Here Charitable Individualism is the key!… nothing less.

Archive for the ‘common sense’ Category

Shed the comfort of familiarity like David.


One of the greatest enterprising INITIATIVES shown by David was that he did not graze his sheep or feed his goats with the companionship and the comfort of togetherness with other shepherds. Simply put, DAVID DID NOT ENSCONCE HIMSELF WITH THE COMFORT OF FAMILIARITY! He fed the sheep and goats by grazing them in places fraught with the presence of lions and bears.
That courage to lead his sheep and goats among those uncertainties and challenges prepared him for the greater battles with his enemies later in Life.
The initiative shown in shepherding offered David the opportunities to show his courage and valiance. Those victories gave him the provenance to see Goliath’s temple, as the chink to be taken advantage of.
Plus his skill, in Slinging, honed in those shepherding times makes David see what others COULDN’T see & DO.
If effort is nothing, then David wouldn’t have made it as one of the icons of courage, poetic skills and an able King.

Was Boaz’ mother Rahab of Jericho?


Movid's Weblog

in my church, last Sunday, the Lady Pastor made a statement which, according to me, was neither factual nor required, which was: BOAZ WAS ABLE TO SYMPATHIZE WITH THE CONDITION OF RUTH, AS HE HIMSELF HAD FACED A SIMILAR SITUATION AT HOME, AS BOAZ’ MOTHER WAS  THE REFORMED HARLOT RAHAB, OF JERICHO!

Something wasn’t jelling! Boaz’ father’s name is not mentioned clearly except for saying that his mother”s name was Rachab, according to Matthew’s gospel who was married to Salmon.

Just because RUTH is placed before I SAMUEL, does it mean that RUTH chronologically preceded most of the Judges of Israel? If such an arrangement had been contemplated JOB should have been placed much before JUDGES, as it is common supposition that JOB was written by Moses.

Jephtha, one of the judges of Israel asks the aggressors against Israel why they are raking up issues settled through possession after 300…

View original post 207 more words

Imbalances between the ‘Doers’ and ‘Getting it Done-ers’


The following cartoon from Gilbert, at the apparent level may be hilarious showing how the priorities of the Management is in conflict with the Super-skilled workforce under the employ of the Company.

But at the quantum level, it is the age old issue of the conflict that arises between the DOER and the person or a body of persons who promise a third person that THEY WOULD GET IT DONE.

The Getting it Doner has been provided with resources from the shareholder in respect of the company, which is supposed to be deployed for the bringing forth of the product.

The persons who have to plan and execute the manufacturing of the Product are highly skilled people who work not merely on the ‘resources’ provided, but on the skills of those super skilled personnel who besides brining their skills have to be inspired to channelise their creativity for inventing a product and designing it for mass production so that before the copy cats steal their intellectual property, at least the company would remain solvent.

In this scenario, the trouble starts when the Super-skilled innovator is given a lot of pep talk by the management, without realising the demands made on the Time of those super skilled personnel and the lack of recognition which would ensue once the product is brought out successfully. How many people know the ‘innovators’ of those incremental inventions made on a regular basis without which the quantum leap would not have been possible? Whereas, the Top Management which had acquired funds through promise built on chicanery, claims all the credit for the product and leaves out those who had contributed through their intellectual commitment.

It must be mentioned that even a failure in innovation and recorded in a journal is invaluable, as that piece of information prevents other innovators from pursuing that line of thinking and work on fruitful ways. For example, If Edison had tried multiple elements and compounds before he arrived on Tungsten for filament in bulbs, and if that search had been undertaken by many groups, when one element failed, public knowledge of that failure would save the time of others. Therefore, in innovation it is not the success alone which should be exalted but the strenuous participation and commitment by those super skilled to discover those unknown. It is this which is missed by the Management and a Nobel prize cannot be given to every little incremental discovery, yet they have to be recognised both by the Management and among the peers.

At the labour level, wages would be a compensation which could be a measure in itself, but at the super skilled levels, mere wages do not reflect the intensity of the participation accurately.

This cartoon brings out that conflict, just as Labour Laws were made to protect the interest of the workers, in the coming years there need to be laws to protect the intense participatory amounts of Time expended on building products, designs etc., without which those Super-skilled personnel would be left like Dilbert making those sarcastic comments against the Management.

Joab – NEVERMORE! 


After years of writing this piece, I am amazed at the thought which occurred to me then. I still believe it👍🏽

Movid's Weblog

As David was ageing, Joab told David: My lord, I am your cousin and I take the liberty of this relationship to tell you that Kingdom is not easy to divide like other property. My Lord should decide who is going to rule in your stead. Again taking advantage of my relationship of an uncle to all My Lord’s sons, I should say that Adonijah would fit well. David shot back: Where does that leave Solomon? Is he not superior in all imperial skills to Adonijah?
I agree! Yes I agree, but we should consider pedigree.

Bathsheba was an adulteress once. That My Lord regularised it through breach of at least four commandments of Moses, notwithstanding.
But that is known to only three of us and only you are not the interested party, and that’s why your thoughts stray thus, said an angry David.

Abhishaag had been reporting all these…

View original post 275 more words

The sated Saint‼️


I thought his stoicism was a produce of abstinence; in reality it was surfeit which led him to it.

He was a monk pretending to be hungry on a full belly. We, onlookers took him for a hungry monk in total restraint of his senses, while he had sated them well into somnolescence. .

Did Joseph’s brothers sell him to the Ishmeelites?


There is a series of intended acts narrated at Chapter 37 of the Book of Genesis, which culminates in the sale of Joseph.
I don’t think that anyone has more facts than anyone else except as narrated in the said chapter, which I consider pivotal in determining the human trafficking of Joseph which takes place in Dothan, where Jacob’s ten brothers had meandered into from Shechem with their flock.

The fist part of evil intent is expressed by the sons of Bilhah and Zilpha, the maid servants of Rachel & Leah, who when they sighted Joseph afar discussed among themselves that if they killed Joseph, they could put an end to the fulfilment of Joseph’s DREAMS.
Who were the sons of Bilhah & Zilpah?
Dan and Naphtali were Bilhah’s; and Gad and Asher were Zilpah’s children by Jacob. Essentially the four sons who conspired to kill the dreams of Joseph were these four boys born to the maids of Jacob’s wives.
From the narration it is clear that these 4 were in the outer, if we look at the formation of the wives and children of Jacob when they were arranged by Jacob to meet Esau, his bother, at the vanguard were these two maids and their 4 sons. The middle was Leah and her six boys; and the rearguard comprised of Rachel and her two sons Joseph and Benjamin.
This formation must have been the hierarchical structure within the brothers too.
It is clear that they could PROPOSE BUT CANNOT EXECUTE WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF RUBEN.
Ruben heard the conspiracy and tells these four to desist from killing Joseph but to keep him in the pit so that Ruben could rescue Joseph later.

From the narration it is clear that Judah enters with his own proposal of selling Joseph to the Ishmeelites who were on their way to Egypt with their spices and myrrh sourced from Gilead.
When Judah and his brothers were waiting, Midianites pull out Joseph from the pit and sell Joseph for twenty pieces of silver to the Ishmeelites.

28 Then there passed by Midianites merchantmen; and they drew and lifted up Joseph out of the pit, and sold Joseph to the Ishmeelites for twenty pieces of silver: and they brought Joseph into Egypt.

But there arises a contradiction at the end of the chapter wherein it is mentioned as follows:

36 And the Midianites sold him into Egypt unto Potiphar, an officer of Pharaoh’s, and captain of the guard.

Therefore, the ultimate sale is made in Egypt by the same Midianites to Potiphar.
So what is this arrangement between Ishmeelites and the Midianites?
I believe in speculation that after retrieval of Joseph from the pit, the Midianites who were merchants in articles did not want to take up trading in slaves nor were they into human trafficking, which involved controlling the human being, guarding, feeding and marching him to Egypt, which they as merchants didn’t want to get embroiled in, consequently the Midianites must have sold Joseph for 20 pieces of silver with the assurance that if the Ishmeelites were to successfully bring Joseph to Egypt, the Midianites would get Joseph sold to someone at a good price, which would not only make good their 20 silver but fetch a better price including the cost of transporting joseph and a handsome profit over and above their initial investment. The Midianites would also get a commission on the final sale price.
Wonderful arrangement it seems.

So Ruben returns and finds that Joseph was not in the pit. What was his reaction?

Was Judah with his elder brothers Simeon & Levi the types who would have meekly left the scene without any money?
I guess not.
There is enough room to spin a big Hollywood story on this missing link.
Ruben is astonished that Joseph was not in the pit. Look at Ruben’s reaction, quite sincere:

29 And Reuben returned unto the pit; and, behold, Joseph was not in the pit; and he rent his clothes.
30 And he returned unto his brethren, and said, The child is not; and I, whither shall I go?
31 And they took Joseph’s coat, and killed a kid of the goats, and dipped the coat in the blood;

Ruben is astonished and he is bothered more about how he would answer their father Jacob. The story is spun, the multicoloured coat which the maids’ boys had stripped was drenched with blood and presented to Jacob, as if Joseph was killed by a wild animal on his way to meet his brothers.

There is no effort by the four boys of the maids nor is there any mention of Simeon. In the latter chapters it is shown how Joseph had kept Simeon as a pledge till Benjamin was brought to him. Why Simeon? Simeon and Judah were the FORCE, the brutal force of the twelve and they were a pair. Joseph with all his experience in the most trying circumstances had learnt that these two HAD TO BE SEPARATED and by a master stroke separates Judah from Simeon, while taking Simeon as a pledge.
So from Chapter 37, the persons who were responsible for the sale of Joseph were Judah, Simeon, Dan, Naphtali Gad and Asher.
Ruben was kept ignorant and like a chief executive who is only worried about his charge, upon a credible alibi propounded by the conspirators abandons his pursuit of facts.
Levi was absent and the other two boys Zebulun and Issachar were probably hoodwinked by their powerful siblings Judah and Simeon.
But did Judah and Simeon make a part of the money out of the 20 silver coins?
For all we know, it could have been these two who had shown the boy in the pit to the Midianites to rescue Joseph and later enter into an arrangement with the human trafficking Ishmeelites.
Maybe Judah used the ill-gotten silver to obtain his wife Shuah, which appears in the very next chapter. A much older Judah is seen with bracelets, staff , all those accoutrements of a dandy when he went after his own daughter-in-law, whom he thought as a harlot‼️

Let us look at Joseph’s version

Chapter 40
15 For indeed I was stolen away out of the land of the Hebrews:

Joseph says he was STOLEN and nowhere does he say that he was SOLD BY HIS BROTHERS, that is probably because joseph didn’t want to belittle his older siblings in the eyes of the superior Egyptians. But later in chapter 45 when Joseph makes himself known as Joseph to his brothers he says thus:
5 Now therefore be not grieved, nor angry with yourselves, that ye sold me hither: for God did send me before you to preserve life.

Joseph’s verdict is that ‘they had sold’
But not before Joseph brings two of his brothers to super time trouble. Simeon was bound and kept for at least 6 months, as only 2 years had expired at the time when joseph made himself known to his brothers.
Secondly, Joseph humbles Judah to such an extent that he makes Judah tell Joseph that he be taken as a bond man instead of Benjamin.
Joseph, who was perceptive wouldn’t have done these to Judah and Simeon, if they had been blameless.
Definitely, Judah and Simeon were the boys who benefitted by the sale and pretended as if the Midianites rescued Joseph and sold Joseph to the Ishmeelites.
Why am I leaving out Levi? Levi teamed up with Simeon in the matter of Dinah in respect of Hamor of Shechem, but there was a gross injustice involved of using force to rape Dinah and in this case, Levi wouldn’t have involved himself in such a despicable deal. Simeon was up to any violent deal and Judah’s line of reasoning was always ‘profitability’. Considering these traits I am inclined to believe that Judah and Simeon were responsible for an operation amounting to a sale with the active assistance of the Midianites,  disguised as an act of stealing which happened when they left the boy Joseph in the pit‼️

Collegiality of SC Justices – Fali Nariman


Sabarimala: It has become a very difficult problem, Fali Nariman [Watch Video in YouTube]
Fali Nariman had said this in the video:
Nariman was also critical of what he called the lack of “Collegiality” amongst Supreme Court judges.
“The importance of Collegiality amongst judges is a very important thing which I have found lacking. Unfortunately, the difficulty is when Supreme Court judges sit in Benches of three, five and seven. But they don’t sit and discuss as to what is to happen. Or that ‘you write for the majority and you write for the minority’. While that happens everywhere in the world, it does not happen here. They (Supreme Court judges) all come on the same day and pronounce the judgment. Nobody knows which judge has dissented [until then].”

We know that, not so long ago the present Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of India and three other then senior Justices had openly alleged that the then Chief Justice, being the Master of the Roster, was acting arbitrarily and assigning high profile cases to juniors and cold-shouldering the seniority of those peeved Justices! So much for the simmering that goes on within the Justices of the SCI. It also brings out an important point that the puisne Justices are not among equals qua the Chief Justice; secondly that there is an unwritten but a felt seniority and juniority among the puisne justices too. Consequently the only forum where they have a right is to register their opinion on an issue before them when they find themselves as a member in the bench.
From what Mr. Fali Nariman talks of Collegiality, one needs to understand the meaning of COLLEGIALITY. It derives from “Colleague”. Notwithstanding the root of the word, one has to see if a Justice of the Supreme Court of India, who has been vested with privileges and immunities and when being a member of a Constitutional Bench be bound by Collegiality or as Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes described “be as scorpions in a bottle?”
Predominantly a Constitutional Bench is set up to review an existing precedent or in any case to LAY DOWN A BINDING LAW for the times to come. Is it better that each Justice should articulate the legal grounds or the principles or even the weight of the exigencies on which he bases his ruling; or to use his authority as a Justice of that bench and concur with the majority or dissent therefrom and be a footnote to that judgement authored by another Justice?
I believe that the former is better for a democracy which is built by the people brick by brick made of the reasonings given, emphasis laid, and delivered through those binding judgements.

As per an article titled UNDERSTANDING COLLEGIALITY ON THE COURT
by Frank B. Cross and Emerson H. Tiller, “…After a majority opinion author is assigned, he or she circulates a draft opinion, after which other members of the Court circulate bar- gaining statements, agreeing to join the opinion if certain changes are made.Subsequently, a Justice may circulate a dissenting or concurring opinion in hopes of persuading other members of the Court, or affecting the content of the majority opinion, and this action is not
infrequently successful.”
The above is based on the American model, where the ideological leanings are openly stated and mostly reflected in their rulings.
Of course, there is a space where the justices could confabulate on the perspectives and opinions articulated by the justices before delivery of the majority opinion, but doing so in the private would not be an ideal situation as how much pressure could be brought on puisne justices to go with the majority could become a matter of speculation in the media.
Supposing a justice were to take a position and later gets ‘convinced’ by the persuasion of a minority opinion Justice and if it were to tilt the verdict pronounced in the court earlier, the principle of pronouncing in the open court would be a travesty.
Alternatively, if there were to be a lone dissenting Justice and if he were to change his opinion after collegial confabulations the judgement would become a unanimous one, without the point of dissent neither brought out in the judgement nor explained on what line of reasoning the change of mind took place.

One cannot lose sight of the fact that our system is adversarial and in the name of dispensing justice the role of the courts shouldn’t compensate for the inadequacies of a lawyer and thereby make the adversarial system an inquisitorial one.

I personally feel that it would be best to leave each justice to hear and clarify points in the open court but when the pronouncing of the judgement takes place, each should present his perspective and the basis of his/her opinion so that even an observer would feel that justice was indeed done. This collegial confabulation may not be the best for our system especially because of the variegated culture and different priorities of each state.

Tag Cloud