Anybody who is living right now should have realized that
(a) War is miserable - especially for people that are being bombed.
(b) A significant proportion of current wartime death is being brought about by America's military misadventures in Iraq, Afghanistan and now (alas) Pakistan.
Professors are supposed to be smart. They should be the first to understand this point. Especially professors who began their learning career elsewhere - say at some IIT in India. This is because (a) they are smarter than the average human being (by mere virtue of them being professors) (b) They are not subjected to the patriotic propaganda that Americans have been subject to.
So there's essentially two possibilities.
One. Maybe there is not anything unethical with killing millions of innocent people in war (I kid you not, the Iraq death toll alone exceeds a million) in order to achieve ill-defined goals. Maybe I've been wrong all along. Maybe there's something to be said for the Limbaugh-Bolton-Cheney worldview which I have not been able to fathom. Maybe these smart professors know something that I don't.
Two. Maybe the professors are doing what is best for their career, treating money from the military as they would money from other sources. Their families won't feed themselves after all. Since the money only implicitly tainted, most people won't know the difference. And since this taint is that implicit, it's nothing that going to a church/temple/mosque won't solve.
I don't have anything against the poor joining the military in the US. They're doing this because they are convinced that they're doing the right thing for god and country. They are doing this because they are convinced that the other side is evil. Military recruits in the US (much like anywhere else) are overwhelmingly lower middle class. They are doing this for opportunity - and also because they been subjected to propaganda from the get-go. I'm not judging these people who are convinced they're doing the right thing. They are brave enough to put their lives on the line for a cause they believe in. They are more victim than oppressor. I am also willing to give professors who were educated entirely in the US the benefit of the doubt.
But professors who underwent a significant amount of education beyond the US borders are a different story. They have a choice to take a conscientious stand. Some refuse to work on military projects. A tip of my hat to them. But some sell their souls and participate in the mass goring of people elsewhere. And in my book, they rank lower than GS employees.
Showing posts with label Rant. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rant. Show all posts
Tuesday, August 04, 2009
Friday, July 17, 2009
On GS-type market manipulation.
In most American States, prostitution is illegal. But investment banking (of the Goldman Sachs' variety) is not, which is ironic. Because prostitution these days is not a danger to anyone (what with condoms and all to stem the spread of aids). But GS style I-Banking is different.
Since GS does not make anything, lots of its activities are zero sum activities. Since their entire business model is based on not adding any tangible value to anything, all their profits, at some level, do come out of the losses of others. Whenever they make money, it usually means that some other poor dude is losing money elsewhere - and not getting anything for it. At least with prostitutes, they get momentary pleasure. With GS, everyone involved gets ripped off - except GS investors and GS employees.
Of course, one must think twice before one blames a company for doing something that is fully legal. Splicing and selling securities. If there is money to be had, and you know how to get at it within the framework of today's restrictions - they would be wholly irrational if they did not do it. So, the blame must not lie with GS' employees or with its management - who have just exploted a loophole in the law. Just like one must not blame the prostitute for selling sex. She's got a family to feed - as does a GS employee. The GS employee feed his/her family with Caviar - wheras the prostitute does so with bread - but the picture is the same. I have no beef with GS employees (except that I view them with utter condescention - because they had a choice to do something meaningful with their lives, but they chose to do something utterly meaningless and damaging to others). I do not view prostitutes with condescention, of course. They, on the other hand really have no choice. I don't think they like performing demeaning sexual acts with anyone with a thick wallet. But they have to.
My issue is with the nexus between the policy makers and GS. American public policy, it looks like, is more in tune with keeping GS alive by bailing out everyone that ower it money (AIG's $13B bailout comes to mind) than looking out for American taxpayer interests. If the US taxpayer had not bailed out AIG, it looks like GS would have perished. That would have been lovely. Perhaps its employees could do something useful with their lives instead.
Since GS does not make anything, lots of its activities are zero sum activities. Since their entire business model is based on not adding any tangible value to anything, all their profits, at some level, do come out of the losses of others. Whenever they make money, it usually means that some other poor dude is losing money elsewhere - and not getting anything for it. At least with prostitutes, they get momentary pleasure. With GS, everyone involved gets ripped off - except GS investors and GS employees.
Of course, one must think twice before one blames a company for doing something that is fully legal. Splicing and selling securities. If there is money to be had, and you know how to get at it within the framework of today's restrictions - they would be wholly irrational if they did not do it. So, the blame must not lie with GS' employees or with its management - who have just exploted a loophole in the law. Just like one must not blame the prostitute for selling sex. She's got a family to feed - as does a GS employee. The GS employee feed his/her family with Caviar - wheras the prostitute does so with bread - but the picture is the same. I have no beef with GS employees (except that I view them with utter condescention - because they had a choice to do something meaningful with their lives, but they chose to do something utterly meaningless and damaging to others). I do not view prostitutes with condescention, of course. They, on the other hand really have no choice. I don't think they like performing demeaning sexual acts with anyone with a thick wallet. But they have to.
My issue is with the nexus between the policy makers and GS. American public policy, it looks like, is more in tune with keeping GS alive by bailing out everyone that ower it money (AIG's $13B bailout comes to mind) than looking out for American taxpayer interests. If the US taxpayer had not bailed out AIG, it looks like GS would have perished. That would have been lovely. Perhaps its employees could do something useful with their lives instead.
Saturday, June 27, 2009
International T20s are Meaningless
The world was subjected to a T20 world cup a few weeks ago - hosted in the UK, where most of the followers were sub-continent ex-pats. The tournament saw the elimination of Australia in the preliminary round - and the elimination of the economic giant of the game (India) in the round before the semi-finals.
The problem here is the very nature of T20. It is a game which depends tremendously on luck. All sports depend on luck; cricket possibly more than others. But T20 cricket is at a different level. T20's results are more random; they are more like the results one could obtain by tossing up coins. Let's say that (for argument's sake), in test cricket, 90% of the time, the better team wins (if there is a result in the match). One day cricket, the better team wins around 80% of the time. But with T20, I would conjecture that the better team would win 65% of the time - which makes upsets more likely.
Why is T20 more dependent on luck than test cricket? This is quite easy to answer. Because T20 matches are very small - and very competitive. One bad over by a bowler can mean the difference between a bad score and a good score. One mishit by a well set batsman be the difference between a successful chase and a loss. The results of T20 are very sensitive to random incidents.
Whereas, in test cricket, an expensive over can be compensated for by an economical over down the line. A mishit can be compensated for by the same batsman in the second innings - or by another following batsman, who has relatively less pressure. The longer duration of the game smudges out the randomness - time-averages out the noise, if you will. Test cricket is thus more reliant on strategy and raw talent than T20s. It would also stand to reason that one day cricket would lie somewhere between T20 and Test cricket in the 'dependence on luck'.
International T20s give the victors bragging rights - and send the losers soul-searching. But one would do well to remember that with luck dominating the whole situation.; the emotions of a massive number of people (the entire population of cricket-crazy India, for instance) are played around with with randomness. This is meaningless.
The ICC would do well to abolish the T20 world cup. That's because the IPL provides cricket of similar (if not higher quality) than the world cup. And there's plenty of close finishes - and the tournament is long enough to require consistent performance to succeed (the ensemble average effect?). The Deccan chargers were indeed the best team throughout the tournament this year - and the Kolkota was certainly the worst. The same cannot be said of the mercureal Pakistani team.
I dare say that each of the IPL franchises was at least as good as the 'world champion' Pakistani team. (This makes sense even when one looks at the sample size of the population that each of the IPL franchises is picked from: 1200M/8 = 150M, which is the population of Pakistan!). We can argue that all International cricket is meaningless based on this - and will become even more so as India's economy grows - but I've already done that before.
The problem here is the very nature of T20. It is a game which depends tremendously on luck. All sports depend on luck; cricket possibly more than others. But T20 cricket is at a different level. T20's results are more random; they are more like the results one could obtain by tossing up coins. Let's say that (for argument's sake), in test cricket, 90% of the time, the better team wins (if there is a result in the match). One day cricket, the better team wins around 80% of the time. But with T20, I would conjecture that the better team would win 65% of the time - which makes upsets more likely.
Why is T20 more dependent on luck than test cricket? This is quite easy to answer. Because T20 matches are very small - and very competitive. One bad over by a bowler can mean the difference between a bad score and a good score. One mishit by a well set batsman be the difference between a successful chase and a loss. The results of T20 are very sensitive to random incidents.
Whereas, in test cricket, an expensive over can be compensated for by an economical over down the line. A mishit can be compensated for by the same batsman in the second innings - or by another following batsman, who has relatively less pressure. The longer duration of the game smudges out the randomness - time-averages out the noise, if you will. Test cricket is thus more reliant on strategy and raw talent than T20s. It would also stand to reason that one day cricket would lie somewhere between T20 and Test cricket in the 'dependence on luck'.
International T20s give the victors bragging rights - and send the losers soul-searching. But one would do well to remember that with luck dominating the whole situation.; the emotions of a massive number of people (the entire population of cricket-crazy India, for instance) are played around with with randomness. This is meaningless.
The ICC would do well to abolish the T20 world cup. That's because the IPL provides cricket of similar (if not higher quality) than the world cup. And there's plenty of close finishes - and the tournament is long enough to require consistent performance to succeed (the ensemble average effect?). The Deccan chargers were indeed the best team throughout the tournament this year - and the Kolkota was certainly the worst. The same cannot be said of the mercureal Pakistani team.
I dare say that each of the IPL franchises was at least as good as the 'world champion' Pakistani team. (This makes sense even when one looks at the sample size of the population that each of the IPL franchises is picked from: 1200M/8 = 150M, which is the population of Pakistan!). We can argue that all International cricket is meaningless based on this - and will become even more so as India's economy grows - but I've already done that before.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Terror on Valentine's Day
In a world with a collapsing financial system; with arbitrary military ventures shamelessly killing hundreds of thousands (in lieu of the deaths of a handful); with wildfires burning down nations; with temperatures going up on every molecule of the planet (despite the main perpetrators being in staunch denial of the fact), it is bizarre to see that profound jackass, Pramod Muthalik protest "love".
In a nation so dreadfully poor that 4 out of a 1000 women are forced to peddle their flesh for a handful of rupees; in a nation where 15% lives in the abject misery of slums; in a nation where people are discriminated on based on who they are born to (rather than how good they are), it is bizarre to see the aforementioned Muthalik resort to terror to protect what he perceives as a transgression of culture. His energies would be much better used in rehabilitating the 2 million prostitutes in India with compassion (for instance) - or just minding his own bloody business.
Just like all conservatives on the planet (Rush Limbaugh in the US comes to mind, as do the Bin-Ladens and that idiotic Dutch parliamentarian whose name has slipped my mind), I find it hard to agree with a single word he says.
Don't get me wrong here. It is not that I think Valentine's day is any less stupid - but it is just that I think Muthalik is more incredibly stupid (perhaps by a few orders of magnitude). This Valentine's day is an occasion manufactured by the card making companies to make a quick buck. It is not a religious tradition in any nation. It is a contrived, modern, materialistic occasion. Nothing wrong with it, of course, if you ask me. It's just stupid.
In a nation with such a shameful women's rights record like India, any discretion given to women should be lauded as a good thing. That Indian society is evolving to allow women (at least the economically well-to-do top 5%) a voice in whom they want to marry is a good thing. Not a bad thing. That unmarried women and men are testing the waters before they take the maritial plunge is a wonderful thing from a progressive perspective.
What aspects of Indian culture does it go against, Mr. Muthalik? Where in the great Indian manuscripts does it say that women must not be given roses to by men? Was Lord Krishna (eminent hindu diety credited with authoring the holy Gita) violating "Indian culture" by being quite the womanizer? (having 8 + 16000 "wives").
I'll tell you why that Pramod Mutalik (and his band of goons) is hell bent on ruining Valentine's Day. It all goes back to 1960, when he was a 20 something, and in desparately love with a maiden.
The day was Feb 14th. And love was in the air. Well, not in the air, but just in the air surrounding little Pramod. None around the said fair maiden. Now, little Pramod wanted to reach out to lady love. He ran out to his garden and started searching for roses. Alas, no roses were to be found. His cow had eaten them a few minutes ago. He sat down, disappointed.
And then he spied, with his little eye, a patch of vegetables in his neighbour's yard. There were tomatoes. Okras. And cauliflowers. Without much further ado, he proceeded on to his neighbour's garden, burgling the same. (As you can see, he was always quite a goonda).
So, when the maiden recieved a little cauliflower from Pramod, she did not do what he wanted her to. He wanted her to go down to the kitchen and cook up a quick saute. Nope. She just thew the hideous thing back at his face. (She hated cauliflowers too). His heart was broken. And that day he took a vow to disrupt all romances in the world. Especially on Feb 14th.
And thus was born the Indian Taliban. All because a maiden in Mangalore did not like her cauliflower.
In a nation so dreadfully poor that 4 out of a 1000 women are forced to peddle their flesh for a handful of rupees; in a nation where 15% lives in the abject misery of slums; in a nation where people are discriminated on based on who they are born to (rather than how good they are), it is bizarre to see the aforementioned Muthalik resort to terror to protect what he perceives as a transgression of culture. His energies would be much better used in rehabilitating the 2 million prostitutes in India with compassion (for instance) - or just minding his own bloody business.
Just like all conservatives on the planet (Rush Limbaugh in the US comes to mind, as do the Bin-Ladens and that idiotic Dutch parliamentarian whose name has slipped my mind), I find it hard to agree with a single word he says.
Don't get me wrong here. It is not that I think Valentine's day is any less stupid - but it is just that I think Muthalik is more incredibly stupid (perhaps by a few orders of magnitude). This Valentine's day is an occasion manufactured by the card making companies to make a quick buck. It is not a religious tradition in any nation. It is a contrived, modern, materialistic occasion. Nothing wrong with it, of course, if you ask me. It's just stupid.
In a nation with such a shameful women's rights record like India, any discretion given to women should be lauded as a good thing. That Indian society is evolving to allow women (at least the economically well-to-do top 5%) a voice in whom they want to marry is a good thing. Not a bad thing. That unmarried women and men are testing the waters before they take the maritial plunge is a wonderful thing from a progressive perspective.
What aspects of Indian culture does it go against, Mr. Muthalik? Where in the great Indian manuscripts does it say that women must not be given roses to by men? Was Lord Krishna (eminent hindu diety credited with authoring the holy Gita) violating "Indian culture" by being quite the womanizer? (having 8 + 16000 "wives").
I'll tell you why that Pramod Mutalik (and his band of goons) is hell bent on ruining Valentine's Day. It all goes back to 1960, when he was a 20 something, and in desparately love with a maiden.
The day was Feb 14th. And love was in the air. Well, not in the air, but just in the air surrounding little Pramod. None around the said fair maiden. Now, little Pramod wanted to reach out to lady love. He ran out to his garden and started searching for roses. Alas, no roses were to be found. His cow had eaten them a few minutes ago. He sat down, disappointed.
And then he spied, with his little eye, a patch of vegetables in his neighbour's yard. There were tomatoes. Okras. And cauliflowers. Without much further ado, he proceeded on to his neighbour's garden, burgling the same. (As you can see, he was always quite a goonda).
So, when the maiden recieved a little cauliflower from Pramod, she did not do what he wanted her to. He wanted her to go down to the kitchen and cook up a quick saute. Nope. She just thew the hideous thing back at his face. (She hated cauliflowers too). His heart was broken. And that day he took a vow to disrupt all romances in the world. Especially on Feb 14th.
And thus was born the Indian Taliban. All because a maiden in Mangalore did not like her cauliflower.
Tuesday, February 03, 2009
India Unveils 10,000 Rupee Bungalow
Press Mistrust of India
------------------------------------------------
The Indian Government announced that it was planning to announce the inauguration of the word's cheapest bungalow in Mumbai a week from now. Details are a little sketchy at this point, but we have learned that the bungalow shall have a small garage to park the world's cheapest car in and a table to charge the world's cheapest laptop on. It shall also have a keyhole to (presumably) facilitate the installation of the world's smallest air-conditioner.
Majority of Mumbai's 22 Million (62%, to be exact) live in unimaginable poverty - without a roof on thieir head - (and clearly no air conditioner). A similar (though less dramatic) ratio suffers in other urban centers in India. The government's press release indicates that it wants every "slum dweller" to enjoy every luxury of modern life. We quote from the press release:
India's Ministry of human resources, headed by Arjun Singh, in partnership with the Civil Engineering Departments of the Indian Institutes of Technology at Chennai and Mumbai started work on the cheap bungalow project two years ago.
Though there is no official press release detailing the various construction methods and materials used in the bungalow, word has leaked that molasses, milk and twine were used liberally. Also used are polythene bags and methane gas (emitted by cows). Staircases are made of paper and walls are made of cinnamon.
Professor Ram Singh, the dean of IIT Madras proudly proclaimed "We would have finished this earlier had not our mess staff gone on strike because of missing supplies a year ago. We are proud of this significant achievement."
Even with this revolutionary building technique, it is anticipated that house construction rates shall not explode in Mumbai. Because building a house for Rs 10,000 is one thing - but purchasing land for Rs 2 crores is another. And that's why India is working on the Rs 50,000 spaceship to Mars, so that a lot of houses can be built on mars (as land is not expected to cost anything).
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Why am I writing this article?
The answer is in two parts.
Part 1 and Part 2
All I can say is w.t.f.
------------------------------------------------
The Indian Government announced that it was planning to announce the inauguration of the word's cheapest bungalow in Mumbai a week from now. Details are a little sketchy at this point, but we have learned that the bungalow shall have a small garage to park the world's cheapest car in and a table to charge the world's cheapest laptop on. It shall also have a keyhole to (presumably) facilitate the installation of the world's smallest air-conditioner.
Majority of Mumbai's 22 Million (62%, to be exact) live in unimaginable poverty - without a roof on thieir head - (and clearly no air conditioner). A similar (though less dramatic) ratio suffers in other urban centers in India. The government's press release indicates that it wants every "slum dweller" to enjoy every luxury of modern life. We quote from the press release:
After a tiring day of begging at roadside intersections, we expect that the average beggar is quite tired. What better way to rejuvinate than soak in a warm bubble bath in your own personal bathtub in your very own bathroom?
India's Ministry of human resources, headed by Arjun Singh, in partnership with the Civil Engineering Departments of the Indian Institutes of Technology at Chennai and Mumbai started work on the cheap bungalow project two years ago.
Though there is no official press release detailing the various construction methods and materials used in the bungalow, word has leaked that molasses, milk and twine were used liberally. Also used are polythene bags and methane gas (emitted by cows). Staircases are made of paper and walls are made of cinnamon.
Professor Ram Singh, the dean of IIT Madras proudly proclaimed "We would have finished this earlier had not our mess staff gone on strike because of missing supplies a year ago. We are proud of this significant achievement."
Even with this revolutionary building technique, it is anticipated that house construction rates shall not explode in Mumbai. Because building a house for Rs 10,000 is one thing - but purchasing land for Rs 2 crores is another. And that's why India is working on the Rs 50,000 spaceship to Mars, so that a lot of houses can be built on mars (as land is not expected to cost anything).
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Why am I writing this article?
The answer is in two parts.
Part 1 and Part 2
All I can say is w.t.f.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
On Closing Guantanamo
It is heartening to see the Obama Administration take concrete steps towards closing the Guantanamo bay (Gitmo) prison and other secret CIA prisons. Because the whole idea of secret prisons is what one associates with rogue governments - like Nazi Germany. Not the US - the self-proclamied model democracy for the rest of the world.
Gitmo goes against every liberal principle that America prides itself for. In the US, you are presumed innocent unless proven guilty. But in Gitmo, you are presumed guilty unless proven innocent. There's 265 detainees in Gitmo - of which people expect more than a 100 are innocent. (Some 60 are cleared for release already- but their countries won't accept them back!) 470 have already been released without being charged, clearly indicating that they were imprisoned without cause.
Isn't that an egregious travesty? An egregious travesty that 600 innocent people have been detained for no fault of their own in the most depressing place on earth? If you imprisoned one innocent US citizen without giving him or her the right to a fair trial in the US, all hell would break loose.
Commentators have not stressed this point enough. The US government is holding some prisoners arbitrarily (without cause). This is as bad as what Bush killed Saddam for doing. It is tough to imagine such a situation this day and age, especially in an "enlightened democracy". The Bush administration seemed be stuck in the 1400s in attitude. Disgusting. And finally, good riddance!
America has a wonderful judicial system. If you c0mmit a crime in the US, odds are you will be caught and sent to jail. If you murder someone, then you can even be sentenced to death. With this the case, why the hindrance of trying some of the Gitmo detainees here? If there is evidence against some of those terrorists, then it is inconceivable that the terrorists will be released. It is absurd to think that Khaled Sheikh Mohammed will ever be roaming the streets of NYC any time soon. He will probably be living inside one of those maximum security prisons, with (one hopes) a physically abusive room-mate. He might even get the fatal injection. I'm all for that if there's evidence against him.
And if there's no evidence against some prisoners, why on earth should they be incarcerated*? Let the innocents go! Don't mope about them roaming free. You're innocent too (odds are). And you're free. Don't you sense a pattern here? If you don't commit a crime, then ought you not be free?
To me there's no difference between a serial rapist and a terrorist. They're both horrible people. Why does the serial rapist also not deserve the hopeless isolation of a Gitmo, if someone who you think is a terrorist does?
Obama looks like a smart principled man, clearly intent on bringing the US out of the dark ages that the Bush/Cheney arrogance has buried them into. One can only wish him the best of luck. Terrorists are enemies of liberalism. And with Bush and Cheney in power, it looked like the terrorists had prevailed over liberalism. One hopes that Obama turns this thing around.
* It could (and has been) agrued that evidence is not usually gathered by troops who do capture terrorists - because the troops are not trained policemen. This is clearly an impediment to a proper trial. There will always be a scarcity of evidence against these "enemy combatants" for this very reason.
In my opinion, this ought not be a reason to deny them of a trial. Because, one must honor the possibility that the suspect in question is actually innocent. Judges are smart. They can make a case-by case judgement, trusting witnesses rather than docmentary evidence.
Gitmo goes against every liberal principle that America prides itself for. In the US, you are presumed innocent unless proven guilty. But in Gitmo, you are presumed guilty unless proven innocent. There's 265 detainees in Gitmo - of which people expect more than a 100 are innocent. (Some 60 are cleared for release already- but their countries won't accept them back!) 470 have already been released without being charged, clearly indicating that they were imprisoned without cause.
Isn't that an egregious travesty? An egregious travesty that 600 innocent people have been detained for no fault of their own in the most depressing place on earth? If you imprisoned one innocent US citizen without giving him or her the right to a fair trial in the US, all hell would break loose.
Commentators have not stressed this point enough. The US government is holding some prisoners arbitrarily (without cause). This is as bad as what Bush killed Saddam for doing. It is tough to imagine such a situation this day and age, especially in an "enlightened democracy". The Bush administration seemed be stuck in the 1400s in attitude. Disgusting. And finally, good riddance!
America has a wonderful judicial system. If you c0mmit a crime in the US, odds are you will be caught and sent to jail. If you murder someone, then you can even be sentenced to death. With this the case, why the hindrance of trying some of the Gitmo detainees here? If there is evidence against some of those terrorists, then it is inconceivable that the terrorists will be released. It is absurd to think that Khaled Sheikh Mohammed will ever be roaming the streets of NYC any time soon. He will probably be living inside one of those maximum security prisons, with (one hopes) a physically abusive room-mate. He might even get the fatal injection. I'm all for that if there's evidence against him.
And if there's no evidence against some prisoners, why on earth should they be incarcerated*? Let the innocents go! Don't mope about them roaming free. You're innocent too (odds are). And you're free. Don't you sense a pattern here? If you don't commit a crime, then ought you not be free?
To me there's no difference between a serial rapist and a terrorist. They're both horrible people. Why does the serial rapist also not deserve the hopeless isolation of a Gitmo, if someone who you think is a terrorist does?
Obama looks like a smart principled man, clearly intent on bringing the US out of the dark ages that the Bush/Cheney arrogance has buried them into. One can only wish him the best of luck. Terrorists are enemies of liberalism. And with Bush and Cheney in power, it looked like the terrorists had prevailed over liberalism. One hopes that Obama turns this thing around.
* It could (and has been) agrued that evidence is not usually gathered by troops who do capture terrorists - because the troops are not trained policemen. This is clearly an impediment to a proper trial. There will always be a scarcity of evidence against these "enemy combatants" for this very reason.
In my opinion, this ought not be a reason to deny them of a trial. Because, one must honor the possibility that the suspect in question is actually innocent. Judges are smart. They can make a case-by case judgement, trusting witnesses rather than docmentary evidence.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Stop Attacking Civilians in Gaza Now
Penalizing innocent public for sins of their leaders is unacceptable.
Shame on Bush for attacking Iraq and Afghanistan. But that' s another story altogether, because the US is a superpower, and there's nothing anyone can do to stop the US in these situations.
But Israel is a minute country on the scale of things (with a population slightly less than the Hyderabad metro area). I think the weight of international public disapproval and scorn can make the shameless, barbaric Israeli leadership relent. (Especially, if the American public who are Israel's patrons, indirectly, disapprove of this)
I implore all readers of this blog who agree with me to sign this petition. Though this petition probably won't stop anything, at least it will help pile the scorn on Israel's shameful actions.
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/938380652
Shame on Bush for attacking Iraq and Afghanistan. But that' s another story altogether, because the US is a superpower, and there's nothing anyone can do to stop the US in these situations.
But Israel is a minute country on the scale of things (with a population slightly less than the Hyderabad metro area). I think the weight of international public disapproval and scorn can make the shameless, barbaric Israeli leadership relent. (Especially, if the American public who are Israel's patrons, indirectly, disapprove of this)
I implore all readers of this blog who agree with me to sign this petition. Though this petition probably won't stop anything, at least it will help pile the scorn on Israel's shameful actions.
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/938380652
Monday, December 15, 2008
Shoes?
Why would anybody do this? Is there a rhyme or a reason to the way some people behave?
You take a leap of faith and send in your troops to liberate a country from a tyrant (even though the tyrant probably was not going to harm you or your people, making this deed all the more altruistic). You sacrifice 5000 of your troops in this noble endeavor.
You take a beating in the court of public opinion in your own country because you sacrificed 5000 precious lives to liberate a nation of 25 million from the throes of an evil, genocidal dictator.
Clearly, having been such a savior, you would expect a little gratitude. You would expect, perhaps humble words of thanks. Tears of affection, perhaps. But shoes? Would you expect shoes to be thrown at you when you were so instrumental to the state of freedom Iraq is in?
What was the attacker thinking? Every Iraqi is obviously happy now, that he has been liberated from the evil dictator. How can anyone bear animosity towards such a benevolent benefactor? Human beings are such ingrates. Dear reader, let this be a lesson to you: the next time you see a dictator, don't liberate his subjects. They will throw shoes at you later.
Or, you could refrain from killing 4% of the subjects while liberating them. That could help.
You take a leap of faith and send in your troops to liberate a country from a tyrant (even though the tyrant probably was not going to harm you or your people, making this deed all the more altruistic). You sacrifice 5000 of your troops in this noble endeavor.
You take a beating in the court of public opinion in your own country because you sacrificed 5000 precious lives to liberate a nation of 25 million from the throes of an evil, genocidal dictator.
Clearly, having been such a savior, you would expect a little gratitude. You would expect, perhaps humble words of thanks. Tears of affection, perhaps. But shoes? Would you expect shoes to be thrown at you when you were so instrumental to the state of freedom Iraq is in?
What was the attacker thinking? Every Iraqi is obviously happy now, that he has been liberated from the evil dictator. How can anyone bear animosity towards such a benevolent benefactor? Human beings are such ingrates. Dear reader, let this be a lesson to you: the next time you see a dictator, don't liberate his subjects. They will throw shoes at you later.
Or, you could refrain from killing 4% of the subjects while liberating them. That could help.
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Who isn't sick of terror?
It's a sick feeling, knowing that right now, at this very moment in time, there is a horrible, perverted army of terrorists targeting one of the world's densest and most populated cities: Mumbai.
I do hope that every one of the perpetrators is either killed tonight - or brought to justice, sentenced as strictly and as soon as possible. This is one of the times that makes me glad that India has the death penalty.
Of course, there is an expectation that these attacks are somehow associated with Islamic terror. It is indeed a very likely scenario that the bunch of loons that call themselves the Indian Mujahideen are responsible for this - but I suppose the "Hindu terror" angle will also be investigated. (Personally, I don't think the Hindu terror angle is tenable here - but how can one be sure without investigating?)
I hope Mumbai does not over-react to this. Mumbai has a tendency to riot - as has been ignominously demonstrated in 1992. Mumbai has been experiencing terror periodically after 1992 - and large scale rioting has not taken place.
I wish the people of Mumbai a speedy recovery from this horrbile incident. I hope the death toll does not go up anymore, and I hope that the terrorists get what they deserve - imprisonment in an Indian jail with angry Indian inmates who like beating people up (not killing them). I don't want the guards providing any security to these terrorists.
If this kind of terrorism (the killing of innocents) is martyrdom in any faith, any place on this planet, we need to question whether the purveyors of such rhetoric ought to be regarded as human beings at all - or ought they be anhillated, like the small pox virus has been anhillated from the face of the planet?
I do hope that every one of the perpetrators is either killed tonight - or brought to justice, sentenced as strictly and as soon as possible. This is one of the times that makes me glad that India has the death penalty.
Of course, there is an expectation that these attacks are somehow associated with Islamic terror. It is indeed a very likely scenario that the bunch of loons that call themselves the Indian Mujahideen are responsible for this - but I suppose the "Hindu terror" angle will also be investigated. (Personally, I don't think the Hindu terror angle is tenable here - but how can one be sure without investigating?)
I hope Mumbai does not over-react to this. Mumbai has a tendency to riot - as has been ignominously demonstrated in 1992. Mumbai has been experiencing terror periodically after 1992 - and large scale rioting has not taken place.
I wish the people of Mumbai a speedy recovery from this horrbile incident. I hope the death toll does not go up anymore, and I hope that the terrorists get what they deserve - imprisonment in an Indian jail with angry Indian inmates who like beating people up (not killing them). I don't want the guards providing any security to these terrorists.
If this kind of terrorism (the killing of innocents) is martyrdom in any faith, any place on this planet, we need to question whether the purveyors of such rhetoric ought to be regarded as human beings at all - or ought they be anhillated, like the small pox virus has been anhillated from the face of the planet?
Thursday, October 23, 2008
What's wrong with Socialism?
If you listen to the current political rhetoric in the US of A (and it is impossible not to, with elections between two people with almost identical stands on everything so close at hand), you would get the feeling that the ideals of compassion towards the poor are dead wrong - and that poor people should not get a helping hand.
And if the government were to help the poor financially, it would be the worst thing in the world since it would be depriving an angry fat man a jacuzzi in his kitchen (or something equally excessive and ridiculous).
Defenders of capitalism seem to overlook one very fundamental flaw. All people are not born equal. Some are born rich and some are born poor. A person born rich (or at least into a well educated family) is more likely to be more successful in life. Where is the level playing field if a significant proportion of the population can just be born unlucky? Let me get this straight: capitalism as is, is certainly not a meritocracy.
Every principle of Austrian economics, every idea that Raegan's and Thacher's (or Ron Paul, for that matter) people ever had, every "free market" notion that has every come out of the university of Chicago is all brilliantly correct - except for one major, major (some would say existential) flaw. Capitalism is not a meritocracy. All are not equal in a capitalist society. This holds true when one talks about the most prosperous country in the world; the US - and even more so, when one talks about the planet as a whole. Where are the opporunities for 95% of Indians; 80% of Chinese people? I was lucky. I was born into a rich, well educated Indian family. More than a billion other Indians were not so lucky.
Alas, trying to "simulate" a genuine level playing will involve something as utterly ludicrous as the state conficiating every child and teaching them all the same way. That's never going to happen, that never should happen - and that never will happen if one is in a democracy (phew!).
So, what are the options left to equitise capitalism? How does one keep the inherent advantages of capitalism intact? Of course one has to spread the wealth around. Because the poor are poor for a reason - they were unlucky - it is not as if they are lazy. Hell, they work as hard (if not harder) as anyone else.
So, the next time some loudmouth (like Joe the Plumber, say) likes to complain about his taxes, I would like him to stare into the eyes of an impoverished 7 year old from the ghetto and say "It's your bloody fault that your parents can't feed you. I'm not going to pay my taxes. I don't care if your home is cold at night; I don't care if you don't have enough to wear. ".
Perhaps one reason why there are people like Joe the Plumber (who make a big deal out of paying their taxes) is that there's so few genuinely poor people in the US. Living in such a rich land, perhaps, has de-sensetised the average American from poverty. Stands that the average American takes over taxes might seem cruel in any other part of the world - but just rational in America.
And that's why ALL political parties in India are essentially socialist. If they were not, it would be a travesty of democracy. Non-socialistic tendencies (such as Naidu's AP and BJP's "India Shining") are usually rejected outright in India.
And if the government were to help the poor financially, it would be the worst thing in the world since it would be depriving an angry fat man a jacuzzi in his kitchen (or something equally excessive and ridiculous).
Defenders of capitalism seem to overlook one very fundamental flaw. All people are not born equal. Some are born rich and some are born poor. A person born rich (or at least into a well educated family) is more likely to be more successful in life. Where is the level playing field if a significant proportion of the population can just be born unlucky? Let me get this straight: capitalism as is, is certainly not a meritocracy.
Every principle of Austrian economics, every idea that Raegan's and Thacher's (or Ron Paul, for that matter) people ever had, every "free market" notion that has every come out of the university of Chicago is all brilliantly correct - except for one major, major (some would say existential) flaw. Capitalism is not a meritocracy. All are not equal in a capitalist society. This holds true when one talks about the most prosperous country in the world; the US - and even more so, when one talks about the planet as a whole. Where are the opporunities for 95% of Indians; 80% of Chinese people? I was lucky. I was born into a rich, well educated Indian family. More than a billion other Indians were not so lucky.
Alas, trying to "simulate" a genuine level playing will involve something as utterly ludicrous as the state conficiating every child and teaching them all the same way. That's never going to happen, that never should happen - and that never will happen if one is in a democracy (phew!).
So, what are the options left to equitise capitalism? How does one keep the inherent advantages of capitalism intact? Of course one has to spread the wealth around. Because the poor are poor for a reason - they were unlucky - it is not as if they are lazy. Hell, they work as hard (if not harder) as anyone else.
So, the next time some loudmouth (like Joe the Plumber, say) likes to complain about his taxes, I would like him to stare into the eyes of an impoverished 7 year old from the ghetto and say "It's your bloody fault that your parents can't feed you. I'm not going to pay my taxes. I don't care if your home is cold at night; I don't care if you don't have enough to wear. ".
Perhaps one reason why there are people like Joe the Plumber (who make a big deal out of paying their taxes) is that there's so few genuinely poor people in the US. Living in such a rich land, perhaps, has de-sensetised the average American from poverty. Stands that the average American takes over taxes might seem cruel in any other part of the world - but just rational in America.
And that's why ALL political parties in India are essentially socialist. If they were not, it would be a travesty of democracy. Non-socialistic tendencies (such as Naidu's AP and BJP's "India Shining") are usually rejected outright in India.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
My two cents on Economic Stimulus plans
I'm no Economist - and perhaps that isn't such a bad thing - if all economists do is dream up stupidities like the economic stimulus plan. (I allude to the $600 check that Bush and company sent every resident earlier this year and are threatening to do something similar again this year).
Because, as an engineer (and mind you, not an economist), I see that what got the whole world into this mess was, basically, Americans spending more than they could earn. (This is pretty much an American Mantra - just look at the US' fiscal deficit - which is more than India's GDP).
So, basically, America does not produce as much as it consumes. If America were a family, here's what an analogous scenario would look like:
Dad and Mum earn enough money to pay for groceries, but not enough to bankroll trips to the mall every week. But the daughters love going to the mall and buying their high fashion dresses; the sons like going to the sports shops and purchasing rifles to go hunting every week. The family likes to go on long vacation getaways and cruises to Bermuda in winter and Alaska in summer.
If they were living on a fixed income, this would never do. But what they do do is take loans, sink themselves deeper in debt. They were considering taking loans ad-infinitum to bankroll the said excesses.
If you are a family, you run into one problem: your credit history is well known. You just can't keep taking loans ad-nauseam. The lenders will know when to stop giving you money - because the lenders will lend only if there is reasonable a probability of getting the money back. The Mum and Dad are in for a rude shock one day.
But if you're the world's pre-eminent super power, things are a little different. You can keep borrowing money until ... well, until, probably, you're no more a super-power - but that's going to take a lot more time.
America is currently cutting taxes, spending like crazy on a war it it had no business starting (killing more than a million innocents (this tally includes 5000 odd coalition troops) - but let's not get started on that now). The American government is also bailing out companies such as AIG, Goldman Sachs and Freddie Mac (companies which contribute nothing directly to society) - swallowing all their sins, so to say.
On top of all that, America wants to send some more money to its citizens to spend. Given that the problem was essentially created by hedonistic overindulgence, the American government wants to rescue people from this mess by more hedonistic overindulgence. After all, alcholism has only one cure: alcohol. Or that's what Bernanke thinks.
To me, currently, the whole west is grossly unsustainable - both from an economic perspective and even more so from an environmental perspective.
What keeps me optimistic is that the current western model is so hopelessly inefficient that there's almost (almost) infinite room for improvement if prices of certain inputs go up. Suppose real "gas" prices go up from and stay at $5/gallon in the US - then the economy can adapt by becoming a little more efficient - increasing the number of hybrids, for instance and using more rail road transit. With little or no sacrifice on the standard of living front, Americans can live more "efficiently". I am sure they can do without all the useless junk mail in the mailbox, excesses as times square.....
Because, as an engineer (and mind you, not an economist), I see that what got the whole world into this mess was, basically, Americans spending more than they could earn. (This is pretty much an American Mantra - just look at the US' fiscal deficit - which is more than India's GDP).
So, basically, America does not produce as much as it consumes. If America were a family, here's what an analogous scenario would look like:
Dad and Mum earn enough money to pay for groceries, but not enough to bankroll trips to the mall every week. But the daughters love going to the mall and buying their high fashion dresses; the sons like going to the sports shops and purchasing rifles to go hunting every week. The family likes to go on long vacation getaways and cruises to Bermuda in winter and Alaska in summer.
If they were living on a fixed income, this would never do. But what they do do is take loans, sink themselves deeper in debt. They were considering taking loans ad-infinitum to bankroll the said excesses.
If you are a family, you run into one problem: your credit history is well known. You just can't keep taking loans ad-nauseam. The lenders will know when to stop giving you money - because the lenders will lend only if there is reasonable a probability of getting the money back. The Mum and Dad are in for a rude shock one day.
But if you're the world's pre-eminent super power, things are a little different. You can keep borrowing money until ... well, until, probably, you're no more a super-power - but that's going to take a lot more time.
America is currently cutting taxes, spending like crazy on a war it it had no business starting (killing more than a million innocents (this tally includes 5000 odd coalition troops) - but let's not get started on that now). The American government is also bailing out companies such as AIG, Goldman Sachs and Freddie Mac (companies which contribute nothing directly to society) - swallowing all their sins, so to say.
On top of all that, America wants to send some more money to its citizens to spend. Given that the problem was essentially created by hedonistic overindulgence, the American government wants to rescue people from this mess by more hedonistic overindulgence. After all, alcholism has only one cure: alcohol. Or that's what Bernanke thinks.
To me, currently, the whole west is grossly unsustainable - both from an economic perspective and even more so from an environmental perspective.
What keeps me optimistic is that the current western model is so hopelessly inefficient that there's almost (almost) infinite room for improvement if prices of certain inputs go up. Suppose real "gas" prices go up from and stay at $5/gallon in the US - then the economy can adapt by becoming a little more efficient - increasing the number of hybrids, for instance and using more rail road transit. With little or no sacrifice on the standard of living front, Americans can live more "efficiently". I am sure they can do without all the useless junk mail in the mailbox, excesses as times square.....
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Bible dictating policy in India?
You can't get more ridiculous than this.
There's some crazy stuff going on in the Delhi high court. I'm talking about gay sex - or at least discussions regarding the legality thereof.
Delhi's Additional Solicitor General, Mr. PP Malhotra was defending the government's stand - that gay sex should stay illegal. And what did he quote defending this point of view? A passage from the holy Bible. I am not kidding. This is real. A passage from the Holy Bible.
You can read the news report here. (Why does the writer of the article use "homosex" as if it were a real word? Maybe it ought to be.)
The holy Bible is not literally used as law in almost all liberal democracies. Even George Bush's policies are not in complete agreement with the Bible. To quote the Bible to justify a ban on Homosexuality is retrograde - and just plainly out of touch with ground realities.
The Delhi high court, thankfully, would have none of this. The judge pretty much thew the Solicitor general's defense out and asked him to cite reports from UN (and other credible sources - not scripture or opinion). The courts seem sensible.
Which brings me to another question. Was the judge doing the legistature's job? Should the judge be deciding the legality of a constitutional provision? Does he have the authority to do this? If he does, then what makes him different from a ruler - and a dictator? Just because he seems more in touch with reality does not mean that he ought to impose his ideas on people. Surely a mere judge does not have the authority to amend the constitution.
I would love to hear your take on this.
There's some crazy stuff going on in the Delhi high court. I'm talking about gay sex - or at least discussions regarding the legality thereof.
Delhi's Additional Solicitor General, Mr. PP Malhotra was defending the government's stand - that gay sex should stay illegal. And what did he quote defending this point of view? A passage from the holy Bible. I am not kidding. This is real. A passage from the Holy Bible.
You can read the news report here. (Why does the writer of the article use "homosex" as if it were a real word? Maybe it ought to be.)
The holy Bible is not literally used as law in almost all liberal democracies. Even George Bush's policies are not in complete agreement with the Bible. To quote the Bible to justify a ban on Homosexuality is retrograde - and just plainly out of touch with ground realities.
The Delhi high court, thankfully, would have none of this. The judge pretty much thew the Solicitor general's defense out and asked him to cite reports from UN (and other credible sources - not scripture or opinion). The courts seem sensible.
Which brings me to another question. Was the judge doing the legistature's job? Should the judge be deciding the legality of a constitutional provision? Does he have the authority to do this? If he does, then what makes him different from a ruler - and a dictator? Just because he seems more in touch with reality does not mean that he ought to impose his ideas on people. Surely a mere judge does not have the authority to amend the constitution.
I would love to hear your take on this.
Monday, March 24, 2008
4000 Dead In Iraq
To the uninitiated observer, 4000 dead in Iraq would not seem like a particularly big deal. Five years of military occupation in Iraq resulting only in 4000 dead people? Looks like what's happening down there is love, not war.
Then, one digs a little deeper. 4000 people died in Iraq, because the Americans are the only "people" in Iraq. When it is said "4000 people dead in Iraq", it basically means 4000 dead American troops.
The number of "unpeople" who died in Iraq is a statistic that is most certainly of the order of at least 100,000 - and some (this one is peer reviewed) estimates put it closer to a million. (Here we use the Noam Chomskian convention: people = people from developed world; unpeople = people from under-developed world. This convention is implicitly used in all western (US) media agencies with a few conscientious exceptions.).
A MILLION in a population of 25 Million. 4% of the population of the country. That's the population of Dallas and Houston metro areas put together, if the country in question were the US. The population of Delhi and Mumbai put together if the country in question were India. (The fact that 60% of India is unpeople notwithstanding).
But who cares? Iraqis clearly are not people. 4000 dead American troops? Now, that's a whole different story.
----------------------------------------
A dead man is a dead man is a dead man. The author of this post laments the fact that even in death all are not equal. Reality is not just 4000 American troops dead. It is probably a hundred times worse (from a mortality stand-point). It just makes me sick to see the disproportionate amount of time spent on TV on the American deaths - when the number of Iraqis killed is a couple of ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE HIGHER because of a blunder on the American side.
Then, one digs a little deeper. 4000 people died in Iraq, because the Americans are the only "people" in Iraq. When it is said "4000 people dead in Iraq", it basically means 4000 dead American troops.
The number of "unpeople" who died in Iraq is a statistic that is most certainly of the order of at least 100,000 - and some (this one is peer reviewed) estimates put it closer to a million. (Here we use the Noam Chomskian convention: people = people from developed world; unpeople = people from under-developed world. This convention is implicitly used in all western (US) media agencies with a few conscientious exceptions.).
A MILLION in a population of 25 Million. 4% of the population of the country. That's the population of Dallas and Houston metro areas put together, if the country in question were the US. The population of Delhi and Mumbai put together if the country in question were India. (The fact that 60% of India is unpeople notwithstanding).
But who cares? Iraqis clearly are not people. 4000 dead American troops? Now, that's a whole different story.
----------------------------------------
A dead man is a dead man is a dead man. The author of this post laments the fact that even in death all are not equal. Reality is not just 4000 American troops dead. It is probably a hundred times worse (from a mortality stand-point). It just makes me sick to see the disproportionate amount of time spent on TV on the American deaths - when the number of Iraqis killed is a couple of ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE HIGHER because of a blunder on the American side.
Friday, March 21, 2008
Boomerangs Work in Space*
For a moment, when I read this story I was shell shocked. Could it be that all the aerodynamics I learnt in my life until now was fatally flawed? Could the fact that airplanes fly be a bizarre coincidence?
Why on earth (or more aptly, Why in space) would a rotating shaped solid actually come back in space when it (theoretically) was experiencing no lift, no drag (by virtue of the all-pervasive vacuum surrounding it)? My heart was beating faster. My head was in a serious existential tail-spin.
I was sure I knew (in a hand-wavey way that we engineers are used to) how boomerangs operate. Just to make sure I was correct, I looked at this web page. I wasn't wrong. Phew.
So, how on earth did the damn thing come back in space? Does there really exist a God? Is he trying to deceive us into thinking that we understand how a little of nature works by letting some of our theories be experimentally verifiable? Have I been wrong all along? Is he having fun with us letting us think that we know why airplanes fly? By planting dinosaur bones on the surface of the planet? By planting DNA very similar to yours and mine in a Chimpanzee?
I followed up by a few frenetic Google News Searches.
Apparently the (astro) nut threw a paper boomerang INSIDE THE INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION and was ecstatic that it came back. Duh. Of course it'll come back. That's its job in a room filled with air at more or less atmospheric pressure. (Air faithfully follows the Kutta-Jukowski theorem - creating a lift force on moving airfoils - as opposed to vacuum). A boomerang coming back has nothing to do with gravity. Actually gravity is BAD for a boomerang as it might hit the ground before coming back - therefore not completing a cycle.
This basically tells me that astronauts are only semi-educated in science - and are far from the "best of the best" that NASA proudly proclaims they are.
And .. Oh Yeah.. There's still no god.
* Where space is defined as any volume within the international space station.
Why on earth (or more aptly, Why in space) would a rotating shaped solid actually come back in space when it (theoretically) was experiencing no lift, no drag (by virtue of the all-pervasive vacuum surrounding it)? My heart was beating faster. My head was in a serious existential tail-spin.
I was sure I knew (in a hand-wavey way that we engineers are used to) how boomerangs operate. Just to make sure I was correct, I looked at this web page. I wasn't wrong. Phew.
So, how on earth did the damn thing come back in space? Does there really exist a God? Is he trying to deceive us into thinking that we understand how a little of nature works by letting some of our theories be experimentally verifiable? Have I been wrong all along? Is he having fun with us letting us think that we know why airplanes fly? By planting dinosaur bones on the surface of the planet? By planting DNA very similar to yours and mine in a Chimpanzee?
I followed up by a few frenetic Google News Searches.
Apparently the (astro) nut threw a paper boomerang INSIDE THE INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION and was ecstatic that it came back. Duh. Of course it'll come back. That's its job in a room filled with air at more or less atmospheric pressure. (Air faithfully follows the Kutta-Jukowski theorem - creating a lift force on moving airfoils - as opposed to vacuum). A boomerang coming back has nothing to do with gravity. Actually gravity is BAD for a boomerang as it might hit the ground before coming back - therefore not completing a cycle.
This basically tells me that astronauts are only semi-educated in science - and are far from the "best of the best" that NASA proudly proclaims they are.
And .. Oh Yeah.. There's still no god.
* Where space is defined as any volume within the international space station.
Wednesday, January 09, 2008
An Embarassment Down Under
When I was much younger (fifth grade?) we used to play cricket in parks (breaking numerous windows, causing physical harm to numerous unsuspecting aunties sitting in the park and scaring the living daylights out of (and sometimes, provoking into aggression) numerous stray canines). We were, as a consequence never popular with the flora and fauna, but we did have to good time. Oh, we had our own fair share of sledging (almost everyone called me "fat"; someone else was called "Godzilla" (because the individual had an uncanny resemblance to the lizard in question)). We had our own fair share of racism (saala "madrasi"/ "sardar"/ "bihari"/ "chinki" : all not in the sense of utmost amicability). We had our own fair share of physical violence - I remember fighting with someone when we had a disagreement over a run-out. We had our own biased umpires (often quite blatant, often just plain incompetent like Steve Buknor).
Turns out professional cricket is just the same - no matter the colour of your skin, no matter the amount of money you earn. I must say, all the gentlemen who claim that cricket is their game must be spinning in their graves. Not that I care. Not that anyone does.
There's no way anyone can beat the Australian team right now. Since actual test victories against the Australians are so hard to come by - the team from the Sub-Continent will try to do the next best thing. Steal a moral victory. Does the term "sore loser" ring a bell somewhere?
But that being said, the issue of Harbhajan being reported for racism one so full with irony that it is identical to Mahmoud Ahmedinijad joining a Feminist Rally. The Australians are the master sledgers: almost as bad as that bully who used to play with us in the park (Let's Call him M.) . M had the choicest things to say about his victim's parents and siblings in Hindi. Let's jt leave that there with the confidence that all my Indian reader(s) familiar with Hindi would more or less have understood what the offensive terms in question are.
It is pathetic to hear Sharad Pawar consider abandoning the series. We never abandoned our games when we played in the park: even if one side had to bat in pitch dark. (One can imagine the umpiring standards in pitch dark!)
Here's what I say to the Australian Team. It is incredibly stupid to report Harbhajan for acrimonious behaviour. It is Indian culture to make fun of other people's races. Indian Ancestors did not enslave black people, so they're not that sensitive to racism*. (If you want to be a stickler for facts, direct Australian ancestors did not enslave black people - but the sensitivity to racial discrimination is owing to the European and American experience with African exploitation). Deal with it. You're no angels either. You sledge like crazy. Withdraw all charges against Bhajii and go to Perth and start sledging. And be sledged too.
And here's what I say to the Indian team. It makes me SICK to see you resort to emotion off the field when you find yourselves incapable of making your game speak. It's just too bad Buknor is going blind and deaf. Shit happens. Deal with it. Go and play the game in Canberra. Go to Perth and try to avoid an innings defeat. (That would be quite an achievement on that bouncy pitch). And then, try to beat Australia in at least one one-day match. And then go back to India, overthrow the BCCI monopoly, let the ICL give it good competition so that one fine day, any domestic team from, say, Hyderabad can beat the Baggy Green.
* I hope Indians get sensitive to communalism, regionalism and casteism (Indian forms of racism). But it does not look like happening anytime soon. Contemporary Indian society is bigoted to the core. Luckily, the government is not, thanks to universal franchise, a triumph of democracy.
Turns out professional cricket is just the same - no matter the colour of your skin, no matter the amount of money you earn. I must say, all the gentlemen who claim that cricket is their game must be spinning in their graves. Not that I care. Not that anyone does.
There's no way anyone can beat the Australian team right now. Since actual test victories against the Australians are so hard to come by - the team from the Sub-Continent will try to do the next best thing. Steal a moral victory. Does the term "sore loser" ring a bell somewhere?
But that being said, the issue of Harbhajan being reported for racism one so full with irony that it is identical to Mahmoud Ahmedinijad joining a Feminist Rally. The Australians are the master sledgers: almost as bad as that bully who used to play with us in the park (Let's Call him M.) . M had the choicest things to say about his victim's parents and siblings in Hindi. Let's jt leave that there with the confidence that all my Indian reader(s) familiar with Hindi would more or less have understood what the offensive terms in question are.
It is pathetic to hear Sharad Pawar consider abandoning the series. We never abandoned our games when we played in the park: even if one side had to bat in pitch dark. (One can imagine the umpiring standards in pitch dark!)
Here's what I say to the Australian Team. It is incredibly stupid to report Harbhajan for acrimonious behaviour. It is Indian culture to make fun of other people's races. Indian Ancestors did not enslave black people, so they're not that sensitive to racism*. (If you want to be a stickler for facts, direct Australian ancestors did not enslave black people - but the sensitivity to racial discrimination is owing to the European and American experience with African exploitation). Deal with it. You're no angels either. You sledge like crazy. Withdraw all charges against Bhajii and go to Perth and start sledging. And be sledged too.
And here's what I say to the Indian team. It makes me SICK to see you resort to emotion off the field when you find yourselves incapable of making your game speak. It's just too bad Buknor is going blind and deaf. Shit happens. Deal with it. Go and play the game in Canberra. Go to Perth and try to avoid an innings defeat. (That would be quite an achievement on that bouncy pitch). And then, try to beat Australia in at least one one-day match. And then go back to India, overthrow the BCCI monopoly, let the ICL give it good competition so that one fine day, any domestic team from, say, Hyderabad can beat the Baggy Green.
* I hope Indians get sensitive to communalism, regionalism and casteism (Indian forms of racism). But it does not look like happening anytime soon. Contemporary Indian society is bigoted to the core. Luckily, the government is not, thanks to universal franchise, a triumph of democracy.
Thursday, October 11, 2007
No Homosexuals in Iran
Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmedinijad was asked a sneaky question during his lecture at Columbia. Everything about the whole speech was sneaky: the dressing down that an incensed university president tactlessly delivered frankly made me sympathise with Ahmedinijad for a little while.
When asked about how he justified persecution of homosexuals in Iran, he contended that homosexuality, as a phenomenon, does not exist in Iran. People laughed at him for that.
We must realize that the only difference between the fanatics and the west is liberal thought. But it seems that western liberal thought is not liberal enough to understand the reasons behind illiberal thought.
Liberalism is a luxury of the rich. (You might want to consider reading the previous post to understand why I make this claim with such vehemance). When you are worried about where your next meal comes from, you, more likely than not would not care about whether homosexuals (less that 1% of the population in societies where "coming out of the closet" is not an option) have rights or not.
The Iranian president, the product of a democracy (a little bit of liberalism that has seeped into an otherwise phenomenally othodox society) must be a refelection of what his people want. Otherwise, out he goes! It is electoral pressure in Iran than made him what he is. He is playing for the conservative muslim vote - the extremely illiberal school of thought that believes that Homosexuals must be stoned to death and that women must be kept under lock and key.
I don't think Ahmedinijad could have said anything else to that question. I don't think laughing at his denial or Iranian homosexuality has any point: Iran is an orthodox country right now. If you ask Pat Robertson (an American religious maniac) something similar, odds are he will give you a more venomous answer. [I would hold him more guility than Ahmedinijad as he hails from a much more liberal society and is still a fanatic].
I believe true liberalism can arise only when one understands the cause of illiberalism and accepts it. And in the case of the Liberals in the US vs Ahmedinijad, I hold both guilty. For if we turned back the clock 50 years in the US (with its instituionalized racism) - we find perhaps an equally sickening picture. There is room for optimism: the US, now, in my opinion has more or less conquered racial prejudice.
And Iranian society is more orthodox than the US was 50 years ago! Let's be reasonable, shall we? Why expect the impossible?
When asked about how he justified persecution of homosexuals in Iran, he contended that homosexuality, as a phenomenon, does not exist in Iran. People laughed at him for that.
We must realize that the only difference between the fanatics and the west is liberal thought. But it seems that western liberal thought is not liberal enough to understand the reasons behind illiberal thought.
Liberalism is a luxury of the rich. (You might want to consider reading the previous post to understand why I make this claim with such vehemance). When you are worried about where your next meal comes from, you, more likely than not would not care about whether homosexuals (less that 1% of the population in societies where "coming out of the closet" is not an option) have rights or not.
The Iranian president, the product of a democracy (a little bit of liberalism that has seeped into an otherwise phenomenally othodox society) must be a refelection of what his people want. Otherwise, out he goes! It is electoral pressure in Iran than made him what he is. He is playing for the conservative muslim vote - the extremely illiberal school of thought that believes that Homosexuals must be stoned to death and that women must be kept under lock and key.
I don't think Ahmedinijad could have said anything else to that question. I don't think laughing at his denial or Iranian homosexuality has any point: Iran is an orthodox country right now. If you ask Pat Robertson (an American religious maniac) something similar, odds are he will give you a more venomous answer. [I would hold him more guility than Ahmedinijad as he hails from a much more liberal society and is still a fanatic].
I believe true liberalism can arise only when one understands the cause of illiberalism and accepts it. And in the case of the Liberals in the US vs Ahmedinijad, I hold both guilty. For if we turned back the clock 50 years in the US (with its instituionalized racism) - we find perhaps an equally sickening picture. There is room for optimism: the US, now, in my opinion has more or less conquered racial prejudice.
And Iranian society is more orthodox than the US was 50 years ago! Let's be reasonable, shall we? Why expect the impossible?
Thursday, August 23, 2007
Vegitarianism: Am I a Hypocrite?
I've always had this "holier-than-thou" attitude: I don't do meat because I reckon killing an animal causes it pain. And since, in general, the average living thing tends to avoid pain as much as possible - pain must be, well, painful to say the least. So, I don't do beef, I don't do chicken - or any other meat for that matter.
But the average roach that encounters me gets the under-side of my shoe, inevitably. I have an obsession with killing ants and other insects that bite. I would kill a bed-bug if I ever saw another (something I seriously wish I won't). In other words, if insects were human (which they, thankfully, are not) then most of humanity would be in my firing line.
Does one sense a certain double standard somewhere? Well, I did - so I did some reading up.
Causing a living thing a sensation of pain is what I want to avoid - and it turns out that in order to experience pain (pain as we know it), one needs a central nervous system - something that insects apparently do not possess. (A rather dumbed down explanation of the same can be found here.).
Which gets me thinking on a tangent: an insect is little but a robot: it does what it is programmed to (by evolution, so to speak).
Which eerily corroborates what I had been thinking all along: even humans are little but over-rated robots - after all, consciousness is an illusion that the conscious mind creates to "explain" itself.
At this point I see a roach crawl on the floor. I am taking a shoe out of the closet right now. I have the shoe on my hand. The shoe is being used to crush the roach with lethal force right now. After hearing a convincing "crunch" sound, one is sure that the roach is no more. But I am not a sinner. Killing the roach was as much an ethical crime as, well, breaking a pen.
But the average roach that encounters me gets the under-side of my shoe, inevitably. I have an obsession with killing ants and other insects that bite. I would kill a bed-bug if I ever saw another (something I seriously wish I won't). In other words, if insects were human (which they, thankfully, are not) then most of humanity would be in my firing line.
Does one sense a certain double standard somewhere? Well, I did - so I did some reading up.
Causing a living thing a sensation of pain is what I want to avoid - and it turns out that in order to experience pain (pain as we know it), one needs a central nervous system - something that insects apparently do not possess. (A rather dumbed down explanation of the same can be found here.).
Which gets me thinking on a tangent: an insect is little but a robot: it does what it is programmed to (by evolution, so to speak).
Which eerily corroborates what I had been thinking all along: even humans are little but over-rated robots - after all, consciousness is an illusion that the conscious mind creates to "explain" itself.
At this point I see a roach crawl on the floor. I am taking a shoe out of the closet right now. I have the shoe on my hand. The shoe is being used to crush the roach with lethal force right now. After hearing a convincing "crunch" sound, one is sure that the roach is no more. But I am not a sinner. Killing the roach was as much an ethical crime as, well, breaking a pen.
Sunday, March 04, 2007
Of Engineers and Math
Just like mechanics need to know how to use their wrenches and hammers, engineers need to know how to use their mathematics. Engineers need an intuitive (as opposed to abstract) understanding of mathematics - even more in this era of specialization. Almost all empirical work has been done preservers like Edison more than 100 years ago. Edison's mathematical illiteracy could not let him see the Benifits of Nicola Tesla and Alternating Current. His approach to solving problems was not good enough even during his own life!
Today, almost every simple economically viable thing has been invented. All further "empirical" work is best left to managers, not engineers. Engineers (the good ones at least) emphasize more on understanding and exploiting complex phenomena. And the understanding of complex phenomena often implies a comprehensive and intuitive understanding of Mathematics - as opposed to the abstract understanding (or lack thereof) that mathematicians restrict themselves to.
It is this sentiment that has suddenly dawned upon yours truly. I have realized that I have wasted a significant portion of my life developing only a cursory understanding - certainly not comprehensive and intuitive - of mathematics. Am I letting myself atrophy into one of those mediocre, uninspiring researchers whose papers I see so often in journals?
It is here that I can start to count my blessings. I am in one of the World's largest universities which offers a plethora of courses in every conceivable field. Mathematics. Physics. You name it. I am now going to build a plan for my doctorate. Because nothing inspires more than old fashioned classes.
I need to cover the following more topics in Physics, Math and Engineering Before I pack my bags from here.
1. Hydrodynamic Stability Theories; Transition to Turbulence
2. Multiphase Flow
3. Statistical Thermodynamics
4. Microfluidics
5. Radiative Heat Transfer in detail
6. Convective Heat Transfer in detail
Math:
1. Tensor Analysis (I've done enough to "develop a feel" for it in Turbulence and CFD).
2. Complex Analysis
3. Perturbation Methods
4. Dynamical Systems and Chaos
It might look a little ambitious - but that's just 10 more courses. With a more comprehensive understanding of math, I will no more bow my head in shame when someone talks of Banach Spaces, Cayley-Hamilton Theorems, Christoffel Symbols (which I have been seeing a lot of late in the CFD class).
To the engineer, a formula is of little use unless it comes with an intuitive meaning. Take the Fourier transforms, for instance. Or let's just stick to Fourier series. If you ask a mathematician what the integral over the period of the function actually means, he/she will wince uncomfortably. But a competent engineer will come up with his but of "intuitive" bit of understanding which could go something like:
Consider a periodic funtion with a zero mean value. The integral over the period of the periodic function with sin (or cos) tells you how "similar" the function is to the sine or the cosine. The largest possible absolute value is when the function is an amplitude-scaled replica of the sinusoidal function, the lowest when there is no similarity at all - zero. The integral actually gives you the "contribution" of the sine signal of that particular frequency to the total signal. This can be repeated for other frequencies. And a Fourier series can thus be constitutive. That these amplitudes are additive stems from the orthogonality of the sine functions at different frequencies.
It would be great if I could put meanings to equations more comfortably. And you know what that is called: PHYSICS. After all, an engineer is a physicist with a more comprehensive understanding of economics than math.
Today, almost every simple economically viable thing has been invented. All further "empirical" work is best left to managers, not engineers. Engineers (the good ones at least) emphasize more on understanding and exploiting complex phenomena. And the understanding of complex phenomena often implies a comprehensive and intuitive understanding of Mathematics - as opposed to the abstract understanding (or lack thereof) that mathematicians restrict themselves to.
It is this sentiment that has suddenly dawned upon yours truly. I have realized that I have wasted a significant portion of my life developing only a cursory understanding - certainly not comprehensive and intuitive - of mathematics. Am I letting myself atrophy into one of those mediocre, uninspiring researchers whose papers I see so often in journals?
It is here that I can start to count my blessings. I am in one of the World's largest universities which offers a plethora of courses in every conceivable field. Mathematics. Physics. You name it. I am now going to build a plan for my doctorate. Because nothing inspires more than old fashioned classes.
I need to cover the following more topics in Physics, Math and Engineering Before I pack my bags from here.
1. Hydrodynamic Stability Theories; Transition to Turbulence
2. Multiphase Flow
3. Statistical Thermodynamics
4. Microfluidics
5. Radiative Heat Transfer in detail
6. Convective Heat Transfer in detail
Math:
1. Tensor Analysis (I've done enough to "develop a feel" for it in Turbulence and CFD).
2. Complex Analysis
3. Perturbation Methods
4. Dynamical Systems and Chaos
It might look a little ambitious - but that's just 10 more courses. With a more comprehensive understanding of math, I will no more bow my head in shame when someone talks of Banach Spaces, Cayley-Hamilton Theorems, Christoffel Symbols (which I have been seeing a lot of late in the CFD class).
To the engineer, a formula is of little use unless it comes with an intuitive meaning. Take the Fourier transforms, for instance. Or let's just stick to Fourier series. If you ask a mathematician what the integral over the period of the function actually means, he/she will wince uncomfortably. But a competent engineer will come up with his but of "intuitive" bit of understanding which could go something like:
Consider a periodic funtion with a zero mean value. The integral over the period of the periodic function with sin (or cos) tells you how "similar" the function is to the sine or the cosine. The largest possible absolute value is when the function is an amplitude-scaled replica of the sinusoidal function, the lowest when there is no similarity at all - zero. The integral actually gives you the "contribution" of the sine signal of that particular frequency to the total signal. This can be repeated for other frequencies. And a Fourier series can thus be constitutive. That these amplitudes are additive stems from the orthogonality of the sine functions at different frequencies.
It would be great if I could put meanings to equations more comfortably. And you know what that is called: PHYSICS. After all, an engineer is a physicist with a more comprehensive understanding of economics than math.
Sunday, February 25, 2007
How the west was won over by utter irrelevance
The year was 2012 and the Americans were about elect a candidate from the L.A.U.G.H Party president. His name was Jay Letterman - and is now Jay Brown (after a divorce).
This is his story - and an inspiration to one and all. To all those people who feel ashamed that their beloved media is spending too much time on frivolities such as bald musicians (and I use the term "musicians" loosely). To all those people who feel disappointed that the most important news story in the world is the untimely death of one B-grade (grotesquely voluptuous) model - when gazillions of people are perishing in a humanitarian disaster perpetrated (on flimsy grounds) by their beloved government. To all those people have not even heard of the recent terrorist attacks on the train in India from their media outlets - but would have wanted to hear about it. You might be non-conformists right now - but you can conform. There is still hope for you: you can still lower your standards substantially and pander. And then, you can be president of the "free world". A world where you are free to talk about bald actresses and celebrities behaving badly.
Jay Letterman wasn't doing anything right earlier. He was the president of International Red Cross, he was the director of Green-Peace (American Chapter). He was actually wasting time in Iraq by sending food to the starving population of that country. And when he was in the US, he was negotiating with the auto-companies a significant reduction on the numbers of SUVs. He was letting himself atrophy with these politically irrelevant activities. In the meanwhile he missed Paris Hilton's public embarrassment when she wore the wrong shoes on the wrong feet. He missed Britney spears forgetting to brush her teeth. It was almost as if there was no hope at all.
And then one fine day realization dawned. He saw God in a dream. God reportedly chastised him for not doing something that the American People really cared about. He told him that he (Letterman) was a prophet and his sole job was to tell the American people about what really mattered: bald Britneys and the like. He told him that the rest of the world was a mere barn for America to milk. Just like cows are inferior to man (in that men eat cows), the rest of the world was inferior to anything from America - even bald actresses.
So, the next day, Jay Letterman stopped all his follies in Iraq and at home. He spent his life talking about bald actresses and gay marriage. He debated with finesse. He was both clean and articulate. He formed a new political party called the LAUGH. (League of Adventurous, Useful and Great Homo-erectusses (sic)) . The American people found the issues put forth by the party particularly germane to their way of life. The Laughs' take on the number of brush strokes per tooth brushing session (32 - one per tooth!) was found to be exactly what the people wanted.
And with all American "conscience" focused on Bald Britneys, Ballihurton ( a firm CEOod by Cick Dheney) Conquered the entire middle east and charged exhorbitant rates for a gallon of oil. Their reign was cut short by an intellegent Indian inventing a solar cell with 80% efficiency. Though they (Ballihurton) managed to get the Indian killed, he had posted a blueprint on wikipedia.
Jay Letterman wasn't doing anything right earlier. He was the president of International Red Cross, he was the director of Green-Peace (American Chapter). He was actually wasting time in Iraq by sending food to the starving population of that country. And when he was in the US, he was negotiating with the auto-companies a significant reduction on the numbers of SUVs. He was letting himself atrophy with these politically irrelevant activities. In the meanwhile he missed Paris Hilton's public embarrassment when she wore the wrong shoes on the wrong feet. He missed Britney spears forgetting to brush her teeth. It was almost as if there was no hope at all.
And then one fine day realization dawned. He saw God in a dream. God reportedly chastised him for not doing something that the American People really cared about. He told him that he (Letterman) was a prophet and his sole job was to tell the American people about what really mattered: bald Britneys and the like. He told him that the rest of the world was a mere barn for America to milk. Just like cows are inferior to man (in that men eat cows), the rest of the world was inferior to anything from America - even bald actresses.
So, the next day, Jay Letterman stopped all his follies in Iraq and at home. He spent his life talking about bald actresses and gay marriage. He debated with finesse. He was both clean and articulate. He formed a new political party called the LAUGH. (League of Adventurous, Useful and Great Homo-erectusses (sic)) . The American people found the issues put forth by the party particularly germane to their way of life. The Laughs' take on the number of brush strokes per tooth brushing session (32 - one per tooth!) was found to be exactly what the people wanted.
And with all American "conscience" focused on Bald Britneys, Ballihurton ( a firm CEOod by Cick Dheney) Conquered the entire middle east and charged exhorbitant rates for a gallon of oil. Their reign was cut short by an intellegent Indian inventing a solar cell with 80% efficiency. Though they (Ballihurton) managed to get the Indian killed, he had posted a blueprint on wikipedia.
Sunday, February 11, 2007
Superpower India
The Indian press seems to be saturated with deplorable and delusional reports of India's immediate future as a superpower. Some joker always writes an article in Rediff touting India's "rapid" rise to prominence; NDTV carries an opinion poll on whether India is already a superpower - and all this happens when 60% of the country lives below / near a poverty line. (near enough for discomfort).
While I do not doubt as much that India will rise in power [There's a caveat of course: global warming] in the decades to come - I do not see it happening right now. Such irresponsible banter about "Superpower-dom" shifts the focus from the real issues: hunger, poverty and misery. So, I just had to write the following article.
SUPERPOWER INDIA
Taming the Colonizers
Taming The Empire
While I do not doubt as much that India will rise in power [There's a caveat of course: global warming] in the decades to come - I do not see it happening right now. Such irresponsible banter about "Superpower-dom" shifts the focus from the real issues: hunger, poverty and misery. So, I just had to write the following article.
SUPERPOWER INDIA
Yes, India is a superpower. And it will become a superer power soon. As a matter of fact, it is the Indians who will protect the planet from the green men from outer space who will (presumably) attack us with the intent to terminate all life on planet earth.
Taming the Colonizers
The seeds of superpowerdom were sown by the reverse colonization of the United Kingdom. It is common knowledge that Pt. Ravi Shankar introduced Lennon & Co. to LSD. Do you know what Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds actually stands for? L.S.D as in Lennon - Shankar - Dope. One can therefore say that behind the origin of western pop-culture is a significant Indian hand.
Ethnic Indians, for all vaguely practical purposes, annexed Birmingham (a nondescipt Punjabi city slightly to the northwest of London). They then furthered their reverse colonization cause with the movie "Bend it like Beckham" and by inflicting with Chicken Tikka masala all McDonaldses in the UK. And finishing the job was Ms. Shilpa Shetty's miraculous victory in something called the Celebrity Big Brother (more due to the Indian media throwing a tantrum than anything else). The destruction of one Jade Goody's career and her subsequent presumable conversion the Hinduism seemed to have almost made the sun set on the British Empire.
Then the Tatas took over Corus for $12 billion. It looked like it was all over for the British - even their cricket team was being humiliated down under. The proverbial "last nails" in the coffin. [We will conveniently forget Indian misadventures in South Africa]. But UK still seems to be putting up some sort of fight. Vodafone (a British phone company) procured Hutch for $19 billion. Looks like the Indians will have to crush England mercilessly - just like the British Crushed India in 1919 in Amritsar.
Taming The Empire
Since the neo-natives of the North American empire are extremely jingoistic, the Indian invasion of North America has been far more subtle. Cavalier impositions of Chicken Tikka on McDonalds restaurants will come under attack by Bill O'Reilly or someone - so they won't bring the US to its knees, unlike Britannica. So, the Indians have used a more careful approach. Indians have surreptitiously landed in control of 17% of the US economy (larger than India's economy!). South Asians (another term for Indians) more or less run silicon valley and dominate academic institutions.
India tries to paint a pathetic picture of itself by buying decades old naval vessels and second hand military aircraft. Talks, presumably, are on to buy used American Toilet paper.
But all this is to catch the Americans off guard. To divert the world form the real issues. Indians are ready to conquer this land. And proof of the pudding will be when Abhijit Sawant wins American Idol.
India tries to paint a pathetic picture of itself by buying decades old naval vessels and second hand military aircraft. Talks, presumably, are on to buy used American Toilet paper.
But all this is to catch the Americans off guard. To divert the world form the real issues. Indians are ready to conquer this land. And proof of the pudding will be when Abhijit Sawant wins American Idol.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)