Was this a bargain of mutual disability? I go non-motile and you go deaf!
Did Ulysses foresee that the Voice of the sirens, heard by the plebeian sailors, might lead to disobedience and en massè abandon of their sense of duty and therefore incapacitated them from hearing the divine voice of the Sirens; and as a measure to balance their disability, he incapacitated himself by getting himself tied to the mast?
Or is it owing to Ulysses’ superior understanding of his purpose and self- restraint, allowed himself the luxury of hearing the Sirens, yet trusted Circe’s warnings by getting himself tied to the mast?
All perceptions fork at a point and the view taken is more subjective depending expediency or on one’s proclivity, than objectivity!
One of the episodes in all the epics, I have read, which holds an abiding interest in my mind is Ulysses’ instruction to his mates to tie him to the mast and get their acquiescence to have malleable wax fixed in all their ears!
Was this a bargain of mutual disability? I go non-motile and you go deaf!
‘Introductory offer’ is the earthworm strung to conceal the hook. If you try to gulp the earthworm you are sure to be the angler’s meal, but if you learn to nibble the earthworm off, you sure could live another day!
That it is profitable, may be true, but is it not too simplistic? Or is Truth simplistic yet hidden from common perception because of divergent aspiration; of lack of courage to see the Truth; or merely the fear of being wrong when the shaped majority opinion is contrary?I don’t know, but one of the instances in Jesus’ life on Earth is amazingly earthy.
24 And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute?
25 He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers?
26 Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free.
27 Notwithstanding, lest we should offend them, go thou to the sea, and cast an hook, and take up the fish that first cometh up; and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find a piece of money: that take, and give unto them for me and thee.
The above passage reflects Jesus’ opinion about the temporal powers and the devices they had institutionalised.
In modern times, most countries have done away with Entry Tax on persons, since with evolution of society when people move from one city to another their payments towards lodging, boarding and purchases are all taxed, which provides a better return to the government than imposing an Entry Tax. At the time of Jesus in the flesh, even entry of human beings were liable for customs duty, but in modern times, the movement of persons is monitored by Immigration. Caesar had imposed customs duty on the goods and persons who entered from other cities and this was collected by those authorised persons.
Peter says that his Master doesn’t pay entry tax and as he walks towards Jesus, Jesus asks him whether kings collect taxes from the children of the land? Peter says No.
Jesus at this point says a few things which are astonishingly amazing.
Jesus agrees with Peter’s opinion but tells him thus:
Notwithstanding, lest we should offend them, go thou to the sea, and cast an hook, and take up the fish that first cometh up; and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find a piece of money: that take, and give unto them for me and thee.
Jesus COMPLIES with something He doesn’t subscribe to, yet in this case the compliance is to be backed by payment, look at what Jesus did: He tells Peter to cast a net and catch the first fish caught, open its mouth, take the piece of money and settle the customs claim “lest we offend them”!
Jesus doesn’t comply with the offerings received by Him, but tells Peter to catch the fish with the money and pay that piece of money.
This is a classic case of Compliance without Belief in what the law of the Times prescribes!
Jesus believed that one should render unto Caesar those which are Caesar’s, yet the income which was used to settle was a lost piece of coin, definitely lost in the books of Caesar’s accounts. Jesus remonetizes a lost coin into circulation.
Secondly, was Jesus concerned about offending those tax collectors?
It may appear so in the first flush, but Jesus definitely did not want to bring a blot to the duties being performed by those officials for a salary. It was Caesar’s policy of taxing the son’s of the soil that He was against, not the persons who did their job!
That was Jesus!
Yet, Preachers don’t expatiate this point or this instance with clarity. When an unreasonable Compliance is a must, the means with which it is complied, is immaterial! He complied without wasting His offerings and paid the entry tax out of a lost, hence a demonetised coin!
Comply with Contempt, at its best!!!
Today Tiberius Caesar, is no more, but Jesus’ act of Compliance with Contempt stands out💐💐💐‼‼
Article 48 & “…. and prohibiting the slaughter, of cows and calves and other milch and draught cattle!”
“…. and prohibiting the slaughter, of cows and calves and other milch and draught cattle!”
The above clause in Article 48 has rendered all the English knowing people of India, excluding the legislators, English illiterates!
As it is the Directive Principles are not justiciable – which means that when one of those directives are not legislated upon, the Higher Courts wouldn’t have the Constitutional handle to drive the Legislature to legislate on that subject. Therefore it follows that if any legislature has cited any of the legislations to have been enacted with an object to give effect to the noble directions & sentiments enshrined in the Directive Principles of a state Policy, it may be a gratuitous act of that legislature. But remember, for ever remember dear Indians, that any Legislation has only three ends
2. Struck down by the superior courts as unconstitutional
The first usually takes place when the legislature which enacted realises its mistake or the changed circumstances or in deference to a court order or even to preserve the majority of the government of the day.
The second happens when a challenge succeeds in a High Court or the Supreme Court regarding the unconstitutionality of the provisions which offend the Fundamental Rights guaranteed in the Constitution.
The third is merely a provision falling into DISUSE or at times when the courts have struck down, yet left behind in the statute as a relic of no enforceability.
What is in the hands of a common man is the Second option, which is fraught with not merely resistance from the Government which mooted the legislation, but the structural resistance built into the system.
The primary resistance comes from the doctrine that THERE IS A PRESUMPTION OF LEGALITY TO ANY LEGISLATION MADE INTO AN ACT!
This has to be overcome and this has to be necessarily done in the higher judiciary, where thankfully, English is the language of the higher courts.
Then comes the meanings attributable to the language of the statute.
Let me expose my ignorance of the language of the clause excerpted above:
The statute uses the word “prohibit“, which is the only verb in the clause, thereby stating in the narrowest of terms the SCOPE OF THE LEGISLATION relating to “slaughter, of cows and calves and other milch and draught cattle”. Consequently I believe that any legislation which tries to REGULATE SLAUGHTER is not mandated by the Constitution of India.
Am I possibly right?
In the enormity of my ignorance I believe that since Article 48 deals with cattle and livestock it intends to proscribe, prevent through PROHIBITION ‘slaughter’, which again means the act of killing as a class, as regards animals, for consumption purposes.
The next point is prohibit slaughter of what?
This is where the ingenuity has been utilised to smuggle in the will of the mooters of the bills, piloted in various States and assented to by the Governors and probably the President of India, if it had been reserved for his/her consideration.
The prohibition is clear:
“of cows and calves”. Why cows and calves? Why not bulls, oxen, buffaloes, heifers etc.? The answer lies in the succeeding part, which is “….and other milch and draught cattle.”
My understanding with the enormity of my ignorance impels me to believe that COWS & CALVES, which are common and known to all should help the reader understand the underlying principle: a cow not only calves ( verbal sense) and thereafter allows humans to appropriate their milk, it does the calving many times over within its lifetime and therefore entitled NOT TO BE TREATED like beef cattle. We humans should not be greedy enough to butcher even an animal which had been used for appropriating milk for nearly a decade.
Further, I am sure our Constituent Assembly, with its vast experience in understanding human sentiments and tendencies, did not want a ‘mother of many calves’ to be butchered for consumption, as that would be a heartless deed on a cow which had enabled many households extra income through sale of its calves and milk.
As regards the CALVES, man should not be allowed to eat an animal which is too young to be used for consumption, as that would indiscriminately eliminate the cow-calves also, merely on the grounds that there are medicinal benefits or tasty or nutritional benefits etc. Further, such slaughter of the young ones could lead to decline in cattle population. More than all these, I believe that no being, once born should be killed, before it reaches a certain age of maturity. Therefore the Constituent Assembly had named the Specie COW and applied the principle to ‘other’ MILCH & DRAUGHT CATTLE!
So the principle deducible is that similarly, any animal which provides MILK or is used for its work, like oxen and buffaloes, which had been used as draught animals should also NOT TO BE SLAUGHTERED!
So the Article states that the specie COW and CALF and the genus which provide milk or helps man in his labour SHOULD NOT BE SLAUGHTERED. Period.
Instead of excluding these classes of cattle for consumption, when the legislature, in its pretended collective false understanding, enacts laws REGULATING SLAUGHTER, is primarily outside the ambit of the Directive Principles of State Policy.
Not including she goats and ewes, which have parturated multiple times, would be against the pith and substance of this principle.
When I am NOT a beef- eater, what locus-standi do I have?
One more resistance of the structure to overcome.
Let us get some education in English, at least the High Courts and the Supreme Courts would become temples of ideas and not the fortresses of ideologues!
The bill placed on the floor of the House of the Karnataka Legislature bans sale & possession of “beef”within the state of Karnataka. The ostensible reason is giving effect to Article 48 of the Constitution of India, which falls within the head of Directive Principles of State Policy.
Article 48. Organisation of agriculture and animal husbandry.—The State shall endeavour to organise agriculture and animal husbandry on modern and scientific lines and shall, in particular, take steps for preserving and improving the breeds, and prohibiting the slaughter, of cows and calves and other milch and draught cattle.
Now this is the provision of the Constitution of India. Note the wordings “……..prohibiting the slaughter, of cows and calves and other milch and draught cattle.” To the best of my understanding of this provision, slaughtering of COWS, CALVES and DRAUGHT CATTLE are to be prohibited as the Cows give…
View original post 368 more words
The Feminine force realises its potential only through physically merging and parting with its Masculine counterpart. Prolonging such a merging and parting with a continuous commitment to a continual cohabitation with one exclusive masculine force, makes her a Queen. That is the reason why there is a competition to become a Queen and when they don’t get what they yearn, they turn against the Masculine force maligning it as the devastator!This Transferance of rancour is the pastime of the lost and the loser!
Besides the rhyme between his name and his liability, there is nothing nice about paying a monthly alimony of over 1 million Euros, to a woman whose association he had contracted under a marriage.
The award was based on granting an award commensurate with the “life style” of the spouse out of the ‘marital assets’.
Wtf is ‘ marital assets’? It is the net assets in the hands of both the spouses on the day they decide to terminate their marriage minus the assets held by each spouse prior to their marriage – or so I’d like to imagine.
This disregards the individual contribution to the wealth created after marriage and lumps it all together as marital assets. A formula which discounts individual initiative and enterprise. Berlusconi was a media Mogul much before he contracted the marriage which went awry; he was an entrepreneur of success much before his wedding. But his spouse had chosen to depart based on reasons which the courts in Italy have found to be sufficient. But when alimony is demanded the courts were guided by the doctrine of not paying ‘subsistence’ for the spouse of lesser means, but had been guided by ‘accustomed standard of living’ of the spouse who claims alimony.
I find this doctrine strange as the alimony awarded is not dependant on the payer spouse’ future earnings, which may rise or fall. It puts a pressure on the payer spouse to keep up his ’emi’ outflow by hook or by crook.
A greater injustice is that if the payer spouse has chosen to contract another marriage, he starts off with half of the marital assets to take care of his future family, whereas, if the payee spouse is a female, she not only finds another nest built by another entrepreneur with no decrease in her monthly alimony accruals!
Seems good to have a xx chromosome, as it is one leg of the x is truncated and the other is made is hobble around carrying the weight of an ex! Seems grossly unfair.
Now the courts have made a slight departure- a return to sanity. It says: ALIMONIES SHOULD NOT GUARANTEE PREVIOUS STANDARD OF LIVING!
When there is no guarantee the the paying divorcee wouldn’t be able to guarantee his own lifestyle, how on earth could the courts have given credence to such a proposition?
Whether it was Elizabeth Taylor who paid alimony to her plumber spouse or it be Berlusconi, the issue should be decided on equanimity if not on equality.
A one time settlement would have been fairer as there would be an additional responsibility cast on the payee divorcee to handle her/ his assets with care so that they also would get to feel the pinch of the difficulties of keeping one’s assets secure from those preying wolves, in the garb of asset mangers.
I think the courts are returning to evenhanded doctrine instead of a gender driven policy of making Peter pay Paul, for the flamboyant luxuries of Paul .