacks have been on Hindu places of worship,
yes their aim was to foment trouble, however the intentions of terrorists are not secular, they want to hurt Hindus the most.

As a Hindu I find it disappointing that our secular masters care two hoot about safety of me and my temples.

I feel disturbed that a Mob protesting of all things in world visit of USPOTUS kills four person in my native city, near my residence and there is hardly any alarm in the secular circles.

In my view that is the honest truth and has nothing to do with Palestine - Israel struggle.

I know what I said earlier did not behoove in a polite discourse, but you know what? When politeness obfuscates the truth, it becomes undesirable.

Regards and Apologies

libertarian said...

dg: terrorists are not secular, they want to hurt Hindus the most. Have to disagree. Their sole aim is to create chaos. They want to provoke a religious backlash like Ahmedabad in 2002 or Delhi in 1984. Attacking a temple and killing Hindus is a means to that end. Please let's not fall for this transparent ploy.

If you took a cold look at most riots, members of the supposedly "protected" minorities die in disproportionate numbers. By that measure Hindus are better protected than the minorities. Your contention that "our secular masters care two hoots about safety of me and my temples" is hard for me to see. The so-called "secular masters" are often pretty strong in their faith, and - given the demographics - have an 80% chance of being Hindu.

The miracle of India is her ability to integrate people who would nomally comprise several nations into one strong, unstoppable force. In any other area of the world you and I would be citizens of different countries. That we can converse as Indians is the real miracle. Let's not destroy this gift.

doubtinggaurav said...


1984 had nothing to do with backlash, it was to avenge desecration of Golden Temple.

Similarly 2002 or any other incidence that happened were aimed primarily at terrorizing the Indians in general and Hindus in particular, fomenting tension has always been the secondary goal.

Lashker-e-Taiyebba and other terror organisations consider India to be Dar - Ul- Harb and will continue waging the war against India.So please let us not forget this.

Our leaders are born Hindus, I doubt it means anything to them, besides stupid yagnas, and vaastu shastra.

For example I find it hard to believe that Mulayam Singh Yadav or Lalu Prasad Yadav or Prakash Karat can be called Hindus.

"The miracle of India is her ability to integrate people who would nomally comprise several nations into one strong, unstoppable force. In any other area of the world you and I would be citizens of different countries. That we can converse as Indians is the real miracle. Let's not destroy this gift. "

I agree on this, but don't you see the only logical conclusion of competetive minority appeasement will be unravelling of what is called India?

That was how partition occured.


Jaffna said...


You always spark a debate in your posts, though perhaps not in the intended manner this time :-)

But more to your views in the comments section. There is a broader issue here. While religious intolerance and street riots are not a monopoly of any faith, Militant Islam today is at conflict with Buddhism (in Thailand), Christianity (too many countries to mention), Hinduism and Judaism.

I think that thoughtful Muslims need to come to terms with the fact that other religionists increasingly perceive the whole of Islam as unable to co-exist with other religions on equal terms. The religious freedom index in most Muslim countries is extremely poor. The terror attacks in Bali, Benares, Jerusalem, London, Madrid, Moscow and New York were carried out in the name of Islam. There is dissent on freedom of speech - just look at the issue of Salman Rushdie, Theo Van Gogh and Tasleema Nasreen. And there are the street riots of immigrant communities in Bradford, Paris and Sydney. I think this calls for introspection. I am not referring to India here, but to a broader issue of violent religious belligerance largely, but not exclusively, co-existing with fundamentalist Islam throughout the world.

Best regards

Jaffna said...

Type, I meant "restrictions on the freedom of speech"

Kaunteya said...

Sonia "sacrifice" Gandhi had asked her slaves a few days ago if there was a possibility of furthering minoritysm in Army as well. She has already made her stand clear on SC ruling on Assam. By the way folks, have you realised how easy it is for a Gandhi family member to disregard Supreme Court? Rajiv simply overturned a ruling in Shah Bano case. They are super humans aren't they?

Anyways, back to my point. So Madam Gandhi in her relentless pursuit of Muslim votes first removes POTA, then reserves seats in AP, dis-regards SC ruling on AMU and Assam and brings in UC Banerjee who conviniently leaks the inputs of his "reports" whenever Singh government needs it.

Must say, the Jehadis who were already relieved after UPA came to power only got emboldened by Ma'ms action, who by the way donned the mettle of "Sacrificing widow" and played, to her credit, an exceptionally well crafted role, all along. And as they say in movies, "never broke from her character".

Let's give the devil its due. Congress knows how to play politics.

And BJP makes an ass out of it.

Even today the best answer it could come up after a blast was another "Yatra".

Can someone tell Mr. Advani that Yatra days are over. There's a big yawn every time he mentions the word?

As a Hindu, i feel sorry for the fact that we as a people lack a good leader. The voices who speak for Hindus or on behalf of Hindus make a very sad comment on us.

Let's stop blaming Congress or Gandhis for our sorry state. They are just doing business of vote banks, the way they know or the way they always did, right from the days of Nehru.

If we Hindus had ever spoken in one voice, no one from the Gandhi family or Congress would have ever dared to do what they are doing.

We will soon be forgetting Varanasi, the way we forgot Bombay/Dehli/Banglore/Cochin. Congress will keep winning elections. Rahul Gandhi will be our next PM.And then after some years when Priyanka's son [or is it daughter] grows up,he will take over.

The Hindus, like me, will just keep cribbing and cribbing and cribbing....

libertarian said...

Jaffna: yes, seems like I have a nose for trouble :-). I've long had an issue with the moderates in Islam. They've been hijacked. The extreme right is always going to be militant. What is lacking is (to co-opt PR's term) is a near-militant moderate base - one that builds credibility over time through its fairness. Moderation does not have to mean rolling over and playing dead the moment the right-brigade shows up.

Kaunteya, DG: Acknowledge your concern on Hinduism being under attack. Without splitting hairs, the real target of these maggots is the Indian state, not Hindusim. You cannot wipe out a religion with 800 million adherents by killing 15 in Varanasi, or 60 in Delhi or 29 at Akshardham. However, those actions cause severe stress for the Indian state.

DG, Kaunteya: I sincerely hope neither of you is suggesting a Hindu Indian state. Protection for Hindus and Hinduism is one debate. A Hindu Indian state (Nepal is one) is a completely different demand. Just because I'm not Hindu (not Muslim either btw) makes me no less Indian than you are. And I will militantly protect that right.

libertarian said...

DG: just a couple of observations. I was referring to the massacre of the Sikhs in 1984. That certainly was (state-sponsored) backlash against Indira's assassination. To the credit of our juducial system some justice was done to Tytler, Sajjan Kumar and HKL Bhagat. I cannot imagine how you can state without embarassment that the killing of 1500 Muslims and 500 Hindus in Ahmedabad was meant to terrorize the Hindus. I don't see Narendra Modi quivering with fear. If we truly seek justice, we need find the criminals who did Godhra and string them up - not have the state engineer the killing of its citizens as reprisal. Butchering 2000 innocent people (Hindus and Muslims) is a pathetic response of a lazy and criminal state - not in keeping with the giant we strive to be.

I also think you make too much of LeT. They're a goon outfit - nothing more. Making them the big bad organization that can destroy India is giving them too much credit. What we need is some Israeli instruction on how to decapitate those fools - inspite of the cover they receive from the Pak army. IK Gujral's pathetic roll-back of retaliatory policy needs to be undone. The Indian government has been a disastrous failure in that regard.

Kaunteya said...

I agree with your notion You cannot wipe out a religion with 800 million adherents by killing 15 in Varanasi, or 60 in Delhi or 29 at Akshardham.

Right. 60,29,15 are mere figures. Lets just wait till LeT can make real dent in Hindu poplation. Since we are 800 million anyways, 60 here and 30 there should not matter.

Sachal said...

I couldn't agree more with Gaurav.
There is an honesty deficit in any debate pertaining to Mulsims in India. Even on this forum, to my surprise.
Below is an opinion by Tony Blankley of the Washington Times.
I won't hold my breath for a similar appraisal by the Indian cognoscenti. Including this "august" [snide remark, referring to your Dawn genuflection] blog. You should seriously read the Dawn more often.

March 8, 2006
Media Won't Report Radical Islamic Events
By Tony Blankley

Denial is an often useful innate human trait. Few of us would be able to function in the present if we did not put out of mind many unpleasant realities -- such as our inevitable death. The Woody Allen character in the movie "Annie Hall" stated the comic extreme version of not using the denial mechanism when, as a child he refused to do his homework because in 5 billion years the sun would explode, "so, what's the use?"

But when a person, or a society, denies emerging or imminent dangers, the peace of mind it gains will be extremely short term, while the harm may be sustained or fatal.

Most of the world today not only is in denial concerning the truly appalling likely consequences of the rise of radical Islam, it often refuses to even accept unambiguous evidence of its existence.

The latest minor example of the latter is occurring at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. As has been generally reported, an Iranian Muslim student drove a jeep into a crowd of students, causing only minor injuries. He turned himself in and informed the police and the media that he was trying to kill the students to "avenge the deaths of Muslims around the world."

Neither the university nor most of the media has been willing to characterize this event as a terrorist attempt by a radical Muslim. Mr. Colmes, on "Hannity and Colmes" seemed to express genuine puzzlement as to why it mattered whether we called it that or merely an act of violence. Similarly, the attack at the Los Angeles International Airport a few years ago was for nine months just called a violent attack, before it was finally characterized by police as a radical Muslim act of terrorism.

I have been in contact with British politicians who tell me that there is increasing radical Muslim street violence in Britain that is explicitly motivated by radical Islam but is not reported or characterized as such. Even in its cleansed versions, I am told, these incidents are being extremely underreported.

In Antwerp last month, according to the reporter Paul Belien, rioting Moroccan "youths" went on a rampage destroying cars and beating up reporters, but the police were instructed not even to stop them or arrest them. According to an anonymous policeman, "An ambulance was told to switch off its siren because that might provoke the Moroccans." This event, too, was under reported, or not reported at all in American media.

And of course, last October in Paris and other French cities, hundreds of buildings were torched and tens of thousands of cars burned by Muslim "youths" through weeks of rioting, while both the French government and most of the "responsible" experts denied there was any radical Muslim component to the greatest urban violence to hit France since World War. It was all to do with poverty and teenage angst and alienation.

Of course poverty and alienation can't explain the Iranian student in North Carolina. He has just received one of the finest educations available to a privileged American. He reportedly has received advanced degrees in philosophy and psychology from one of our top universities.

The media has pointed out that there is no evidence he was connected to Al Qaeda or another terrorist cell. But that is exactly the point. As I discussed in my book last year, the threat to the West is vastly more than bin Laden and Al Qaeda (although that would be bad enough.)

The greater danger is the ferment in Islam that is generating radical ideas in an unknown, but growing percentage of grass-roots Muslims around the world -- very much including in Europe and, to a currently lesser extent, in the United States.

A nation cannot design (and maintain public support for) a rational response to the danger if the nature and extent of the danger is not identified, widely reported and comprehended.

What are we dealing with? A few maladjusted "youth"? Or a larger and growing number of perfectly well-adjusted men and women -- who just happen to be adjusted to a different set of cultural, religious (or distorted religious) and political values. And does it matter that those values are inimical to western concepts of tolerance, democracy, equality and religious freedom?

The public has the right and vital need to have the events of our time fully and fairly described and reported. But a witch's brew of psychological denial and political correctness is suppressing the institutional voices of government, police, schools, universities and the media when it comes to radical Islam.

As the danger grows but is not publicly described, the public will first be ignorant and fail to demand sufficient remedial action.

But as incidents and rumors are encountered over time, the public mind will inevitably suspect the worst and demand the strongest action. Demagogues will emerge to gratify that vox populi. (The Dubai port deal is a small example of such a process -- although in that incident the threat is real and there are many sincere and rational voices amidst the many demagogues.)

Institutional voices are not being responsible by suppressing honest description of radical Islamic events. Denying the existence of evil (or refusing to be judgmental about it) has never proved a reliable method for defeating it. Hell is presumably filled with souls who didn't understand that point.

libertarian said...

kaunteya: my response calls for the explicit decapitation of LeT and any others engaged in terrorist activities against India and Indians. The numbers were evidence of the conspiracy against the Indian state rather than one against Hinduism. In no way did that imply we gloss over the slaughter of Indian citizens - Hindu or not. Your cynicism/sarcasm is unwarranted and misdirected. I hope we have the same end in mind - and that we're just arguing about the means.

Sachal: will not dignify your comment with a detailed response.

doubtinggaurav said...


I am not calling for a Hindu state.
My contention is that I expect state to protect Hindus or for that matter many religious group.
In my opinion secular (or whatever goes for it)state has failed to do that.
Will terror attacks kill HInduism physically ? No.
But by creating an atmosphere of fear, they will make it a petrified entity.
LET are a bunch of thugs ? Sure they are like any terror organisation.
But to launch any terror attack, an infrastructure inside the country is needed, India can eliminate LET for sure, however as long as the infrastructure and more importantly the cause which create that infrastructure remains, there will be some another organization.

What are those causes ? Too many, and can't be explained here.

But don't you find it troubling that a mob protesting visit of GWB riots in Lucknow and 4 people are killed (for context even in 1992 there were no deaths in Lucknow)

Don't you think there is something wrong somewhere ?

Bal Thackeray and Praveen Togadia are attacked for their narrow minded agenda and in my view it is justified. But have you ever heard the sermons during friday prayer?
It will shock you.

But are these questions addressed ?
No !
As soon as Bomb blasts happened, the english media went in overdrive, trying to file away the incident as "attack on India but see Indians are so resilent they don't care" and didn't even bother to ask anything.
For me this is a bigger problem,
Media is considered to be a informed commentator on Issues.
However IMO media is more concerned with sweeping the issues under the carpet or worse trying to instill guilt complex in Hindus.

This is done ostensibly for sake of Muslims, but infact it is hurting them and if anything this problem will become more severe.

I am not against Muslims and for me It does not matter what is your religion.If I gave any such indication, I apologize.

I have also no trust in creed of secularism, too many disappointments and bitter memories.

What I am asking is something very simple, please realize this ,there is something rotten in state of India, please stop it before it is too late.

Making snarky comment about BJP (which your co-blogger does)will do nothing about it.


Jaffna said...


A quick response only on the statistics, nothing else. I agree with your response otherwise.

There at least 925 million Hindus in the world, not 800 million as you suggest :-)

In the 2001 census, Hindus (excludes Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists and some tribal faiths) accounted for 80.5% of India's population. This, by the way, was a drop from the 85% in 1951. Illegal immigration from Bangladesh partly explains the decline, not the alleged higher Muslim birth rate.

India has a population today (2006) of 1,100 million. This means that Hindus are 885.5 million in India. But there are 15 million Hindus in Bangladesh, 15 million in Nepal not to mention vibrant communities in other countries i.e. Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Trinidad, Guyana, South Africa, Fiji etc. Even Pakistan has a community of 2 million though much depleted in numbers. (Hindus accounted for 16% in 1947 there but now account for 1.5% - call it ethnic cleansing). So in total, I would argue that there are 915.5 million Hindus worldwide, 1.1 billion Muslims (this number would be challenged by some Muslims but I can argue this with firm numbers of each Muslim country) and 1 billion Roman Catholics. There are 350 million Buddhists in the world.

Sorry I could not resist the temptation to be neurotic on statistics. But here they are :-)

Best regards

libertarian said...

dg: I'm have difficulty relating to why you feel threatened, but that's very likely because our opinions are formed through our individual experiences. For instance, my Muslim friends in school were the type who "do not eat pork - only ham". So rabid friday prayers were from another universe. I was more likely to hear Punju's rant about Gujjus and Bohra's bad-mouth Khoja's. So secularism to me meant benign neglect of religion rather than militant anti-religion. A total laissez-faire jeeyo aur jeene do attitude. I cannot agree more that rabid friday prayers need to be denounced just as harshly as Tiger Thackeray's hateful speech.

I completely agree with you that the state has repeatedly failed to protect its citizens. What I cannot see is how secularism has anything to do with it. A non-secular, but dysfunctional, state might have been even worse than the secular dysfunctional one we have. Make no mistake - India has not survived and thrived because of the state and its functionaries, but because of exceptional "initial design" and the basic decency of her people.

To your point of 4 dying in Lucknow, and none in 1992 - well, I was present in Mumbai in 1992 and 1000 died. Then in 2004, 50 people were killed in bomb blasts - not a hint of a riot. So our perspectives certainly differ on whether we've made progress since 1992 or not. So there may be a rot, and you may be completely right, but it isn't apparent to me.

Jaffna: great data. I stand corrected on my 800M number. Your Pakistan data point is instructive. I heard that Balochistan was 22% Hindu in 1943. That numbers is now in the few hundreds i.e. statistically insignificant.

doubtinggaurav said...


Threatened might be a strong word, I am worried.

Even I had an experience similar to you, never had any problem with My muslim friends, but the problem is that the mentality which breeds fundamentalism of any kind doesn't exist in parallel universe.
It breeds in this very world out of public sight and then all of a sudden we are shocked like 9/11, or Madrid bombing or 7/7, all of them were unexpected to the people it happened.

Americans did not expect that a attack on their soil will be launched. Britons could not have imagined that the few Pakistanis born there will choose to act against it.

And yet all of above happened, I am afraid that there is no sense of urgency in the present dispension.

When I talked about secularism it was how it is practised in India.
I don't know enough about secularism in its original context and how it can be applied in India?
I am still looking for answers

The point of my quoting incident in Lucknow was not about casualities but about the reason,
which was danish cartoons and Iran Issue.
Can you find any logic behind this?It is this change which is perplexing me.
Couple this with the decisions taken by UPA government pandering to Muslim community regardless of the fact that these can harm our institutions ,even our forces.
This indicates somewhere there is a rot.

I agree with you that Indians are basically decent, unfortunately many times it is not enough.

In short, I think grasping the reality and acting on it is preferable than getting mugged by it.


Naresha said...

Doubting Gaurav

Your English is extremely bad. You do not have the rudiments of grammar. Learn the language before you post. Sorry, but somebody had to tell you!

Kaunteya said...

To answer one of libertarian's questions - "are we suggesting a Hindu state like Nepal".

OK, before that, i have a confession to make to Naresha and others. I do not have my 'rudiments of grammar' in place. But with whatever limited English i know, i will try to get my views, across.

back to libertarian's question.

Here's a simple answer to your doubt. NO. I am not a proponent of a Hindu state.

In fact i favour a Secular state. A truely secular state where the law is equal for all. That according to me is a true testimony of a Secular state. A state where law does not change according to the religion of person's birth.

Yes i am talking of the much maligned Uniform Civil Code. I am not too sure what the stand of this forum on UCC is.

And i am not even suggesting Hindu laws thrusted down people of other religions. I feel the best ideas from all religions should be compiled to form uniform laws that is applicable to all.

And i will oppose the VHP/RSS or anyone who stands against such a law.

And i believe nothing can be more secular than this.

All those grand talks of secularim etc fall flat if this basic thing is not in place.

I know you like to have the last word. So care to enlighten me with your views on this.

libertarian said...

Naresha: cannot agree. This is not a grammar test.

kaunteya: I hope you comment after this so mine is not the last word :-). Anyway - to your question on UCC: I support a minimalist UCC that is based on common sense and fairness. (I'm presuming that fairness is a concept that is unambiguous - and that we can all agree on.) I support the primacy of this UCC over any "divine law", when they conflict. Basically, the spirit is that we are humans first - everything else later. That specifically applies to religion and gender - the two most egregious transgressors of human law. I suspect your proposal of a (relatively) maximalist "best ideas from all religions" will be still-born. Integrating divine laws of various hues into a grand UCC is likely fatally flawed because all divine law is ad-hoc and may not meet the fairness test.

dg: I trust governments of all hues (likely) even less than you do. But take the long view and you'll see that our system self-corrects. We were all left; 1991 forced us to move economically right; we swung socially right with the NDA; then swung left (with commies watching over us - ugh!) again - you can extrapolate. Our system self-corrects. Entrusting our people with their own futures is why we've got this far. PR pointed that we have a failing state with a successful society.

Kaunteya said...

That was very well put. But can we not take the 'best ideas' and yet come up with the minimalist approach. Anyway, as long as you are on same page even in principle, i don't see why i should counter-argue. So basically your point was well taken.

And in case i came across as a religious Hindu bigot in any of my previous posts, trust me that ain't true.

You mentioned that you are not a Hindu. I wouldn't really care to know what relgion [if at all] you follow.

And just so you know, even today, my best friend's name happens to be - Sharief-Ul-Hussain.

[kept my last word :-)]

Naresha said...


You are free to disagree. However, I am still entitled to comment on routine grammar mistakes. It pains me to read bad English and I am entitled to give feedback. Just as I am free to mention that another post was extremely well written.

libertarian said...

kaunteya: guess you were putting me through the "Kaunteya Secularism Test" that I seem have passed with some distinction :-)

Naresha: my touchiness about language springs from my own inadequacy with anything other than English. My political conversations in Hindi are plain torture. In any case, didn't mean to be abrupt.

doubtinggaurav said...


Who are you ?


Since I have begun to sound like a broken record, this will be my last comment on this.

My point was not about state (although I agree with you on that)

My question was more fundamental.

How can you explain Indians rioting over issues related to Denmark and Iran and killing each other ?

This is third time I am asking this question, owing to atrocious English (hey I didn't ask Britons to come to India) I am not able to make my intention clear.


libertarian said...

dg: my last post on this thread as well. Your intention is fairly clear. Short answer to your question: I cannot explain rioting over Iran and Denmark. Puzzles me too. I don't spend a lot of time thinking about it though. There's too many exciting things happening to worry about a few very upset folks.


Blog Archive