We, the people

When an individual fights in enabling the voices of the powerless to be heard and exposes the corrupt game behind power corridors, one faces the persecution from the people in power. Julain Assange (wikileaks) commitment to transparency, peace and justice by exposing and holding governments to account for closed room deals, human rights abuses and for fearless challenges to censorship in any form is cheer worthy.

Exclusive: The Wikileaks Manifesto, by Julian Assange.
Interview of Julian Assange ;

I have also written on wikileaks before on my blog. : Why the world needs WikiLeaks !
Read more in detail and well crafted : Wikileaks is Good for You and Me

Personal Stand on Transparency:

Capitalism and Democratic political system may not be an effective model, but it provides relative more space to an individual. Nationalism has always served the regional interest of the elites. Socialism and Islam are forms of political nihilism, and that both contend that the life of the individual has no intrinsic meaning or value outside of their systems. One ascribes meaning to the individual as a unit of society and its servant, and no more than that. The other ascribes meaning to the individual as a debtor to and servant of a supreme being, and no more than that. Still, I prefer liberal-democratic discourse – rather than an ethnic-nationalist one over any system.

Even ISM is always hijacked by group in power to fulfill their own goals. Any political, social or economic institution/system made by human will always be incoherent and suppress the uniqueness and individuality of the participant. Only, an individual with the consciousness can change the world !

I stand for free and universal availability of knowledge in the public sector. The problem lies that we love escapism.We prefer the heavy dose of entertainment rather sharing our resources with the people. I will put ten points (thanks tai) on ours typical attitude toward anything.

1. We don’t push the envelope.
2. We reinforce stereotypes
3. We don’t know the ‘reality’ of the world.
4. We love to be divided and ruled.
5. We love the fact that the ‘system’ will take care of everything for us.
6. We don’t provide alternatives.
7. We dare not try to correct our system lest it open the Pandora’s box.
8. We are happy where we are. We are happy to be ignorant.
9. We love talking about being the victim of larger forces.
10. We are afraid of what our family, society even what the countless person will think and react about our actions.

People love 'entertainment'  and 'gossip' rather embracing the truth. That is one line conclusion of all this shouting. People feel helpless and timid in front of the problems. Hence, they reject mind and simply submit for numbness that gives an easy solution for all problems, EAT, WORK, PRAY and be ENTERTAINED at any cost. So the virtual cocooned world of create a self perpetuating cycle with no breakthrough for a new element. People have good intention but unable to take action due to their resignation of mind. Mainstream don’t think, it just follows like sheep' herd to the authority.

We, the people have just lost anger against unjust practices. We can't fight corruption in big issues and can help to keep it more transparent. This is the first step taken for the justice for everyone.

Meanwhile the optimists are looking for new hope in wikileaks with respect and honour, Indian media is being ashamed by Nira Radia tapes controversy (Thanks POC). This is India;

"There is not a crime, there is not a dodge, there is not a trick, there is not a swindle, there is not a vice which does not live by secrecy." — Joseph Pulitzer

Ten Issues - 8

1- Media and mobs – Arundhati Roy versus the terrorists by Razarumi.

2- Fables of Nationalism by Razarumi.

3- Why Marxism Has Failed , And Why Zombie-Marxism Cannot Die & Zombie-Marxism : What Marx Got Right by Alex Knight.

What Marx Got Right : Class Analysis, Base and Superstructure, Alienation of Labor, Need for Growth, Inevitability of Crisis and A Counter-Hegemonic World-view.

What Marx Got Wrong: Linear March of History, Europe as Liberator, Mysticism of the Proletariat, The State and A Secular Dogma.

4- Copyleft and the theory of property: A bitter battle is underway between the supporters of intellectual property and those who defend the notion of the commons. Legal historian Mikhail Xifaras traces the history of the concept of "exclusive rights" and evaluates the emancipatory claims of the copyleft movement today.

5- Unlikely Stories, or the Making of an Afghan News Agency :Reporting is a challenge in Afghanistan, where power brokers are skilled at crafting politically expedient stories

6- On Social Networking: Three essays worth reading on online social networking—how it is transforming us and what to make of it.

7- Professors (and Learners) of the Year :It’s probably not unusual for junior professors to hear they should devote their time to research rather than waste it on teaching. What may be more uncommon is for one of them to do the opposite.

8- The Indian Institute of Management Kozhikode has doubled its core faculty and augmented its executive education and distance learning programmes with a vision to globalise Indian thought and showcase a humane B-school that churns out competent and compassionate managers, says its Director Debashis Chatterjee in an interview to G. KRISHNAKUMAR.

9- Land largesse for corporate universities :- When the Orissa High Court on Tuesday described the Vedanta Group’s acquisition of 6,892 acres for its university project in Puri “illegal and void”, the judges were merely articulating a widespread concern.

10- Ironies of the Left by Gurcharandas.

Quotes of the Day:

-He who reforms himself has done more toward reforming the public than a crowd of noisy, impotent patriots. – Johann Kaspar Lavater

-The good life means cherishing freedom -- in the knowledge that it is an interval between anarchy and tyranny -John N. Gray

-“For hatred is corrosive of a person’s wisdom and conscience; the mentality of enmity can poison a nation’s spirit, instigate brutal life and death struggles, destroy a society’s tolerance and humanity, and block a nation’s progress to freedom and democracy. I hope therefore to be able to transcend my personal vicissitudes in understanding the development of the state and changes in society, to counter the hostility of the regime with the best of intentions, and defuse hate with love.

Freedom of expression is the basis of human rights, the source of humanity and the mother of truth. To block freedom of speech is to trample on human rights, to strangle humanity and to suppress the truth. I do not feel guilty for following my constitutional right to freedom of expression, for fulfilling my social responsibility as a Chinese citizen. Even if accused of it, I would have no complaints. Thank you!” – Liu Xiaobo (excerpts from his “Final Statement”).

Revolution and State

I was reading Emma Goldman's view on revolution that are based on her observation on Russian revolution. They are indeed astute and written with intense understanding of the failure of the communist revolution to turn into just state.

The inherent tendency of the State is to concentrate, to narrow, and monopolize all social activities; the nature of revolution is, on the contrary, to grow, to broaden, and disseminate itself in ever-wider circles. In other words, the State is institutional and static; revolution is fluent, dynamic. These two tendencies are incompatible and mutually destructive. The State idea killed the Russian Revolution and it must have the same result in all other revolutions, unless the libertarian idea prevail.

Revolution is indeed a violent process. But if it is to result only in a change of dictatorship, in a shifting of names and political personalities, then it is hardly worth while. It is surely not worth all the struggle and sacrifice, the stupendous loss in human life and cultural values that result from every revolution. If such a revolution were even to bring greater social well being (which has not been the case in Russia) then it would also not be worth the terrific price paid: mere improvement can be brought about without bloody revolution.

In its mad passion for power, the Communist State even sought to strengthen and deepen the very ideas and conceptions which the Revolution had come to destroy. It supported and encouraged all the worst antisocial qualities and systematically destroyed the already awakened conception of the new revolutionary values. The sense of justice and equality, the love of liberty and of human brotherhood — these fundamentals of the real regeneration of society — the Communist State suppressed to the point of extermination. Man's instinctive sense of equity was branded as weak sentimentality; human dignity and liberty became a bourgeois superstition; the sanctity of life, which is the very essence of social reconstruction, was condemned as unrevolutionary, almost counter-revolutionary. This fearful perversion of fundamental values bore within itself the seed of destruction.

Witness the tragic condition of Russia. The methods of State centralization have paralysed individual initiative and effort; the tyranny of the dictatorship has cowed the people into slavish submission and all but extinguished the fires of liberty; organized terrorism has depraved and brutalized the masses and stifled every idealistic aspiration; institutionalized murder has cheapened human life, and all sense of the dignity of man and the value of life has been eliminated; coercion at every step has made effort bitter, labour a punishment, has turned the whole of existence into a scheme of mutual deceit, and has revived the lowest and most brutal instincts of man. A sorry heritage to begin a new life of freedom and brotherhood.

My idea of the revolution is to have individuals as free as possible and responsible. Neither need of law nor of any law establishing agencies. It will be academically wrong to quote Osho here but he pointed very correctly about authoritative nature of state and rebellious nature of revolutionary in the case of Russia.

Trotsky and Stalin were enemies, enemies in the sense that Joseph Stalin was never a revolutionary. All he wanted deep down was to replace the czar and become a czar himself -- and he became it. He became the worst czar that has ever existed.

In Russian history the worst czar was Ivan the Terrible, but he was nothing compared to Stalin. He poisoned Lenin, he killed Trotsky, and he went on killing other great revolutionaries. He was satisfied only when all the great revolutionaries who were responsible for the revolution were finished. He replaced them with people who wanted law and order, and society and organization. He created the greatest establishment ever created, and with such strength that the whole country became a concentration camp.

It is very difficult for rebels and seekers to remain rebels and seekers. They will be rebellious even if the revolution has happened. Any revolution is bound to create another kind of establishment, and the authentic rebellious man will again revolt, revolt against the revolution he himself has created but had never thought would become an establishment. The authentic rebel never becomes part of any establishment.

The problem is that the rebels are very few, and the retarded masses are so many that unless every individual is a rebel, an establishment is bound to follow. The rebel is bound to fight against his own revolution, which is turning into a new establishment. Up to now no revolution has been able to succeed because the moment it succeeds it starts becoming another establishment. The people who had power change, but the people who come in their place are more powerful. And it is more difficult to change them, because they know all the strategies that they have used in changing powerful people. So they will not allow any of those strategies.

For seventy years in Russia there has not been a single rebel, because you cannot just become a rebel in a single moment. To be rebellious needs a certain understanding, a certain alertness, a certain unprejudiced mind. Russia is the only country in the world where revolution is impossible, and this is a very strange situation. It is the country where revolution succeeded on a great scale. But the moment it became a success, suddenly the water turned into ice; it became the establishment. And the rebels who are authentic cannot be tolerated anymore by the same group who changed the whole society.

I now understand meaning of the popular slogan 'Be a Rebel'. Rebel spirit can't be enslaved by false prizes, consolations and medals. Rebel seeds for future generation and always is crucified by society for freedom, for individuality, for expression, for creativity and for not becoming part of the establishment.

Why the world needs WikiLeaks !

I often blog about culture but partially global politics. I do care about injustice, but the global scale and systematic nature of it has left me stunned. There is so much attempt to curb our freedom, liberty and public information in the name of secrecy and security. This blog post is compiled in the span of 30 minutes as soon as I became aware of about Wikileak.

Wikileaks is an international organization, based in Sweden. It publishes anonymous submissions and leaks of sensitive documents while preserving the anonymity of sources. It has set a new standard in free information flow across the world. Afghanistan War Logs, Baghdad airstrike video, Guantánamo Bay procedures, 2008 Peru oil scandal and Toxic dumping in Africa: The Minton report are few important leaks of the secret government documents. You can read more about them in encyclopedia.

It is more productive to engage with, rather than censor. There is an intimate and indissoluble link between intellectual and political freedom. There will be no security for dissidents and their families as long as freedom of thought and freedom of political action are guaranteed by the law of the land. Now I will rest my case and will not write anything. Just watch this TED interview of Julian Assange, Editor in chief and spokesperson for Wikileaks.

Why the world needs WikiLeaks ! (MUST WATCH)


Afghanistan War Logs : More than 90,000 secret military records of the US war in Afghanistan were published online Sunday providing new evidence that Americans have been misled for years about the war in Afghanistan. And, The White House and its international partners today sharply condemned the action like all authorities do while undermining the new facts raised by the document. Check 'The Afghan War Diary'  for full details.

Baghdad airstrike video: A secret video showing US air crew falsely claiming to have encountered a firefight in Baghdad and then fired blindly. This footage of July 2007 attack made public as Pentagon identifies website as threat to national security. See yourself full version of this disturbing video.


An article in Guardian describes the video. To quote a few lines: "The lead helicopter, using the moniker Crazyhorse, opens fire. `Hahaha. I hit 'em," shouts one of the American crew. Another responds a little later: "Oh yeah, look at those dead bastards." The article goes on to say "The behaviour of the pilots is like a computer game." and that's absolutely true, as you'll see.

But, I am here for something more than that. I am here for Bradley Manning, the person who chooses his consciousness to  reveal these secrets to common public. Manning allegedly told journalist and former hacker Adrian Lamo via instant messenging that he had leaked the "Collateral Murder" video (of the July 12, 2007 Baghdad airstrike), in addition to a video of the Granai airstrike and around 260,000 diplomatic cables, to the whistleblower website Wikileaks. He is the whistle blower that we should be proud of and take inspiration in fight against injustice. Kudos to Wikileaks also for their endeavours !

In May 2010, a 22-year-old American Army intelligence analyst named Bradley Manning was arrested after telling Adrian Lamo he had leaked the airstrike video, along with a video of another airstrike and around 260 000 diplomatic cables, to Wikileaks. As of June 7, Manning had not yet been formally charged. Manning said that the diplomatic documents expose "almost criminal political back dealings" and that they explain "how the first world exploits the third, in detail".  Wikileaks said "allegations in Wired that we have been sent 260,000 classified US embassy cables are, as far as we can tell, incorrect". Wikileaks have said that they are unable as yet to confirm whether or not Manning was actually the source of the video, stating "we never collect personal information on our sources", but saying also that "if Brad Manning [is the] whistleblower then, without doubt, he's a national hero" and "we have taken steps to arrange for his protection and legal defence". (citing from wiki)

Julian Assange says that Wikileaks has released more classified documents than the rest of the world press combined:  That's not something I say as a way of saying how successful we are - rather, that shows you the parlous state of the rest of the media. How is it that a team of five people has managed to release to the public more suppressed information, at that level, than the rest of the world press combined? It's disgraceful. [Source]

The Necessity of Blasphemy - 3

“Those who cannot attack the thought, instead attack the thinker.” (Paul Valery 1871-1945)

A true questioning spirit is always introspective in nature, not accusatory. Verified doubt is scientific and it lays the foundation for merit-based trust. The advantage of a questioning spirit is that it is the opposite of an inquisition. Reason and free inquiry are the only effectual agents against errors and dogma. Voice of reason asks for the justification of each a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof. This creates a conflict in the society as people wants to be in their comfort zones of tradition. It is falsehood alone which needs the support of religion. Truth can stand by itself.

The Judeo-Christian tradition began with the Hebrews but the goal was to extend the "faith" to the entire world over time. Judeo-Christian tradition has taken civilization back many years when scientific records and journals were destroyed in the name of being blasphemous. Christianity has a long history of persecution of non believers. And West has came through Dark ages through Renaissance, Reformation, Scientific Revolution and Age of Exploration. Despite major challenges to Roman Catholic dogma, however, enlightenment occurred in Europe.Today, Christian Theology - excluding those fundamentalist churches whose aim is to reassert doctrinal truths - has likewise softened many of its ontological claims, due to increased exposure to both scientific insights and the contrasting theological claims of other faiths.

Dissent is taken as disloyalty and infidelity in Islamic nation these days. And, such reformers are forced to exile and degenerated as declared a ‘blasphemer,’ ‘liberal apologist’ and an undercover [CIA, RAW, MOSSAD] agent. Like, Egyptian Farag Foda, who was killed by an Islamist group in 1992, or those of the Sudanese scholar Mahmud Mohammed Taha, who was hanged in 1985. Pakistan’s outstanding, moderate Islamic scholars, Javed Ahmed Ghamdi, has had to fly out of the country into a self-imposed exile. Ghamdi was facing a number of threats from certain puritan and violent Islamic groups. His sin? He stood out as a mainstream Sunni Muslim scholar who banked on reason and an interpretive take on the Quran, eschewing the myopic literalism of the puritan groups that espouse a violent, political view of Islam.

Today, progressive countries like Malaysia and Turkey are developing due to western education. And the Arab culture, the cradle of Islam is lacking any scientific development. A simple question of liberal mind : why are liberal Islamic (Malaysia and Turkey) or non Islamic nation moving forward while strictly Islamic nations are being left behind? And the answer lies in the concept: “the resignation of the mind.”

Koran should be openly, freely and publicly subjected to the kind of historical and philological scholarship. There are hundreds of [Koranic] psalms and hadiths urging Muslims to value war and to fight. It doesn't mean that all Muslims literally follow them. Instead of taking decision based on the logic, experience and prevailing circumstances, when we see through the eyes of a Koran only things go wrong.

When same book is quoted again in both ways to inflect war on non-believers (infidels) and proving Islam as religion of peace, something is wrong with the book only. The contradictory teachings are not discarded and taken with the matter of absolute faith had damaged the image of Muslims everywhere. The same religious text is interpreted in two different ways. Some interpret it to preach peace while others interpret it to preach hate and both the sections are convinced about their interpretations. When people are mere loyal to the words in the thousand old year book, there will be wrong done in the name of good also.  Those defending religions has got fair share of  rational education that led for this ability to question own’s logic, experience and prevailing circumstances.

When everyone wears their religion on their sleeves, making callous remarks such as comparing gods, and that "my god is better than your god", the kind of mockery and insults thrown around that is bound to warrant irrational responses, even if they are thrown about today by careless groups seeking to provoke. There is oft quoted verse “There is no compulsion in religion”. From the behaviour of most religious people, it seems that there is supposed to be compulsion on everyone to follow what the upholders of religion want them to follow.

Today, there is an urgent need for creating an environment in which people feel free to ask questions, and in which diverse reactions are tolerated, is essential to social debate and paves the road for the acceptance of diversity that is so desperately needed in all our societies. A firm ‘no’ to all forms of bigotry and discrimination – religious, ideological, regional and sectarian – is an imperative. Until theologists had to saw the questions raised by Blasphemer as a challenge, not as a threat, the problem of religious conflicts is not going to be solved.

 Hence, I will end my essay on the necessity of blasphemy with words of Rational Fool who concludes correctly about religions : It's disingenuous, therefore, to claim any religious origin for scientific advancement. Crediting Islam with Algebra, or for that matter, Christianity with the Copernican revolution, is like crediting the Czar with the Bolshevik revolution.

The Necessity of Blasphemy - 1

I try to understand the phenomenon constituting of violence, power, truth and justice in the daily happenings. Blasphemy is must for progress of the civilization. Ideas behind traditions must be challenged to know if they are true and relevant — and if we cannot challenge an idea, we cannot know validity of following the traditions in the society. Today, I want to publish without fear or favour and look at the world without the filter of 'faith'.

USA administered Guantanamo Bay or Abu Ghraib in Iraq, Soviet suppression through Gulag, Hitler's cruelty in the Holocaust, Islamic persecution of Bahai faith, Ahmadiyya community and non Muslims, discrimination in hindus on the basis of caste, Israel's action against Palestine, South African apartheid with root of racism, fight of Christianity against evolution theory and countless other struggles shows the dark side of the world in last 60 years only.

They are the recent events existing in the minds of last generation. They are still not tampered enough or vanished out by the propagandist of religion or patriotism. Milan Kundera was spot on in observing this: The struggle of man against power is the struggle of memory against forgetting. It's a pity though that argument doesn't cut it - we have to wait for inhumanity to reach its crescendo (Spanish Inquisition, Slavery, Holocaust, Apartheid, Guantanamo) before the scales fall from people's eyes and they recognise the error in their dogma.

There can be no democracy without secularism, since only under secularism can one free oneself from religious or sectarian mentalities, and as a consequence think and choose with one's mind. What is happening is that extremist leaders who have absolutely no clue about solving the country’s problems are promising a heaven that they cannot deliver, on condition that a certain section of the country is either eliminated or pushed into the ghettos.

Any statement or work of art may be good or bad, the essential test is whether they are worth seeing or not and the authority to decide lies with the viewers and not with any self proclaimed leaders of the society, state or religion. Its not one cause which makes one a terrorist but ones method which makes one a terrorist.

The plea that nobody should offend the conservative elements’ sensibilities should be thoroughly discussed. Up to a point the argument is valid, then its used to drag down backwards to the society where power dictates. There is a ridiculous 'respect' demanded by religious people for their unsupportable superstitious beliefs.

Take the Burqa case only. Societies having people with diverse religious backgrounds are bound together partly by informal chance relations between strangers – people being able to acknowledge each other in the street or being able pass the time of day. The anonymity of the burqa takes the uniqueness of face away from the woman. That is my greatest objection to it. Burqa is a symbol of submission in the eyes of progressive religion (progressive on the basis of emergence of people who questioned authority of religion over an individual);

Women's choice should be governed by their own will. And the right of choice comes through free and rational thinking. And a person avoiding rationalism due to belief in an unquestioned faith is harmful for society, be it christian or any other religion. And don’t justify anything because its written in the religious books thousand year ago. The rational education given to you has led for this ability to question own’s logic, experience and prevailing circumstances. A decision should not be governed by the blind faith and ideological enslavement to a society, state or religion of the birth and upbringing.

I don’t see this as a ban but the freedom of woman to overcome a barrier thrown by a stone age society; We all owe Europe for its secular notion and rational thinking. And they had history of bitter fight with church and life of many good people were ruined along the way in order to define for human rights, equality, freedom and other cherished values of European enlightenment. And, That's why these value are precious; The organic growth and spreading of European secularism happened through out the world due to its universal appeal. I will end this part of essay with a dialogue from the movie Agora : You don’t question what you believe, or cannot. I must.

In the age of reason

We defend peoples right to say something, it doesn't mean that you have to agree with it or even respect it. Culture and religion is much too important a matter to be disposed of in ritual routine or lost in an inconclusive debate. This post is dedicated to the Indianhomemaker conclusion on the free speech demand : Whenever we think we are stopping someone from hurting our sentiments by curtailing their freedom of expression (right or wrong), we also empower someone (e.g. the government, extremists, or even religious leaders) to shut our own mouths.

1- Olivier Roy is professor at the EHESS and I was quite impressed by his insight on the religious issues in this article . It emphasize that everyone is faced with the need to invent, define, and objectify what religion means to them. Olivier points out some interesting facts on the dependence of religion on the culture.

Today's religious revival is first and foremost marked by the uncoupling of culture and religion, whatever the religion may be. This explains the affinities between American Protestant fundamentalism and Islamic Salafism: both reject culture, philosophy, and even theology in favour of a scriptural reading of the sacred texts and an immediate understanding of truth through individual faith, to the detriment of educational and religious institutions.

In the countries of origin, religion is always embodied in a culture, and it is difficult, for the believer, to distinguish between what belongs to the cultural tradition – and to some extent to social conventions – and what belongs to dogma. A distinction between religion as a corpus of beliefs – as theology – and culture is not usually made by the man in the street, that is, by ordinary believers. But immigration has suddenly created a divide between religion and society, between religion and culture, to the extent that religious belief is lost sight of.

The first significant aspect of this phenomenon of people moving from one country to another, therefore, is the uncoupling of religion and culture, and the need to define a religion with criteria that are purely religious, and totally internal to the religious domain.

The real question is not an intellectual or a theoretical question about Islam; the real issue here is about the tangible practices of Muslims. What forms and religious beliefs are in circulation among young Muslims today? The forms of religiosity witnessed in Islam today are transversal, they are more or less the same as the ones found in the most popular Western denominations: Catholicism, Protestantism, even Judaism. In our contemporary world we are now witnessing the uncoupling of religion and culture, in other words, contemporary believers put far more stress on faith, on spiritual experience, on individual and personal rediscovery of religion, than on legacy, culture, transmission, authority, and theology.

Religion is easy to define: the corpus, the revealed texts, the interpretations, the theological debates, the dogmas, and so on. As for religiosity, it is the manner in which the believer lives his relationship to religion. And, today, religiosity, everywhere, is far more important than religion.

For example, in the United States, 80 per cent of Americans say they are believers and practicing churchgoers. At the same time, preachers, be they Protestants, Catholics, or Muslims, all say the same: "We live in an atheistic, materialistic, and pornographic society...", a society where 80 per cent of the people say that they are believers. Thus, either there is a contradiction, or they are right. And in my opinion they are right. In fact, societies are no longer religious, even if believers represent a majority in society. Societies are built on other forms of cultural representation, of modes of consumption, of norms, of values, of economy, of anything we care to think of. There is no religious evidence any longer, even in societies with religious majorities.

2- Let's Keep God out of Ethics have very good reason to support their view on morality:

There are two reasons behind dismissing religion in general and theology in particular from ethics: 1) there is no reason to think religion, god, holy texts are necessary for morality (indeed, I think they are often retarding of ethical deliberation) and, 2) religion only clouds already diluted waters.

Further Christopher Hitchens give us a challenge: Name an ethical statement or action, made or performed by a person of faith, that could not have been made or performed by a nonbeliever.

3- The Pope, the Prophet, and the religious support for evil by Johann Hari: It debates on this enforced 'respect' that has now extended from ideas to institutions.

Only you, the religious, demand to be protected from debate or scrutiny that might discomfort you. The fact you believe an invisible supernatural being approves of – or even commands – your behaviour doesn't mean it deserves more respect, or sensitive handling. It means it deserves less. If you base your behaviour on such a preposterous fantasy, you should expect to be checked by criticism and mockery. You need it.