Bal Thakeray, India's Intellectual giant is at it again.
If an innocent lady and her family were not terrorized by these goons, I would actually be laughing at this. But Ms. Anjali Waghmare (whose only fault was to be in the state of Maharashtra's empoyment as a lawyer who could be called upon to defend criminals)'s house was attacked by Thakeray's thugs. She was selected by court to represent that Pakistani terrorist who was captured during the siege of Mumbai.
We all hate the Pakistani terrorist. Just because we hate the terrorist does not mean that we should deny him a lawyer. We have a robust judicial system (as long as the criminal gets a date in court). We still have the death penalty. And there's no reason to expect Kasab to live.
India is not America. India does not keep prisoners arbitrarily in detention camps (without the intention of trying people in court). Mr. Thakeray's efforts to Americanise India should stay restricted to improving standards of living - not torturing prisoners and denying them basic judicial rights.
There is something fundamentally ironic and moronic about fighting terror with ... terror.
Monday, March 30, 2009
Friday, March 27, 2009
Obama, Airstrikes and Pakistan
I'm fuming about this.
There's a house on fire. The fire department has tried everything it can. It is still burning.
And it is burning because the army has bulldozed its way into town, armed with a jet of ethanol. And the army is using the ethanol to douse the flames. Of course the fire department can't do much if the army is saturating the place with combustible liquid.
For people who haven't caught this drift, the Army here is one Obama - and the ethanol is those missiles that he is sending into Pakistan to kill innocents, women and children (in the guise of eliminating the Taliban).
And the fire is the fire of terror that
(a) Barack Obama's misslies have unleashed among the people by killing men, women and children
(b) The people enraged and radicalised by the injustice of having their mothers, infants and wives slaugtered by Barack Obama's missiles.
I suspect that there is a direct correlation between the drone attacks in Pakistan and the uptick in terrorism. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_terrorist_incidents_in_Pakistan]
Though Obama has marketed himself as a liberal - is almost as jingoistic and insensitive as his predecessor. Stop the bloody drones, Obama! You're not solving any problems by killing and ralicalising more muslims. Your actions are killing human beings. If your goal is to save human beings, then how on earth is killing human beings going to help you achieve that goal?
The wisdom of annhilating millions of livelihoods (and millions of lives) to avenge the deaths of a few thousdands is questionable at best (and genocidal, more realistically).
Update: Terrorism in Pakistan has become so taken-for-granted that the police academy terror siege in Lahore (which has, as of now, killed 35) is not headline-worthy in CNN or Drudge. Luckily, the journalistic integrity in the BBC has not collapsed entirely.
There's a house on fire. The fire department has tried everything it can. It is still burning.
And it is burning because the army has bulldozed its way into town, armed with a jet of ethanol. And the army is using the ethanol to douse the flames. Of course the fire department can't do much if the army is saturating the place with combustible liquid.
For people who haven't caught this drift, the Army here is one Obama - and the ethanol is those missiles that he is sending into Pakistan to kill innocents, women and children (in the guise of eliminating the Taliban).
And the fire is the fire of terror that
(a) Barack Obama's misslies have unleashed among the people by killing men, women and children
(b) The people enraged and radicalised by the injustice of having their mothers, infants and wives slaugtered by Barack Obama's missiles.
I suspect that there is a direct correlation between the drone attacks in Pakistan and the uptick in terrorism. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_terrorist_incidents_in_Pakistan]
Though Obama has marketed himself as a liberal - is almost as jingoistic and insensitive as his predecessor. Stop the bloody drones, Obama! You're not solving any problems by killing and ralicalising more muslims. Your actions are killing human beings. If your goal is to save human beings, then how on earth is killing human beings going to help you achieve that goal?
The wisdom of annhilating millions of livelihoods (and millions of lives) to avenge the deaths of a few thousdands is questionable at best (and genocidal, more realistically).
Update: Terrorism in Pakistan has become so taken-for-granted that the police academy terror siege in Lahore (which has, as of now, killed 35) is not headline-worthy in CNN or Drudge. Luckily, the journalistic integrity in the BBC has not collapsed entirely.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
The Internet - and How Research is Much Easier. Or Not?
Firstly, a quick comment on gmail. I have all my mail on Gmail. My university mail gets forwarded to gmail (I have set it up to do so because the interface is very easy to use). All my data is on gmail. My tax returns, all my documents, everything. I am so dependent on gmail, that I am sure it is not healthy. Keeping all my eggs in the same basket is not a good idea. I am positive that some time down the line, there will come a day, where some malfuction (or sabotage) of some sort will erase all my data, leaving me high and dry. (Along with a significant proportion of internet users).
I am writing this little disclaimer because, when that day does come, I don't want to be blamed for not having enough foresight. I do want do go on the record as someone who has foreseen this coming. All the data I will have lost will be becuase of pure laziness. Serves me right, eh?
Back in 1905, when Albert Einstien was coming up with his theory of relativity, he did not have access to the vast amount of literature the average researcher has right now. Newton, when he came up with gravity, had to spend a lot of time to find giants to stand on the shoulder of. Pythagoras did not have the luxury of reading journals when he came up with his theorem.
Right now, if you go into any univeristy in the world, odds are you have a access to electronic copies of all scientific literature published in the last 50 years. And with VPNs and other modern miracles such as science driect, google scholar and engineering village, standing on the shoulders of giants has never been easier. You can do it from the luxury of your own bedroom. Or from a bus, what with wifi, laptops and all.
And to top all that, there's the search facility. Rather than laboriously look through various articles in journals at libraries, looking at keywords and then finding pertinent articles, (utlizing those cumbersome index cards) the modern researcher just goes to a search engine and types in what he or she is looking for.
Since technology is a collaborative work (i.e. people improve on the state-of-the-art ideas rather than reinvent the wheel), getting ideas across quickly has certainly speeded up research. (That's why the industrial revolution started only after gutenberg invented the printing press).
And now, with most journals scanning all their old copies and making available old papers as pdfs on the internet - the rate determining step of reseach (for any competent researcher) ceases to be the literature survey. It is now the actual work. We now can do in a day what Einstien and Newton could do in a month. And we can do it much better.
Of course, there's always the flipside. Research is getting tougher in most areas because of saturation. Even though it is getting easier to find out what has been worked on in the past, the amount of work which has been done in the past is also increasing. Consider a field like the one I am working on right now. (I won't talk about it in detail, since I'm trying to keep this blog anonymous). I come up with an idea, one fine day, and all excited, go an tell my adviser about it. He looks at it and says that it has already been done in 1982 by a couple of blokes. And then there's another publication we come up with - present it in a conference and all - even get it approved for a journal - and then we see another paper talking about something very similar.
Perhaps the ease of getting access of oceans of pertinent information - and then having to skim through all those oceans of information kind of run counter to each other.
It is indeed fortunate that all scientific literature has been organized so well that one can access it at the click of a button. Because keeping abreast of the nearly infinite scientific literature pertinent to one's field would be quite impossible if not for modern technology. But that said, I still am happier to be a researcher in the 2000s than a researcher in the 1900s.
I am writing this little disclaimer because, when that day does come, I don't want to be blamed for not having enough foresight. I do want do go on the record as someone who has foreseen this coming. All the data I will have lost will be becuase of pure laziness. Serves me right, eh?
Back in 1905, when Albert Einstien was coming up with his theory of relativity, he did not have access to the vast amount of literature the average researcher has right now. Newton, when he came up with gravity, had to spend a lot of time to find giants to stand on the shoulder of. Pythagoras did not have the luxury of reading journals when he came up with his theorem.
Right now, if you go into any univeristy in the world, odds are you have a access to electronic copies of all scientific literature published in the last 50 years. And with VPNs and other modern miracles such as science driect, google scholar and engineering village, standing on the shoulders of giants has never been easier. You can do it from the luxury of your own bedroom. Or from a bus, what with wifi, laptops and all.
And to top all that, there's the search facility. Rather than laboriously look through various articles in journals at libraries, looking at keywords and then finding pertinent articles, (utlizing those cumbersome index cards) the modern researcher just goes to a search engine and types in what he or she is looking for.
Since technology is a collaborative work (i.e. people improve on the state-of-the-art ideas rather than reinvent the wheel), getting ideas across quickly has certainly speeded up research. (That's why the industrial revolution started only after gutenberg invented the printing press).
And now, with most journals scanning all their old copies and making available old papers as pdfs on the internet - the rate determining step of reseach (for any competent researcher) ceases to be the literature survey. It is now the actual work. We now can do in a day what Einstien and Newton could do in a month. And we can do it much better.
Of course, there's always the flipside. Research is getting tougher in most areas because of saturation. Even though it is getting easier to find out what has been worked on in the past, the amount of work which has been done in the past is also increasing. Consider a field like the one I am working on right now. (I won't talk about it in detail, since I'm trying to keep this blog anonymous). I come up with an idea, one fine day, and all excited, go an tell my adviser about it. He looks at it and says that it has already been done in 1982 by a couple of blokes. And then there's another publication we come up with - present it in a conference and all - even get it approved for a journal - and then we see another paper talking about something very similar.
Perhaps the ease of getting access of oceans of pertinent information - and then having to skim through all those oceans of information kind of run counter to each other.
It is indeed fortunate that all scientific literature has been organized so well that one can access it at the click of a button. Because keeping abreast of the nearly infinite scientific literature pertinent to one's field would be quite impossible if not for modern technology. But that said, I still am happier to be a researcher in the 2000s than a researcher in the 1900s.
Friday, February 20, 2009
How much should one work?
The notion that the fruit of hard work is sweet has been indoctrinated into almost every educated human being. There's always this story about some juvenile pedaling all the way atop a hill and then enjoying the ride down , which is supposed to inspire one into persevering.
Common sense tells one that hard work is necessary to live a satisfied life (by maintaining a well-fed and satisfied family, essentially). Clearly, evolution can justify this heuristic. It is not impossible to see how the perseverant had an evolutionary advantage over the lazy. But with the absence of predators, stunning advances in medical science and abundance of food, we seem to have prevailed over a large component of evolution. With every passing year, it is getting safer and safer to say that we are not evolving any more. (Mike Judge makes a rather fascinating satirical exaggeration in Idiocracy).
But what if, in the modern context, common sense was all wrong? What if hard work was one of the reasons why there's a lot of trouble in the world today? What if hard work was the reason why the planet's climate is heating up every year? What if this obsession with overtime is forcing us to adopt a particularly ecologically unsustainable lifestyle?
Because the main motivation behind working hard is greed. Nothing wrong with greed, per se. But, a fairly strong case can be made contending that more people working hard results in more economic growth - and more economic growth results in a larger usurpage (sic) of resources on a limited planet. And since the west's GDP usually consists of significant lifestyle components, one feels safe in calling it an inefficient waste.
Every economy is gauged by how much it grows every year. Economists and policy makers try to stimulate growth, create prosperity and wealth. With 6 Billion people (and growing) on this planet - of which more than 4 billion are extremely poor - but getting richer all the same, some questions arise. The planet had a constant population of 300M poorer people before the middle of the 19th century. And then, it rose exponentially - despite British and American Imperialism, despite Hitler, despite genocide in Rwanda, despite the HIV virus and others.
Is it reasonable for us to expect to get richer every year, given that the per-capita resources on this planet are dwindling? Ground water is drying up under large cities. Forests are being cut at a frightening rate. Species are going extinct like there's no tomorrow. Fossil fuels are getting harder to find. Man made dams have more or less sealed the fate of the Colorado river and other major rivers around the planet. Himalayan glaciers are melting.
And on top of that, man made climate change is burning Australia; drying up America's southwest; Darfur, China and Iraq, to name a few. Hurricanes are getting more intense because of warmer oceans. More tornadoes in tornado alley.
Are fantasies of economic growth given such hostile conditions realistic? Is "lifestyle" economic growth justifiable? Considering that third world economic growth is for "survival" rather than lifestyle it is certainly more justifiable.
Perhaps we ought to sit down and make some smart decisions. Perhaps some legislation ought to be passed converting the week to a four day work-week (32 hours). This would ensure that no one gets paid exorbitant amounts of money to pillage the planet as they want. This will bring about less unemployment; there will be more equality - and the GDP will contract - having less of an impact on the environment.
Since almost all nations in the world have strict laws disallowing people from being employed more than 40 hours a week (without adequate compensation), how draconian is it to enforce a law that makes it 32 hours a week? (Of course, if you get paid $7.50 an hour, this 32-hour-workweek will start hurting you - so perhaps some thought ought to go into who should be asked to cut down working hours).
And the extra time people get can be dedicated to leisure - therefore enhancing the quality of life. Working less in the developed world is a win-win situation. From a personal, ecological and social perspective. Perhaps this shall increase the "Gross National Happiness" of the developed world. Perhaps this will make America as happy as Bhutan.
It is heartening to see these opinions make it to the Mainstream. The magazine, New Scientist had a remarkable issue on how economic growth is killing our planet, which makes a very strong case that the planet is in deep trouble because of economic growth. Alternet keeps coming up with brilliant articles every now and then.
Common sense tells one that hard work is necessary to live a satisfied life (by maintaining a well-fed and satisfied family, essentially). Clearly, evolution can justify this heuristic. It is not impossible to see how the perseverant had an evolutionary advantage over the lazy. But with the absence of predators, stunning advances in medical science and abundance of food, we seem to have prevailed over a large component of evolution. With every passing year, it is getting safer and safer to say that we are not evolving any more. (Mike Judge makes a rather fascinating satirical exaggeration in Idiocracy).
But what if, in the modern context, common sense was all wrong? What if hard work was one of the reasons why there's a lot of trouble in the world today? What if hard work was the reason why the planet's climate is heating up every year? What if this obsession with overtime is forcing us to adopt a particularly ecologically unsustainable lifestyle?
Because the main motivation behind working hard is greed. Nothing wrong with greed, per se. But, a fairly strong case can be made contending that more people working hard results in more economic growth - and more economic growth results in a larger usurpage (sic) of resources on a limited planet. And since the west's GDP usually consists of significant lifestyle components, one feels safe in calling it an inefficient waste.
Every economy is gauged by how much it grows every year. Economists and policy makers try to stimulate growth, create prosperity and wealth. With 6 Billion people (and growing) on this planet - of which more than 4 billion are extremely poor - but getting richer all the same, some questions arise. The planet had a constant population of 300M poorer people before the middle of the 19th century. And then, it rose exponentially - despite British and American Imperialism, despite Hitler, despite genocide in Rwanda, despite the HIV virus and others.
Is it reasonable for us to expect to get richer every year, given that the per-capita resources on this planet are dwindling? Ground water is drying up under large cities. Forests are being cut at a frightening rate. Species are going extinct like there's no tomorrow. Fossil fuels are getting harder to find. Man made dams have more or less sealed the fate of the Colorado river and other major rivers around the planet. Himalayan glaciers are melting.
And on top of that, man made climate change is burning Australia; drying up America's southwest; Darfur, China and Iraq, to name a few. Hurricanes are getting more intense because of warmer oceans. More tornadoes in tornado alley.
Are fantasies of economic growth given such hostile conditions realistic? Is "lifestyle" economic growth justifiable? Considering that third world economic growth is for "survival" rather than lifestyle it is certainly more justifiable.
Perhaps we ought to sit down and make some smart decisions. Perhaps some legislation ought to be passed converting the week to a four day work-week (32 hours). This would ensure that no one gets paid exorbitant amounts of money to pillage the planet as they want. This will bring about less unemployment; there will be more equality - and the GDP will contract - having less of an impact on the environment.
Since almost all nations in the world have strict laws disallowing people from being employed more than 40 hours a week (without adequate compensation), how draconian is it to enforce a law that makes it 32 hours a week? (Of course, if you get paid $7.50 an hour, this 32-hour-workweek will start hurting you - so perhaps some thought ought to go into who should be asked to cut down working hours).
And the extra time people get can be dedicated to leisure - therefore enhancing the quality of life. Working less in the developed world is a win-win situation. From a personal, ecological and social perspective. Perhaps this shall increase the "Gross National Happiness" of the developed world. Perhaps this will make America as happy as Bhutan.
It is heartening to see these opinions make it to the Mainstream. The magazine, New Scientist had a remarkable issue on how economic growth is killing our planet, which makes a very strong case that the planet is in deep trouble because of economic growth. Alternet keeps coming up with brilliant articles every now and then.
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.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Global Warming Catch 22
Whichever way you look at it, you can't win with Global Warming.
Scientists seem to agree right now that human beings are responsible for the current increasing trend in world temperatures. And this scientific consensus has spurred Europe (and to a lesser degree, the US) into action. (Well, not into action, but into talking about action). Now, hypothetically, suppose this green rhetoric does indeed become green action - and we do avert the worst of climate change by the middle of the century. Suppose we do save the planet from the doomsday predictions of current scientists by timely action.
There's this old question that people associate with Erwin Schrodinger. If a tree falls in a forest, and nobody's around, does it make a sound? Is a fact a fact if no one observes it happen?
And similarly, if our actions do stop the planet from warming - but we can't ever prove comprehensively that they did - then was the planet warming in the first place? What's to stop some Rush Limbaugh's grandson from going and pontificating on air that global warming was an evil hoax perpetrated by the jealous developing world on America? After all, any global warming control plan is likely to force stringent caps on the emissions of the developed world, not the developing world (because the poor countries don't emit much per-capita). It is very likely that a successful anti-global warming campaign will get a more skeptical government in place in developed countries. And pollution will start again.
On the other hand, suppose we do what is likely: almost nothing. We talk a lot about reducing emissions, but we don't do anything, because a reduction in standard of living for the west is utterly unacceptable to its democratic voters. We don't stop the planet from warming. Whatever is left of the planet will regret listening to Limbaugh's nonsense. No one wins.
-----------------------
My stand on Climate Change
What do you think scientists would do if they were sure that the planet was warming because of human emissions? They would sit down together and form a huge committee and unanimously agree that is indeed happening. That's what they have done. The IPCC report.
To me, based on our current state of the art knowledge, it seems very probable that human carbon emissions are responsible for climate change.
Not one peer reviewed publication argues that the planet is not warming because of man. How many peer reviewed papers argue that tadpoles are human? None! How many peer reviewed papers argue that heat flows from cool areas to warm areas? None.
If you are skeptical of climate change, you are in essence arguing that the current process of peer review is fatally flawed. You are also arguing that the entire scientific community is governed by agendas of developing nations. A ludicrous notion.
If you have a fundamental reason to have such revolutionary philosophical stands, then you need listening to. Perhaps you're the next Einstein.
But if you have these stands just because you blindly agree with the simple minded incentive system that Rush Limbaugh (or James Inhoffe) are trying to sell, then your opinion is not your own. You're an impediment to progress - just like one of those Popes who imprisoned Galileo.
Faith in science is not blind faith. Faith in science is faith in human skepticism.
Scientists seem to agree right now that human beings are responsible for the current increasing trend in world temperatures. And this scientific consensus has spurred Europe (and to a lesser degree, the US) into action. (Well, not into action, but into talking about action). Now, hypothetically, suppose this green rhetoric does indeed become green action - and we do avert the worst of climate change by the middle of the century. Suppose we do save the planet from the doomsday predictions of current scientists by timely action.
There's this old question that people associate with Erwin Schrodinger. If a tree falls in a forest, and nobody's around, does it make a sound? Is a fact a fact if no one observes it happen?
And similarly, if our actions do stop the planet from warming - but we can't ever prove comprehensively that they did - then was the planet warming in the first place? What's to stop some Rush Limbaugh's grandson from going and pontificating on air that global warming was an evil hoax perpetrated by the jealous developing world on America? After all, any global warming control plan is likely to force stringent caps on the emissions of the developed world, not the developing world (because the poor countries don't emit much per-capita). It is very likely that a successful anti-global warming campaign will get a more skeptical government in place in developed countries. And pollution will start again.
On the other hand, suppose we do what is likely: almost nothing. We talk a lot about reducing emissions, but we don't do anything, because a reduction in standard of living for the west is utterly unacceptable to its democratic voters. We don't stop the planet from warming. Whatever is left of the planet will regret listening to Limbaugh's nonsense. No one wins.
-----------------------
My stand on Climate Change
What do you think scientists would do if they were sure that the planet was warming because of human emissions? They would sit down together and form a huge committee and unanimously agree that is indeed happening. That's what they have done. The IPCC report.
To me, based on our current state of the art knowledge, it seems very probable that human carbon emissions are responsible for climate change.
Not one peer reviewed publication argues that the planet is not warming because of man. How many peer reviewed papers argue that tadpoles are human? None! How many peer reviewed papers argue that heat flows from cool areas to warm areas? None.
If you are skeptical of climate change, you are in essence arguing that the current process of peer review is fatally flawed. You are also arguing that the entire scientific community is governed by agendas of developing nations. A ludicrous notion.
If you have a fundamental reason to have such revolutionary philosophical stands, then you need listening to. Perhaps you're the next Einstein.
But if you have these stands just because you blindly agree with the simple minded incentive system that Rush Limbaugh (or James Inhoffe) are trying to sell, then your opinion is not your own. You're an impediment to progress - just like one of those Popes who imprisoned Galileo.
Faith in science is not blind faith. Faith in science is faith in human skepticism.
Monday, January 26, 2009
A few thoughts on poverty and "Slumdog"
Just watched the movie this weekend, and first things first, I thought it was an excellent piece of storytelling. Let me just say that the amount of attention it is getting is justified, and leave it at that. This is not a movie review.
A significant amount of outrage (in India) has been directed at the depiction of extreme poverty in the movie. Newspaper editorials have called it "poverty porn". And, ironically, "slum-dwellers" have held rallies protesting what they call "poverty for sale". They also don't like being referred to as "dogs". (Though it is clear that the film-makers did not mean it in a pejorative way, they should have foreseen that the title could hurt the pride of people in the 'slums'. Is it possible to make a movie about slaves in America with the N-word in the title?). Amitabh Bachan (possibly the biggest name in Indian cinema) protested the depiction of poverty in the movie, contending that it portrays a "negative image" of India.
Correct me if I am wrong, but it is the first movie in a long time (if not the first ever) that focuses on the lives of people living in India's slums. Predictably, making movies about slums is not expected to make money if the target audience is the people that some slum-dwellers encounter at traffic signals. So, few Indian directors have the motivation to make a movie about slums.
No one dares contend that what the movie depicts is anything but reality. What the movie shows, is unfortunately all to real in Mumbai's slums. Or the the slums of any city, town or village in India. Arguments that the movie exposes India's underbelly - and that you would find similar stories in other nations if you dug deep enough are probably correct. Except that you don't have to dig too deep in India. 80% of India lives on less that Rs 80 a day. 14% of India lives on Rs 20 a day. And if you earn less than Rs 20 a day, odds are you live in a slum. Therefore, at least 5-10% of India lives in slums (this could be as high as 15%). Now, let's do some math here. 5% of 1.2 Billion is 60 million. Or 8 times the size of Israel. 3 times the size of Australia. 15% of a Billion is more than half the size of the US. If slums are 15% of India's population, then India's slums alone would be the world's 6th most populated nation. India has more slum dwellers than the Population of Pakistan, if we were to take the 15% estimate.
60% of Mumbai's 22 Million are slum dwellers. Mumbai alone has almost as many slum dwellers than twice the population of the entire nation of Israel.
Now, Mr. Bachan. Underbelly. Really?
Prosperous Indians don't empathize with the plight of the slum-dwellers in India. Rich Indians have made themselves numb to poverty (or otherwise, they just can't survive with so much of it all around). People know it exists, but just cannot do anything about it. So they ignore it.
This draws a parallel to former American Vice-President's (Al Gore's) Nobel Prize winning documentary, 'An Inconvenient Truth'. Most Americans know that the planet is warming, but are just not able to do anything about it. It is still likely that Global warming will go unabated - even though a good movie was made about it. On similar lines, slum poverty in India shall continue unabated (until economics sets it right) - even though a good movie has been made about it.
If the movie's masterful humanization of the predicament of the under-privileged arouses some empathy among the more fortunate upper classes; if this movie makes extreme poverty a larger electoral issue; if this movie motivates more youngsters to dream big and work hard, then it also deserves a Nobel Peace prize.
But something tells me that once all the hype is done, it will be back to business as usual in the media. And Dharavi will still be as miserable as ever.
A significant amount of outrage (in India) has been directed at the depiction of extreme poverty in the movie. Newspaper editorials have called it "poverty porn". And, ironically, "slum-dwellers" have held rallies protesting what they call "poverty for sale". They also don't like being referred to as "dogs". (Though it is clear that the film-makers did not mean it in a pejorative way, they should have foreseen that the title could hurt the pride of people in the 'slums'. Is it possible to make a movie about slaves in America with the N-word in the title?). Amitabh Bachan (possibly the biggest name in Indian cinema) protested the depiction of poverty in the movie, contending that it portrays a "negative image" of India.
Correct me if I am wrong, but it is the first movie in a long time (if not the first ever) that focuses on the lives of people living in India's slums. Predictably, making movies about slums is not expected to make money if the target audience is the people that some slum-dwellers encounter at traffic signals. So, few Indian directors have the motivation to make a movie about slums.
No one dares contend that what the movie depicts is anything but reality. What the movie shows, is unfortunately all to real in Mumbai's slums. Or the the slums of any city, town or village in India. Arguments that the movie exposes India's underbelly - and that you would find similar stories in other nations if you dug deep enough are probably correct. Except that you don't have to dig too deep in India. 80% of India lives on less that Rs 80 a day. 14% of India lives on Rs 20 a day. And if you earn less than Rs 20 a day, odds are you live in a slum. Therefore, at least 5-10% of India lives in slums (this could be as high as 15%). Now, let's do some math here. 5% of 1.2 Billion is 60 million. Or 8 times the size of Israel. 3 times the size of Australia. 15% of a Billion is more than half the size of the US. If slums are 15% of India's population, then India's slums alone would be the world's 6th most populated nation. India has more slum dwellers than the Population of Pakistan, if we were to take the 15% estimate.
60% of Mumbai's 22 Million are slum dwellers. Mumbai alone has almost as many slum dwellers than twice the population of the entire nation of Israel.
Now, Mr. Bachan. Underbelly. Really?
Prosperous Indians don't empathize with the plight of the slum-dwellers in India. Rich Indians have made themselves numb to poverty (or otherwise, they just can't survive with so much of it all around). People know it exists, but just cannot do anything about it. So they ignore it.
This draws a parallel to former American Vice-President's (Al Gore's) Nobel Prize winning documentary, 'An Inconvenient Truth'. Most Americans know that the planet is warming, but are just not able to do anything about it. It is still likely that Global warming will go unabated - even though a good movie was made about it. On similar lines, slum poverty in India shall continue unabated (until economics sets it right) - even though a good movie has been made about it.
If the movie's masterful humanization of the predicament of the under-privileged arouses some empathy among the more fortunate upper classes; if this movie makes extreme poverty a larger electoral issue; if this movie motivates more youngsters to dream big and work hard, then it also deserves a Nobel Peace prize.
But something tells me that once all the hype is done, it will be back to business as usual in the media. And Dharavi will still be as miserable as ever.
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.
Saturday, January 17, 2009
How rich is the average Indian?
The recent trip to India was an eye-opener of sorts. I had always been cognizant of there existing a significant parallel economy in India. But this current trip, I interacted with people familiar with the tricks of the trade. Presenting a few thoughts that I feel are pertinent:
Black money is undeclared money, money that has never seen a bank account, money that the government does not know exists; money that has not been taxed. Almost all Indians who deal in real estate have a secret stash of black money hidden under a mattress somewhere. And this is perhaps a reason why you don't see Indians use cards and checks while doing their groceries; they use cash.
Incidentally, some speculative articles in the popular press (not peer reviewed, mind you) contend that black money is saving the Indian economy from a US economy type fate in this credit crunch. Anecdotal evidence talking about Sony Bravias (worth a few lakhs) still selling despite hell having broken loose in other markets seems to corroborate this notion.
The size of the Indian black economy defies quantification. It is unanimously agreed that India's black economy is at least 20% of the size of its GDP. Some estimates hold that a conservative estimate of India's unofficial economy is around 50% of the GDP. And I have it from a few personal sources that the black economy is roughly equal in size to the actual GDP.
When we consider the annual per-capita income of India (or annual per-capita GDP, for that matter), do we also factor in the black component? We quote that the per-capita income of India is $2600 per year (based on PPP) - and we lament fact that we are living in a poor country. But, if 50% of the economy is black, then the per capita income would turn out to be $3900 per year. A significant change. Maybe Indians are as rich as Sri Lankans, it looks like. And If the economy were equal in size to the black economy, then India's per capita income would be $5200, almost on par with that of Egypt. (Of course, Egypt and Sri Lanka probably have under-reported their economies too, but not as badly as India).
Black money is undeclared money, money that has never seen a bank account, money that the government does not know exists; money that has not been taxed. Almost all Indians who deal in real estate have a secret stash of black money hidden under a mattress somewhere. And this is perhaps a reason why you don't see Indians use cards and checks while doing their groceries; they use cash.
Incidentally, some speculative articles in the popular press (not peer reviewed, mind you) contend that black money is saving the Indian economy from a US economy type fate in this credit crunch. Anecdotal evidence talking about Sony Bravias (worth a few lakhs) still selling despite hell having broken loose in other markets seems to corroborate this notion.
The size of the Indian black economy defies quantification. It is unanimously agreed that India's black economy is at least 20% of the size of its GDP. Some estimates hold that a conservative estimate of India's unofficial economy is around 50% of the GDP. And I have it from a few personal sources that the black economy is roughly equal in size to the actual GDP.
When we consider the annual per-capita income of India (or annual per-capita GDP, for that matter), do we also factor in the black component? We quote that the per-capita income of India is $2600 per year (based on PPP) - and we lament fact that we are living in a poor country. But, if 50% of the economy is black, then the per capita income would turn out to be $3900 per year. A significant change. Maybe Indians are as rich as Sri Lankans, it looks like. And If the economy were equal in size to the black economy, then India's per capita income would be $5200, almost on par with that of Egypt. (Of course, Egypt and Sri Lanka probably have under-reported their economies too, but not as badly as India).
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
Friday, January 09, 2009
The first post of 2009
Had very wholesome and satisfying trip home to India. Back in the US now, in a BA flight from London - which was mostly empty. Another sign of the recession.
2009 looks like it won't me much fun for the investor. India shell shocked by the disgusting Satyam fiasco. US bleeding jobs all the time. And with cheap fuel, looks like all those "green" initiatives have died. Like the dinosaur.
The US is planning to spend its way out of a crisis it spent its way into. Cannot but be pessimistic about the whole idea. Common sense tells me that this crisis will shock the US to economy contract (per-capita) and curb its over-indulgence and focus on efficiency, for a change. (This will happen when the Chinese investors who are financing the US deficit realize that the US is no more a good investment).
2009 does not look like a good time for doves. Israel inflicting shameless and ruthless attacks on Gaza with an eye on its own local elections. Just why this is not termed terrorism is beyond me. And India and Pakistan seem to be exchanging heated invective every moment. But I don't see that turn into full scale war - because India's interests are in line with those of the government of Pakistan's - and most of the Pakistani people's (much as they would had to admit). Getting rid of the terrorists.
2009 looks like it won't me much fun for the investor. India shell shocked by the disgusting Satyam fiasco. US bleeding jobs all the time. And with cheap fuel, looks like all those "green" initiatives have died. Like the dinosaur.
The US is planning to spend its way out of a crisis it spent its way into. Cannot but be pessimistic about the whole idea. Common sense tells me that this crisis will shock the US to economy contract (per-capita) and curb its over-indulgence and focus on efficiency, for a change. (This will happen when the Chinese investors who are financing the US deficit realize that the US is no more a good investment).
2009 does not look like a good time for doves. Israel inflicting shameless and ruthless attacks on Gaza with an eye on its own local elections. Just why this is not termed terrorism is beyond me. And India and Pakistan seem to be exchanging heated invective every moment. But I don't see that turn into full scale war - because India's interests are in line with those of the government of Pakistan's - and most of the Pakistani people's (much as they would had to admit). Getting rid of the terrorists.
Friday, December 26, 2008
Easy Economic Stimulus for India?
In India now. Not very impressed with Rs 52 per liter petrol when crude oil is trading at $40 a barrel.
A liter of petrol costs around Rs 52 in India right now. That translates to $4.06 a gallon. That's how much the US used to pay, back in July, when everyone was weeping about how unaffordable everything was. Right now, average cost of a gallon of gas is around $1.70 in the US. That is Rs 21 per liter (after taxes). When times were bad the US paid $4.10 per gallon, India paid $5.
Now, then, India is clearly a low income tax nation (i.e. there's very few rich blokes who pay their 33%). So, of course, the petrol tax must be a significant cash cow for the government. Reducing the petrol tax to zero, therefore, is not a tenable solution. And kicking it up to infinity also will kill tax revenues by asphyxiating demand. Clearly, there is a case for an optimum tax rate which shall yield maximum revenue to the government.
My expectation is that this "optimum" tax rate is probably not what is being levied right now. I believe that the petrol tax rate ought to go down - and that petrol ought to be available at a cheaper rate. Perhaps Rs 35 a liter or so. We're probably in the regime where lower tax rates equal larger revenues by stimulating demand.
Clearly, there shall be ecological repercussions. Indians consuming more shall emit more. And in a warming planet that would not be good news. But one must keep Shyam Sharan's words in mind while comparing Indian CO2 emissions with the emissions of the developed world. "Ours are survival emissions. Yours are lifestyle emissions". Worrying about Indians consuming a tad bid more when Americans (and the rest of the world) are hedonistically over-indulging is misplaced, stupid altruism. The bottom line is, India must consume more, emit more to raise its billion from poverty. Any reduction in emission must come from the developed world. Not India.
So, here's my suggestion to MMS and Chidambaram (and whoever else it may concern).
Cut fuel taxes. People will buy more cars. (Roads will get more congested - but that will result in greater and quicker infrastructure development and public transport use). More cars mean more demand. More manufacturing. More jobs. This will act like a stimulus which shall not be financed by a deficit. A win-win situation for all. (Even the environment as the resulting increase in demand shall increase fuel prices around the world a bit) - therefore increasing petrol prices in regions that use it inefficiently (the US basically).
Europe has a good incentive to keep prices low. They're plenty rich anyway and they need to curb their per-capita emissions. India can afford to keep it cheap. We're desparately, miserably poor. We need to emit more to develop more. Cut fuel prices now!
A liter of petrol costs around Rs 52 in India right now. That translates to $4.06 a gallon. That's how much the US used to pay, back in July, when everyone was weeping about how unaffordable everything was. Right now, average cost of a gallon of gas is around $1.70 in the US. That is Rs 21 per liter (after taxes). When times were bad the US paid $4.10 per gallon, India paid $5.
Now, then, India is clearly a low income tax nation (i.e. there's very few rich blokes who pay their 33%). So, of course, the petrol tax must be a significant cash cow for the government. Reducing the petrol tax to zero, therefore, is not a tenable solution. And kicking it up to infinity also will kill tax revenues by asphyxiating demand. Clearly, there is a case for an optimum tax rate which shall yield maximum revenue to the government.
My expectation is that this "optimum" tax rate is probably not what is being levied right now. I believe that the petrol tax rate ought to go down - and that petrol ought to be available at a cheaper rate. Perhaps Rs 35 a liter or so. We're probably in the regime where lower tax rates equal larger revenues by stimulating demand.
Clearly, there shall be ecological repercussions. Indians consuming more shall emit more. And in a warming planet that would not be good news. But one must keep Shyam Sharan's words in mind while comparing Indian CO2 emissions with the emissions of the developed world. "Ours are survival emissions. Yours are lifestyle emissions". Worrying about Indians consuming a tad bid more when Americans (and the rest of the world) are hedonistically over-indulging is misplaced, stupid altruism. The bottom line is, India must consume more, emit more to raise its billion from poverty. Any reduction in emission must come from the developed world. Not India.
So, here's my suggestion to MMS and Chidambaram (and whoever else it may concern).
Cut fuel taxes. People will buy more cars. (Roads will get more congested - but that will result in greater and quicker infrastructure development and public transport use). More cars mean more demand. More manufacturing. More jobs. This will act like a stimulus which shall not be financed by a deficit. A win-win situation for all. (Even the environment as the resulting increase in demand shall increase fuel prices around the world a bit) - therefore increasing petrol prices in regions that use it inefficiently (the US basically).
Europe has a good incentive to keep prices low. They're plenty rich anyway and they need to curb their per-capita emissions. India can afford to keep it cheap. We're desparately, miserably poor. We need to emit more to develop more. Cut fuel prices now!
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.
Tuesday, December 09, 2008
Few Thoughts on the Indian State Elections
The media is rife with stories about maturing Indian voters "not being swayed by divisive rhetoric" purveyed by the BJP. The liberal in me likes that take, but the skeptic in me cannot help but wonder, Really?
Terror has been a given in India for a long time. Terrorists slaughtered 24 in Delhi a few weeks ago. And people must remember the horrible incidents in Modi- governed Ahmedabad (and almost in Surat) earlier this year, not to mention Guwahati, Hyderabad, Bangalore, Delhi... . These attacks in Mumbai don't change anything. The common man in India knows that. Analysts, of course, have an elitist bias - and to them the Mumbai attacks have a deeper emotional significance.
National issues in India seldom outweigh local issues. One of the rare occasions they did outweigh local issues was when the elecorate threw out Indira Gandhi's paranoid emegency. But terror is nowhere as significant as the emergency. Terror in India is little more than an unpleasant irritant - something that should certainly be dealt with - but not something that should occupy center stage when farmers are commiting sucide by the lakh.
If any national party wants to make terror a national issue in the elections, I am sure that the electorate will reject it - because it is not as significant an issue as others. Last time the BJP tried something stupid like this, it lost badly. (Remember India Shining? What a travesty that was!. When farmers on the verge of commiting suicide and the desperate poor struggling to eke out a living were informed that their nation was shining, the boot is what they got).
To me, it is not as if the electorate has developed a maturity overnight. India has always had a functioning democracy (as has been proven by the voters booting out Ms. Indira Gandhi - and rejecting the irrational "India Shining" campaign). The voters have voted for development in Delhi. Ms. Dixit is doing a great job over there. Voters appreciate the MP and Chattisgharh BJP governments - which are actually doing good work.
And that's why Modi stays in power in Gujarat. Whatever we liberals might say about him, he does have a staunch development record. The Indian voter is trying to vote his/her way out of poverty. And statistically, terror is a little too minor to scare the electorate right now.
Terror has been a given in India for a long time. Terrorists slaughtered 24 in Delhi a few weeks ago. And people must remember the horrible incidents in Modi- governed Ahmedabad (and almost in Surat) earlier this year, not to mention Guwahati, Hyderabad, Bangalore, Delhi... . These attacks in Mumbai don't change anything. The common man in India knows that. Analysts, of course, have an elitist bias - and to them the Mumbai attacks have a deeper emotional significance.
National issues in India seldom outweigh local issues. One of the rare occasions they did outweigh local issues was when the elecorate threw out Indira Gandhi's paranoid emegency. But terror is nowhere as significant as the emergency. Terror in India is little more than an unpleasant irritant - something that should certainly be dealt with - but not something that should occupy center stage when farmers are commiting sucide by the lakh.
If any national party wants to make terror a national issue in the elections, I am sure that the electorate will reject it - because it is not as significant an issue as others. Last time the BJP tried something stupid like this, it lost badly. (Remember India Shining? What a travesty that was!. When farmers on the verge of commiting suicide and the desperate poor struggling to eke out a living were informed that their nation was shining, the boot is what they got).
To me, it is not as if the electorate has developed a maturity overnight. India has always had a functioning democracy (as has been proven by the voters booting out Ms. Indira Gandhi - and rejecting the irrational "India Shining" campaign). The voters have voted for development in Delhi. Ms. Dixit is doing a great job over there. Voters appreciate the MP and Chattisgharh BJP governments - which are actually doing good work.
And that's why Modi stays in power in Gujarat. Whatever we liberals might say about him, he does have a staunch development record. The Indian voter is trying to vote his/her way out of poverty. And statistically, terror is a little too minor to scare the electorate right now.
Friday, December 05, 2008
How big a problem is terrorism in India?
Based on the list of terror attacks for 2008 in Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents,_2008), the question (title) has been addressed.
Here are the results:
Iraq: 728 deaths, at 29.12 deaths per million people
Sri Lanka: 214 deaths at 10.7 deaths per million people
Pakistan: 646 deaths at 3.91 deaths per million people
Israel: 13 deaths at 1.9 deaths per million people
India: 364 deaths at 0.4 deaths per million people
These statistics cannot be fully accurate, because terrorism is a tough term to define. For instance, all the Sri Lankan deaths are essentially because of Hindu terrorists (LTTE). Those deaths are included in this survey, wheras shootings like the Virginia-tech massacre would not be. That's why the US has 0 deaths. Statistics pertaining to India also include Naxalite encounters - but not muders.
Compare that with crime rate. India has 32,000 murders every year - which is 29 deaths per million. Basically that means one is 100 times more likely to be killed by a murderer than an islamic terrorist. And now, let's get to India's 130,000 annual road accident deaths - or 150 deaths per million. This makes India's roads five times more dangerous than terrorism in Iraq, by far the world's most terrorist encumbered state. If India re-allocated 90% of her defence budget to road-infrastructure, even in these apparently "troubled" times, more Indians would live.
These statistics make one question very basic assumptions regarding security. Islamic terror is certainly not a problem worth losing sleep over, if statistics are to be believed.
People contend that statistics hide more than they reveal - a thoroughly debatable contention. What does one have to go by, if one doubts the credibility of statistics?
Is outrage proportional to how wealthy the victims are? 180 dead in Rich Mumbai, the whole planet comes to a standstill. 200 dead in Mumbai (2006) - and hardly anybody notices. Clearly, socio economics is a factor.
What do you think?
As an aside, clearly, terrorism is a problem in Iraq. That's something that statistics show immediately. And this is considered one of the better years for Iraq. Iraq witnessed the destruction of its entire middle class and death of a million people - and the ruin of 20 million more - all because of "bad intelligence".
Here are the results:
Iraq: 728 deaths, at 29.12 deaths per million people
Sri Lanka: 214 deaths at 10.7 deaths per million people
Pakistan: 646 deaths at 3.91 deaths per million people
Israel: 13 deaths at 1.9 deaths per million people
India: 364 deaths at 0.4 deaths per million people
These statistics cannot be fully accurate, because terrorism is a tough term to define. For instance, all the Sri Lankan deaths are essentially because of Hindu terrorists (LTTE). Those deaths are included in this survey, wheras shootings like the Virginia-tech massacre would not be. That's why the US has 0 deaths. Statistics pertaining to India also include Naxalite encounters - but not muders.
Compare that with crime rate. India has 32,000 murders every year - which is 29 deaths per million. Basically that means one is 100 times more likely to be killed by a murderer than an islamic terrorist. And now, let's get to India's 130,000 annual road accident deaths - or 150 deaths per million. This makes India's roads five times more dangerous than terrorism in Iraq, by far the world's most terrorist encumbered state. If India re-allocated 90% of her defence budget to road-infrastructure, even in these apparently "troubled" times, more Indians would live.
These statistics make one question very basic assumptions regarding security. Islamic terror is certainly not a problem worth losing sleep over, if statistics are to be believed.
People contend that statistics hide more than they reveal - a thoroughly debatable contention. What does one have to go by, if one doubts the credibility of statistics?
Is outrage proportional to how wealthy the victims are? 180 dead in Rich Mumbai, the whole planet comes to a standstill. 200 dead in Mumbai (2006) - and hardly anybody notices. Clearly, socio economics is a factor.
What do you think?
As an aside, clearly, terrorism is a problem in Iraq. That's something that statistics show immediately. And this is considered one of the better years for Iraq. Iraq witnessed the destruction of its entire middle class and death of a million people - and the ruin of 20 million more - all because of "bad intelligence".
Tuesday, December 02, 2008
No War, Please
There seems to be word that the Indian Government is planning to take out some "terrorist training schools" in Pakistan. India must avoid doing so at all costs. Because doing so will be (justifiably) looked at as a deed of agression - and before we know it, a nuclear war looms in the sub-continent, pushing the planet closer to doomsday.
Firstly, the civilian government in Pakistan seems to be well-intentioned. The president, Mr. Zardari, seems to be as dovey as they come in Pakistan. Clearly, the politicians want peace - as do the people.
With Pakistan, one can never be too sure about its Army - and certainly not about the ISI. They could very well be aiding the terrorists, analysts feel. (But why they would like to blow up their own hotels, and keep killing their own people is beyond me). So, there's probably rogue elements of the army and rogue islamist elements of the ISI which are creating these problems.
Since the expectation ias that these radical elements are rogue - and not the norm, there could be a strong case to force the apparently well-intentioned government's hand - and make the army bomb the terrorist camps - or authorize the Indians and Americans to bomb the areas in question.
It is imperative that the Pakistani government in power be treated with care. Because, if some islamist nutjob yanks power away from Zardari through a coup (because of some way-too-unpopular measures Zardari is forced to take), we have a terrorist state with a nuclear bomb - which is a bone-chilling possibility. The terrorists would not think twice before using said bomb on India.
Whatever is done has to be done with care; with minimal entropy generation. Because disgruntlement today means more terror tomorrow. And there's a whole lot of potential terrorist recruits. Pakistan's population is 160M.
Firstly, the civilian government in Pakistan seems to be well-intentioned. The president, Mr. Zardari, seems to be as dovey as they come in Pakistan. Clearly, the politicians want peace - as do the people.
With Pakistan, one can never be too sure about its Army - and certainly not about the ISI. They could very well be aiding the terrorists, analysts feel. (But why they would like to blow up their own hotels, and keep killing their own people is beyond me). So, there's probably rogue elements of the army and rogue islamist elements of the ISI which are creating these problems.
Since the expectation ias that these radical elements are rogue - and not the norm, there could be a strong case to force the apparently well-intentioned government's hand - and make the army bomb the terrorist camps - or authorize the Indians and Americans to bomb the areas in question.
It is imperative that the Pakistani government in power be treated with care. Because, if some islamist nutjob yanks power away from Zardari through a coup (because of some way-too-unpopular measures Zardari is forced to take), we have a terrorist state with a nuclear bomb - which is a bone-chilling possibility. The terrorists would not think twice before using said bomb on India.
Whatever is done has to be done with care; with minimal entropy generation. Because disgruntlement today means more terror tomorrow. And there's a whole lot of potential terrorist recruits. Pakistan's population is 160M.
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
A Few More Thoughts on Terror in Mumbai
CNN, FOX News and MSNBC are carrying live feeds from Mumbai from various local news channels. They did not do this during the 2006 August / Sep Attacks that killed 200. They did not do it in the Delhi Blasts. Not during the Hyd Blasts. But they're covering this non-stop today. Why this sudden interest? Clearly, the answer must be in who is being targeted. With business interests and American citizens being targeted, the issue clearly demands more coverage in the US media.
All that is understandable, but calling this India's 9/11 (as analysts on various networks have repeatedly asserted) is incorrect. India has been grappling with terrorists for the best of 10 years right now - and is probably one of the most terror-incident prone places on the planet. This is certainly not India's 9/11. India has had more deadly terror attacks in the recent past. If any thing, this could be considered one of India's vast array of mini-9/11s.
Clearly, the perpetrators have roots in Pakistan or at least have been backed by the Pakistani ISI - an educated guess most people are making on TV. The "Deccan Mujahideen" is probably just a front for this. But I sincerely hope this does not derail talks between the Indian and the Pakistani governments. Pakistani democracy is probably one of the only hopes for stability in the region. The Pakistani government is too impotent and powerless to deal with these creeps - and is more in need for help than blame. The leigitimate Pakistani governemnt needs to be strengthened.
Perhaps the strongest response to this horrible issue would be a joint statement issued by Pakistani Prime Minister Zardari (or the Prime Minister, Gillani) and their Indian counterpart, MMS, affirming friendship in this time of terror. It is important not to fall into the animosity trap. Pakistanis are just like Indians - just as terror prone, just as scared. The terrorists want confrontation with India. Bellicose rhetoric would stifle encouraging signs shown by Zardari recently - a victory for the terrorists.
All that is understandable, but calling this India's 9/11 (as analysts on various networks have repeatedly asserted) is incorrect. India has been grappling with terrorists for the best of 10 years right now - and is probably one of the most terror-incident prone places on the planet. This is certainly not India's 9/11. India has had more deadly terror attacks in the recent past. If any thing, this could be considered one of India's vast array of mini-9/11s.
Clearly, the perpetrators have roots in Pakistan or at least have been backed by the Pakistani ISI - an educated guess most people are making on TV. The "Deccan Mujahideen" is probably just a front for this. But I sincerely hope this does not derail talks between the Indian and the Pakistani governments. Pakistani democracy is probably one of the only hopes for stability in the region. The Pakistani government is too impotent and powerless to deal with these creeps - and is more in need for help than blame. The leigitimate Pakistani governemnt needs to be strengthened.
Perhaps the strongest response to this horrible issue would be a joint statement issued by Pakistani Prime Minister Zardari (or the Prime Minister, Gillani) and their Indian counterpart, MMS, affirming friendship in this time of terror. It is important not to fall into the animosity trap. Pakistanis are just like Indians - just as terror prone, just as scared. The terrorists want confrontation with India. Bellicose rhetoric would stifle encouraging signs shown by Zardari recently - a victory for the terrorists.
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?
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
My Problems with Prop 8
Firstly, I don't remember what the correct answer to Prop 8 is. I know that it concerns gay marriage - but I don't know whether the correct answer is "yes" or "no". If you support gay marriage, do you have to vote "yes" or "no"? It's confusing. Wonder how many people were as confused as I am right now. Is there even a minor chance that it tipped the election one way or the other? Or did these votes cancel out?
But my real problem with all the hullabaloo about prop 8 is that the whose issue is merely token. Besides the symbolic "right" of getting married, there was little else at stake. Current civil unions in most US states are pretty much as good as marriages, legally. Homosexuals are not being persecuted in America - even in extremely conservative Texas. Spending vast amounts of money on campaigning for this largely token and symbolic right (of little practical value) when actual homosexuals are being stoned to death in the muslim world; being harassed for bribes by corrupt policemen in India is a shame.
Gay rights groups are being selfish. They are fighting for a luxury in this country when they could spend the same money on actual gay rights (and human rights, for that matter) around the world.
I expect that my viewpoint is unique in that it has a more international perspective considering that I am not an American citizen. I don't blame American liberals for not sharing this with me - being raised in the most prosperous society on the planet does blind and insulate one from actual ground realities around the rest of the planet.
But my real problem with all the hullabaloo about prop 8 is that the whose issue is merely token. Besides the symbolic "right" of getting married, there was little else at stake. Current civil unions in most US states are pretty much as good as marriages, legally. Homosexuals are not being persecuted in America - even in extremely conservative Texas. Spending vast amounts of money on campaigning for this largely token and symbolic right (of little practical value) when actual homosexuals are being stoned to death in the muslim world; being harassed for bribes by corrupt policemen in India is a shame.
Gay rights groups are being selfish. They are fighting for a luxury in this country when they could spend the same money on actual gay rights (and human rights, for that matter) around the world.
I expect that my viewpoint is unique in that it has a more international perspective considering that I am not an American citizen. I don't blame American liberals for not sharing this with me - being raised in the most prosperous society on the planet does blind and insulate one from actual ground realities around the rest of the planet.
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Traffic Monitoring
I have always suspected that at least a million people frequent my blog every week - and that they are too nice to leave comments. So, in order to track them, I have installed a traffic monitor widget (which you shall find if you scroll down). This will help me show off my huge traffic. Maybe I can install some google ad thingy and become a millionaire overnight.
In other news (not that this is a news site), they're sending traffic policemen to the moon to regulate all the cars that are probably being driven there.
In other news (not that this is a news site), they're sending traffic policemen to the moon to regulate all the cars that are probably being driven there.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
On banning Deshdrohi
Arguments regarding social stability might be enticing - and quite convincing. But I urge the government not to give into the temptation of playing big brother.
Usurpage of personal liberties starts with something minor like banning a movie - but it is a slippery slope - and eventually, India will be a liberal democracy no more. Making people pay for merely expressing their own opinion goes against the very fabric of our democracy - the same democracy that Gandhi, Patel and countless others laid down their lives for.
Most of the Indian electorate is vastly conservative (and does not have a liberal bone in the body) - and would probably not be fully opposed to some measure like this. This perhaps poses an existential question to the notion of free speech (which the west takes for granted). Should the government compromise on free speech for the sake of public safety?
When faced with such a choice, the solution is clearly a no-brainer. Free speech is a luxury in comparison with the right to live. Free speech, alas, seems to be more of an elitist notion in a nation of unfathomable poverty.
There goes another ideal.
Usurpage of personal liberties starts with something minor like banning a movie - but it is a slippery slope - and eventually, India will be a liberal democracy no more. Making people pay for merely expressing their own opinion goes against the very fabric of our democracy - the same democracy that Gandhi, Patel and countless others laid down their lives for.
Most of the Indian electorate is vastly conservative (and does not have a liberal bone in the body) - and would probably not be fully opposed to some measure like this. This perhaps poses an existential question to the notion of free speech (which the west takes for granted). Should the government compromise on free speech for the sake of public safety?
When faced with such a choice, the solution is clearly a no-brainer. Free speech is a luxury in comparison with the right to live. Free speech, alas, seems to be more of an elitist notion in a nation of unfathomable poverty.
There goes another ideal.
Thursday, November 06, 2008
Congratulations, America!
As a liberal libertarian, I am very happy with Obama's victory. He is a smart man who probably will do an excellent job as US presidents go.
He will probably stick to the center-center-left of mainstream American politics - which would put him at the center-right of International politics. Anything is a welcome change from Bush's extreme right policies.
The election of a black man president indicates that a sufficiently well educated and prosperous society can indeed transcend racial bigotry, by and large. Now I know for sure that India will reach this state in a few decades - and I am glad.
Mr Obama's stand on the Iraq war is that it is a waste of American lives and resources. I sincerely hope that this is mere political posturing - and that he deems the damage to 1 million + Iraqi lives a shame of equal or greater magnitude than the damage to 5000 odd coalition troop lives (just by mere magnitude) . I hope he believes in his heart that all humans are fundamentally equal - even if they are not potential voters.
Mr Obama wants to do the sensible thing. Sit down and talk to Admedinijad, Chavez and the like. Of course they're thugs. (The same applies to Bush in many people's eyes all around the world)
But talking to thugs never hurt anybody - especially when there's nothing to lose and peace to gain.
Prof. Noam Chomsky's view is that Obama "is the lesser of the evils". I hope that Prof. Chomsky is being pessimistic. But looking at Clinton's Wag-The-Dog-esque bombing of a pharmaceutical plant (for instance) in Sudan killing innumerable people directly and indirectly (and still being referred to as a centrist president) perhaps justifies Prof. Chomsky's assertion that one ought not have illusions about Obama.
He will probably stick to the center-center-left of mainstream American politics - which would put him at the center-right of International politics. Anything is a welcome change from Bush's extreme right policies.
The election of a black man president indicates that a sufficiently well educated and prosperous society can indeed transcend racial bigotry, by and large. Now I know for sure that India will reach this state in a few decades - and I am glad.
Mr Obama's stand on the Iraq war is that it is a waste of American lives and resources. I sincerely hope that this is mere political posturing - and that he deems the damage to 1 million + Iraqi lives a shame of equal or greater magnitude than the damage to 5000 odd coalition troop lives (just by mere magnitude) . I hope he believes in his heart that all humans are fundamentally equal - even if they are not potential voters.
Mr Obama wants to do the sensible thing. Sit down and talk to Admedinijad, Chavez and the like. Of course they're thugs. (The same applies to Bush in many people's eyes all around the world)
But talking to thugs never hurt anybody - especially when there's nothing to lose and peace to gain.
Prof. Noam Chomsky's view is that Obama "is the lesser of the evils". I hope that Prof. Chomsky is being pessimistic. But looking at Clinton's Wag-The-Dog-esque bombing of a pharmaceutical plant (for instance) in Sudan killing innumerable people directly and indirectly (and still being referred to as a centrist president) perhaps justifies Prof. Chomsky's assertion that one ought not have illusions about Obama.
Saturday, November 01, 2008
Adventures of Peer Review Man 1: The Beginning
In a world with information corrupted by vested interests, is there any way one can get pure fact untainted by opinion; truth without spin? It's not that easy.
In this milieu of mistrust and lies was born Peer Review Man - a crusader for truth; a crusader for intellectual honesty. A crusader for all that the world holds dear.
There are many stories as to how Peer Review Man acquired his super power. Some are downright improbable. For instance there's one about him watching television as an inspired teenager as Ramar Pillai (a Indian charlatan) concocted petrol out of nowhere - defying all laws of thermodynamics. The fable goes on to say that the subsequent disillusionment of finding out that Mr. Pillai was little more than a hoax led the teenager to take a solemn vow that he would verify all that sounded fishy with peer reviewed literature. And then he proceeeded to read scientific journals day in and day-out.
There's another equally fishy one - which says that Peer Review Man is not a human being at all - but a hyper-evolved highly intellegent artificial neural network which has a built in connection to the internet (and therefore wikipedia). All fishy claims are googled and wikipediaed (this is a new word which I am coining. Webster owes me royalties.). Links are followed until peer reviewed sources are found - and therefore the truth is finally isolated.
Of course, the above sketches are abundantly improbable. Here's how he really came about.
Nagappa was an infant back then in a rural hamlet in northern Andhra Pradesh. His family wasn't particularly well to do economically. But it was a well educated family - a family well versed in the natural sciences. The Dad was a Physics enthusiast - and had lots of papers and textbooks stowed away in cabinets. The Mum was a biologist of sorts - and had her books by Darwin, Maynard Smith and the like stowed in the same cabinet.
And now, let's talk about Muriel, the mouse. (why a mouse in the middle of Andhra Pradesh has an Anglican name is beyond me). The enthusiastic mouse was scavenging for some tasty little slice of cheese (presumably) in the cabinet. Muriel, of course, did not find it, so it started nibbling on pages of Newton's Principia mechanica. After chewing Newton, it made its way to copies of Einstien's 1905 papers on special relativity and bit off the corners. Portions of Hiesenberg's thesis, Mendelleev's periodic table and Sclichting's "Boundary Layer Theory" were consumed too. As were works by Darwin, Feynman, Keynes and Fiegenbaum.
Muriel had by then pretty much binged on a rather significant quantity of paper. Most veterinarians who specialize in mice (there are a couple of the planet, I suppose) will tell you that what Muriel did was not good for its weight and cholesterol. But Muriel was a rather intrepid little mouse. She then decided to kick it up a notch - and started sipping from a tumbler of country liquor that the dad had left on the shelf. Knowing Muriel, it shall come as no surprise to the reader that what was consumed was excessive.
Muriel started feeling queasy. Nauseous. Felt like vomiting all that she had eaten. She found a little bowl on a table somewhere and just let loose in the same.
The bowl was Nagappa's cerelac (that's what infants are fed in India - and I promise, it tastes yummy!) bowl. So, nagappa made a meal of the mouse's vomit which consisted of a rather potent cocktail of portions of copies of some of seminial scientific literature laced with ethanol (and some of Muriel's gastric juices).
And thus was created Peer Review Man. AKA (to friends and family only) as Nagappa.
In this milieu of mistrust and lies was born Peer Review Man - a crusader for truth; a crusader for intellectual honesty. A crusader for all that the world holds dear.
There are many stories as to how Peer Review Man acquired his super power. Some are downright improbable. For instance there's one about him watching television as an inspired teenager as Ramar Pillai (a Indian charlatan) concocted petrol out of nowhere - defying all laws of thermodynamics. The fable goes on to say that the subsequent disillusionment of finding out that Mr. Pillai was little more than a hoax led the teenager to take a solemn vow that he would verify all that sounded fishy with peer reviewed literature. And then he proceeeded to read scientific journals day in and day-out.
There's another equally fishy one - which says that Peer Review Man is not a human being at all - but a hyper-evolved highly intellegent artificial neural network which has a built in connection to the internet (and therefore wikipedia). All fishy claims are googled and wikipediaed (this is a new word which I am coining. Webster owes me royalties.). Links are followed until peer reviewed sources are found - and therefore the truth is finally isolated.
Of course, the above sketches are abundantly improbable. Here's how he really came about.
Nagappa was an infant back then in a rural hamlet in northern Andhra Pradesh. His family wasn't particularly well to do economically. But it was a well educated family - a family well versed in the natural sciences. The Dad was a Physics enthusiast - and had lots of papers and textbooks stowed away in cabinets. The Mum was a biologist of sorts - and had her books by Darwin, Maynard Smith and the like stowed in the same cabinet.
And now, let's talk about Muriel, the mouse. (why a mouse in the middle of Andhra Pradesh has an Anglican name is beyond me). The enthusiastic mouse was scavenging for some tasty little slice of cheese (presumably) in the cabinet. Muriel, of course, did not find it, so it started nibbling on pages of Newton's Principia mechanica. After chewing Newton, it made its way to copies of Einstien's 1905 papers on special relativity and bit off the corners. Portions of Hiesenberg's thesis, Mendelleev's periodic table and Sclichting's "Boundary Layer Theory" were consumed too. As were works by Darwin, Feynman, Keynes and Fiegenbaum.
Muriel had by then pretty much binged on a rather significant quantity of paper. Most veterinarians who specialize in mice (there are a couple of the planet, I suppose) will tell you that what Muriel did was not good for its weight and cholesterol. But Muriel was a rather intrepid little mouse. She then decided to kick it up a notch - and started sipping from a tumbler of country liquor that the dad had left on the shelf. Knowing Muriel, it shall come as no surprise to the reader that what was consumed was excessive.
Muriel started feeling queasy. Nauseous. Felt like vomiting all that she had eaten. She found a little bowl on a table somewhere and just let loose in the same.
The bowl was Nagappa's cerelac (that's what infants are fed in India - and I promise, it tastes yummy!) bowl. So, nagappa made a meal of the mouse's vomit which consisted of a rather potent cocktail of portions of copies of some of seminial scientific literature laced with ethanol (and some of Muriel's gastric juices).
And thus was created Peer Review Man. AKA (to friends and family only) as Nagappa.
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
Turbulent Natural Convection
A long long time ago, when I was a graduate student at IIT Madras, I had taken a course on turbulence, and pretty much fell in love with the physics of turbulent flow.
I was already in love with natural convection - which I found fascinating - right from my undergraduate years - when our professor did a splendid job in teaching us the same. (Some "good professors" of IIT Madras are probably among the best philosophers in the world!)
Since I was in love with these subjects, in all naivete, I had put in "turbulent natural convection" as field of interest while applying for higher studies (PhD) in the US three years ago.
When I wound up here at Texas A&M, I worked on turbulent flow on the experimental side. As "application engineers", we really don't worry about quantities such as Reynolds Stresses and Turbulent Kinetic energies. We deal with deliverable and tangible quantities such as the skin friction coefficient and heat transfer coefficient. As far as experiments are concerned, the Reynolds stress might as well just go hang itself.
This is, of course, a fascinating line of inquiry. The kind of work we do is so miserably turbulent, it would be foolhardy to even try to predict some of our results analytically. This justifies our existence as experimenters. It is fascinating to note that computational tools are doing a pretty good job of reproducing experimental data.
Now, then, let's not digress. So, here I am, working on high Reynolds numbers. Such right reynolds numbers that Buoyancy does not stand a chance.
We also deal with rotating systems - which are subject to coriolis and Centrifugal forces. The centrifugal force acts like buoyancy - but for the ranges which we were studying, its effect was not that profound.
But a closer examination of experimental data indicated that it is INDEED affecting playing a significant role - we just did not know it. There's probably a nice natural convection boundary layer that set iself up in our test section - but we just did not have the resources to identify it.
Things have a bizzare way of coming true. I wanted to work on turbulent natural convection. I am working on something more complex turbulent natural convection: turbulent "mixed" convection. Just not in the way I would have visualized earlier.
(In another bizzare irony, the wife, incidentally works on transitionary natural convection all the time as she tries to clone her DNA in her lab).
I was already in love with natural convection - which I found fascinating - right from my undergraduate years - when our professor did a splendid job in teaching us the same. (Some "good professors" of IIT Madras are probably among the best philosophers in the world!)
Since I was in love with these subjects, in all naivete, I had put in "turbulent natural convection" as field of interest while applying for higher studies (PhD) in the US three years ago.
When I wound up here at Texas A&M, I worked on turbulent flow on the experimental side. As "application engineers", we really don't worry about quantities such as Reynolds Stresses and Turbulent Kinetic energies. We deal with deliverable and tangible quantities such as the skin friction coefficient and heat transfer coefficient. As far as experiments are concerned, the Reynolds stress might as well just go hang itself.
This is, of course, a fascinating line of inquiry. The kind of work we do is so miserably turbulent, it would be foolhardy to even try to predict some of our results analytically. This justifies our existence as experimenters. It is fascinating to note that computational tools are doing a pretty good job of reproducing experimental data.
Now, then, let's not digress. So, here I am, working on high Reynolds numbers. Such right reynolds numbers that Buoyancy does not stand a chance.
We also deal with rotating systems - which are subject to coriolis and Centrifugal forces. The centrifugal force acts like buoyancy - but for the ranges which we were studying, its effect was not that profound.
But a closer examination of experimental data indicated that it is INDEED affecting playing a significant role - we just did not know it. There's probably a nice natural convection boundary layer that set iself up in our test section - but we just did not have the resources to identify it.
Things have a bizzare way of coming true. I wanted to work on turbulent natural convection. I am working on something more complex turbulent natural convection: turbulent "mixed" convection. Just not in the way I would have visualized earlier.
(In another bizzare irony, the wife, incidentally works on transitionary natural convection all the time as she tries to clone her DNA in her lab).
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.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Homosexuals in India
When the president of Iran (a loudmouth paralleled only by the current American leadership as a purveyor of religious and bellicose rhetoric) was asked a question about the mistreatment of Homosexuals in Iran while speaking at Columbia university exactly a year ago, his response as "there are no homosexuals in Iran".
I am positive that if Dr. Manmohan Singh were asked the same question he would give an equally ludicrous response if he is in agreement with the stinking pile of manure his home ministry is defending in India. Men having sex with men (gays are called MSMs in India) is illegal in India. There are an estimated 22 million felons in India - a popuplation the size of Australia - if one wants to keep count.
While the relatively progressive Ministry of health wants to legalize homosexuality (aided by the courts in India - which satirically recommend banning sexual intercourse in resonse to the Home ministry's contention that Homosexualily helps spread AIDS), the home ministry (which in my opinion should be spending most of its time trying to fight terror in cities and stopping stampedes in temples) wants to keep it illegal. This is the stupidest thing I have heard in a long while.
With ~ 22 million homosexual men (and at least half as many homosexual women in India), I think it is high time that some pragmatism takes precedence. What to me is disconcerting is that the government at the center is actually a left on center government. If the real conservatives come into power (say a Modi or an Uma Barthi), things will get only get much, much worse.
Of course, I understand that the country is too poor to be socially liberal - and I understand that expecting any socially liberal reform is asking for too much from some of the poorest and least educated people on the planet. But these are injustices which ought to be corrected. I am writing this piece not with the hope of seeing liberalization of Indian society in the immediate future. I understand that it is a long journey - but a journey of a thousand miles (1600km) starts with a single step. Hell, even the richest nations on the planet (such as the US) have leaders who are homophobic.
I am positive that if Dr. Manmohan Singh were asked the same question he would give an equally ludicrous response if he is in agreement with the stinking pile of manure his home ministry is defending in India. Men having sex with men (gays are called MSMs in India) is illegal in India. There are an estimated 22 million felons in India - a popuplation the size of Australia - if one wants to keep count.
While the relatively progressive Ministry of health wants to legalize homosexuality (aided by the courts in India - which satirically recommend banning sexual intercourse in resonse to the Home ministry's contention that Homosexualily helps spread AIDS), the home ministry (which in my opinion should be spending most of its time trying to fight terror in cities and stopping stampedes in temples) wants to keep it illegal. This is the stupidest thing I have heard in a long while.
With ~ 22 million homosexual men (and at least half as many homosexual women in India), I think it is high time that some pragmatism takes precedence. What to me is disconcerting is that the government at the center is actually a left on center government. If the real conservatives come into power (say a Modi or an Uma Barthi), things will get only get much, much worse.
Of course, I understand that the country is too poor to be socially liberal - and I understand that expecting any socially liberal reform is asking for too much from some of the poorest and least educated people on the planet. But these are injustices which ought to be corrected. I am writing this piece not with the hope of seeing liberalization of Indian society in the immediate future. I understand that it is a long journey - but a journey of a thousand miles (1600km) starts with a single step. Hell, even the richest nations on the planet (such as the US) have leaders who are homophobic.
Death of American Capitalism
Before I start bloviating, I would like to take a moment to talk about Prof. No am Chomsky. Because, thanks to today's bizzare set of circumstances, a lot of Prof. Chomsky's assertions regarding American economic policy have come astronishingly true. If he were a malicious soul, he would be saying "I told you so".
Prof. Chomsky contends that America is a socialist state to a great degree - and cites all "high technology" - which is almost always due to taxpayer money - as evidence. Where it differs from a socialist state is that the profits due to these high technologies are privatized. Today's bail-out is pretty much a text-book case of the taxpayers assuming risk and saving large private institutions that are "too big to fail".
Prof. Chomsky's contention that democracy is America is an illusion often draws a lot of flak. But looking at the house of representatives turn down a bill and then pass it on the second iteration gave one the feeling that they just did not have an option - because if they did not pass it today, it would come back tomorrow.
Prof. Chomsky's media-propaganda model stands vindicated by the shameless advocacy in the media for this plan. Fox, CNN, CBS, MSNBC, NY Times - you name it. Everyone told you you had to get this plan voted for - otherwise....
If I were Prof. Chomsky, I would certainly say "I told you so".
----------------------------
This blog would have lost all credibility had it not sounded off on the current demise of capitalism in America. I had contended earlier that American capitalism was incredibly robust and fail-safe - and this robustness made up for its apparent heartlessness. Turns out, it was not robust. And that's why, it went bust (that's a miserable doggerel - the kind I keep talking about in thet title of this blog)
Let me summarize how the Goliath that is American capitalism was felled.
Companies such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (and other mortgage under-writers) decided one fine day to make some money from the toil of poor people who do not have good "credit scores". Since these people were less likely to get loans (and everyone in the world wants to build a dream house), they were prepared to pay a little more for the loan. So they borrowed money at higher "sub-prime" rates.
So far so good. Good for the poor people - they at least got a loan and had an honest stab at living happy lives in their own roomy homes.
At that time, house prices were increasing every day. People borrowed X to buy a house with "adjustable rate" mortgages. The mortgage would charge a lower value in the beginning and would reset to a higher rate a little while later. The house would probably be worth 1.05X next year - and the 0.05 X was profit. They could then "re-negotiate" their mortgage to a lower rate - bascially using the profit to pay off some more of the principal.
All was well when everything went well. But everything can't go on perfectly forever. The housing bubble burst. Home prices did not keep going up every year. People were stuck in mortgages which they just could not afford - especially when the rates reset. Having eaten a sumptuous meal in a pricey restaurant, Americans reached for their wallet and found it empty. And the equivalent to doing their dishes was, well, foreclosure.
It does not end here. The "mortgages" were packaged and traded (before people realized that all was not well). The local banks that made these loans - well, they sold these loans (they actually sold the "risk") to investment banks and other institutions. Lehmann brothers, AIG, Bear Sterns - they all failed to see the downswing coming - and were basically destroyed by these "toxic" mortgages.
To "rescue" the market, the govenment had to do what Indian Mythology contends Lord Shiva did. It (the government) had to swallow the toxic assets (much like Lord Shiva had to swallow poision to save the angels (devas)).
One hopes that these latest developments silence the rhetoric of "small government" once and for all - but one knows that they will not. Political spin is such a powerful tool.
Prof. Chomsky contends that America is a socialist state to a great degree - and cites all "high technology" - which is almost always due to taxpayer money - as evidence. Where it differs from a socialist state is that the profits due to these high technologies are privatized. Today's bail-out is pretty much a text-book case of the taxpayers assuming risk and saving large private institutions that are "too big to fail".
Prof. Chomsky's contention that democracy is America is an illusion often draws a lot of flak. But looking at the house of representatives turn down a bill and then pass it on the second iteration gave one the feeling that they just did not have an option - because if they did not pass it today, it would come back tomorrow.
Prof. Chomsky's media-propaganda model stands vindicated by the shameless advocacy in the media for this plan. Fox, CNN, CBS, MSNBC, NY Times - you name it. Everyone told you you had to get this plan voted for - otherwise....
If I were Prof. Chomsky, I would certainly say "I told you so".
----------------------------
This blog would have lost all credibility had it not sounded off on the current demise of capitalism in America. I had contended earlier that American capitalism was incredibly robust and fail-safe - and this robustness made up for its apparent heartlessness. Turns out, it was not robust. And that's why, it went bust (that's a miserable doggerel - the kind I keep talking about in thet title of this blog)
Let me summarize how the Goliath that is American capitalism was felled.
Companies such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (and other mortgage under-writers) decided one fine day to make some money from the toil of poor people who do not have good "credit scores". Since these people were less likely to get loans (and everyone in the world wants to build a dream house), they were prepared to pay a little more for the loan. So they borrowed money at higher "sub-prime" rates.
So far so good. Good for the poor people - they at least got a loan and had an honest stab at living happy lives in their own roomy homes.
At that time, house prices were increasing every day. People borrowed X to buy a house with "adjustable rate" mortgages. The mortgage would charge a lower value in the beginning and would reset to a higher rate a little while later. The house would probably be worth 1.05X next year - and the 0.05 X was profit. They could then "re-negotiate" their mortgage to a lower rate - bascially using the profit to pay off some more of the principal.
All was well when everything went well. But everything can't go on perfectly forever. The housing bubble burst. Home prices did not keep going up every year. People were stuck in mortgages which they just could not afford - especially when the rates reset. Having eaten a sumptuous meal in a pricey restaurant, Americans reached for their wallet and found it empty. And the equivalent to doing their dishes was, well, foreclosure.
It does not end here. The "mortgages" were packaged and traded (before people realized that all was not well). The local banks that made these loans - well, they sold these loans (they actually sold the "risk") to investment banks and other institutions. Lehmann brothers, AIG, Bear Sterns - they all failed to see the downswing coming - and were basically destroyed by these "toxic" mortgages.
To "rescue" the market, the govenment had to do what Indian Mythology contends Lord Shiva did. It (the government) had to swallow the toxic assets (much like Lord Shiva had to swallow poision to save the angels (devas)).
One hopes that these latest developments silence the rhetoric of "small government" once and for all - but one knows that they will not. Political spin is such a powerful tool.
Friday, September 05, 2008
CV9ap - X414a
The year is 2049. The day is September 1st. Labor day.
Incidentally, his wife went into labor today. Everything went well. They had a baby girl.
And they were faced with the unenviable task of picking a name for their daughter. After a lot of brainstorming, they settled on CV9ap-X414a, with a small 'a'.
They chose the name because it was a unique name. A name that meant business. How many people called CV9ap would you not take seriously? They know that she would thank them for the wonderful name that they had blessed her with.
There was a catergory 5 hurricane which was forecast to hit the city that day. He had caught the forecast early in the morning, so he was prepared. He took an umbrella out of his bag and shielded little CV9ap from the 300kmph wind gust. He was quite proud of his paternal instincts.
As the author of this improbable sketch, I can perceive a certain puzzlement; a certain confusion amongst my readers. If I continue on these lines, I run the risk of sounding like a raving lunatic. So perhaps I should clear the air and make the circumstances a little more comprehensible. Shed some light, if you get my drift.
The planet has heated up thanks to human emissions (and bovine flatulence). This increase in enthalpy of the planet has created all sorts of problems. It has created more intense summers. Warmer oceans. And warmer oceans imply more intense hurricanes. And more intense hurricanes mean more death and destruction.
The real problem was not created by the hurricanes. But it was created by America's hurricane warning center. In a land with a finite number of first (and last) names, giving hurricanes people's names (and then "retiring" the deadly ones) created a rather unique problem: a shortage of first names. If you had a baby in 2006, then you would call her anything but Kartina and Rita. 2009 depleted Gustav, Fay, Hanna and Ike from the name pool. By 2015, almost all western names were out. No more Jack. No more Rob. No more Dick. No more Andrew - or Dmitri.
And with more hurricanes, the number of ineligible names started to increase exponentially with time. By 2030, even Indian names such as Vikram and Ravi were taboo.
This crisis was not without resistance. The committee to rescue names (CRN) was formed - and attempted to stop hurricanes on their tracks by dropping nuclear bombs on their path. This turned out to be a particularly ill conceived idea - because these bombs heated up the water all the more, creating the world's first catergory six storm. Saffir and Simpson were really spinning in their graves.
Attempts were made by parents at using more exotic names - any word that sounded phonetically correct was used as a name. But this scheme failed too. Here's a scenario why:
Mother: Oh wow! I am so happy to see that we have had a son. Let's see what we should call him. Let me mix some random phonetic syllables in my mind. Ah. Let us call him "purugu".
Dad: Nice. Purugu sounds nice.
Telugu Guy (appears from nowhere): You might want to reconsider that. In my native tongue, "purugu" means insect. Nothing aganist those little critters - but do you really want to call your son that?
Dad: Aw. Let's try "Kamina" instead,
You get the drift. With the world becoming more of a melting pot, one just could not find any pronounceable word which did not imply something demeaning in some language or was not a killer Hurricane.
As you can see, the only way out was to use alpha numerics. And one fine day, CV9ap-X414a became the leader of the free world. She became the president of the planet. (By 2049, all countries coalesced into one large union).
Oh. And umbrellas are a lot stronger in 2049. They can withstand category sixes with ease. Though catergory 7s (created by CRN by using a hydrogen bomb on a hurricane) are a whole different ball game.
Incidentally, his wife went into labor today. Everything went well. They had a baby girl.
And they were faced with the unenviable task of picking a name for their daughter. After a lot of brainstorming, they settled on CV9ap-X414a, with a small 'a'.
They chose the name because it was a unique name. A name that meant business. How many people called CV9ap would you not take seriously? They know that she would thank them for the wonderful name that they had blessed her with.
There was a catergory 5 hurricane which was forecast to hit the city that day. He had caught the forecast early in the morning, so he was prepared. He took an umbrella out of his bag and shielded little CV9ap from the 300kmph wind gust. He was quite proud of his paternal instincts.
As the author of this improbable sketch, I can perceive a certain puzzlement; a certain confusion amongst my readers. If I continue on these lines, I run the risk of sounding like a raving lunatic. So perhaps I should clear the air and make the circumstances a little more comprehensible. Shed some light, if you get my drift.
The planet has heated up thanks to human emissions (and bovine flatulence). This increase in enthalpy of the planet has created all sorts of problems. It has created more intense summers. Warmer oceans. And warmer oceans imply more intense hurricanes. And more intense hurricanes mean more death and destruction.
The real problem was not created by the hurricanes. But it was created by America's hurricane warning center. In a land with a finite number of first (and last) names, giving hurricanes people's names (and then "retiring" the deadly ones) created a rather unique problem: a shortage of first names. If you had a baby in 2006, then you would call her anything but Kartina and Rita. 2009 depleted Gustav, Fay, Hanna and Ike from the name pool. By 2015, almost all western names were out. No more Jack. No more Rob. No more Dick. No more Andrew - or Dmitri.
And with more hurricanes, the number of ineligible names started to increase exponentially with time. By 2030, even Indian names such as Vikram and Ravi were taboo.
This crisis was not without resistance. The committee to rescue names (CRN) was formed - and attempted to stop hurricanes on their tracks by dropping nuclear bombs on their path. This turned out to be a particularly ill conceived idea - because these bombs heated up the water all the more, creating the world's first catergory six storm. Saffir and Simpson were really spinning in their graves.
Attempts were made by parents at using more exotic names - any word that sounded phonetically correct was used as a name. But this scheme failed too. Here's a scenario why:
Mother: Oh wow! I am so happy to see that we have had a son. Let's see what we should call him. Let me mix some random phonetic syllables in my mind. Ah. Let us call him "purugu".
Dad: Nice. Purugu sounds nice.
Telugu Guy (appears from nowhere): You might want to reconsider that. In my native tongue, "purugu" means insect. Nothing aganist those little critters - but do you really want to call your son that?
Dad: Aw. Let's try "Kamina" instead,
You get the drift. With the world becoming more of a melting pot, one just could not find any pronounceable word which did not imply something demeaning in some language or was not a killer Hurricane.
As you can see, the only way out was to use alpha numerics. And one fine day, CV9ap-X414a became the leader of the free world. She became the president of the planet. (By 2049, all countries coalesced into one large union).
Oh. And umbrellas are a lot stronger in 2049. They can withstand category sixes with ease. Though catergory 7s (created by CRN by using a hydrogen bomb on a hurricane) are a whole different ball game.
Thursday, August 28, 2008
God and the Hurricane
Picture this.
There's this monster of a hurricane churning in the Gulf of Mexico. And no one knows where it will go. From Mexico to West Florida. It can go anywhere. A large section of the US bible belt coast-line is in the firing line, as is south Texas and northern Mexico. Everyone is worried.
Now, let's focus on a typical rural scenario. There's this small town-by-the-sea somewhere in Louisiana. There's a rather unusual absence of vehicles on the roads. The place bears a deserted look. Because all the cars that are not on the road are at Church. Because, they reckon, only god can save them from the hurricane. Having seen New Orleans after Katrina, their sentiment is understandable. So, they pray. They pray for the hurricane to go away. They pray for the path of the hurricane to spare their helpless little parish.
The aforementioned scenario is generic. Take that scenario and multiply it by the number of churches on the gulf coast (an octillion or so).
And that's how many prayers god received in his inbox one morning, much to his chagrin. All these requests to alter the path of the hurricane posed quite an ugly problem to him. Because, one man's request was another man's nightmare. By responding positively to a prayer from church A in Louisiana, he could in fact be going against a prayer from Church B in Texas - which would cause a mass-loss-of-faith in Texas - something undesirable to god. For religion is all about making people gain faith, not lose it.
God was faced with an extremely tough optimization problem. What course could he undertake to minimize the damage to his good name? He could choose to inflict the damage in the most sparsely populated area along the gulf coast;hHe could also choose to inflict the damage on the area with the least density of believers; on the area with the least number of churches or perhaps the area with the largest number of criminals. To god, the objective function of the optimization problem itself was quite nebulous.
Before we talk about god's decision, let us take a minor digression. Let us talk about a hypothetical little village in northern Mexico. Let's call it D. A wretched, poor little village. A village so poor that most people do not have access to news on TV. A village where most people did not know about the hurricane until the government asked them to evacuate. No time for prayers.
It was quite unfortunate for the residents of D that god decided to go by the "prayer density" objective function. He decided to direct the hurricane into the area from which he received the least number of prayers per hundred documented residents. Thousands perished. D was below sea level.
Moral of story:
Pray. Watch TV. Don't be poor.
There's this monster of a hurricane churning in the Gulf of Mexico. And no one knows where it will go. From Mexico to West Florida. It can go anywhere. A large section of the US bible belt coast-line is in the firing line, as is south Texas and northern Mexico. Everyone is worried.
Now, let's focus on a typical rural scenario. There's this small town-by-the-sea somewhere in Louisiana. There's a rather unusual absence of vehicles on the roads. The place bears a deserted look. Because all the cars that are not on the road are at Church. Because, they reckon, only god can save them from the hurricane. Having seen New Orleans after Katrina, their sentiment is understandable. So, they pray. They pray for the hurricane to go away. They pray for the path of the hurricane to spare their helpless little parish.
The aforementioned scenario is generic. Take that scenario and multiply it by the number of churches on the gulf coast (an octillion or so).
And that's how many prayers god received in his inbox one morning, much to his chagrin. All these requests to alter the path of the hurricane posed quite an ugly problem to him. Because, one man's request was another man's nightmare. By responding positively to a prayer from church A in Louisiana, he could in fact be going against a prayer from Church B in Texas - which would cause a mass-loss-of-faith in Texas - something undesirable to god. For religion is all about making people gain faith, not lose it.
God was faced with an extremely tough optimization problem. What course could he undertake to minimize the damage to his good name? He could choose to inflict the damage in the most sparsely populated area along the gulf coast;hHe could also choose to inflict the damage on the area with the least density of believers; on the area with the least number of churches or perhaps the area with the largest number of criminals. To god, the objective function of the optimization problem itself was quite nebulous.
Before we talk about god's decision, let us take a minor digression. Let us talk about a hypothetical little village in northern Mexico. Let's call it D. A wretched, poor little village. A village so poor that most people do not have access to news on TV. A village where most people did not know about the hurricane until the government asked them to evacuate. No time for prayers.
It was quite unfortunate for the residents of D that god decided to go by the "prayer density" objective function. He decided to direct the hurricane into the area from which he received the least number of prayers per hundred documented residents. Thousands perished. D was below sea level.
Moral of story:
Pray. Watch TV. Don't be poor.
Friday, August 22, 2008
To Hell With Endangered Species
Ecosystems on this planet are in an eternal state of flux. Life adapts to its environment in a perpetual sequence of birth and extinction. While few species become dominant and successful - thriving on the available resources, many go extinct, unable to cope up with competition for the eternally scarce resources.
The human race, of late, has found the planet quite welcoming. You can find a human being almost everywhere. From the parched deserts of Saudi Arabia to the frigid infinities of Siberia; from the torrid heat of Sub-saharan Africa to the fertile plains of the Ganga; from the lowlands of death valley (I'm sure there's a guy living there) to the hills of Switzerland.
Just like cancer spreads around the body, the human race has spread around the planet. The human race is a miracle of evolution (so miraculous that most humans themselves, unable to believe it themselves, believe in a "god" to fill up the blank). I feel reasonably sure in contending that it is probably the only race in this history of planet earth which figured out how life came about - or at least made an effort in that direction. (Almost all cultures have made efforts in that direction - even the tribals have dieties that they worship. No culture pulls a blank when they are asked "How did the world come about?".)
The human race has placed a great strain on earth's the eco-system. Modern humans do not compete with other species for resources. Humanity usurps resources at will, driving all competition to extinction. Humanity is to its colleagues in the eco-system what Vito Corleone is to the New York city mobsters. (Only, humanity is not out to exact revenge.)
I am a firm believer in Darwinism. If I were alone in pristine wilderness and I saw an animal wounded, I would not stop and save it. I would let it die (it will feed other littler creatures that count of these sorts of windfalls for their very existence). So, I am more than happy to see the unfit perish.
Animals that are being driven to extinction are being driven to extinction because they are weak. Let them die. Why should we save them?
Additionally, what is the point of saving the tiger in India? Its numbers have dwindled so drastically, that it is as good as inexistent in the larger picture. Its impact on the overall eco-system is exactly zero. I say, to hell with the tiger. Don't waste money trying to conserve it.
They're going to die as soon as we stop pouring money into them. Because they roamed a huge area before. A few square kilometers in a national park are never going to do them any justice.
Spend that money on other environmental causes. Like increasing the number and size of national parks.
The same applies to the california condor (there's about 50 of them left). Because as soon as the efforts stop, the condors will begin their descent into extinction all over again. They just have no habitat left.
The human race likes to get the impression that it is having the cake and eating it too. Just like people get a warm fuzzy feeling when they witness their philanthrophy feeding an underpreviliged third world kid, they get the same feeling when they see their donations rescue a tiger from "extinction".
And to me, there is something fundamentally unethical and hypocritical about eating meat (when there are extremely healthy and tasty vegetarian alternatives) and then making attempts to save endangered species.
The only sustainable way out is to just forget about the tigers and the condors. To hell with endangered species.
The human race, of late, has found the planet quite welcoming. You can find a human being almost everywhere. From the parched deserts of Saudi Arabia to the frigid infinities of Siberia; from the torrid heat of Sub-saharan Africa to the fertile plains of the Ganga; from the lowlands of death valley (I'm sure there's a guy living there) to the hills of Switzerland.
Just like cancer spreads around the body, the human race has spread around the planet. The human race is a miracle of evolution (so miraculous that most humans themselves, unable to believe it themselves, believe in a "god" to fill up the blank). I feel reasonably sure in contending that it is probably the only race in this history of planet earth which figured out how life came about - or at least made an effort in that direction. (Almost all cultures have made efforts in that direction - even the tribals have dieties that they worship. No culture pulls a blank when they are asked "How did the world come about?".)
The human race has placed a great strain on earth's the eco-system. Modern humans do not compete with other species for resources. Humanity usurps resources at will, driving all competition to extinction. Humanity is to its colleagues in the eco-system what Vito Corleone is to the New York city mobsters. (Only, humanity is not out to exact revenge.)
I am a firm believer in Darwinism. If I were alone in pristine wilderness and I saw an animal wounded, I would not stop and save it. I would let it die (it will feed other littler creatures that count of these sorts of windfalls for their very existence). So, I am more than happy to see the unfit perish.
Animals that are being driven to extinction are being driven to extinction because they are weak. Let them die. Why should we save them?
Additionally, what is the point of saving the tiger in India? Its numbers have dwindled so drastically, that it is as good as inexistent in the larger picture. Its impact on the overall eco-system is exactly zero. I say, to hell with the tiger. Don't waste money trying to conserve it.
They're going to die as soon as we stop pouring money into them. Because they roamed a huge area before. A few square kilometers in a national park are never going to do them any justice.
Spend that money on other environmental causes. Like increasing the number and size of national parks.
The same applies to the california condor (there's about 50 of them left). Because as soon as the efforts stop, the condors will begin their descent into extinction all over again. They just have no habitat left.
The human race likes to get the impression that it is having the cake and eating it too. Just like people get a warm fuzzy feeling when they witness their philanthrophy feeding an underpreviliged third world kid, they get the same feeling when they see their donations rescue a tiger from "extinction".
And to me, there is something fundamentally unethical and hypocritical about eating meat (when there are extremely healthy and tasty vegetarian alternatives) and then making attempts to save endangered species.
The only sustainable way out is to just forget about the tigers and the condors. To hell with endangered species.
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
77% of India below Rs 20 a day?
Mr. Budhadeb Acharya, a Marxist made this proclamation on the floor of the parliament. Frankly, this analysis scared me. I am quite comfortable with my "feel" of macroeconomic indicators of nations that "matter" (to me). This Rs 20 a day statement confounded me.
And here's why. India's nominal per-capita income is Rs 40,000 per year (and this is the average of multiple sources). This becomes Rs 110 per day, a far cry from Rs. 20 per day. So, if 80% of the country lives (as alleged) on Rs 20 per day, then the other 20% (220 million) must be living very, very prosperously.
So, I went ahead with some fact-checking.
Turns out, Mr. Acharya was quoting a very, very confused study. The sudy in question was conducted by National Commission for Enterprises in Unorganized Sector (NCEUS). This article from the Indian arm of Rupert Murdoch's WSJ put things in perspective. The study "accounted" for purchasing power parity. The reality is that 80% of India lives on less than $2 a day - or Rs 80 a day. (The corresponding income is 2400 per month - or Rs 10k per month for a familty of four).
The geniuses behind the study recognized that Each American dollar becomes Rs 10 in "purchasing power" - and went ahead and proclaimed that 80% of India earns Rs 20 a day. This statistic is true only if an Indian works in India, earns his Rs 80, somehow spontaneously materializes in the US, converts his Rs 80 to $2, goes grocery shopping in the US, dematerializes from the US and re-materializes in India to work again.
The study ought have said "80% of India earns $8 a day".
What disconcerts me is that there are absolutely no editorials, no comments about this blunder which was uttered in the parliament. For isntance, The Hindu carried his comments as if this were some factoid.
I think Mr. Acharya got carried away when he was trying to quote some "statistics" to butress his cause. I don't blame him - any statistic is a good statistic if you're trying to make a point.
This sadly proves to me that the best minds in India certainly don't go into mass media.
And here's why. India's nominal per-capita income is Rs 40,000 per year (and this is the average of multiple sources). This becomes Rs 110 per day, a far cry from Rs. 20 per day. So, if 80% of the country lives (as alleged) on Rs 20 per day, then the other 20% (220 million) must be living very, very prosperously.
So, I went ahead with some fact-checking.
Turns out, Mr. Acharya was quoting a very, very confused study. The sudy in question was conducted by National Commission for Enterprises in Unorganized Sector (NCEUS). This article from the Indian arm of Rupert Murdoch's WSJ put things in perspective. The study "accounted" for purchasing power parity. The reality is that 80% of India lives on less than $2 a day - or Rs 80 a day. (The corresponding income is 2400 per month - or Rs 10k per month for a familty of four).
The geniuses behind the study recognized that Each American dollar becomes Rs 10 in "purchasing power" - and went ahead and proclaimed that 80% of India earns Rs 20 a day. This statistic is true only if an Indian works in India, earns his Rs 80, somehow spontaneously materializes in the US, converts his Rs 80 to $2, goes grocery shopping in the US, dematerializes from the US and re-materializes in India to work again.
The study ought have said "80% of India earns $8 a day".
What disconcerts me is that there are absolutely no editorials, no comments about this blunder which was uttered in the parliament. For isntance, The Hindu carried his comments as if this were some factoid.
I think Mr. Acharya got carried away when he was trying to quote some "statistics" to butress his cause. I don't blame him - any statistic is a good statistic if you're trying to make a point.
This sadly proves to me that the best minds in India certainly don't go into mass media.
Friday, June 20, 2008
A Case for Vegetarianism
I am scared right now. Petrified. Mortified. The whole world is in big trouble right now. The proverbial shit has more or less hit the fan.
Fidel Castro, in what is now a classic letter (written in 2007), lamented about the growth in use of biofuels. He felt it fundamentally unethical to put food inside the fuel tank.
A little more than a year down the line - and here we are. Food prices are headed north all around the world. Inflation in India has reached double figures. All the gradual progress that was made over the last few decades .. uplifting the 100 million people or so from poverty .. all that could disappear if the prices do not drop quickly.
Let me go on a limb here and make some guesses. I am assuming that the reader of this article is not accustomed to feeling hunger (because, in all probability, he or she is rich enough to afford a decent meal). Almost all the people I know in India and in the US are rich. Almost all the people that we know are rich. As a consequence, all of us are more or less spent forces in actually empathizing with the billions of hungry on this planet.
The planet (populated like never before) is facing a massive shortage of food grains. It is not as if the planet is not growing enough food. We're growing enough to feed 9 billion vegetarian people. It's just that the rich have billions of cows, pigs and hens to feed (and eventually eat) - and they do so by snatching the food away from the mouths of the poorest of the poor in India, Africa and China.
When billions of people on this planet cannot afford a decent meal, does it make ethical sense to consume foods which eat what the poorest of poor could eat? Is is humbling to know that more crops are consumed by animals that are eaten as meat than actual human beings.
Add to this the further ethical bankruptcy of causing pain to a sentient being when one could very well have avoided doing so. Animals suffer when killed. They don't like it. Ought we be torturing them like this?
Further, it takes much more energy to raise animals to be killed and eaten. It requires much more resources. And with the planet boiling over - a gram of CO2 saved from going up into the atmosphere is worth its weight in gold.
I only hope that people eat meat because they are ignorant of these hard facts. But I have a deeper, more nagging suspicion. Evolution has hard wired a certain hypocrisy into humans. People can live happy lives fully cognizant of the fact that their actions have contributed to the silent genocide that is third world hunger - but not care enough to mend their ways. Because all there is to life is fornicating and passing on one's genes.
Fidel Castro, in what is now a classic letter (written in 2007), lamented about the growth in use of biofuels. He felt it fundamentally unethical to put food inside the fuel tank.
A little more than a year down the line - and here we are. Food prices are headed north all around the world. Inflation in India has reached double figures. All the gradual progress that was made over the last few decades .. uplifting the 100 million people or so from poverty .. all that could disappear if the prices do not drop quickly.
Let me go on a limb here and make some guesses. I am assuming that the reader of this article is not accustomed to feeling hunger (because, in all probability, he or she is rich enough to afford a decent meal). Almost all the people I know in India and in the US are rich. Almost all the people that we know are rich. As a consequence, all of us are more or less spent forces in actually empathizing with the billions of hungry on this planet.
The planet (populated like never before) is facing a massive shortage of food grains. It is not as if the planet is not growing enough food. We're growing enough to feed 9 billion vegetarian people. It's just that the rich have billions of cows, pigs and hens to feed (and eventually eat) - and they do so by snatching the food away from the mouths of the poorest of the poor in India, Africa and China.
When billions of people on this planet cannot afford a decent meal, does it make ethical sense to consume foods which eat what the poorest of poor could eat? Is is humbling to know that more crops are consumed by animals that are eaten as meat than actual human beings.
Add to this the further ethical bankruptcy of causing pain to a sentient being when one could very well have avoided doing so. Animals suffer when killed. They don't like it. Ought we be torturing them like this?
Further, it takes much more energy to raise animals to be killed and eaten. It requires much more resources. And with the planet boiling over - a gram of CO2 saved from going up into the atmosphere is worth its weight in gold.
I only hope that people eat meat because they are ignorant of these hard facts. But I have a deeper, more nagging suspicion. Evolution has hard wired a certain hypocrisy into humans. People can live happy lives fully cognizant of the fact that their actions have contributed to the silent genocide that is third world hunger - but not care enough to mend their ways. Because all there is to life is fornicating and passing on one's genes.
Sunday, June 15, 2008
Look East, Not West
There is this tendency among a lot of well-to-do Indians of looking at America as a model of development. This could owe a lot to the US' pre-eminence as a super-power on this planet; its (relatively) liberal immigration policy (creating a million or so Indian immigrants); mind-boggling technological breakthroughs in its universities and corporations and the perception of glamour (a "sexiness", if you will) associated with all things American (such as Hollywood and the ipod).
Americans are a pampered lot. They have a lot of area for each person (there's only 36 people per square kilometer here: that's 10 times area per person than India) - which makes being an American an inherently prosperous proposition.
A more relevant model of development can be found further to the west of the US - across the international date-line. Japan.
With 330 people per square kilometer - the same as the Indian population density - Japan is the world's third largest economy in absolute terms (China replaced Japan in the second spot a few years ago). With the same amount of "geographical luck" as an Indian has, the Japanese have managed to make their people some of the most prosperous in the world.
Japan's per capita GDP (ppp) is $33k per year. Japan's energy consumption is ~4000 kgoe/year (kilo-grams of oil-equivalent/year), whereas the American values are $45k per year and 8000kgoe/year. Simply put, the average Japanese person is twice as green and twice as lean as the average American. (Links to GDP and kgoe data)
There's this interesting metric to measure how "energy-efficiently" each dollar of GDP is produced. It's the GDP per-capita on the ordinate and the GDP per MBTU on the abcissa plot, which is reproduced below:
Japan is clearly more efficient than the US even this perspective. (If you ask me, this perspective is skewed in measuring efficiency. Supposing a nation were to grow a lot of crops and throw them away in trash cans (like the US does - check out any fast food chain trash cans!), the above metric of energy efficiency would consider the energy in growing the crops energy well spent. As a matter of fact, I consider this a garbage metric for this very reason).
Japan's economic growth was characterized by decades of 10% + GDP growth (fueled by a cocktail of government protectionism and foreign investment). This was called the "Japanese Economic Growth Miracle", for that it was. This period of stellar growth culminated in a major recession - and finally in a hopelessly inverted population pyramid. It is unlikely that Japan will achieve significant growth again: but Japan is still an extremely prosperous nation. A Japan (or an America or a Europe) in recession is still in a much better shape than a 10% per-year growing India (or China) from the most important perspective: the social perspective.
Indian development will be more like Japan's than America's. (China's, on the other hand is more likely to be like a more slightly efficient version of America's - China lot more people (130) per square kilometer than the US (36)).
When this optimistic argument about India's future is made in front of people, they come up with a ridiculous theory of the Japanese being "genetically industrious" and that the Indians are "genetically lethargic". I think this is a load of poppycock. The Indian economy has grown leaps and bounds after Dr. Singh set it free in 1991; poverty has fallen (though the rich have become a tad bit richer) beyond what people could contemplate in the 1980s. (Yes, there are still pockets of poverty in India - farmers still keep committing suicide - but it is indeed becoming an actual electoral issue. This is exactly the kind of issue that populism can solve, I believe.).
And the next time people tell me that compared with democracies in the developed world, Indian democracy is too ugly: I have a few aces up my sleeve. I will tell them about the incredibly stupid gridlock in the Japanese parliament that let a $1 per gallon petrol tax expire for a few days - dropping the price of petrol ("gas") at the pump immediately. (Yes, this did happen! And the prime minister apologized for this retrograde step.).
Americans are a pampered lot. They have a lot of area for each person (there's only 36 people per square kilometer here: that's 10 times area per person than India) - which makes being an American an inherently prosperous proposition.
A more relevant model of development can be found further to the west of the US - across the international date-line. Japan.
With 330 people per square kilometer - the same as the Indian population density - Japan is the world's third largest economy in absolute terms (China replaced Japan in the second spot a few years ago). With the same amount of "geographical luck" as an Indian has, the Japanese have managed to make their people some of the most prosperous in the world.
Japan's per capita GDP (ppp) is $33k per year. Japan's energy consumption is ~4000 kgoe/year (kilo-grams of oil-equivalent/year), whereas the American values are $45k per year and 8000kgoe/year. Simply put, the average Japanese person is twice as green and twice as lean as the average American. (Links to GDP and kgoe data)
There's this interesting metric to measure how "energy-efficiently" each dollar of GDP is produced. It's the GDP per-capita on the ordinate and the GDP per MBTU on the abcissa plot, which is reproduced below:
Japan is clearly more efficient than the US even this perspective. (If you ask me, this perspective is skewed in measuring efficiency. Supposing a nation were to grow a lot of crops and throw them away in trash cans (like the US does - check out any fast food chain trash cans!), the above metric of energy efficiency would consider the energy in growing the crops energy well spent. As a matter of fact, I consider this a garbage metric for this very reason).Japan's economic growth was characterized by decades of 10% + GDP growth (fueled by a cocktail of government protectionism and foreign investment). This was called the "Japanese Economic Growth Miracle", for that it was. This period of stellar growth culminated in a major recession - and finally in a hopelessly inverted population pyramid. It is unlikely that Japan will achieve significant growth again: but Japan is still an extremely prosperous nation. A Japan (or an America or a Europe) in recession is still in a much better shape than a 10% per-year growing India (or China) from the most important perspective: the social perspective.
Indian development will be more like Japan's than America's. (China's, on the other hand is more likely to be like a more slightly efficient version of America's - China lot more people (130) per square kilometer than the US (36)).
When this optimistic argument about India's future is made in front of people, they come up with a ridiculous theory of the Japanese being "genetically industrious" and that the Indians are "genetically lethargic". I think this is a load of poppycock. The Indian economy has grown leaps and bounds after Dr. Singh set it free in 1991; poverty has fallen (though the rich have become a tad bit richer) beyond what people could contemplate in the 1980s. (Yes, there are still pockets of poverty in India - farmers still keep committing suicide - but it is indeed becoming an actual electoral issue. This is exactly the kind of issue that populism can solve, I believe.).
And the next time people tell me that compared with democracies in the developed world, Indian democracy is too ugly: I have a few aces up my sleeve. I will tell them about the incredibly stupid gridlock in the Japanese parliament that let a $1 per gallon petrol tax expire for a few days - dropping the price of petrol ("gas") at the pump immediately. (Yes, this did happen! And the prime minister apologized for this retrograde step.).
Friday, June 06, 2008
Beedle Beedle Beedle
Jim Davis has given Jon Arbuckle (and Garfield, the fat feline) cell-phones. These cell-phones don't tring-tring or beep beep. They beedle-beedle-beedle.
My current cell-phone allows me to use any peice of music (any mp3) as a ring-tone. It allows me to use a midi of Beethoven's ninth (that I can download off the internet). It has that "I like big butts" disaster built in as a ring tone.
But when one searches for something that sounds like a phone ringing, alas, my cell-phone does not even get as close as beedle-beedle-beedle. The best I can do it that ghastly tune that at&t bundles every phone with.
I have toyed with the idea of tweeting into the phone (tring-tring). But I suspect that it would be extra-embarassing - so I won't do it. I could get one of those birds to tweet into the phone and record a ring-tone. But (a) Birds have an understandable tendency to wing it when one makes oneself proximate to them (b) Even if one does (somehow) manage to sneak up to a location close enough to one of those birds to record a statement, birds are remarkably recalcitrant.
Technology has scored one over me. It is almost impossible to install a respectable ring tone on my cell-phone. I shall enviously look back at the old days when men sounded like men, phones sounded like phones and little furry creatures from alpha centauri sounded like little furry creatures from alpha centauri.
My current cell-phone allows me to use any peice of music (any mp3) as a ring-tone. It allows me to use a midi of Beethoven's ninth (that I can download off the internet). It has that "I like big butts" disaster built in as a ring tone.
But when one searches for something that sounds like a phone ringing, alas, my cell-phone does not even get as close as beedle-beedle-beedle. The best I can do it that ghastly tune that at&t bundles every phone with.
I have toyed with the idea of tweeting into the phone (tring-tring). But I suspect that it would be extra-embarassing - so I won't do it. I could get one of those birds to tweet into the phone and record a ring-tone. But (a) Birds have an understandable tendency to wing it when one makes oneself proximate to them (b) Even if one does (somehow) manage to sneak up to a location close enough to one of those birds to record a statement, birds are remarkably recalcitrant.
Technology has scored one over me. It is almost impossible to install a respectable ring tone on my cell-phone. I shall enviously look back at the old days when men sounded like men, phones sounded like phones and little furry creatures from alpha centauri sounded like little furry creatures from alpha centauri.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)