NASA’s version
The Indian government has withdrawn a controversial report submitted in court earlier this week which questioned the existence of the Hindu god Ram. The report was presented to the Supreme Court on Wednesday in connection with a case against a proposed shipping canal project between India and Sri Lanka.
Hindu hardliners say the project will destroy what they say is a bridge built by Ram and his army of monkeys.
Scientists and archaeologists say the Ram Setu (Lord Ram’s bridge) – or Adam’s Bridge as it is sometimes called – is a natural formation of sand and stones.
Folks who think India will challenge China for economic and political leadership in the region should step back and look at how theocratic politics in India influences critical decisions.
Hindu Version
In the last two days, the opposition Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has launched a scathing attack on the government for questioning the “faith of the millions”.
Worried about the adverse reaction from the majority Hindu population of the country, the Congress Party-led government has now done a U-turn and withdrawn the statement submitted in court.
How is the Indian government dealing with the controversy? Well, they started by suspending the archaeologists who drafted the report.
#18 – I didn’t say everyone had to buy a Hummer, but everyone should be free to choose, independent of someone else’s religion.
And Monkey Built (TM) bridges need to be designed to handle Hummers as well as hybrids.
#57 – If you’re wondering about the result of a gang bang just look at the output of Congress.
>>Religion sadly is a worldwide disease, and one we seem
>>unable to cure.
Well, you’re in the right place here, Ataru. I understand that some of the DU posters are thinking of forming a religious cleansing death squad, and will be banding together to export or execute any who believe differently than they do. Any deviation from the One True Path of Atheism is unacceptable.
I think you have to pay for your own white hoods, though.
>>religion is Justification, for ALL the wrongs
>>you do…Jesus Made me do it…
If you really think that, ECA, your reasoning skills are even worse than your punctuation and capitalization skills…
I’m late to the party, I see. I was curious if anyone else would read this the way I did. Mustard got it right in post #2.
This is one theology battling another. One says Ram and his army of monkeys built this great bridge. The other says all must bow before the mighty dollar and destroy whatever gets in the way, even if it is a beautiful natural formation of sand and stones that the people who actually live in the region seem to like.
I’m for leaving nature alone whenever possible. We’ve got so little left. Do we really need this shipping lane that badly? Who benefits? A few wealthy inDUHviduals? Who gets hurt? What’s the environmental impact? Is the water behind this natural dam fresh or salty? Do any rare or endemic species make this water their home?
>>I didn’t say everyone had to buy a Hummer, but everyone should
>>be free to choose, independent of someone else’s religion.
Oh, but they are (and forever shall be) free. The only hitch is that if they want to buy a car that’s going to contribute to the destruction of the environment, they have to pay a little more. Look at it as a “sin tax”, like tey levy on cigarettes and booze. And if you don’t like the sin tax, you are free to avoid it; just buy a more environmentally responsible car.
ALL sin taxes are immoral. It’s not the government’s job to perform social engineering.
“more environmentally responsible car” – once again you’re preaching religion. There’s no proof that hybrids are more environmentally responsible when the entire lifecycle is examined. There are a lot of nifty toxic chemicals left behind when the hybrid needs to be disposed of.
>>ALL sin taxes are immoral.
Yee-haw!! I think we got us a sinner on our hands here!!!
Bet you think they should tax baby food and medical care, rather than ciggies, booze, and gasoline.
>>There’s no proof that hybrids are more environmentally
>>responsible when the entire lifecycle is examined. There
>>are a lot of nifty toxic chemicals left behind when the hybrid
>>needs to be disposed of.
The hybrid isn’t “disposed up”, DeLorean. It’s recycled. And those hybrids end up in the junkyard don’t leave behind any more “nifty toxic chemicals” than your Dukes of Hazzard muscle car. The batteries etc. are all recycled 100%.
67. ALL sin taxes are immoral. It’s not the government’s job to perform social engineering.
I am totally with you, brother…. its not the government’s job to do social engineering. Social engineering should clearly remain in the hands of the church. 😀 😀 😀
>>its not the government’s job to do social engineering.
No, it’s the government’s job to do things for its people that the people cannot do for themselves, and for that it needs to raise money (ie levy taxes).
Where would you propose they get that money – from frivolities like cigarettes, booze, and gas-guzzling cars (which people can avoid if they can’t afford the tax) or products and services that are necessary to sustain life (where people will die or become homeless if they can’t afford the tax)?
Hmmm?
#70 – from taxes evenly and fairly applied across the entire social spectrum instead of penalty taxes applied to specific products the “the government” has decided are “bad”.
#69 – Good point.
>>from taxes evenly and fairly applied across the entire
>>social spectrum
So. Medicine, hospital care, baby food, that should all be taxed.
>>instead of penalty taxes applied to specific products the
>>“the government” has decided are “bad”.
I don’t think it’s only “the government” that’s decided that cigarettes, booze, and guzzling gas is something that should be taxed, pumpkin. You must be a drunken, chain-smoking Hummer driver. You have WAY too vested an interest in exempting this stuff from taxation.
If you can’t pay the dime, don’t do the crime. It’s that simple.
What happended to the monkeys?
I thought we were going to talk about monkeys.
I like monkeys. Especially pictures of monkeys dressed like humans doing human things like riding tricycles and smoking.
Good times…good times…
Let’s talk about monkeys.
73. I had a pet monkey once.
Actually, I didn’t really have a pet monkey. But it’d be cool if I did. I’d be, like, one of those guys with pet monkeys.
#72 – “If you can’t pay the dime, don’t do the crime. It’s that simple.”
Yup. If you can’t afford you kids, don’t have any. I though medical care was supposed to be disbursed by the People’s Republic Health Care Fund – you can’t tax something you’re not paying for in the first place.
Either tax everything or tax nothing.
Tongue in cheek comment, Mister Mustard. Lighten up! Well, sort of.
#73
Monkey, monkey, monkey, monkey, monkey, MONKEY!
Monkey.
Monkey, monkey, monkey.
MONKEY!!
Hey, Hey, We’re the Monkees…..
Monkey.
#77 – Thanks! I needed that.
>>Yup. If you can’t afford you kids, don’t have any.
Whoa, a shocking new development, Hot Sphere! I agree with you!
And if you can’t afford your bottles of MD 20-20, don’t drink. If $5/pack smokes are beyond your budget, quit. And if paying $100/wk to fill up your Hummer is too much, get a car that has good gas mileage. If you’ve got more money than you know what to do with (like somebody who co-invests with Dick Cheney in war profiteering), the knock yourself out. Drink, smoke, and buy the Hummer.
All of those things are voluntary, optional, and (other than having kids, arguably) undeniably bad for both you and the rest of the world.
#67, iHotAir(YOP)
ALL sin taxes are immoral. It’s not the government’s job to perform social engineering.
Sorry buddy, dead wrong. That IS the role of government. Didn’t you ever take a civics class. Well, let me recap a little bit for your overly warmed brain.
The government is the people. The people elect representatives to represent them in the governing of their day to day lives for the things that are best done on a society basis. Thus, the government oversees those things a good society needs.
Things like building roads and other infrastructure, policing and a court system to settle disputes, care for our weakest and most vulnerable citizens, and whatever else society needs. In order to finance these projects the government raises money through every citizen paying a portion of their income, purchase, service, holdings, etc. In their wisdom, government may tax some things which are pure luxuries (liquor, tobacco, & jewelery) while not taxing other items at all (food, children’s clothes, & medicines).
If society doesn’t want a certain activity, yet doesn’t want to outright ban it, it may instead charge higher user fees or taxes to discourage its use. At the same time, if society wants to encourage an activity it may reduce or remove any fee or tax. Social engineering? Yup, by the people and for the people.
And if you don’t effen like the tax then let your representative know.
#80 – You keep drifting off into the fantasy that I’m against all taxes. I’m against unnecessary taxes. Under the current system you could look at it and say America is against earning an income, because we tax it to discourage it. America is against success because we overly tax success to discourage it.
I am completely in support of the Fair Tax because it applies to everyone equally – no discrimination – no social engineering.
BTW we have plenty of money already. The issue is how its spent. When bike trails have the same priority as highway bridges to name on example we have problems that more taxes aren’t going to solve.
MONKEY, MONKEY, MONKEY (just to stay on topic).
>>When bike trails have the same priority as highway bridges to
>>name on example we have problems that more taxes aren’t
>>going to solve.
Yeah, why should the gummint encourage people to ride their bikes to work (or walk or take mass transit) when they can give tax breaks for them to drive their
#82 – You make my case for me. No sense of priority, Absolutely everything is a must-have.
MONKEY, MONKEY, MONKEY (just to stay on topic).
>>#82 – You make my case for me.
Lucky for you, O Steamy One, dvorak dot org slash blog ONCE AGAIN cut off the final two-thirds of my message.
Must be a conspiracy.
Hmmm, never had one cut off. You must be bumping the tab key to put focus on the Say It! button.
All I ever do is drop letters or accidentally put spaces in the middle of words or other forms of typo mangulation. Probably because my fingers are cold – must have more global warming….
>>You must be bumping the tab key to put focus on the Say It! button.
Nope. I type in the whole message, look at it, put the mouse cursor over “Say It!”, and click. And one-half to two-thirds of the message goes up in smoke. It only happens here, and it’s probably happened to me 8 or 9 times. Not a lot, but waaaaay more than I consider acceptable. And this is BEFORE the margaritas kick in, so no smart alek remarks from the peanut gallery.
#67 – iGW,
ALL sin taxes are immoral. It’s not the government’s job to perform social engineering.
I assume then, for consistency, that you are also against sales tax (the sin of spending), deductions for children on income tax (encouragement of children over none), deductions for mortgages (encouraging people to buy rather than rent), all deductions for any other reason including charitable contributions including religious ones, corporate welfare, and any other tax or tax credit that isn’t solely based on income, correct?
Let me ask you something specific with respect to sin tax though. If someone does something that literally costs society money, real quantifiable money, why should we all pay it equally?
Isn’t “sin” tax, if used properly, really just taxing for costs incurred?
For example, gasoline is currently subsidized hugely. And, it costs society tremendously and quantifiably. 70-130,000 Americans die each year due to air pollution. People die in wars to get oil. Should not the people burning gasoline pay for the increased health care and military expenditures?
Roads get damaged by vehicles driving over them. Larger cars cause more damage. Shouldn’t the people buying heavier vehicles pay for the increased damage?
Instead of thinking of these things as “sin tax”, let’s think about proper allocation of costs. Taxes that are not properly allocating costs should be eliminated. Taxes that are woefully low and do not represent the costs to society of the actions taken should be dramatically increased.
>>Taxes that are woefully low and do not represent the costs to
>>society of the actions taken should be dramatically increased.
Rock on, Scottie. This one, you got right!
#69 – Ben,
Social engineering should clearly remain in the hands of the church.
This had to be a joke. Please tell me that you have no intention of having your church socially engineer my life.
#73 – The Monster’s Lawyer,
I’ve seen lots of monkeys in the wild. What species do you want to talk about? Capuchin? Squirrel? Spider? Pygmy Marmoset? Jeffrey’s Tamarin? Emperor Tamarin? Blue Monkey? Golden Monkey? Vervet? Baboon? Howler? Black and white colobus? Red colubus?
Sorry, I’m having trouble remembering more than that at the moment.
#79 – MM,
Sorry, I can’t agree with you on that one. I can’t see a single good argument that having kids is NOT bad for the planet. We are the problem. We don’t need more of us. Viva vasectomies!