R.I.P Peeping Tom

All those little kids in N.Y who are looking forward to one more year of dropped erasers, and the accidental views of panties as you bent down to pick them up are in for a rude surprise: Peeping into women's clothing may soon be banned.

Not Alone

Moral policing in India incites emotions ranging from bewilderment to disgust. At times, even jealousy at the relative freedom that the citizens of the west enjoy. No more. Proof that human insanity is distributed equally all over the globe:

Atlanta considers banning baggy pants: Convinced that sagging pants are an "epidemic" that is becoming a "major concern" around the country, city councilman C.T. Martin has sponsored this rather absurd legislation. Apart from boxer shorts and thongs, bra straps will probably be banned too. Violation ofany of these laws will result in strict fines. Apparently they are not the first to think up something like this:

Earlier this year, the town council in Delcambre, La., passed an ordinance that carries a fine of up to $500 or six months in jail for exposing underwear in public. Several other municipalities and parish governments in Louisiana have enacted similar laws in recent months.

Feel free to sell guns, but dildos? Never.: Blowing up people's heads may be a pretty reasonable thing to do, but a blowjob? Good God No.

And its not just evil dirty dildos that these paternalistic lawmakers have saved the state from, they have banned casinos, lotteries and betting parlours too. Utopia, no?

(Stories via digg)

?!?

WTF? The first two letters mean what the...

Loads of smoke, Little fire

“As further clarified in the section-by-section analysis included in this report, the conferees believe that there should be no ambiguity regarding the legal and policy consequences of any future Indian test of a nuclear explosive device. In that event, the president must terminate all export and re-export of US-origin nuclear materials, nuclear equipment, and sensitive nuclear technology to India. The conferees expect the president to make full and immediate use of US rights to demand the return of all nuclear-related items, materials, and sensitive nuclear technology that have been exported or re-exported to India if India were to test or detonate, or otherwise cause the test or detonation of, a nuclear explosive device for any reason, including such instances in which India describes its actions as being ‘for peaceful purpose.’

This statement in the Act will trouble almost anybody who reads it and rightly so. It seems like an all out attack on India's sovereignty. But what we fail to consider is the fact that even President Bush has gone on to state that most of the parts of the act are like suggestions more than rules. The sections that India is most worried about, may not be binding on us. But then there is the all to obvious question, but who is to stop any future President from stopping trade with our country if we test a Nuclear bomb? Well my answer is based on an assumption, but i feel that it is a fairly safe one. Once nuclear co operation starts between the two countries, we can expect many American companies working on nuclear energy to invest here. Any sanctions against India will them. But why just nuclear energy? Considering the pace at which India is growing, lots of American MNCs are gonna increase their investments in India. And in my opinion the powerful lobbies that these businesses control in Washington should stop the US from imposing sanctions. And on top of that all, we are emerging as the one of the most powerful countries in the world, to consider that we wont have any bargaining power with the US is childish in its extreme.

Keeping More Than One Pet Dog: Illegal

A new legislation by the Chineese government wants to make sure that you never keep more than one dog at your place and even more absurd that should you chose to keep even one its height should not be more than 14 inches. If none of this makes any sense to you then rest assured that you are not the only one. I was equally puzzled too. So i decided to dig a little and this is what came out:

• This law is not new, its just that it was not enforced very strictly earlier.
• The reason for this ban is the fear that it may cause rabies.
• In August, tens of thousands of dogs were killed in Yunnan province in southwestern China after three people died of the disease.

From this one thing stands out rather obviously. China's public health system is not in good shape and instead of trying to solve this problem, China is taking the easy way out: eliminating the dogs. As of today registering a dog and subsequently taking care of its health are rather expensive in China and the government has been doing nothing about it partially because of a Chineese perception that keeping a dog is one of those bourgeois tendencies that any communist loves to hate so much. One thing that worries me is the fate of all those dogs who are with owners having more than one pet.

After hearing so much about the way China is progressing this news comes as a confirmation that all the progress that we see is on the economic sector, personal freedom and liberty are still alien concepts to the ruling party.

And oh if you were wondering about the limitation on the dog's height, the official spokesman's reason was that dog's that are higher than 14 inches "make those who don't own dogs psychologically afraid." Now thats what I call a reason.

More on this here.

Digg This