In August 2010 Stephen Harper, the Canadian Prime Minister, took his yearly tour through the Arctic, spending 5 days visiting various spots. Harper loves the Arctic, it would seem. During his tour he made an announcement about funding for a kick-ass new airport in Churchill, Manitoba, checked out a military operation and had a bit of fun with reporters and an ATV. Harper also had strong words for anyone who wants to fuck around in Canada’s part of the Arctic, saying that Canada’s Arctic sovereignty was “nonnegotiable.”
As you can see, it gets a bit messy in the middle there.
Harper is a Conservative and a huge responsibility of being a genuine Conservative is having reason to spout off very robust nationalist rhetoric (and rhetoric is really all it is as Canada still lacks behind every other nation with a stake in the Arctic in terms of real cash investment, but that’s another story for another day). Arctic sovereignty is an ideal issue for Harper to secure his legacy of nationalism and patriotism; a perspective he is very eager for us all the view him from (still waiting on that book about hockey, though). It allows him to emphasize Canada’s North-ness, something we’ve long been associated with (“Oh, honey look, what lovely tundra they have”), talk tough with other countries for once and spend money on new military toys. Add a flag and that’s patriotic gold right there.
However, there are more reasons Canada is suddenly interested in its Arctic sovereignty. There are delicious petroleum resources up there but the extraction of these resources had previously not been economically viable. As global warming continues it war on industry and the human way of life, it is turning the Arctic into a less icy, more habitable frozen hellhole.
Secondly, there is the question of the Northwest Passage, a passage that in this novice’s humble opinion is totally part of Canadian internal waters. However, two of the world’s biggest international bullies the US and Russia insist that it is an international strait or “transit passage,” meaning they want to be able to pass through it whenever they please without having to consult the Canadian authorities. You see, as the ice cover in the Arctic melts away never to be seen again, the possibility of creating a usable shipping route through the Northwest Passage is getting more and more likely. The Americans and the Russians (and to a certain extent countries like Norway and Denmark) want to be able to use it without having to pay tariffs. Would the Americans be as generous if they had a passage that connected the Atlantic and the Pacific? I think not! Quite simply it appears that those fucking Canucks have something that everybody else wants to use and are prepared to use force to get it. For now though we’re still waiting on those icebreakers Harper said he was going to have built back in 2006. Actually it was degraded to eight shittier kinds of boats and then downgraded to six of those shitty boats. The Russians have icebreakers, you know. Nuclear powered ones.
On Wednesday, April 13, the Missouri state legislature voted 85-71 to change the requirements set forth in Proposition B (also called the Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act, or PMCPA), the voter referendum that would have imposed stricter standards of care in the “puppy mills” of the state.
The new legislation, SB-113, removes many of the strongest new standards of care from the original bill, including provisions that require solid cage flooring, appropriate temperature regulation, and a cap of 50 breeding animals per facility.
In a “1984”-esque move, the name of the bill is also changed from the PMCPA to the “Canine Cruelty Prevention Act.”
“In spite of decades of urging by the animal welfare community, the Missouri General Assembly remained silent on the issue of puppy mills until after the voters spoke. The failure of the General Assembly to address the problem is why we finally took this straight to the people,” says Cori Menkin, ASPCA Senior Director of Legislative Initiatives. “And as evidenced by the passage of Proposition B, Missourians care deeply about puppy mill reform. That state legislators are discarding Prop B and ignoring the will of the people they are supposed to represent is appalling, insulting and disrespectful.”
In previous articles, the conditions in puppy mills and pet stores were described in detail; treatment ranges from neglectful to cruel. So, given the abhorrent current situation, why would the legislature have gone against the will of the voters, gutted the bill, and allowed the torture of hundreds of thousands of cats and dogs to continue unabated?
The history of Prop B goes something like this: The measure began as a petition circulated in MO by various animal-welfare groups, including the Humane Society of the United States. Even after the petition was certified with nearly 200, 000 signatures, certain organizations challenged it early and often, with a particularly rabid group, the Missouri Federation of Animal Owners (I urge you to check out this link—it is a particularly good example of the kind of ignorance animal welfare groups go up against), filing a lawsuit in August against Secretary of State Robin Carnahan alleging that the term “puppy mill” was inflammatory and unfair and asking that the measure be removed from the ballot.
The lawsuit was dismissed as frivolous, but protests and anti-Prop B editorials continued, with organizations like the American Kennel Club stating their oppostion to the proposed legislation. However, Prop B passed on November 2, 2010, with a “yes” vote of 51.6%.
The reason it passed by such a narrow margin was largely due to a rural “whisper camapaign” by the agricultural lobby. Using the “slippery slope” argument, they were able to convince many farmers and livestock owners that the proposed legislation would be the first step towards requiring that cows be covered with cashmere blankets and allowed to sleep in owners’ beds at night.
Larry Miller, president of the Southeast Missouri Cattlemen’s Association said, “Down the road it’s going to affect everyone in the United States. They want to abolish all livestock production in the United States. They want to do away with hunting, killing animals for food, fishing. What are we going to eat—soybeans and corn?”
This sentiment has been the main obstacle in passing more stringent regulations in other states, such as Iowa and Indiana, which, not coincidentally, have strong agriculturally-based economies and consequently a large number of puppy mills as well.
This has also been a “Tea Party” Libertarian issue. Though these commercial breeders are already required to register with the state and with the USDA, many in Missouri argue that this is a case of the government forcing excessive regulation on the people.
Never mind that many of these breeders have been cited up to one hundred times by the USDA, which would certainly indicate a lack of effectual governance that could be strengthened by state legislation; since all animals are considered “property” from a legal standpoint, the opposition to Prop B were able to argue that people shouldn’t be mandated to do anything with their personal property.
Because Missouri has the largest number of USDA-registered “commercial” breeders, this would have set the tone for other states, and increased the pressure on legislatures to enact similar measures. Prop B became a dirty fight between the HSUS and the national agricultural lobbies because of this.
Besides lobbyist and “libertarian” opposition, the overall continued demand for purebred animals meant that dismantling the bill would have no effect on consumers. As long as people are willing to purchase pets, and as long as cities and municipalities elect not to enact bans on selling animals (San Franciso tried, but the measure was tabled), sick and mistreated animals will still make the mill owners money.
Ultimately, the governor of Missouri, Jay Nixon, still has to sign the new bill. It remains to be seen whether he will follow the will of the voters who supported this measure, or the will of the agriculture lobby and the cowed (pun absolutely intended) state legistature. Even people who oppose the measure on the grounds of being against more government regulation should be able to see that the voters did decide on this issue, and the measure should be enacted accordingly.
Here’s what you can do: contact the governor of Missouri directly if you are a resident and urge Gov. Nixon to veto SB-113. Please don’t call if you aren’t a resident of Missouri, but still consider sending an email to let him know that the will of the people and the future of animals in the United States are at stake.
If you live in a state where “puppy mill bills” are on the agenda, like Oklahoma, Texas, Nebraska and Hawaii, urge your representatives to work to pass them. Donate to the HSUS and the ASPCA. Work with your local government to stop the sale of animals- this is the best way, ultimately, to ensure that these commercial breeders’ demand dries up. Educate your friends and family about pet stores and puppy mills.
And keep this in mind: “We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals.” – Immanuel Kant
So politicians are knocking on our igloo doors up here in the Great White North. Canada is in the midst of our fourth federal election in the last six-and-a-half years. In between have also been provincial elections and municipal elections. Some of us are, oh, just slightly tired of elections. Fortunately for me, and now for you lucky people, I’m not one of them.
So how did we get to our fourth election, at a cost of $300+ million per election, in the space of seven years? The fact that the populace up here is sharply divided between four political parties (five if you really must count the Green Party) is a good place to start. As a result, since 2004, no one party has controlled a majority of seats in the House of Commons (our equivalent to the House of Representatives in both the US and Australia). Since the parties can’t just get along, every day brings with it the threat that the opposition parties will gang up and collapse the government by denying it the “confidence” of the House of Commons.
Well last month there was, in the immortal words of cocodeveaux, “a government thingy.” This particular government thingy was an unprecedented one – the House of Commons found the government in contempt of Parliament. The opposition parties (Liberal, New Democratic and Bloc Quebecois) decided that the government had lied to the House about the amount of money it was going to cost to buy our new air force (a planned purchase of sixty F-35s) and how much it was going to cost to build enough jails to hold all the prisoners that were going to be in jail with the new sentencing rules that the government put in place. And yes, it turns out; the government was covering up some pretty serious costs.
In Canada, a finding of contempt of Parliament doubles as a motion of no confidence in the government. This means that once the finding of contempt was made, the government lost the confidence of the House, and off went Canada to election numero quatro (or quatre, if you are of the French persuasion), scheduled for May 2.
Of course, the election campaign has roundly ignored the fact that the government fell because it was lying to us all about how much their big-ticket policies were going to cost. It seems that the public stuck its fingers in its collective ears and started humming to itself. The big story in the first few days of the election was all about the Conservatives chosen bogeyman, the prospect of, horrors, a coalition government. Never mind that a coalition government is absolutely allowed by the constitution, and that every other Westminster-style parliament has at some point been run by a coalition government. Like the Mother-of-Parliaments in the UK at the moment. Can’t have people working together or anything like that.
Since then, two main issues have evolved: the ridiculous bubble-boy campaign that the Prime Minister is running, and support for senior citizens.
Continuing his streak of being rabidly controlling, and shutting down what he can’t control, the Prime Minister took to kicking people who might ask him tough questions out of campaign events. The first one was in London, Ontario. The PM’s staff kicked out a university student for no apparent reason. It later turned out that she was kicked out because she had a picture on her facebook page of her with Michael Ignatieff, the leader of the Liberal Party. The second one didn’t get as much press, but the PM’s staff kicked out an advocate for homeless veterans from a campaign event in Halifax. Homeless veterans. Can’t have their issues brought up to the Prime Minister or anything like that. Conservative staffers denied a third man entry to the same event in London, Ontario as the facebook girl because he had a bumper sticker on his car that said “Don’t blame me, I voted NDP”. Heaven forefend that the PM should have to deal with a little dissent.
The other big issue has been aid for senior citizens. Considering that the country seems to be growing rapidly older, crankier and more obsessed with those damn kids on our lawns, this makes good sense. It hasn’t been very exciting though.
There has also been the occasional ethics issue popping up here and there. For example, the Minister of Industry managed to steer $50 million from a fund devoted to improving infrastructure on the Canada-USA border to his riding (riding is what we call districts). The problem? His riding is a four hour drive (in good traffic) from the nearest border crossing. Whoops. And he did it without following any of the established procedures for allocating that money. Uh, double whoops?
A nice juicy addition is that the Prime Minister hired a fraudster to work in the PMO (the Prime Minister’s Office – basically the equivalent to the President’s political staff). This is someone who has been convicted of fraud not one, not twice but five times. Getting a second chance is good, I commend giving second chances. When you are on your fifth chance, not so much.
That pretty much brings us up to the debates, which were held on Tuesday and Wednesday nights, one in English and one in French, i.e. one for almost all of the country, and one for Quebec. The English debate was pretty much a snoozer, even for someone as politics obsessed as me, and since I don’t speak French, I didn’t bother with the French debate. The big moment in the first debate was when the PM flat out lied to the people about how the constitution works and how the government is chosen. That was a warm, glowy, moment and I hope he’s proud of himself for taking advantage of the ignorance of the average Canadian on that one.
Now we are into the last two-and-a-half weeks of the campaign. This should be when it gets interesting. Canadians who have been hitting the snooze button up until now will probably start paying attention. Stay tuned, boys and girls.
Last month the California Public Utilities Commission issued a ruling that limited the powers of Pacific Gas and Electric in dictating the kinds of technology customers were required to have in their home. At issue were Smart Meters, a digital monitoring technology that allows the PG&E to more accurately monitor gas and electricity usage and reduce the need for manual meter readings. The utility company has already installed thousands of the meters in Northern California, and plans to roll out thousands more over the next few years. PG&E claims that the meters will be more efficient than traditional meters and will allow for more sensitive pricing which will increase efficiency in energy use. Now because of the ruling, PG&E must offer different metering alternatives for customers who do not want smart meters.
However, critics argue that the meters are a health hazard and violate customer privacy. Opponents of the meters assert that the meters cause headaches, heart problems, insomnia, and nausea because of the communication technology used to transmit data from the home to the power company. Smart meters are wireless devices that emit small amounts of electromagnetic radiation when they transmit. This raises protests from people who consider themselves “electrosensitive.” According to advocacy groups for the electrosensitive, radio and microwaves, even in trace amounts, cause certain people to become ill when exposed to technology like smart meters.
However, the problem with these arguments is that smart meters have been found to be well with in guidelines for safe usage in homes and businesses. While there are legitimate concerns about wireless technology (particularly cell phones), there has been no conclusive evidence that wireless technology is unsafe in any way. The issues found with cell phones are only when the phones are within centimeters of the brain and smart meters are installed on the exterior of buildings, well away from where people keep their brains. Furthermore, there is simply no evidence that electrosensitivity exists at all. While opponents of smart meters provide anecdotal evidence, there is simply no science to back up the claim that radio waves make you sick.
The conflict over smart meters is nothing new. It is the same fear advanced by opponents to radio and cell phone towers, as well as electric power lines. There is no evidence that any of those things make you sick either, but that has not stopped opposition from the public to these forms of technology. The reality is that the concerns of a few misinformed but well-meaning people are stopping the universal adoption of smarter energy policy. These efforts may be crucial in our struggle to make efficient energy policies and reduce the impacts of global climate change, which could kill lots of people through increased skin cancer rates, decreased food production, or geographic displacement. In a desire to stay personally healthy these individuals may not be able to see the technology forests for the trees, and may be missing the long term risks of bad energy practices. While PG&E has no choice to accommodate its customers, this issue underscores the need for a wider public discussion about emerging technologies and about what constitutes good public science and policy.
Sure, the Senate Majority Leader was obviously enjoying milking the Shutdown Showdown for all it was worth. But he did such a good job. He denounced the Republican leadership, saying this wasn’t about spending. Such a dry, boring issue, unfortunately, for the American voter.
This was about cancer! This was about women! This was about his granddaughters, for Chrissake, and he was angry, personally offended, and appalled that Speaker John Boehner wanted all the women in his life to die of breast and cervical cancers, even though we can all be certain the women in Harry Reid’s life don’t have to rely on free clinics for medical care.
Reid was not attempting to persuade the conservative voters he was right. Reid was attempting to lure the swing moderates for 2012 into his corner. At the same time, he appeased hardcore Democrats by — finally — showing some fight.
By the way, did you notice Boenher’s pink tie choices? He loves women! Pink ties!
–Newsbunny has been an alleged journalist for twenty years, largely focusing on political news
Hello and welcome to Crasstalk. Hope all of you are having a great night and are ready for the end of the week. Since most of you are socialist hippie clowns, here’s some damn hippy music. Now get off my lawn and get a hair cut!
I would hate to leave out our few Crasstalk conservatives, so this is for you guys.
Fearing that the Republicans would stop looking for excuses to attack him, and desperately in need of the attention, the President jumped into the 2012 campaign on Monday. With a paltry 19 months to go until the election, Barack Obama released a short video on his website announcing that he and Vice President Biden will seek reelection against ”Koch Brother’s Puppet Candidate TBA.”
In addition to announcing his re-election bid to the world, the Obama campaign machine has already swung into full fundraising mode. Appropriating a version of an old Democratic strategy, it seems like Obama and Co. are asking donors to “give early and give often.”
Given that some estimate that the campaign will need close to $1B (yes, that’s a ‘B’, as in ‘billion’), it is a sensible move. If I want to pay cash for a medium ticket item next year, I’m smarter to put $20 a week away starting now. There’s not exactly a credit card for big media buys that I’m aware of.
So, it was little surprise to me when the package asking for money for the campaign landed in our mailbox this week. After all, Organizing for America (the outfit that the 2008 Obama campaign morphed into) scarcely goes a week without emailing me, hat in hand, for cause ‘x’.
What may surprise Obama/Biden 2012 is this: My wallet is closed to them for the foreseeable future.
Maybe Albert can slip you a few clams for this round
Why? Simply put, he campaigned as a progressive Santa Claus, and gave me a Blue Dog for Christmas the last two years. Sadly, I’m just not excited about a watered down health care bill or milquetoast finance reform, which were two big issues for me in 2008. Add in zero movement on gay marriage and the disinterest in paring back a bloated military, and I question what side the guy is even on sometimes. The Great Tax Cut Capitulation of 2010 made me want to strip the “Yes We Can” sticker off the bumper of my neighbor’s Prius.
Before someone throws the “What the f*ck has Obama done so far” website in the comments: I get it, he’s gotten further on some important issues than Clinton ever did. He also folds like a Walmart tent the face of even token GOP opposition. That’s not the guy I thought I was voting for, or donating to, in 2008.
He’ll undoubtedly get my vote, and that of my spouse. We live in a battle ground state that went all crazy red in 2010, and I’m not dumb enough to risk throwing double-digit electoral votes to Mittchelle Huckawlenty (the GOP-zombie creation who appeals to creepy Evangelicals and big-business) in service of my progressive pouting.
Rather, I’m voicing my displeasure in the same way I do when my favorite sports teams make a series of moves I dislike. Taking money out of their pockets, or rather, refusing to ever put it in there in the first place. It is the only other way I know of to get a politicians’ attention. Watch the way the 2012 campaigns (or any recent campaigns, for that matter) court the big money, and you’ll get evidence of this in abundance.
Do I expect that the loss of whatever relatively paltry sum my family would donate will have much effect on the Obama campaign? Am I suddenly going to get an audience with the big guy to air my grievances? No, of course not.
Yet, between a still-sagging economy and a general malaise among progressives, I sincerely doubt that we’re the only small money donors from 2008 whose checkbook stays on the sidelines in 2012.
Besides, if there’s a GOP victory in 2012, I’ll need to save every cent I can to pay for my privatized Medicare.
Once we got into the comments, however, someone piped up that a tool for evaluating the same in America would be nice to have. Dogs, ever the helpful one, gave us that link, and we had some fun with it in that thread.
We learned that Ethnology Nerd is almost definitely a red, and that at least a few of us think some (probably small number of) folks really do deserve to go to jail for the eternity of their time on this planet.
Not all political views are created equal
In the end, I thought it might be fun for a bunch of us to take the test, (linked above) and see where we fall as a group. The test only takes about 10 minutes, and if everyone posts their results here in the comments, I can round them up in a few days and do a little analysis, and then we can get to work on taking over the world from a more pragmatic perspective. I’m sure certain tendencies will reveal themselves, but I expect to see some interesting results.
If you already did this in the previous post, and have a second to repost your results here, it’ll make life easier for me from a collection standpoint.
Hi gang. Looks like we are getting off to a good start this week.
Since today is the anniversary of the assassination of Dr. King I thought I would post this. It is rare that anyone watches it all the way through, but in our own troubled times it is a nice reminder that the human spirit does sometime triumph over adversity. In a world of so much injustice and suffering it it important to remind ourselves that although progress is often slow, sometimes things really do get better.
Currently there is a new book on Gandhi making its rounds on the internet review circuit, Joseph Lelyveld’s Great Soul: Mahatma Gandhi and His Struggle with India. Initially the book generated a number of “controversial” reviews that focused on sexual scandal, bisexuality, and racism allegedly related to this modern Hindu icon. Outrage!
Gandhi on left with friend Hermann Kallenbach and unnamed woman
I will only discuss a couple of examples cited in the reviews and one from Google Book Previews (I am currently still waiting for the book to arrive). While the book is still in the public eye, however, I want to say a few things about what I call the Cycle of Outrage that the book is being subjected to and offer examples of other books about Indian religious icons that have undergone this treatment. What can we expect to happen with Lelyveld’s contribution?
It seems inevitable that when you explore the human and especially the sexual lives of modern Hindu figures, you inevitably run into a shit storm disproportionate to the offering, especially from the religious right (sometimes referred to as Hindutva). The shit storm may amount to very little, like bad Amazon reviews, but it may take a darker turn and include vandalism and/or death threats. We will blame the internet, right-wing politicing, and mob mentality.
So here is some of the dirt on the book Great Soul. The author, Lelyveld, is a former executive editor of the New York Times, had a long career as a journalist and writer, and has lived and traveled throughout Asia and Africa. A 2005 overview of his career can be read here. Lelyveld draws primarily from Gandhi’s autobiography and journals, and from his own journalistic legwork in South Africa stretching back to the 1960s. Lelyveld revisits some of Gandhi’s old haunts as well as explores his enduring reputation there (a monument of Gandhi erected in Durban is contrasted to a McDonald’s restaurant built on top of a vegetarian restaurant he frequented).
Gandhi and Race
Lelyveld is accused of characterizing Gandhi as “racist.” The term is found three times in the book, most emphatically when describing his attitude towards Gandhi’s views of South Africans. He refers, for example, to a well known quote about Gandhi’s strong feelings on the “mixing of the Kaffirs with the Indians” (just Google this phrase to see its extensive use). And while he does suggest that Gandhi’s language is racist, the sage’s controversial views on race have long been known, so this charge against Lelyveld seems a little unfair since this view is not unique to him. Outrage!
Gandhi, Vows, and Sex
Early on, Lelyveld hones in on Gandhi’s vow of brahmacharya, basically a Hindu vow of celibacy, and his subsequent struggles with it. Gandhi takes a particular approach to this vow that is inspired from his reading of the Bhagavad Gita – be detached from this world but remain engaged with it (that is, don’t run away to a cave or mountain top). The result is a politically active renunciant. It is the “struggles” as they are portrayed by Lelyveld and as they are (more importantly) filtered through the online reviews, that are primarily the source of the outrage.
Gandhi’s view of sex is presented as follows: “Gandhi held to a traditional Hindu idea that a man is weakened by any loss of semen–a view aspiring boxers and their trainers are sometimes said to share–and so for him his vows from the outset were all about discipline, about strength.” We also learn how he reprimanded his son for having sex with his wife (the son’s that is). Gandhi is quoted saying: “sex leads to a ‘criminal waste of precious energy’ that ought to be transmuted into ‘the highest form of energy for the benefit of society’.” OK!
The Wall Street Journal outlines a few of the juicy controversies in the book. Lelyveld discusses the “nightly cuddles” that 70 year old Gandhi had with his 17 year old niece while leading India’s independence movement. A “test” of his spiritual (brahmacharya) vow. Gandhi says of these experiences: “Despite my best efforts, the organ remained aroused. It was an altogether strange and shameful experience.” These episodes are also well known (e.g. Sudhir Kakar analyzed Gandhi’s “experiments” with young women in 1989).
I had not previously read about the Vaseline episode discussed in the WSJ. Cotton wool and a jar of petroleum jelly are linked to a portrait of Gandhi’s friend, the Jewish architect and bodybuilder named Hermann Kallenbach. Gandhi kept his photo on the mantle across from his bed. The cotton and Vaseline are a “constant reminder” of his friend. What does that mean? Maybe it is for an enema? Lelyveld asks. The unstated suggestion is that Gandhi might have masturbated to the photo of his friend. It is this passage that has generated the most controversy along with this and this. The reviews take this to mean that Lelyveld says Gandhi is bisexual, although it is mostly suggestive rather than explicit. And then there is the entourage of women who administered Gandhi’s daily massages at his sexy ashram. Now that is some brahmacharya Gandhi! Lelyveld seems to want to lead his readers in a number of possible directions, but never really makes any definitive statements on this “controversial” issue. The reviewers, however, go to town and the religious right follow right behind. This is how controversies are manufactured and people’s lives can get messed up. The book has already been banned in Gujarat and will likely get banned in Maharashtra. Book burnings will follow.
Other Book Controversies
Shivaji: king and icon of 17th century Hindu revival
There are precedents for the current Cycle of Outrage. I want to look briefly at three “controversial” books treating similarly revered Hindu figures. All of these books have been the subject of banning campaigns by the religious right. All the authors have been subjected to death threats and public ridicule. Book burnings and extensive vandalism have also ensued. In most cases the reaction is stirred by one or two controversial lines or footnotes by people with political axes to grind; like this fucker, who is responsible for Lelyveld’s troubles in Gujurat.
The first book was written by James Laine: Shivaji: Hindu King in Islamic India. He claimed, in a footnote, that Shivaji’s father was an illegitimate child born to a Muslim dancing girl. The library where Laine did his research was ransacked by a mob and workers there were badly injured. The case for banning the book went to the supreme court and only recently thrown out. Prior to this, there were calls to arrest Laine. He also received death threats.
To give you an idea of who Shivaji is to Hindus, especially in Maharashtra, there are currently plans underway to build his statue off the coast of India equivalent to the statue of liberty. Shivaji is a big fuckin’ deal!!
Another book is Paul Courtright’s Ganesa: Lord of Obstacles, Lord of Beginnings. This author received death threats and had his book banned because he psychoanalyzed a myth about the elephant god’s birth (in 2 out of 300 pages); something about his trunk representing a “flaccid” penis and being no threat to his father (Shiva). Not a stellar analysis to be sure, but reasons for threats, etc.? Maybe not. The book was initially published in the ’80s and circulated unnoticed until an Indian edition was to come out about a decade ago. That edition never got published because of right-wing outrage. Again, let’s blame the internet for this. Here is what went down in the author’s own words.
Finally, there is Jeffery Kripal’s book Kali’s Child: The Mystical and the Erotic in the Life and Teachings of Ramakrishna (1995). The book explores and analyzes the “mystical experiences” of the Bengali Saint Ramakrishna against a backdrop of repressed homosexual desire. Here is more than you ever could want to know about this book, its controversy, and the Ramakrishna movement.
The lesson? Write your books in the pre-internet age and/or make the controversial topics secondary to generic topics that few will bother to read. On second thought, that didn’t work well for Paul Courtright. However, keep this in mind: book burnings sell books.
So there you have it. We can expect that Lelyveld’s book will continue to get banned in India and he will likely receive death threats from a subsection of zealous right wing Hindus spurred to action by assholes like Modi who is, in turn, inspired by all the trite shit he reads in the Daily Mail or where ever. It doesn’t matter that Lelyveld may or may not have said the things that the reviews claim he did, in the manner that they claim he did (without nuance or context). It is all part of the Cycle of Outrage!
Stay in school kids. Keep reading and be sure to order your books through the Crass Amazon link!
. Initially the book generated a number of “controversial” reviews that focused on sexual scandal, bisexuality, and racism allegedly related to this modern Hindu icon. Outrage!
