Argumentum ad populum: The Karma Theory

Almost all the descriptions of Karma and the like require some kind of supernatural agent, basically a god, to oversee it as well as a continuing soul to receive the karma, destiny, etc. The versions that do not require a god and/or a soul are so vague that they are not at all useful for explaining things or for consoling yourself. The details of one’s particular concepts may make a difference in whether or not he can reconcile them with his disbelief in a god.

The ideas about karma, things happening for a reason, destiny, and an order to the universe, etc. come from the same need that the belief in a god used to take care of. The idea of living in a completely non-conscious universe that has no built-in system of fairness, that only follows patterns we call physical laws but not moral laws, that not only does not care about us but also can not even know that we exist, is a very scary thing to many people. So when their belief in a parent like god crashes, they may still be attracted to the comforting reassurance that there is some kind of order or justice to things; and that we can have some kind of input, however small, to influence the things that happen to us, by virtue of our moral behavior.

So what exactly is karma, and how does it work?

In its new age form, it’s referred to as the ‘law of attraction’, which is an equally preposterous pseudoscience.

A plausible explanation may come from in thinking of karma as just a guide, a way to label things, to navigating the possibilities in quantum spacetime. Whenever we make a choice, that choice affects our future choices. So, when you bring other living beings, who react to our choices, into the situation then our choices start affecting the future choices of others. Thus, in a system of individual beings making choices, a feedback loop is established. It’s kinda like my reactions and choices feeding off of your reactions and choices which feed off of my reactions and choices, and so on so forth - setting a chain of events. If your life, looked at as a whole, is nothing but destructive interactions feeding back on themselves, then – to put it curtly - you being a jerk to other people will result in people being a jerk to you. On the contrary, if you are nice to people and surround yourself with people who react positively to your choices, then you will create positive feedback which means more ‘good’ things will happen to you and happen around you. It can be broadly understood by the tenet ‘as you sow, so shall you reap’, and is manifested in various theories and principles as well: like game theory and all. Truly, the most basic of all the things are often made the most complicated!

Here’s a new insight: Modern Physics can map the concept of karma onto Hugh Everett’s many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. The branches that your reality takes as you move through time are dictated by what is possible - based on all your existing choices. Ergo, if you chose to ill-treat an acquaintance years ago, there are very few possible branches for your timeline where good things will come to you from that person. If you run into each other again, that person is more likely to harbor resentment and treat you coldly. On the other hand, if there are a large number of people in your life who you have treated well, then not only will your timeline easily be able to branch into realities where the people you have done good things for return the favor, but people you don’t know who have seen or heard of your deeds can be inspired as well, which may come back to you if you meet them or their choices and deeds can affect you somehow.

And not to forget the danger of 'believing' in karma which can come to the fatalism of saying “It’s too late now; everything is already determined by my past actions.”

The bottom line is that there is no reason to think that the concept of karma is tied to an intelligent being or purpose. It can be a systematic function of our reality, emerging from the rules that autonomous beings with free will have to follow in order to live. Karma is probability and statistics, not woo. Unfortunately, it has been woo-ed to hell and back by everyone who has ever tried to describe or popularize it. Hopefully, that will change.

A tragic farce?

India is a ‘Sovereign Socialist Secular Democratic Republic’ which strives to secure to all its citizens, inter alia, ‘Liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship’*. That the ideology of free thought follows from this naturally is a no brainer. But the government of Gujarat doesn’t seem to agree; for there is a Prohibition on Alcohol, a sumptuary law prohibiting the consumption of alcoholic beverages, in effect in the state.

This law is in limelight again because of the hooch tragedy, where some 130 people – most of them from the poor class – have died after consuming illegal alcohol. Incidentally the epicenter of the tragedy is in chief minister Modi's very own Maninagar area of Ahmedabad.

The law is a tribute to Mahatma Gandhi who hailed from Gujarat and vehemently condemned alcohol, opining that the free flow of liquor would encourage the poor and others to drink excessively resulting in the debilitation of their health - making them incapable of working. These people would then neglect their families which eventually end in shambles. But such tragedies demonstrate that the ban is not serving its purpose and eventually ends up doing more harm than good: the state government loses revenues to the tunes of thousands of crores of rupees per annum due to the illicit trade, which also encourages bootlegging and moonshining and the dangers associated. Also, the illegal alcohol trade is well woven in the state politics now. The biggest gangsters in Gujarat started their careers as bootleggers. Moreover, about 20 years ago, a new trend began when bootleggers, instead of simply playing backroom financiers, began to contest elections, using their money power and the men who worked under them to gain entry into politics.

Now, the Constitution of India mandates in Part Four (carrying the legally unenforceable provisions which should ideally be enforced by governments) ‘to bring about the prohibition of intoxicating drinks and drugs that are injurious to health’. Ergo, if the banning of alcohol puts people in the way of more harmful drinks - as it’s demonstrated by the hooch tragedy - then is the government of Gujarat fulfilling the constitutional mandate?

In the 1990s, Andhra Pradesh took up and abandoned the prohibition policy in less than two years. This is what the state Excise minister said when the ban was being lifted:

“Despite our best efforts, the prohibition-related offences, particularly illicit distillation and smuggling, have been steadily increasing in the state.”

Another case in point is the ‘Noble Experiment’ prohibition policy in the United States of the Great Depression times, repealed just fourteen years after the sale of alcohol was banned. The reasons were the same: loss of excise and other duties, moonshining, bootlegging and illicit trading, and the health related aspects.

Coming back to the Liberty point, it’s the duty of the government to educate people and spread awareness about the harmful effects of something if it is so. It should not go about banning stuff like the way it is doing, especially when the stuff is something which the people imbibe; as it’s beyond the government’s ambit and competence to do so. Even if – for the sake of argument – we assume that the banning of liquor is acceptable, it’s completely unjustified and tantamount to double standards because the same government is doing nothing to curb the consumption of tobacco. So much so for the adherence to the values held dear by our forbearers and the founders of our nation and the constitution. With this sort of ideology, we can next expect a blanket ban on ‘sex’ as it induces corrupt, vulgar, and immoral behavior which leads to violent condemnable crimes like rape, etc. And one can only shudder to fathom what all other such things may follow.

Dystopia anyone?

Don’t fail your Home!

Global warming and climate change is a threat that has assumed humongous proportions. It is the increase in the average temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and the oceans since the mid-20th century and its projected continuation. The IPCC asserts that most of the warming observed over the last fifty years is attributable to human activities.

Till this day, the menace continues to be hushed up by the skeptics – the ecofascists – who are hell bent on disregarding any evidence or research which may bolster the theory of global warming. These non peer reviewed scientists and their coterie, the self proclaimed advocators of 'truth', are in fact the real life equivalent of Nick Naylor from the movie ‘Thank you for Smoking’. Theirs is the conspiracy theory that global warming, a 'pseudo-science', is no more than an overblown hoax.

But recent researches have indicated that the change is there and is actually accelerating – the deserts are spreading, ice caps are retreating, and ocean levels are rising at an unprecedented rate. It’s very likely that a rise in temperature which is unimaginable – to the tune of nine degree Celsius by the end of the century – may as well take place. This is happening because the global greenhouse gases emissions are rising faster than expected. To this is coupled the recent discovery that some mitigating factors like the absorption of carbon dioxide by the oceans was overestimated. There is also this newfound evidence that climate change is self re-enforcing: that, for e.g., rising temperatures melt the ice in the Polar Regions thereby unlocking more carbon dioxide – a vicious cycle indeed! The implications:

“include sea level rise of 0.18 to 0.59 meters (0.59 to 1.9 ft) in 2090-2100 relative to 1980-1999, repercussions to agriculture, possible slowing of the thermohaline circulation, reductions in the ozone layer, increasingly intense (but less frequent) hurricanes and extreme weather events, lowering of ocean pH, oxygen depletion in the oceans, and the spread of diseases such as malaria and dengue fever, as well as Lyme disease, hantavirus infections, bubonic plague, and cholera. One study predicts 18% to 35% of a sample of 1,103 animal and plant species would be extinct by 2050, based on future climate projections. However, few mechanistic studies have documented extinctions due to recent climate change and one study suggests that projected rates of extinction are uncertain.”

More here.

The stakes are very high for India too. The economy of the country is still very much dependent on the monsoon which, in turn, is adversely affected by the climate change. This very year is pegged to be an El Nino year, and the devastating results have started pouring in. Other observable effects here are anomalous behaviors of the two seasons, unpredictable rainfall, and - of course - the long dry monsoons. We can’t afford to turn a blind eye towards the issue especially when the fiscal deficit is pegged at 12%.

On the other hand, there may actually be opportunities for India. We have a mammoth potential for non conventional energy resources, viz., wind power, solar power, wave energy, geothermal energy, etc. By utilizing it we can build enough carbon credits to sell them at huge profits, like what the people of Powerguda village in Adilabad district of Andhra Pradesh did.

Whatever your outlook is, there is no gainsaying the fact that global warming is indeed a sword hanging on our heads; and to remain oblivious of it by choice is to live in a fool’s paradise. Sustainable Development and just use of the resources coupled with adherence to the resolutions taken up in meets like the Kyoto will leave us with any chance. Otherwise, the doom is nigh - with the ‘probable’ exemption of another world war, a huge asteroid, or a fatal plague, global warming may be the single largest danger to our planet earth.

The ‘edifice complex’

Uttar Pradesh’s Chief Minister Mayawati is all set to unveil forty statues of ‘great leaders’, including six of her own, on July the 3^rd. All in all, excursions of this kind have cost the state exchequer dear – involving costs to the tune of INR 3000 Crores. The purported purpose, from the horse’s mouth:

“To create awareness among the people across the country regarding these memorials, parks and statues developed in the memory of Dalit icons, the state government has decided to launch a major publicity campaign. The tourism department had already incorporated these places in its map."

When a PIL was filed in the Allahabad High Court challenging the installation; she 'clarified', appended with the above statement, that:

“It has been decided that later on, income generated from the sales of tickets would be utilized for the welfare of the people living in slums and villages.”

After the recent Lok Sabha elections debacle, Behenji has gone berserk. She first accused the Congress, the BJP, and the SP of forming a covert alliance against her to prevent her from getting her rightful share in the Lok Sabha. After that, when seemingly the reality of the inquiries against her for the Taj Heritage Corridor project and other cases dawned on her, she offered unconditional outside support to the UPA Government. Earlier, she had slandered Rahul Gandhi and other Congress leader by her accusations like that of Rahul undergoing a shuddhikaran (purification) after interacting with Dalits. She even had the guts to call Mahatma Gandhi a ‘natakbaaz’ (fake) recently in a meeting. The next person to face such calumnies from her may well be Dr. Ambedkar or even Kanshiram!

This is in aftermath of her failed ‘social engineering’ adventure. The move paid off well in 2007, when she won an absolute majority in the state assembley. But her acts and policies after that have left many disgruntled and disillusioned. The reason is that while such moves dilute the feeling of bahujan identity within the Dalits, they never help Dalits bond culturally with the 'upper castes'. Essentially, there is a huge gap between the bahujan and the upper castes, which cannot be bridged by mere electoral and political alliances; and can only be bridged when the Dalits obtain the same living standards as upper castes - a situation which exists in the realm of imagination even this day, as a large section of Dalits continue to live on the margins of society. The upper castes were skeptical since the inception of the gambit, and were the first to cry foul at even minor instances. What ultimately happened was that both the strata thought that the other one was benefited more, and were unhappy therefore.

The sculptor of the statues, Mr. Prajapati, captures the dilemma faced by her most aptly:

“In 2003, Kashi Ram asked that we put up statues in their lifetimes. We don't know what will happen after our demise. Now Mayawati is building a statue that is 18ft high and will be placed on a pillar that is 100ft... She wants her memory to be immortalized."

Amour propre approaching megalomania? Nah! This is insecurity, expressing itself as a new phenomenon – the ‘edifice complex’.

P.S.: Just to mention, other great ‘leaders’ who’ve committed the act of installing their statues in their lifetimes include Saddam Hussein and North Korea’s Kim Jong-il.

The last great Minority

Among the many legacies of the Raj, there is this draconian and preposterous section 377 of the Indian Penal Court. Introduced by Lord Macaulay as a part of the colonial project of regulating and controlling the British and Indian-origin subjects, it criminalizes homosexual activity; stating:

“Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.”

The ambit of Section 377, which was devised to criminalize and prevent homosexual associations - sodomy in particular, extends to any sexual union other than coitus. Thus even consensual heterosexual acts such as fellatio, cunnilingus, and fingering may well be interpreted as punishable offenses under this law. Now who’s thinking kinky after reading all this? We’re all law abiding citizens after all, aren’t we? But hey, did someone say something about ‘consenting adults’?

It were the British who made this law which we still hold on to, and those were Victorian times. A lot of water has flown since then through the Thames as well as the Yamuna, so much so that sadomy, which was once punishable by death in the UK, is no more so. It’s high time we also realize this and act accordingly and progressively. LGBT is no thing to be looked down upon, and anyone who does so has yet to grow up. Opposing it is plainly poking your nose in someone else’s matters.

The Indian constitution, under Article 21, grants the right to life and liberty for the subjects. By forcing someone to alter his true self just on our whims is sheer decoitry of the said right, and is inhumane and utterly damnable. Homosexuals are, after all, normal people just having a different sexual preference.

Besides Section 377, the sexual minorities in India are subjected to a variety of legally sanctioned and covert forms of discriminations. For instance: The family law structure is based entirely on a ‘heterosexual basis’ and marriages can only be between persons of opposite sex; the succession and property rights, and entitlements to assets are not legally sanctioned in relations between homosexuals. By refusing to legalize homosexual relations between consenting adults on the dubious ground of the demands of ‘public morality (sic)’, a large number of its citizens are denied the right to conduct their lives with dignity. The repeal of Section 377 will be the first step in cutting the ground under the homophobia that afflicts state and society in India.

Homosexuality is a matter of nature and nurture. Which of these two is the dominant factor here is not yet known. Now let’s suppose that the former is dominant and analyze it at the gene level – where all our characteristics are rooted. The gene of homosexuality survives because people have been forced to suppress their homosexual desires and made to lead a ‘normal’ life – by marrying a person of the opposite sex, having children, etc. And so the gene lives on. Left on its own, the gene would perish for the lack of being carried to the next generation, as the homosexuals among themselves can’t reproduce. And can it be a matter of nurture when people with absolutely no homosexual background in their parents turn out to be homosexual? (Exceptions to this nurture factor can be places like prisons though.)

So why the eff are some conservative groups paranoid? Enough of the religious crap now....

Oh My God!

One of the greatest achievements of mankind is the theory of evolution propounded by the genius of Charles Darwin in his path breaking treatise ‘On the Origin of Species’ – an idea that is remarkably simple yet strikingly astonishing. It was this text which could provide a clinching evidence to solve the greatest mystery of all times – that how we all came to be what we are. Such is its widespread ambit that apart from addressing the issue it takes up, the idea, inter alias, also helped shaping me – and many others as well - in an atheist.

This year marks the 150^th anniversary of the publication of the opus magnum, and also witnesses the publication of a special anniversary edition; an abridged version with a special introduction, which is – for the lack of a better word – blasphemous. It’s a shameless propaganda device of the ‘creationists’, the advocators of ‘Intelligent Design’ (I can’t help laughing at the irony in the name chosen, so well it highlights their insecurity), resorting to libelous accusations, misquoting, fact distortion, and even going to the extent of suggesting that Darwin wanted to use evolution to justify genocide! Here’s a sample. The whole text may be found here. (pdf)

‘Do you think that DNA’s amazing structure could have come together by accident? Or does it point to an intelligent Designer? Even the director of the U.S. National Human Genome Research Institute concluded there is a God based on his study of DNA.

Richard Dawkins, arguably the most famous of atheists, can’t claim the title “atheist,” because he understands that something must have created everything. He said, “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.”

Keeping in mind that the most intelligent of human beings can’t create a grain of sand from nothing, do you think that that “something” that made everything was intelligent? It obviously is; and if you do believe the “force” that made the flowers, the birds, the trees, the human eye, and the sun, the moon and the stars was intelligent, you then believe that there was an intelligent designer. You have just become an unscientific knuckle-dragger in the eyes of our learning institutions that embrace Darwinism.’

They even tried misquoting Dawkins! This is the liberal evangelical website from where this gem of a piece was retrieved.

Here is a spot on honest review of the book, a single sentence by PZ Myers:

“It's like a book with multiple personality disorder — two parts that absolutely hate each other; an intro that is the inane product of one of the most stupid minds of our century, and a science text that is the product of one of the greatest minds of the author's century.”

Their diabolic intentions of putting 'a million copies' of this trash in schools, if fulfilled, would defeat the very purpose of science. This is from people who go on and on with the stupid rhetoric of the watchmaker analogy, denying every proof which may refute their claims simply on whims. Simply put, it’s your own problem if you can’t distinguish pseudo-sciences from genuine scientific theories; and the best possible solution here is a psychiatrist.

Taboo?

We Indians have a propensity towards an ostrich attitude - which is to say that we tend to turn our faces away from a problem, idiotically hoping for it to somehow resolve itself or thinking that in this fashion we won’t be affected by it. Nowhere is this more common than in the issue of sex education, a process considered taboo by many. A hotly debated topic, and denied its well deserved status in the state, it somehow perplexes even the most intellectually elite – who oppose it on utter ridiculous grounds like the ignominy it would bring to our culture and all. This was best exemplified in the Supreme Court’s decision in November 2007 of not incorporating sex education in ‘Right to Education’, stating that it couldn't be made a Fundamental Right.

A few months back, the Committee on Petitions - comprising Rajya Sabha members and headed by BJP’s Venkaiah Naidu, observed:

“There should be no sex education in schools as our country’s social and cultural ethos are such that sex education has absolutely no place in it”.

…

“That children must be given the message that sex before marriage is immoral, unethical and unhealthy”.

And as if that in itself wasn’t enough, the committee - advocating ‘instinct control’ and ‘dignity of restraint’ - called for a new curriculum to include material on lives and teaching of saints, spiritual leaders, freedom fighters and national heroes.

To top it, the committee said that the chapters on Naturopathy, Ayurveda, Unani and Yoga and moral values should be made integral parts of the syllabus to enable ‘total development of the child’. Chapters like ‘Physical and Mental Development in Adolescents’ and ‘HIV/AIDS and other Sexually Transmitted Diseases’ and related topics should be removed from the curriculum and incorporated in biology books only at the 10+2 stage.

So we shouldn’t have sex-ed. It’s unethical, against our virtues, diabolical, unnecessary, and several better alternatives are available. Why they’ve failed to produce any result and why sex related crimes are all but falling isn’t a matter of concern. The only thing that matters here is that the ‘cultural integrity’ should be preserved. It’s altogether a different matter that the ‘cultural integrity’ is a term which is as clear as the conscience of Laden.

We won’t have sex-ed, but stuff such as MTV- arguably the youth’s ‘India TV’ now with programmes like ‘Splitsvilla’ and more - and other such stuff on TV and in print media are welcome. Women mouthing suggestive dialogues - shown to be almost completely dependent on males - in order to ‘cater to the audience’s demand’, is commonplace. Did someone mention ‘hypocrisy’?

The benefits of sex-ed are many. There’s no point in reiterating them. However, this post argues well in favor of the case. More info can be sought here.

It’s high time that the seriousness of the situation gets acknowledged. Sex-ed is essential for a balanced and non skewed viewpoint, non chauvinist mentality, appreciation of the opposite sex, and a healthy body as well. The mystical aura around the topic ought to be busted now. You can’t crack a rock using a feather, however charming and innovative it may seem; the problem can’t be dealt with ‘yoga’ and all.

Ignoring sex education for young adults has done enough damage already. From a burgeoning AIDS crisis to exponential population growth, alongside young folk with repressed sexualities and stunted mentalities, it is bad enough already. It should not be allowed to get any worse.

Flying High

It has been fifteen years since that unfortunate mishap at Imola, in the San Marino Grand Prix, when Ayrton Senna - one of the greatest drivers in the history of Formula One – died. That event sent shock waves the world over. The sport was not to be same again, with covert and overt changes all abound.

He is one of my inspirations; it’s for his passion, fire, zeal, attitude and audacity that I revere him. Known to deliver the best in adverse circumstances – a quality best exemplified by his unmatched rain driving skills – he inspired me to put in that extra effort when the tides were not in my favor. Going through his videos on YouTube, one notices the passion and the love he had for the game; and that made me his devotee. He had the guts to challenge someone - the case of his rivalry with Alain Prost comes to mind - who would later find himself vanquished. His stint at McLaren, the high point of his rivalry with Prost, clearly showed the world what he was made of. It’s no surprise that the Brazilians don’t find even Massa good enough as the bar is set too high by Senna. Such is his legacy that songwriters have written pieces like:

“Oh! Since Senna doesn't race anymore...it's not Sunday anymore!”

He most definitely is among the few persons I admire and seek inspiration from. I’d end this piece with this quote, by the master himself:

“On a given day, a given circumstance, you think you have a limit. And so you touch this limit, something happens and you suddenly can go a little bit further. With your mind power, your determination, your instinct, and the experience as well, you can fly very high.”

F.R.I.E.N.D.S

It’s arguably one of the most popular sitcoms, replete with a cult following and all. I too am a fan, and once was very much influenced by it too; so much so that using ‘so’ as a modifier – a phenomenon attributed to the series - has found occurrences in my writings too. Any good piece of art has very solid philosophical foundations, inasmuch as it would creep in your characters even if you’re not deliberately doing so. Same happened to this gem too.

Eulogizing the series any further would be trite; so I’d skip to analyzing the characters and what I think of them.

1. Ross: The archetype geek, he was one of my favorite characters (the other one being Chandler). He’s the guilty conservative – always shown having bad luck and a victim of situations. Shown to be knowledgeable and religious in equal manners, he’s the ideal character in that sense which people want to see and to be. He always thought himself to be an Ace Science Stud, and turned out to be just that – ASS.
2. Chandler: Ah! My other favorite. He was shown to be quite intelligent, but who would want to see such a person win (winning as in most of you perceive it to be)? So, to cater to the popular demand, he was insinuating a tacit apology always – which was masked by humour - and was shown to have various character complexities and follies typically associated with such persons. We have this general tendency of trying to rub a line to shorten it, don’t we?
3. Monica: The typical egotist, individualist and hence was portrayed selfish. She was shown to be somewhat eccentric, as we would like to believe that such persons who are their own world can’t be normal. She was also shown to be pretty caring, apparently a lesson for the egotists insofar as that they can be much happier when loving truly. And this was quite palpable to the audience, who were shedding tears with her!
4. Rachel: The typical bitch – pampered, rich, beautiful, slutty, arrogant, ignorant, .… She was shown to be the most selfish and manipulative character - the sort who most of the guys would love to show off as their girlfriends, or would dream of bedding. She was also shown to have some shocking weaknesses, apparently to add some mystic nature to her character (supposedly to pass it as credible).
5. Phoebe: Shown to be irrational and god fearing, at least the writers could make out the connection between the two characteristics. She was also portrayed as hypocrite.
6. Joey: The character who is the favorite of school-girls, and it’s not hard to see why. He was the stud in the show, the brainless brawny handsome hunk girls love to sleep with. He was depicted a god fearing, emotional, hypocrite yet-somehow-likeable guy.

You must have guessed who all I didn’t like and you’re free to craft your reasons. If you find anything interesting, do leave a comment. This series, by no means a Seinfeld, ran for a socking ten years. This alone says a lot about a lot many among us!

The virtue

"A month after US President Barack Obama came out with 'Say No to Bangalore and yes to Buffalo' rhetoric, which now echoes in the corridors of Capitol Hill, American companies have launched a campaign against the new law that ends tax incentives to those firms which create jobs overseas."

More here.

A person who renegades on his promises is either a short-sighted fool or a coward, equally despicable in both the cases. The US President in his campaign promised to bring back jobs to the country, and now is leaving no stone unturned (?!) to deliver on them. But the would-be-casualties won’t let him have it so easy. So Corporate America, the Satan himself, is now planning to launch an offensive.

And they’re repaying him in his own currency – quoting the imminent job loss and the other similar losses. Quite an irony.

So far, so good.

We in India are watching the proceedings eagerly, waiting for the situation to unfold with time. Quite obvious and understandable this is, given that we have high stakes involved. It’s in times like this that we so conveniently become oblivious to our very own agricultural subsidies and our now so common cries and rhetoric at the World Trade forums. There exists a term for this tendency in the lexicon, called ‘hypocrisy’; which is as despicable as – if not less than – the person who breaches his promise.

Hypocrisy, by itself, is a virtue. Yeah, well. As if it ever cared for an explanation.