The problem with liberals

As much as I'd like to believe so, I'm not a liberal. This is because when I see the liberals around me, I get a feeling that - "Hey, wait a minute, I'm not like them!" 

Concepts like "Aman ki Asha"(AKA) enrage me. Why stick out a friendly hand to a neighbour who is so intent on chopping it off? I once had a heated discussion with a pro-AKA enthusiast and the bugger made me feel like a right-winger. Considering my abhorrence for right-wingers, it was a funny feeling! The problem with him was that he was unwilling to accept the reality of the situation. Reality 1: the export of terror from the neighbour, Reality 2: the commercial interests involved in the AKA initiative. 

I've written enough about the death penalty so I won't go much into that. But the liberals are unwilling to shake the prime principal that "the government has no right to take a person's life". That is another problem with them, they do not want to shift from certain basic ideals irrespective of their practicality. They too can get fanatical about their beliefs and ideals just like right wingers.

The third problem with liberals is that they can get quite anti-establishmentarian. They tend to oversimplify complex situations like the Maoist problem and the Kashmir problem. According to them, only the government is at fault while the ordinary people suffer. They choose to ignore the atrocities of the maoists or the forced exodus of the Kashmiri pundits from the valley. They are willing to give Kashmir away if the "ordinary Kashmiri wants it". They do not even want to take into account the fact that an independent Kashmir may not be able to sustain itself for very long. I guess raving and ranting against the government gives them the romantic feeling of free-spirited rebels.

So to summarize, following are my problems with liberals:

1. Idealists unwilling to accept reality.

2. Fanatics about certain 'cherished' beliefs. (Makes me wonder if liberals and right wingers are two sides of the same coin).

3. Pretentious romantics who feel good about themselves as 'crusaders for the common man' and 'rebels with a cause'.

I'm quite convinced now that I am a centrist. 

Fasting

I've never understood the concept of fasting. Why would anyone be so masochistic so as to subject herself* to hunger when she can very well choose not to! Unless she is training to be a commando where one has to get used to long spells of hunger if such need arises, I don't see why it needs to be done!

I have listed a few arguments that pro-fasters would put forth and I'll try to answer them.

Argument 1: It is to please the God!

Counter-argument: Why would God be pleased if you go hungry? He has to be a sadist if he desires so. Why worship a sadist then?

Argument 2: It is a form of penance. It is to inculcate self-discipline.

Counter-argument: Hogwash! 

Argument 3: You haven't sufficiently countered argument 2.

Counter-argument: All right, all right - if you really want to try a hand at self-discipline, make it a daily habit and don't restrict it to particular religious days. And if you really want to do penance, devote your time to productive humanitarian causes and don't proudly sit at home feeling giddy, doing nothing and having others take care of you because quite obviously, you don't have energy to do it yourself.

Argument 4: It builds character and prepares us for periods when we don't have enough food.

Counter-argument: Read my introductory paragraph.

Argument 5: It makes me look cultured and elevates my status in society.

Counter-argument: Sorry, I don't argue with pretentious people.

*-I have used 'herself' here as writing 'himself/herself' everywhere is cumbersome and writing 'himself' everywhere makes me seem like a sexist which I'm not.