ts. Think Responsibly

Undeserved Punishment: A Religious Motif

Sadhika Pant

March 17 2025 at 12:18 pm

The world has little patience for justice, and perhaps even less for fairness. The righteous and the innocent often bear the burdens laid upon them by the weak and the selfish. It is a story told in every corner of the earth, in every language, under every sky. And it is a story told twice—once in the story of Rama from The Ramayana, and again in the story of Job from the Book of Job. Rama’s Banishment from Ayodhya Rama was a prince, born to rule, raised in the golden light of Ayodhya’s palaces. He was not just good; he was righteous, steady as the rivers that carve the land, sure as the sun that climbs the sky. But the world does not always move for righteousness. One word from a mother who was not his own, one promise a father could not break, and the kingdom slipped through his fingers. He left Ayodhya not as a king but as an exile, his feet treading the dust of the forest instead of the marble of the palace. There was no crime, no failure, no fault, only the cold hand of fate pressing down. Yet, Rama did not rage. He did not weep. He bore the weight of his punishment because that is what a man of dharma does. Even in the wilderness, stripped of his crown and his home, he carried his duty like an unshaken flame. Job's Downfall Somewhere else, in another time, there is a man who owns much and loves much. Job is a man of faith, one who rises before dawn to offer prayers, one who watches over his house with the careful hands of a shepherd. He does right by God, and for a long time, God does right by him. But there is a wager in the heavens, a question asked: Is goodness still goodness when it is met with ruin? In other words, is morality relative to circumstance? His children die first. His livestock disappears. His land turns to dust. His body is next, ravaged by sores, his skin breaking under the weight of unseen judgment. The world tells him he must be guilty of something. A man does not suffer like this unless he has sinned. Job sits in his ruin, scraping at his wounds with broken pottery, and asks a question that has lived in the hearts of all who suffer: Why? Job did not receive the answer he sought. God did not sit him down and explain the grand design, did not trace the lines of fate with a patient hand. Instead, God spoke of the vastness of creation, of things beyond the grasp of man. And in that vastness, Job found peace. His fortunes were restored, his life made whole again—not because he had demanded it, not because God was obligated to justify his ways, but because his faith had endured even in the dark. The Message Somewhere in the heart of these tales lies a truth too deep to be simple. If God were only just, then the righteous would never suffer. If God were only merciful, then suffering would never be. But the world is made of both justice and mercy, and they do not always run in a straight line. It is a hard thing, reconciling suffering with the notion of a just and merciful God. The world teaches us early that good should be met with good and wickedness with ruin, but the world is not always kind to its own lessons. The stories of Rama and Job also fly in the face of the idea of moral relativism by asserting that righteousness and virtue exist independently of circumstance or personal perspective. Rama’s exile and Job’s torment do not bend to the whims of men who weigh morality like merchants, bargaining virtue against suffering. Rama does not rage against his fate because he understands that dharma is larger than him, that justice is not a thing that bends to personal suffering. Job does rage, but in the end, he learns that understanding is not a requirement of faith. Both suffer, both endure, and both are restored—not because they demanded it, but because their trials shaped them into something greater than they were before. Suffering is never meaningless, though it feels that way when a man is in the thick of it. It stretches the soul, forces it to look beyond the immediate, beyond the mortal. In the end, Rama returns to Ayodhya, crowned in the love of his people. Job’s wealth is restored, his house made whole. But the truest reward is something deeper, something that cannot be taken away, something won only through fire. The world will never stop handing down punishments undeserved. That is the nature of things. But in the hands of the righteous, suffering becomes something else entirely—not an end, but a beginning.

Reflections on Writing and Working

Sadhika Pant

March 11 2025 at 12:13 pm

This new year, a friend managed to wring a resolution out of me, which is something of a miracle. I don’t usually do resolutions. It isn’t that I think resolutions are futile—rather, if I want to do new things, I like to throw myself into them without the burden of a plan weighing me down. But I made one anyway. “Crawl out of your creative hole this year,” my friend said. I promised I would. It meant, in other words, that I’d finally send in some of my writing for publication, put my work out there on more platforms. But like most resolutions, this one will likely gather dust, sitting unkept in some quiet corner of my mind. When people ask how long I’ve been writing, I never know what to say. It wasn’t something I started doing so much as something I found myself doing, like stepping outside one day and realising you’d been walking for miles without noticing. If I had to put a number on it, I suppose I started taking writing seriously about five years ago. I do not write for a living. I write for sheer pleasure. But bills must be paid, and so I have a job. I never gave much thought to why I have a job until recently. Whoever asks such questions? I work for a company that helps students prepare for competitive exams. In India, exams are an industry of their own. We have them for everything—government and administrative posts, banking, insurance, railways, police, the army, engineering, management. Every other young person is studying for one, chasing that elusive thing called stability. A stable job earns you the admiration of your neighbours, the pride of your family, and better prospects in the arranged marriage market. But the catch, besides the cutthroat competition in a country bursting at the seams, is that English proficiency accounts for a quarter or a third of the marks in nearly every exam. And in a place where English is not a native language, this creates an uneasy dependence. I won’t go too deep into the old debate about English in India, about whether it is a colonial relic or a necessary standardisation tool in a country where every state has its own language, but I will say this: there is a deep, lived anxiety surrounding the language in the minds of ordinary people. In the U.S., they talk about “math anxiety,” but in India, it is English that grips people by the throat. The further one moves from the cities, the more palpable the fear becomes. Many of the aspirants of these competitive exams never studied in a school where English was the medium of instruction. Most grew up with English as something distant, something foreign, something that belonged to other people. And yet, the world tells them they need it to succeed. And because English has become a shorthand for social status—education, refinement, exposure to international media—their fear is not just about failing an exam. It is about being seen as lesser. Which brings me back to my question: why do I have a job? The answer is simple. I know English. Not just well enough to read and write it, but well enough to teach it to those whose futures depend on mastering it. And here lies my unease. Is it right to make a living off of people's anxieties? Off their fears of inadequacy? Even off their ambitions? They want what anyone wants—to move forward, to build a life, to provide for their families, to take care of their parents in old age, to pay off debts, to stand on their own two feet. These are noble aspirations, and yet here I stand, a middleman profiting off the gap between them and their goals. Do I have a job because the British made their language inescapable? Because my parents sent me to an English-medium school built by those same British? Because my parents filled the house with books? Because my childhood love of reading granted me fluency as a byproduct? Because the school education system failed its students so thoroughly that they must now come to me? Because so many lacked the means to access English-medium schools that may have done a better job? Because India reveres government jobs above all else? I could go on. But the real question is: how do I put these qualms to rest? There are ways. I have worked long enough in the private sector to understand the way the market functions. Why does a programmer earn more than a labourer? Because salaries go up when a skill is scarce AND wanted. So I can always invoke the let-the-market-handle-it dictum. Or I can tell myself that it is not just my grasp of English that makes me employable, but my understanding of these exams. English is a deceptive thing; for every rule, there are ten exceptions. Those who come from the logic of structured, Sanskrit-derived Indic languages find themselves bewildered by it. Teaching English for an exam requires precision—knowing what to teach and what can be left out. And in the end, knowing English may get a person a job, but keeping that job depends on discipline, experience, reliability, success rate, market feedback and a thousand other things. I have yet to rise above the accident of my birth and education, having followed in my parents’ footsteps in more ways than one. Like my mother, I earn my keep in education. Like my father, I sit with words in the quiet hours, shaping them, letting them shape me. And like both of them, I have learned the trick of splitting myself in two—one half working, the other dreaming. I am only as devoted to writing as a full stomach allows, and only as faithful to my profession as it grants me time enough to wander in my thoughts. I have carved out a place for myself. And each morning, I wake knowing that my work matters just enough to someone. How do I know this? Because they are willing to pay me their hard-earned money for it. Of course, working the way I do, where I do, has its perks. I get to work from home. I get to read scholarly articles (to mine them for teaching material, but still). And I get the comfort of seeing people change the course of their life, and being a small part of it. But then there are the frustrations—deadlines, team conflicts, disappointed customers and occasional unpleasant debates over politically correct grammar. I think of all this, and then I think of Firoz bhai. He is my tailor. Not a blood relative, but I call him bhai (brother) out of respect. Every few months, I go to him with fabric in hand, asking him to stitch a sari blouse or a salwar suit. Here, most people still prefer tailored Indian clothes over store-bought ones. The fit is better. The craftsmanship shows. And Firoz bhai is a master of his craft. I hardly have to give instructions anymore. I show him a picture from Pinterest, leave him the fabric, and in a couple of weeks, he hands me something perfect. Firoz bhai does not lose sleep over the necessity of his work. He does not sit hunched at his sewing machine, squinting at the fabric, and wonder whether the world still needs tailors. He does not pause with a half-cut sleeve in hand and agonize over whether he is complicit in an economy that prizes appearance over essence. He measures, he cuts, he stitches. The cloth comes together where it must, and when he is done, there is proof of his labour — a garment where before there was only fabric. A customer leaves satisfied, and the world has one more well-made thing in it than it did before. I do not have that pleasure. My work is not something you can fold and pack away, nor can it be draped over a body to see how well it fits. I do not see the moment when a student’s tongue stops tripping over English, when they no longer grope for words but find them waiting, ready to be used. I like to think it happens, but I have no proof. There are no straight seams, just a slow and invisible accumulation—of language, of competence, of confidence. Perhaps that is the fate of those of us whose work is not tangible, whose efforts do not leave behind something to touch or admire. We are doomed to wonder whether the work we do has any value at all, to second-guess the money we earn. And maybe that is why we envy people like Firoz bhai, who can hold their craft in their hands and say, ‘Here. Here is what I have done.’ Firoz bhai works at his own pace. More than once, I’ve gone to pick up my clothes only for him to ask for another day because he wanted to perfect the detailing. That’s how it is with men who take pride in their work. There’s no use showing up unannounced at his shop. He comes in when he pleases, and some days, he prefers to work from home, where the light is better and the distractions fewer. Once, I waited nearly an hour for him. “The evening azaan has started,” he explained over the phone. “Prayer cannot be rushed, you know,” he said matter of factly. There was no apology in his voice, no excuse, just the quiet certainty of a man whose time is his own. I didn’t mind the wait. But I did wonder what my boss might say if I ever missed a meeting and, when asked, replied with the same quiet finality—Prayer cannot be rushed. In a corporate job, punctuality is a virtue, and professionalism is currency. In a trade, all that matters is the work itself, and the reputation of the man who does it. When he finally turned up, he handed me my finished garments with a wide grin. I marveled, as I always did, at the magic in his hands. And for a moment, I envied him—the slow pace of his days, the hum of his sewing machine, the freedom to close up shop to attend the evening prayer, the satisfaction of creating something tangible and beautiful. But if I told him about my job, about my ability to work from home, about the books I get to read, the security of a paycheck that arrived on time no matter how fast or slow I worked, perhaps he would find the grass on my turf greener. Indeed, one must imagine Sisyphus happy.

It Matters Who Wields the Pen

LadyVal

March 13 2025 at 12:21 am

A matter long believed has recently been claimed by some who served in the Biden Administration during the last four years; that is, that Sleepy Joe was never mentally competent to serve in that office. The same Party that claimed Ronald Reagan was suffering from Alzheimer’s during his tenure as President (he wasn’t!) failed to disclose that Joe Biden actually was mentally incapable of serving during his “presidency.” Of course, Biden’s ability or lack thereof was never a problem as his “presidency” was actually intended to be the third (and fourth) term of Barack Obama! It was a real-life replay of the throne room scene in the Wizard of Oz with Biden as the Big Head on the throne and Obama the man behind the curtain. Unfortunately, it is possible that the puppet master(s) didn’t understand just how “out to lunch” Sleepy Joe actually was – or became – as he took office. Yet even that may not be the case, for now, with Donald Trump in office, Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey has requested that the Justice Department investigate the legality of Biden’s many Executive Orders. Why? Because the conservative Heritage Foundation’s “Oversight Project” has revealed that Biden’s signatures on numerous EOs, pardons and other documents of national consequence appear to have been “machine-generated.” The “auto-pen,” a mechanical means of producing someone’s signature when great numbers are required, may be used in “unofficial” correspondence but in matters of law and the President’s duties, such documents must actually be signed by the individual holding that office at the time and in the place indicated on the document. Oversight Project Executive Director Mike Howell stated, "The main legal question here is who was the president over the last four years. That's what we are aiming to uncover. The prolific use of (the) autopen by the Biden White House was an instrument to hide the truth from the American people as to who was running the government." The watchdog group noted that "every document" they could find with Biden's signature” — with the exception of the announcement indicating that he was dropping out of the 2024 presidential race — "used the same autopen signature." Howell also noted that the repeatedly used autopen signature appeared on the pardons for a murderer and five other criminals issued while Biden was vacationing in the U.S. Virgin Islands though all reportedly claimed that they were signed "at the City of Washington." This discovery, coupled with the former president's alleged admission to House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) that he did not remember signing a January 2024 order to pause decisions on exports of liquefied natural gas, prompted the Oversight Project to once again cast doubt on whether Biden was ever actually fulfilling the office of the President of the United States, clearly suggesting that "WHOEVER CONTROLLED THE AUTOPEN CONTROLLED THE PRESIDENCY!" Critics of the Administration, enraged by yet a further indication that unelected ideologues may have secretly controlled the Executive Branch for the past four years, are now questioning the legitimacy of all documents bearing the autopen signature in the belief that all orders so signed are void on their face. Thus, as noted, seeking definitive answers to this newly found situation, Missouri AG Bailey wrote to the Department of Justice last week requesting a full investigation into the legality of Biden's presidential actions in light of his apparent mental decline, which was made especially clear to special counsel Robert Hur, who, upon investigation, found Biden as possibly too senile to legally charge with any wrongdoing! "Under the 25th Amendment, his (Biden’s) inability to make decisions should have meant a succession of power," Bailey noted in his letter. "Instead, it appears staffers and officers in the Biden administration may have exploited Biden's incapacity so they could issue orders without an accountable President of sound mind approving them." President Donald Trump told Blaze Media co-founder Glenn Beck in October before the election that Joe Biden was likely little more than a figurehead for a "committee" of unnamed bureaucrats. Lindy Li, a former Democratic strategist and fundraiser who served as a surrogate for failed presidential candidate Kamala Harris and worked for the 2020 Biden campaign, recently shed some light on potential members of that supposed committee. Li told podcaster Shawn Ryan that Hunter and Jill Biden, and a handful of other unelected senior advisers effectively combined to serve as a shadow president. AG Bailey also suggested that a number of pardons Biden supposedly signed were suspicious, including the unconditional 10-year pardon Biden supposedly gave his son after repeatedly vowing he would not do so and just months after declaring without qualification, "No one is above the law." "It is black-letter law that a document is void, ab initio, when the person signing it lacks mental capacity," wrote Bailey. "Staffers and the Vice President cannot constitutionally evade accountability by laundering far-left orders through a man who does not know what he is signing (or, in the case of the auto-pen, it is represented that he signed). If in fact this has been occurring, then all those orders are void." The Oversight Project suggested that in order to determine whether Biden ordered the signing of key documents or was even mentally capable of doing so, investigators must "determine who controlled the autopen and what checks there were in place." The watchdog group also indicated that Biden's efforts to undermine the White House "executive privilege" shield in their attacks against then former President Donald Trump will make such determinations achievable. "There is a constitutional process to deal with an incapacitated POTUS and it doesn't contemplate giving someone else his autopen and authority," tweeted Howell. "It's called the 25th Amendment and the conspiracy not to invoke it in order to keep whatever they were doing going is a big problem." The New York Post reported that representatives for Biden had not responded to requests for comment regarding the use of the autopen. Of course, that is to be expected as God knows what a finding of mental incompetency of the former President while he was in office especially given admissions already made that he was incompetent before he took office, will mean for what was done during the last four years!

How a "guest" Palestinian Student’s Protests...

rightaway

March 17 2025 at 11:37 am

There is a global protocol for guests. You are a visitor with special permission. You are forthright with gratitude, and I appreciate the generosity that has been extended to you. You use your manners, say please and thank you, and remind yourself what a treat it is to be there—or so I thought. I listened to some interviews about the fate of a young man who was arrested and detained for his pro-Palestinian speech. He was a guest in the US on a visa. He was here as a student at Columbia University, my Alma Mater. I am in despair at how my school has chosen to support this young man's behavior and how they have allowed others to suffer so he could feel affirmed. I am certain the pressure will be on me in the upcoming years as I get targeted marketing emails to donate to compensate for their poor judgment. The story revolves around free speech. Free speech has ALWAYS been a topic of discussion. Say something wrong about the king, and off goes your head. Say a lie about the king’s enemy, and you get a castle and a valley filled with peasants of your own. That was true five thousand years ago, five hundred years ago, and fifty years ago. Where is right and wrong through all of this? History of the First Amendment. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution was adopted on December 15, 1791, as part of the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the Constitution. Its origins lie in the political and philosophical currents of the American Revolution and the Enlightenment, as well as in colonial experiences with British rule. The First Amendment, as ratified, reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." It passed with broad support, reflecting a consensus on safeguarding these liberties against federal overreach. History of Free Speech Free Speech didn’t last, as written. And you are glad that it didn't. What am I talking about? We decided a few hundred years ago that false advertising is illegal. Someone’s free use of their tongue to deceive us into purchasing a good or service that is not “as advertised” is a crime. It is unforgivable. The phrase "as advertised" has a tone of accountability built into it. We also agreed that free speech is not OK when false statements harm a person’s reputation. We decided that if a person’s loose tongue threatens our nation’s security, that, too, is illegal. The most recent addition to the limitations on free speech is labeled as “hate speech.” If a person’s words incite harm to someone or are a threat to their well-being, we label that as equally illegal. Everyone has a right to say what they want, including telling someone they hate them and wish they would die; they just can’t say that they are the ones coming to kill you. What really happened? It is challenging to reduce it to a single paragraph, but not if I leave out my opinion. Hamas attacked Israeli citizens (no law enforcement or military were targeted) in October of 2023. They killed and raped, and they took hostages as they returned to Gaza. Israel decided to retaliate with two intentions. They wanted to prevent future attacks by wiping out Gaza’s leadership’s ability to repeat the attacks and retrieve their hostages. Hamas knew that this would be their intention before they attacked, and they structured a method of gathering global support for their cause by using their own people as shields against the Israeli military, forcing the Israeli army to kill civilians as they sought retribution. Portions of the world watched videos and called this genocide. Others saw the same videos and chose to support the Jews and their right to live in safety. Both sides had horrific videos to show, trying to win over sense and emotion from both sides. Both sides used religious texts and “rules of fair warfare” (whatever that means). Both sides claimed self-defense as their core motivation. The fighting isn't over. Mahmoud Khalil is the guest of ill repute. He is the poster child of how this international skirmish is negatively impacting students at Columbia University. The Antagonist This young man was a ringleader and acted as the spokesperson at Columbia when Jewish students were tracked down and beaten, with the university not choosing to either condemn the pro-Palestine violence or offer assistance to these Jews. He lead protests to attempt to get his university (and my university!) to divest from Israel. He participated in the destruction of property and threats against Israeli students. At the core of the issue is the issue of Free Speech. Can a young man like this man be considered “exercising his First Amendment rights” when he targeted, harassed, and intentionally made Israeli students feel unsafe and unwelcome? The videos of how these young Jewish college students were beaten made the news last spring, and it polarized us. Sorting out fact from truth. The student hired a lawyer who was looking for the spotlight. His lawyer found a microphone and a series of listening ears. Let’s look at the lawyer's positions. 1) He claims that his client was “peacefully protesting and exercising his constitutionally protected activism." 2) He claims that his clients was within his legal rights to participate in tracking down and attacking Jews that were part of the Columbia University community. 3) He claims that it is unfair for his client to be arrested and detained in Louisiana, as it inhibits his client's rights to attorney-client privileged conversations. 4) He claims that his client's arrest intends to silence all protestors, not just the ones at CU. These claims are obviously extreme, but let's examine the truth. · This guy is not a US Citizen and does not share the same rights as the rest of us. He can’t vote. He has a visa to be here and is a guest of the United States. His lawyer is trying to convince the public that he has the same rights. He is also avoiding the reality that he is behaving inappropriately, celebrating the physical harm done to someone who has never harmed him or anyone he knows. · He claims that it is within his legal rights to track down and witness an attack on someone if you are not the one swinging the club. That is not even close to true. There are laws against participating in a felony, even if only passively. · The government concluded that the school’s choice (not inability) not to protect its Jewish students from known threats was a violation of the terms and conditions for $400 M worth of funding, and the government responded by canceling the funding. As I analyzed the story, I chose to look outside of the US to see if other countries were experiencing similar issues. What were their reactions? Is the USA the only place where Jews are being attacked because they are Jews, not because of what they have done? I found an article from the UK in the Telegraph. It was an internal study that compared violent crime between native Britons and people who were immigrants or were on a VISA. Specific to sex crimes (the preferred crime type for Hamas), the report said that immigrants are 70% more likely to commit sex crimes than native Britons. The author sought to suggest that the methods used to allow entry to immigrants and the associated education and law enforcement resulted in a more dangerous United Kingdom. Imagine that. How shocking to learn that people new to the country select a “culturally inappropriate” response as they seek to get their way in a country other than their own. I conclude this Palestinian student is NOT exercising free speech. He is creating hate speech. He is actively involved in making people unsafe. It is not limited to making them “feel” unsafe. They are actually unsafe once people embrace this young man’s ideology. Can you imagine letting a guest into your house and he acts like this? The Christian response As a Christian, I own that I have Jewish roots. The Old Testament is as much my people’s history as it is for the Israeli Jew. The tendency is to have tunnel vision and conclude that we have to take the Jewish position, as they are the greatest Creation. They are God’s chosen people. How can we say we are pro-love or pro-God if we choose not to defend God's people? Yet, the core of the moment is the answer to your question, “What does God mean when he says love your enemies?” An analogy applies here. I hate the Nazis. They killed people with joy in their hearts. We are called to protect the innocent. People who seek harm against the Jews “just because they are Jews” are doing evil no different than the Nazis. Yet, if I meet an individual nazi, I am not facing the enemy. I am facing a single person. As such, I can see myself investing in getting to know them and potentially love them. Hollywood has multiple movies that play on this theme. Hogan’s Heroes is a comedy based on the idea that the enemy can become a friend, but only one person at a time. That one-person-at-a-time idea is what highlights the difference between enemy and enemies. This young “activist” is a hypocrite. He hates Jews and wants others to hate them just because they are Jews. Yet, he wants us to empathize with his unique circumstances. The media is talking about his pregnant wife as justification for him to be set free to continue his evil antics that threaten other people's safety. Strip his VISA. Deport him immediately. Let him reapply and agree to the terms and conditions of what it means to be here as a guest of the United States.

thinkspot Newsletter 3/20

thinkspot

March 20 2025 at 11:19 am

Undeserved Punishment: A Religious Motif By Sadhika PantHow a "guest" Palestinian Student’s Protests Ignited a First Amendment Firestorm at my Alma Matter By rightawayFeminism's great achievement - failed Family Law reform in Australia By Bettina ArndtTwo Presidents vs. Two Judicial Systems By LadyValHas The Public Soured on Science ? By OctaveoctaveWhy It's Time To Watch Your Banker Like A Hawk By ValueSide247 - Dad’s Law School: A Father’s Guide To Legal Survival By Jude: The Divorced Dadvocate Writing Update: Dear Readers, I'm thrilled to share my latest essay, "The Rooted and the Restless," recently published on Merion By Sadhika Pant

Left or Right

Octaveoctave

March 19 2025 at 08:17 pm

I have one cousin who is an "outlier" and is, horror of horrors "a liberal". Now if one is paying attention, a lot of the MAGA movement (if not most) consists of former Democrats (including Trump himself). So MAGA is not REALLY Republican at all. Lots of old school Republicans loathe the MAGA movement, obviously. But the previous labels and associations still sort of remain for many people, and they cannot quite understand what is going on. Even though I was raised as a "far right" conservative in Canada (So-Cred) and my parents and grandparents and family members were mostly So-Cred, the Social Credit movement is/was actually LEFT of American Democrat Party, for the most part. So it is confusing. If one looks at Jordan Peterson, he got his start as part of the far Left in Canadian Politics, the "NDP" (New Democratic Party), but now Peterson is associated more with American conservatives. Even Bernie Sanders supports a LOT of what DOGE and MAGA are doing. This was at least true until DOGE and other events started to reveal Bernie's corruption. So, these things are complicated. Even Michael Moore, the "massive" leftist, has a sort of "right wing" movie, "The Planet of the Humans". MAGA is kind of what H. Ross Perot wanted to create in the early 90s. And he almost succeeded. Or what Ralph Nader attempted to create. I voted for both Perot and Nader. The division in American politics is really no longer between "left" and "right" or "conservative" and "liberal" or "Democrat" and "Republican". It is more of a division between "sanity" and "insanity" or between "corrupt" and noncorrupt". So what do party labels even mean at this point?

In Europe, deaths outnumbered births by 1.2...

angelobottone

March 23 2025 at 06:25 pm

New figures from Eurostat, the statistical office of the European Union, confirm the growing demographic crisis facing Europe. In 2023, deaths across the EU outnumbered births by almost 1.2m, and this is only going to get worse. Births have not outnumbered deaths since 2012. This is a consequence of fertility rates being well below replacement level across the continent and in some cases for decades. At the beginning of 2023, according to Eurostat, there were 448.8 million people living in the European Union. The only reason this is little different from 20 years ago is because of immigration. The average number of births per 1,000 persons living in the EU has dropped from 10.6 in 2008 to 8.7 in 2022. One way of analysing fertility trends is to look at how many babies are born to mothers aged 40 and older compared to all babies born in a year. It shows the degree to which people are delaying having children. In Ireland in 2022, 11.2pc of all births in 2022 were to mothers aged 40 and over, the highest in Europe. This has soared from 3.4pc in 2002. Across the EU, the figure was 6pc in 2022, meaning many women in Ireland are waiting a particularly long time to have children, for whatever reason. The proportion of births to mothers aged at least 40 in the EU as a whole was 2.2pc in 2002. In Ireland, the mean age of first-time mothers is the third highest in Europe, at 31.5 years. The EU average is 29.7 years. Ireland used to have the highest fertility rate in the EU – 1.97 births per woman in 2002 – but now it has decreased significantly. The current value (1.56) is slightly higher than the European average (1.46) but way below what is needed to ensure a natural balance between births and deaths, which is 2.1 births per woman. Among EU countries, France has currently the highest total fertility rate (1.79), followed by Romania (1.71) and Bulgaria (1.65). The lowest rates were found in Malta (1.08), Spain (1.16) and Italy (1.24). While the population is growing, due to immigration and people are living longer, there are ever fewer young people. In the last 20 years, the percentage of people aged 0 to 19 years of age across the EU declined from 22.6pc to 20.1pc. Over the same period, the share of persons aged 65 and over increased in all EU countries 16.2 to 21.3. Over the past twenty years, the Irish population grew by a massive 32.9pc, from 3.7 million in 2003 to 5.27 million in 2023. Much of this is immigration-driven. To put this into perspective, the total population of the EU increased by only 4pc during the same period. In Ireland, births still outnumber deaths, although the gap between the two has halved in the last ten years. In due course, given our low fertility rate, deaths will outnumber births as elsewhere. The European demographic crisis, which is already here, will affect Ireland as well, even before ours hits us directly, simply because our fate is so tied to Europe’s in multiple ways. It is time we began to have a serious discussion in Ireland about this topic.

Euthanasia continues to go out of control in...

angelobottone

March 25 2025 at 06:46 pm

The number of euthanasia cases continues to rise in Canada, according to the latest official report on the topic, raising further alarm, particularly among disability rights groups. Even some early supporters of ‘Medical Assistance in Dying’ (MAID) are now voicing concerns. In 2023, 15,343 Canadians died by euthanasia or assisted suicide, according to the ‘Fifth Annual Report on Medical Assistance in Dying’. This marks a 15.8pc increase over 2022 and represents 4.7pc of all deaths in 2023. Since its legalisation in 2016, there have been 60,301 cases of assisted suicide and euthanasia cases in Canada that we know of. Adding to these frightening figures, 2,906 individuals died last year before their euthanasia requests could be fulfilled. Meanwhile, 496 individuals withdrew their requests. Canada allows both assisted suicide, where the patient self-administers lethal drugs (except in Quebec), and euthanasia, which is administered by a doctor or nurse. Self-administration is extremely rare, with fewer than five cases reported last year, showing that people are scared to take a poison themselves. Dementia was cited as a medical condition in 241 euthanasia recipients in 2023, and in 106 of these cases, dementia was their sole condition. Not all those who received euthanasia were terminally ill. In 622 cases, natural death was not deemed “reasonably foreseeable.” This category, called Track 2, allows euthanasia for non-terminal patients. Some could have lived for a decade or longer but chose euthanasia due to isolation or feeling like a burden. Euthanasia can be requested when someone experiences “physical or psychological suffering that is intolerable to them.” This is another example of the slippery slope in action. Isolation or loneliness was significantly more common among Track 2 patients (47.1pc) compared to Track 1 patients (those within six months of death) at 21.1pc, but we can still see feeling isolated was significant. Crucially, 45.1pc of Track 1 and 49.2pc of Track 2 patients cited feeling like a “burden on family, friends or caregivers” as a key reason for their suffering. Among Track 2 recipients, where death was not foreseeable, women constituted 58.5pc of cases. These patients were typically younger and had lived with their conditions for much longer. Perhaps this is also a function of the fact that women typically live longer than men and are more likely to be widowed and therefore living alone. The percentage of disabled individuals among non-terminal euthanasia recipients was significantly higher: 58.3pc compared to 33.5pc among those within six months of death. They are heavily over-represented in Canada’s euthanasia statistics. “When other people express loneliness or a loss of dignity or a desire to die, we usually respond with support or prevention. But with people with disabilities, we respond with an offer for MAID,” said Isabel Grant, a law professor at the University of British Columbia. This same group of non-terminal patients had, on average, lived with a disability for a fifth of their lifespan. According to the report, 594 individuals received euthanasia under a waiver of final consent arrangement due to a loss of capacity. This means they were euthanised based on a prior request, even though they could no longer give consent. Euthanasia was legalised in Canada in 2016 following a case brought by the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA). However, the regime has become so permissive that even the BCCLA has raised concerns, particularly about euthanasia for prisoners and disabled individuals. The organisation has highlighted reports of people accessing MAID due to intolerable social circumstances or being offered it in cases that may not meet legal requirements. “Of particular concern are reports of MAID being used in prisons while incarcerated individuals were shackled to their beds, the programme’s lack of legal oversight, disproportionate representation of impoverished people receiving assisted suicide, and healthcare practitioners offering MAID when patients sought support for living,” the BCCLA stated.

The Great Financial Deception Is Ending, What...

David Reavill

March 02 2025 at 04:09 pm

President Trump's Cabinet Meeting, February 26, 2025 ** Imagine that I stole $100 and gave it to you. What would economists call this? To answer the question, one must remember that economists are not moralists. They don’t care where the money came from; they only record what happens with it. In this case, economists would note that your income increased by $100, which you either spent, increased consumer spending, or saved. Either way, the economy would have increased by $100. (Note that in my fanciful example, I’m excluding the loss recorded by the victim for reasons that will become apparent in a minute.) As outrageous as this sounds, this is precisely how our financial system has operated for the past six years. Massive amounts of capital have been “stolen” from our children and grandchildren in the form of debt to be paid by them. Hence, these future victims don’t report the crime because many have yet to be born. But upon their shoulders will be placed the debt burden that we’re now constructing — currently, it stands at $323K for every man, woman, and child in this country and is rising rapidly. None of this comes as a surprise to you, dear reader. You’ve read about the trillions spent on a nefarious emigrant program that brought people to our shores and provided them with transportation and living expenses. You’ve traced the billions given ostensibly to Ukraine but ended up with the military contractors in this country. You remember the trillions in stimulus checks sent to provide support during the COVID-19 Crisis. You understand the trillions in “Quantitative Easing” funds that gave the banks the funds to push loans to even the least qualified. The Federal Government accomplished all this and more by borrowing funds, funds stolen from the future and future generations. It’s not something new. We’ve been dipping into the “kitty” since at least the Great Depression of the 1930s. Each time there’s been an expansive money-printing period like we’ve just been through, a recurring pattern emerges: the future comes. And this new, diminutive future always begins when the monetary spigots are shut off. The last time we had a comparable period was immediately following World War II. That’s right, the previous time policymakers pumped the economy as much as COVID was World War II! Following VE Day (Victory in Europe) and VJ Day (Victory in Japan), there was no longer a need for battle tanks, warships, and all the arms and munitions made in American factories. Stimulus stopped, and the lost decade of the 1940s began, a period of poor economic growth and deflation. The balloon had burst as the American economy transitioned from a fiscally dominated, Washington-based war machine to a civilian-led, free enterprise system. Today, that same sort of transition is beginning. The Trump Administration is halting many of the “stimulus” programs started by the prior Administrations, Biden and Trump 1. Trump is sending back the immigrants and eliminating or downsizing many government programs, which you can find delineated on the DOGE.gov website — programs in Education, Foreign Aid, Social Reform, and many others. Regardless of the merits of these programs and departments (remember, Economics focuses on dollars and cents, not values), dropping or eliminating these programs will reduce financial activity and slow the economy. This week, the current report on the nation’s GDP (Gross Domestic Product) showed how slow the economy is. GDP for 2024 came in at 2.3%, down 0.5% from 2023, and less than half the growth level experienced at the top of the Stimulus in 2021 when GDP grew at an astonishing 6.0%. But that’s all history now. What’s concerning are this week’s results from the Atlanta Fed’s GDP Now Model. The Federal Reserve Atlanta Analysts developed this real-time tracking model. This report reveals the economy is in recession, declining at 1.5% annually. Conclusion It’s well past time that we begin to return our economy to its historic tradition — a steady state where private industry creates the profits and income that drive our prosperity. Our current path of “fiscal dominance” (where the central government becomes a principal influence on the economy) is a sure route to destruction. The fact that the current administration has begun eliminating the excess and control of the past six years is a welcome sign for those who believe in free enterprise capitalism. However, it may not be an easy or painless path. But let us all resolve to pay that price and bring back this country’s foundation of financial freedom and liberty. ** If you enjoyed this article, please consider buying me coffee. Go to: https://buymeacoffee.com/davidreavill Thanks for reading!

Demographic Change in Northern Ireland:...

angelobottone

March 30 2025 at 09:04 am

According to the latest 2022-based population projections published by the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency (NISRA), the population of Northern Ireland is expected to reach a peak of approximately 1.95 million in 2033, followed by a gradual decline to 1.93 million by mid-2047. However, the most significant aspect of these projections is not the overall population trajectory but rather the profound demographic restructuring that is expected to unfold over the coming decades, particularly the ageing of the population. By 2030, the number of individuals of pensionable age is projected to surpass the number of children aged 0–15. A more immediate demographic milestone will occur by mid-2027, when the population aged 65 and over will outnumber children for the first time in Northern Ireland’s recorded history. Moreover, the number of people aged 85 and over is expected to more than double by 2047. These trends highlight the growing demographic weight of older adults, with significant implications for policy planning and public service provision. Unlike projections for younger age groups, estimates of the older population are relatively more robust, as they are less influenced by assumptions regarding future fertility or net migration. In contrast, projections concerning children and overall fertility are inherently more uncertain. NISRA's principal projection assumes a constant total fertility rate (TFR) of 1.65 throughout the projection period. However, evidence suggests a continuing downward trend: the Republic of Ireland, for example, has already recorded a TFR of 1.50. If such trends persist in Northern Ireland, the demographic ageing process may accelerate further. Under NISRA’s low fertility variant, considered by many demographers to be a plausible scenario, the old-age dependency ratio could increase significantly. In 2022, there were approximately 261 individuals of pensionable age per 1,000 working-age individuals, equivalent to roughly one pensioner for every four people of working age. By 2072, this ratio could rise to 489 per 1,000, or nearly one pensioner for every two workers. This represents a dramatic increase in the dependency burden and poses substantial challenges for fiscal sustainability, labour market dynamics, and the structure of public services. Scotland’s demographic outlook presents both parallels and contrasts. Over the same 25-year period (2022–2047), Scotland’s population is projected to grow by 6.2%, largely due to inward migration mitigating natural decline. The proportion of pensionable-age individuals in Scotland is projected to rise from 18.9% to 21.5% during this period, while the old-age dependency ratio is expected to increase from 318 to 396 per 1,000 working-age individuals. These figures suggest that, although Scotland also faces ageing pressures, the projected burden on its working-age population will be less severe than in Northern Ireland. In contrast, Northern Ireland is projected to experience population growth of just 1.1% between 2022 and 2047. When coupled with the projected increase in the elderly population, this limited growth underscores the region’s heightened vulnerability to the socioeconomic impacts of demographic ageing. The implications of these projections are wide-ranging. An ageing population will likely increase demand for healthcare services, age-related social care, and pension provision, while simultaneously constraining the size of the working-age labour force. Policymakers must therefore consider a range of strategic interventions, including initiatives to support higher fertility rates, immigration policy adjustments to augment the labour supply, and reforms to pension and care systems to ensure long-term sustainability. In conclusion, the projected demographic changes in Northern Ireland represent a critical policy challenge. A comprehensive, forward-looking response is required to ensure that the region can maintain economic vitality and social cohesion in the context of an increasingly aged population.

Will we ever have an honest discussion about...

angelobottone

March 08 2025 at 10:48 am

Divorce will affect children for the rest of their lives, well into adulthood, but people don’t want to hear this because it makes them feel bad about their decisions, says Spectator columnist, writer and broadcaster, Bridget Phetasy.A piece she wrote a few months ago titled “How divorce never ends”, is based on her personal experience and presents the lifelong impact of parental break-up on children. It caused a huge reaction, for and against. Those who supported the article were themselves usually children of divorce. Those who reacted angrily were often the parents who exhibited great defensiveness about what they had done, even though Phetasy was at pains to say parental separation, for example when the relationship is abusive, is justified. Phetasy (née Walsh), whose parents divorced when she was 12, recounts how her life and that of her future husband – also a child of divorce – were upended. Their school achievements declined, and they fell into rebellious behaviours. The logistical challenges of splitting time between parents, with cross-country travel and fractured holiday traditions, contributed to instability and neglect. Lacking proper supervision, the children often resorted to reckless behaviour. “So often it feels like two people are just ‘over it’ [meaning the parents] and want to move on with their lives and be single again instead of doing whatever it takes to make it work for the kids. People don’t want to hear this because it makes them feel bad about their decisions. Divorce sucks. It never ends and it should be a last resort”, she wrote. Phetasy – a former columnist for Playboy magazine, of all things, – is now a mother and uses her parents’ shortcomings as a guide for what not to do. “Before I had a kid, I asked people who came from similar backgrounds how they managed to raise great, well-adjusted kids. They always said the same thing: “I just did the opposite of what my parents did.’”, she writes in her piece. She argues that divorce is too often treated casually, with little regard for its profound and enduring impact on children. She admits harbouring lasting anger and grief over her parents’ prioritisation of new relationships over their children’s well-being. These feelings persist into adulthood, particularly as the complexities of managing relationships with multiple sets of grandparents now affect her own family. Talking to the feminist podcaster Louise Perry, she recalls the reactions from readers of the piece and also from followers of her YouTube channel. “People lie to themselves about how hard it is on the kids. There’s this lie: kids are resilient, they’ll be fine. It was heartbreaking reading the initial flow of comments that came in. First you get the flood of people who feel seen and heard and validated. “Thank you so much this was my experience. I felt I this brought up so many emotions of my own”, and then you get the backlash and the people misinterpreting you and taking it out of context”, she told in the interview. Commenting on Bridget Phetasy’s article, Louise Perry noticed that the consideration of what is a truly valid reason for divorce often leads to exaggeration of issues, while many overlook the long-term impact on their children, whose lives will be shaped by the decision for decades to come. The majority of break-ups occur in low-conflict marriages, where the impact on children is often more profound due to the unexpected and therefore more traumatic nature of the separation. In such cases, it is usually in the best interest of the children for the parents to remain together. 2025 will mark 30 years from the divorce referendum in Ireland, where now over 320,000 adults are today divorced or separated and hundreds of thousands of children affected. This anniversary will surely be celebrated with enthusiasm, but a mature assessment will consider the voices of people like Bridget Phetasy who have suffered because of their parents’ decisions.

Search

Trending Topics

Recently Active Rooms

Recently Active Thinkers

Search close

Trending Topics

Recently Active Rooms

Recently Active Thinkers

Cookies on ts.close

Actions Listclose

Please confirm your account

Description

New Stream close

In this stream

Contributors I Follow

Followersclose

AboutClose

thinkspot TERMS OF USEclose

Search

Cookies on ts.

Actions List

New Stream

Followers

About

thinkspot TERMS OF USE