The Weekly Vine Edition 47: Trump's Parade, Beckham's Cross, and the Death That Didn't Matter

Nirmalya Dutta's political and economic views vacillate from woke Leninist to Rand-Marxist to Keynesian-Friedmanite. He doesn't know what any of those terms mean.
Hello and welcome to another issue of the Weekly Vine.
This week, we take stock of Trump's boring parade, explain why brown lives matter a little less, explore the fear illusion, remember David Beckham the footballer, and reflect on borders and immigration.
A Big, Beautiful, and Boring Parade
When I was an insouciant kid in boarding school, I was deemed Kachra Party (KP) and exiled to the rafters during annual parades (on Independence and Republic Day) for not being able to stay in line or flail my legs in unison like my peers. Unlike the other exiled community that shares the same initials, I had no qualms about said exile.
Now imagine my joy when, nearly two decades later, I saw an entire contingent march with the same disinterred gusto. One is, of course, referring to the semiquincentennial (how the hell does one pronounce that?) commemorations of the US Army, infamous for losing wars all over the world unless aided by the Red Army. Unfortunately, the anniversary coincided with chickenhawk President Donald Trump's 79th birthday, so we got a snoozefest sponsored by Coinbase, Lockheed Martin, Palantir, and a bunch of other companies.
It was exactly as bad as one imagined, as the guests—much like yours truly during march pasts in boarding school—struggled to stay awake while soldiers and other members of the US Armed Forces marched with the enthusiasm of a snail returning home from a funeral on a lazy Sunday afternoon. The seats were empty because, unlike North Korea or Russia, America isn't an actual dictatorship in the traditional sense.
The farce was reinforced by songs like Creedence Clearwater Revival's Fortunate Son—a track that literally mocks chickenhawks like Trump who dodged the draft—playing in the background. All in all, it was the perfect metaphor for a democracy pretending to be an authoritarian state, led by a transactional tyrant whose morals are flexible and who seems intent on destroying the liberal world order that emerged after WWII.
Of course, much like Voltaire observed about the Holy Roman Empire, there was nothing particularly liberal or orderly about that world order—but that's a debate for another time.
The Fear Illusion
The other day, a news anchor asked on social media: 'What's happening to couples in the Northeast?'—a pretty preposterous argument to float unless one can draw a causal link suggesting that marriages are somehow more likely to end in Macbeth-like fatal murders in a particular geographical location.
What it actually is, is a fine example of the Baader-Meinhof phenomenon, also known as the frequency illusion.
The term originates from a 1990s online discussion where someone mentioned they'd just heard of the Baader–Meinhof Group (a German far-left militant organisation), and then suddenly began seeing references to it everywhere. The name stuck as shorthand for this type of mental glitch—and it happens to all of us.
Take, for example, when you see a sign that says 'Stalking not allowed' (quite common in the national capital, where men seem to need periodic reminders about consent). Suddenly, you start noticing similar signs everywhere. It feels like the universe is messing with you, but in reality, your brain is simply tuning into something it was previously ignoring.
Why it happens: The phenomenon is a combination of:
Selective attention – Once your brain learns about something new, it subconsciously starts scanning for it.
– Once your brain learns about something new, it subconsciously starts scanning for it. Confirmation bias – When you see it again, your brain takes note and thinks, 'Aha! I was right—it is everywhere!'
Now, why am I telling you this? Because it's the basis for so many of our modern anxieties.
Take the sudden barrage of news items about airplane snags after the horrific Air India crash in Ahmedabad. Suddenly, every TV channel and newspaper clipping seems to be about aviation issues—because editors and journalists aren't immune to the frequency illusion either.
But is there any definitive proof that air travel is objectively less safe than it was a year ago? Not quite. It's just that our brains are wired to worry. That doesn't mean we shouldn't drag companies over the coals to ensure better quality control—but we should be diligent before jumping the gun and assuming systemic failure.
The odds of dying in a plane crash are about 1 in 8 million, whereas the odds of dying in a road accident in India are around 1 in 5,000—making road travel over 1,600 times deadlier than flying.
Maybe it's your daily commute you should be afraid of.
Why Brown Lives Don't Matter As Much
When a white police officer knelt on the neck of a Black man named George Floyd, leading to his death, it became a global movement that eventually sunk the Democratic Party. But for a time, Black Lives Matter was the most powerful social movement in the world—even the Indian cricket team, who might not be able to name a single victim of police brutality in India, took a knee in solidarity.
Now, when 42-year-old Gaurav Kundi, an Indian-origin father of two, died of catastrophic brain damage after allegedly being pinned down by police in Australia, there's hardly a murmur—let alone a montage of global solidarity. Conflicting reports suggest he was intoxicated and arguing with his wife, which the police mistook for domestic violence. None of that changes the fact that a man lost his life following an altercation with law enforcement. And yet, the silence—even from the Indian press—is deafening.
Perhaps it's because brown deaths don't move moral compasses. Gaurav simply doesn't evoke the same emotions as George. While that's understandable on some levels—given America's long and brutal history with race, and its compulsive need to overcorrect for its original sin—there's a deeper reason: brown lives simply don't offer the political payoff or financial traction required to fuel a global moral crusade.
It's the same reason Western media outlets have no qualms referring to terrorists who murder Hindu pilgrims as 'gunmen', but would never dream of using such euphemisms if the same act occurred in Paris, London, or New York. Moral outrage, like everything else in this post-liberal order, is market-driven.
And Gaurav Kundi's death, tragically, just doesn't sell.
Sir David Beckham
'Beckham, into Sheringham… and Solskjaer has won it!''Manchester United have reached the promised land.'
The corner came in like a hymn. Beckham's delivery—whipped, precise, inevitable—was scripture in motion. In the annals of football, there are players who pass, players who dribble, players who score. But there was no one who could bend it like Beckham. Or to paraphrase Leonard Cohen: David had a secret chord that pleased the Lord.For United fans of the current vintage, it's hard to forget how good Beckham and his mates were and how terrifying it was for opposing teams when they played together. Because at that moment we were all in a Gurinder Chadha film, hoping to bend it like Beckham and if we couldn't copy his mohawk hairstyle, much to the chagrin of mothers and teachers.
You had Ryan Giggs running like a cocker spaniel chasing a silver piece of paper.
You had Roy Keane looking at you menacingly as he covered every blade of grass.
You had Paul Scholes hitting the ball with such power that it took Sir Alex Ferguson's breath away.
And you had David Beckham pinging crosses and passes with such accuracy that it seemed barely human.
It's easy to forget now, with the beard oils and whisky launches, the sarongs and showmanship, that before he became a brand, Beckham was a baller. And not just a decent one. A magnificent one. Read more.
Post-Script by Prasad Sanyal: The Border Isn't Where You Think It Is
There's an old video of Milton Friedman doing the rounds on Instagram. Sepia-toned, clipped, and inconveniently intelligent, it shows the economist calmly explaining why immigration worked better before 1914—largely because there was no welfare system. Immigrants came to work, not to collect benefits. And in that measured, almost surgical voice, Friedman drops the line that still makes policy wonks twitch: 'You can't have free immigration and a welfare state.' Read more.
Facebook Twitter Linkedin Email Disclaimer
Views expressed above are the author's own.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

First Post

41 minutes ago

• First Post

Why Donald Trump is desperate to win Nobel Peace Prize

Donald Trump has once again ranted about not getting the Nobel Peace Prize. In a long post on Truth Social, he listed a number of reasons why he deserves it. Now, Islamabad has nominated him for the honour for his 'decisive diplomatic intervention and pivotal leadership during the recent India-Pakistan crisis'. But why does the US president long for the validation of the prize so much? read more US President Donald Trump has once again complained about not getting the Nobel Peace Prize. AP United States President Donald Trump has made no bones about coveting a Nobel Peace Prize. He brought up the award again while reiterating his claim of ending hostilities between India and Pakistan — an assertion rejected by New Delhi. Trump has mentioned the Nobel Peace Prize dozens of times publicly, be it in his speeches, interviews or campaign rallies. After failing to get the award in his first term, his obsession with the prestigious award has returned. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD But why does Trump desire the Nobel Peace Prize so strongly? We will take a look. Trump says 'won't get Nobel Peace Prize' US President Donald Trump reiterated his claims of brokering a peace deal between India and Pakistan, griping he would not get a Nobel Peace Prize for 'stopping' the 'war' between the two South Asian neighbours. In a long post on his Truth Social platform on Friday (June 20), the Republican leader mentioned the prestigious award six times. He listed a variety of reasons why he should get the award. The Republican leader complained he would not get the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts in the Russia-Ukraine or Israel-Iran conflicts. 'I won't get a Nobel Peace Prize, no matter what I do,' Trump said in his post. The US President began the post saying he was 'very happy' to report that he, along with Secretary of State Marco Rubio, has arranged a 'wonderful treaty between Congo and Rwanda, in their war, which was known for violent bloodshed and death, more so even than most other Wars, and has gone on for decades.' He went on to say that representatives from Rwanda and Congo will be in Washington on Monday to sign documents, adding that this was a 'Great Day for Africa and, quite frankly, a Great Day for the World!' Donald J. Trump Truth Social 06.20.25 05:58 PM EST — Commentary Donald J. Trump Posts From Truth Social (@TrumpDailyPosts) June 20, 2025 STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Trump said he 'won't get a Nobel Peace Prize for this, I won't get a Nobel Peace Prize for stopping the War between India and Pakistan, I won't get a Nobel Peace Prize for stopping the War between Serbia and Kosovo, I won't get a Nobel Peace Prize for keeping Peace between Egypt and Ethiopia.' The US president has claimed multiple times that he halted the 'war between India and Pakistan' . New Delhi has, however, maintained that an understanding to cease fire with Pakistan was reached after direct talks between the Directors General of Military Operations (DGMOs) of the two militaries. Trump then said that he 'won't get a Nobel Peace Prize for doing the Abraham Accords' in West Asia, which, 'if all goes well, will be loaded to the brim with additional countries signing on, and will 'unify' West Asia 'for the first time in 'The Ages!'' STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The Abraham Accords, signed during Trump's first term at the White House, are landmark agreements to establish ties between Israel and four Arab countries. Trump ended his post with: 'No, I won't get a Nobel Peace Prize no matter what I do, including Russia/Ukraine, and Israel/Iran, whatever those outcomes may be, but the people know, and that's all that matters to me!' Trump's obsession with Nobel Peace Prize This is not the first time that Trump has lamented not winning the Nobel Peace Prize. He has spoken about it several times, and as per New York Times (NYT), complained 'publicly and privately' about not getting it for nearly a decade. As Trump pushes for a ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine and a peace deal in West Asia, the 'award is looming large in his mind', the American newspaper reported, citing current and former advisers. At an Oval Office meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in February, the US president said: 'They will never give me a Nobel Peace Prize.' 'It's too bad. I deserve it, but they will never give it to me,' he added. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Trump has been nominated many times for the Nobel Peace Prize. A wide variety of people can nominate someone for the honour. Last year, Congresswoman Claudia Tenney, a Republican from New York, nominated him for brokering the Abraham Accords. Norwegian politician Christian Tybring-Gjedde and a Swedish political figure, Magnus Jacobsson, nominated Trump during his first term. But the esteemed prize evaded the US president. Trump has been nominated once again. In February, Anat Alon-Beck, an Israeli-born professor at the Case Western Reserve University School of Law, submitted a letter to the Nobel committee, arguing that Trump should get the award for his early work on securing a peace deal in West Asia. 'By securing the release of hostages, standing firm against antisemitism, and fostering historic agreements that bring stability to the world's most volatile regions, [Trump] has once again demonstrated why he is a deserving recipient,' Alon-Beck wrote, as per Axios. The Trump administration officials have also rallied behind the US president in his quest for the prestigious prize, which is decided by the Nobel Committee – appointed by Norway's parliament. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD 'The Nobel Peace Prize is illegitimate if President Trump — the ultimate peace president — is denied his rightful recognition of bringing harmony across the world,' Steven Cheung, the White House communications director, said in a statement earlier. Speaking to Fox News in February, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said Trump deserves a Nobel for his efforts to end the Russia-Ukraine war. 'If it were fairly awarded, I think in a year, he should get it from what I've seen,' he said. US National Security Adviser Mike Waltz, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, and New York Representative Elise Stefanik have also advocated for Trump winning the Nobel. Meanwhile, Pakistan has nominated Trump for the 2026 Nobel Peace Prize 'in recognition of his decisive diplomatic intervention and pivotal leadership during the recent India-Pakistan crisis'. 'At a moment of heightened regional turbulence, President Trump demonstrated great strategic foresight and stellar statesmanship through robust diplomatic engagement with both Islamabad and New Delhi which de-escalated a rapidly deteriorating situation, ultimately securing a ceasefire and averting a broader conflict between the two nuclear states that would have had catastrophic consequences for millions of people in the region and beyond', a statement by Pakistan on Saturday (June 21) claimed. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The announcement came just days after the US president hosted Pakistan Army chief Asim Munir at the White House for lunch. Islamabad has parroted Trump's claim that he 'helped settle' the hostilities between the neighbours. ALSO READ: Not so Noble: How the Nobel Prize has become the most controversial award ever Why is Trump pushing for the Nobel Peace Prize? Trump's obsession with the Nobel Peace Prize may have to do with former US President Barack Obama, who had won the award less than nine months after taking office in 2009. Obama, who was a highly controversial choice, got the prize for his 'extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples'. Trump has criticised the Nobel committee for picking Obama for the award. In 2019, the Republican leader said he should get the prize 'for a lot of things, if they gave it out fairly — which they don't. They gave one to Obama immediately upon his ascent to the presidency, and he had no idea why he got it. … That was the only thing I agreed with him on.' Towards the end of his 2024 presidential campaign, Trump repeatedly brought up Obama's Nobel Peace Prize, ranting that he did not deserve the award. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD 'If I were named Obama, I would have had the Nobel Prize given to me in 10 seconds,' he said. John Bolton, who was ousted by Trump as his national security adviser in 2019, told NYT, 'The centre of his public life is the greater glory of Donald Trump, and the Nobel Peace Prize would be a nice thing to hang on the wall.' 'He saw that Obama got the Nobel Peace Prize and felt if Obama got it for not doing anything, why should he not get it?' he said of the US president. While Trump longs for the validation of the Nobel Peace Prize, critics say he does not deserve it, as there is no guarantee he will achieve a lasting peace between Russia and Ukraine or in West Asia. They also accuse the US president of aligning himself with aggressors. With inputs from agencies

Time of India

an hour ago

• Time of India

Japan scraps US meeting after Washington demands more defense spending: FT reports

Japan called off a key meeting with the United States. This followed a demand from the Trump administration. The US wanted Japan to significantly increase its defense spending. The request was higher than previous expectations. This development occurred before crucial upper house elections in Japan. It also precedes a NATO meeting where similar spending demands are anticipated from European allies. Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Japan has canceled an annual high-level meeting with key ally the United States after the Trump administration demanded it spend more on defense , the Financial Times reported on of State Marco Rubio and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth had been expected to meet Foreign Minister Takeshi Iwaya and Defense Minister Gen Nakatani in Washington on July 1 for the yearly 2+2 security Tokyo scrapped the meeting after the U.S. asked Japan to boost defense spending to 3.5% of gross domestic product, higher than an earlier request of 3%, the newspaper said, citing unnamed sources familiar with the Nikkei newspaper reported on Saturday that President Donald Trump 's administration was demanding that its Asian allies, including Japan, spend 5% of GDP on defense.A Japanese foreign ministry official, who asked not to be named, told Reuters on Saturday that Japan and the U.S. have never discussed 3.5% or 5% targets for defense spending. The official also said he had no information about the FT is generally difficult to coordinate such four-way meetings, especially as Hegseth is busy with the crisis in the Middle East, he said.A U.S. official who asked not to be identified told Reuters that Japan had "postponed" the talks in a decision made several weeks ago. The official did not cite a reason. A non-government source familiar with the issue said he had also heard Japan had pulled out of the meeting but not the reason for it doing Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce said she had no comment on the FT report when asked about it at a regular briefing. The Pentagon also had no immediate embassy in Washington did not respond to a request for comment. The nation's defense ministry and the Prime Minister's Office did not answer phone calls seeking comment outside business hours on FT said the higher spending demand was made in recent weeks by Elbridge Colby, the third-most senior Pentagon official, who has also recently upset another key U.S. ally in the Indo-Pacific by launching a review of a project to provide Australia with nuclear-powered March, Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba said that other nations do not decide Japan's defense budget, after Colby called for Tokyo to spend more to counter China in his nomination hearing to be under secretary of defense for and other U.S. allies have been engaged in difficult trade talks with the United States over President Trump's worldwide tariff FT said the decision to cancel the July 1 meeting was also related to Japan's July 20 upper house elections, expected to be a major test for Ishiba's minority coalition move on the 2+2 comes ahead of a meeting of the U.S.-led NATO alliance in Europe next week, at which Trump is expected to press his demand that European allies boost their defense spending to 5% of GDP.

Mint

an hour ago

• Mint

Trump Says Spain Has to Pay as NATO Seeks Deal on Spending

NATO allies are pressing Spain to sign on to a stepped-up defense spending target and end a holdout that US President Donald Trump portrayed as unacceptable. Ahead of a North Atlantic Treaty Organization summit starting Tuesday that Trump is scheduled to attend, Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez is the only leader who's outright opposed to the proposal to raise outlays to 5% of gross domestic product. 'NATO's going to have to deal with Spain,' Trump told reporters during a trip to his New Jersey golf club on Friday. 'Spain's been a very low payer. I think Spain has to pay what everybody else has to pay.' Ambassadors of NATO member countries held inconclusive talks in Brussels on Friday and are expected to continue into the weekend, according to people familiar with the matter, who asked for anonymity to discuss private consultations. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte is negotiating directly with Sanchez, the people said. Others among the alliance's lowest spenders, such as Italy and Belgium, have expressed doubt about the 5% goal and asked for flexibility but eventually came on board. The two-day NATO summit in The Hague begins on Tuesday. While Rutte initially proposed a 2032 target, the latest draft pushes the date back to 2035. His wish to see mandatory yearly increases has also been stripped, which should make the process easier for laggards. NATO's existing target calls for member countries to spend 2% of GDP on defense. Under the new target, 1.5% would go to broader defense-related spending such as cybersecurity as well as infrastructure for moving troops and military equipment. The agreed criteria are broad enough that all allies should be able meet that part of the plan quickly, according to the people. The increase in core defense spending from 2% to 3.5% will be much harder to deliver. What could help bring Spain on board is that NATO will review the equipment and troops it deems necessary in 2029. The price tag attached to its capabilities could be tweaked at that point, potentially providing some breathing room for countries, according to the people. With assistance from Skylar Woodhouse. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.