Tamil Sampler
Telugu Sampler
Facebook Bashing
It's 4 in the morning and second day in a row where I can't fall asleep. Add stuffy nose and sore throat to that. And also these Facebook messages (modified):
Person1: It's sooo colddddddddd!!!!!!!!!
I guess people like me who spell properly and use not more than one exlamation at the end of the sentence are now comparable to upperclass tight-ass Englishmen who drink tea, talk about weather and read the business section. If you haven't noticed, the length of any word can be stretched to emphasize your emphasis on the emphasizable.
Person2: Life is like [add anything you want here]
'Third Rock from the Sun' offered better nuggets of wisdom. These guys, trying to impress you-know-who, blabber something like 'Like is like a banana peel, only with no real fruit inside'. Of course, you can make sense out of it you're inclined to assign meanings to any crap.
Comment for a photo: wow, this is a cool pic yaar!!! you look sooooooo cuteee!!!!!
No, it's not that of a child. It's a close-up of a 31 year-old, slightly out of focus with bad lighting. Either you don't appreciate the basics of photography or your definition of cuteness is plainly screwed-up.
Status message: X is looking out the window.
Wouldn't this be appropriate: My current status is that I'm writing my status message. Vetti pasanga.
Rare Voice
An exchange between 2 men in Karachi:
I smiled back: ‘Tell me brother Ashfaq, how did you respond to the 7/7 event in Britain?’
‘I prayed for the well being of all Muslims,’ he said proudly.
‘Of course, you did,’ I said, with a smile of resignation. ‘But, being a good Muslim, did you also pray for the non-Muslims who died in the suicide attacks?’
Ashfaq went into the trance mode once again. ‘Brother Nadeem …are you by any chance a non-Sunni?’
I laughed out loud: ‘Brother Ashfaq, are you by any chance an idiot?’
Ashfaq went all serious: ‘You don’t have to get offensive, brother.’
‘Ashfaq, what sort of a question was that?’ I said. ‘Am from this sect or a that sect of Islam? I was talking about something a lot more meaningful than sectarian.’
‘Doesn’t matter,’ he said. ‘Islam is for all mankind.’
‘Fine,’ I replied, ‘but how do you plan to prove this? Wouldn’t you rather set a more reasonable and intellectual example in this respect rather than a ritualistic one, or worse, a violent one, like that of the fanatics?’
‘I am not a fanatic,’ he said, his eyes now ogling repressed anger.
I offered him a cigarette.
‘I told you I don’t smoke,’ he said, politely pushing away the offer.
‘You may as well now,’ I said. ‘You have already missed your prayers.’He worriedly looked at his wrist watch: ‘That’s correct. I did.’
‘Don’t worry,’ I smiled. ‘You wont burn in hell for this.’
‘You are right, brother, I wont …’ he replied, and then in a quiet but foreboding tone, added: ‘But you will.’
On Government's Support for Arts
Greg Beato writes for Reason:
Today the [NEA] is careful to fund nothing more controversial than bilingual puppetry epics. And given the glut of cultural opportunities that now bedevil us, its status as a nurturer of the arts is less pronounced than its status as an agent of state-sponsored moral engineering. Now, it exists largely to reinforce the notion that musicals are somehow more inherently suited to nourishing the roots of our culture than sitcom pilots. That ballet is a greater part of our national heritage than burlesque. That mediocre opera singers deserve more support than our best gangsta rappers.
What are the ramifications of spending tax-payers money on encouraging a rapper who writes misogynistic lyrics and the beauty of getting high on drugs? Should the government support Seinfeld-like comedians to come up with Seinfeld-like sitcoms? Is 'what is art?' a less significant question than 'who defines what art is?' ? If 'art' & 'culture' is mainstream and if they already make money out of it, why should the government sponsor? What next, NEA supporting Hollywood studios?
But then, why do mediocre opera singers (never been to one) deserve a financial pat-on-the-back while thousands of wannabe-cinema-stars live in their cars? Is an older art form (ballet, 'classical' music, theater, etc) inherently a better form of art than today's (Hollywood, rap, video games, etc) even though the mass cannot understand or appreciate that? If something doesn't have an audience (or has a sagging audience) why should the government intervene and prop it up -- should not the market force do its job and wipe away what's not needed?
Ineffective Special Effects
Chris Orr, in his review of Body of Lies:
[Ridley Scott's] aesthetic and political purposes are in tension: How upset can we be about a deadly explosion when Scott has labored so mightily to make it look cool? Though evidently intended to straddle the divide between action thriller and geopolitical fable, when pushed, Body of Lies tumbles into the former genre.I've often felt this director's divide between sticking to the flow & tone of the film and making the most of special effects. I've seen behind-the-scene works on what goes into creating a crash or an explosion. When so much money and time is spent by the stunt team, it only seems natural to justify their efforts by showing the 'action' from various angles, repeat with slow-motions. But if it's not an outright action movie whose target audience are juvenile boys, the multiple-angle-slo-mo shots only dilute the intensity of narration.
UO - 2
Forsyth writes in The Fist of God about why intelligence officers may sell themselves to foreign countries:
The motives for being so recruited to serve another country vary. The recruit may be in debt, in a bitter marriage, passed over for promotion, revolted by his own regime, or simply lust for a new life and plenty of money. He may be recruited through his own weaknesses, sexual or homosexual, or simply by sweet talk and flattery.
Two things pricked me from the above passage -- 1) The use of 'he'. I know how it's a matter of style for a lot of writers to use 'he' or 'him' while they obviously mean both the genders. Forsyth doesn't particularly strike me as that kind of a writer because of his colossal attention to detail, especially when there were women defectors. Since thrillers/suspense are primarily aimed at men, it even makes sense for a young man to imagine a woman as a recruit for espionage. It adds spice. 2) Sexual or homosexual - Is homosexual not sexual? Such political incorrectness spotlights that he still thinks from a different age.
Intellectual Compartmentalization
A.C.Grayling writes in Edge:
We have a problem at the moment, which is that too few people go on from school to study science at university. The point here is not about making more scientists necessarily, but making more people who are competent to observe what's happening in science, to be interested in reading about it, to keep abreast of developments, to be excited by what is happening in science.He's concerned that there aren't enough people who are educated and/or interested enough to observe what's going on in our laboratories today. But wait, compare that with ISRO rocket scientists who invoke the blessings of Tirupati god before a space flight. Talk of intellectual compartmentalization; these guys are on top.
Informed Decisions
Rob Lyons of Spiked doesn't think that listing calories next to the menu is a good idea. He writes:
This point rings close to this piece I wrote about a year ago -- how scientific authority is in some circles trying to replace moral & religious authorities. But now, I agree with one of the comments (by Viswanathan) there. He wrote "The shades of fun ( or pain) of owning up responsibilities can still be there, even under the illumination by science. Science can tell us the dangers of excess calories,or excess alcohol or that of tobacco. Knowing fully well the facts, one can still over eat, drink or smoke.The burden of responsibility is only heightened- not lessened- by knowledge."
There's nobody from the local health office sitting next to you watching how many calories you gobble when you stack up your double cheese burgers. You are warned, now it's upto you.
Food should be both sustenance and pleasure. The demand that we constantly check our desires against some government-imposed calorie-related target robs us of this joy, replacing it with guilt and fear instead; such schemes serve no other purpose than to persuade us that we must trust in the advice of the health authorities.Rob states that checking the calorie count robs us of the pleasure of eating and leaves us with guilt and fear. Does he mean that the average man has to eat more than the recommended calories/meal in order to derive pleasure out of eating? Rob's essentially implying that the government's stipulations for calories/meal are much less than what one needs to eat in order to remain healthy. Come on, we're dealing with first world countries and nobody (at least an overwhelming majority) is going to die of malnutrition.Rather than labeling everything we eat with calorie and fat contents, a far healthier attitude would be to leave us to make up our own minds about what we consume. We should be lickin’ our fingers, not counting calories on them.
This point rings close to this piece I wrote about a year ago -- how scientific authority is in some circles trying to replace moral & religious authorities. But now, I agree with one of the comments (by Viswanathan) there. He wrote "The shades of fun ( or pain) of owning up responsibilities can still be there, even under the illumination by science. Science can tell us the dangers of excess calories,or excess alcohol or that of tobacco. Knowing fully well the facts, one can still over eat, drink or smoke.The burden of responsibility is only heightened- not lessened- by knowledge."
There's nobody from the local health office sitting next to you watching how many calories you gobble when you stack up your double cheese burgers. You are warned, now it's upto you.
Update: This is an embarassing spelling error to admit. I wanted to write 'Come on' and instead wrote 'Common'. I've corrected the error.
What Women Want?
From NYT Magazine, on why a Viagra-equivalent for women won't work:
In men who have trouble getting erect, the genital engorgement aided by Viagra and its rivals is often all that’s needed. The pills target genital capillaries; they don’t aim at the mind. The medications may enhance male desire somewhat by granting men a feeling of power and control, but they don’t, for the most part, manufacture wanting. And for men, they don’t need to. Desire, it seems, is usually in steady supply. In women, though, the main difficulty appears to be in the mind, not the body, so the physiological effects of the drugs have proved irrelevant. The pills can promote blood flow and lubrication, but this doesn’t do much to create a conscious sense of desire.
.........
For women, “being desired is the orgasm,” Meana said somewhat metaphorically — it is, in her vision, at once the thing craved and the spark of craving.
The Joys of Senseless Regulations
From a NYT opinion piece:
Felony charge? Yes, technically a passenger tried to overpower an airplane crew. But what were the circumstances? I know that the lawyers are quite pumped up on caffeine in the U.S - anybody forget the Korean laundry owner who was sued $54 million over a lost pant? But not many know that the poor guy spent $100000 on fighting the law suit which eventually left him, obviously, poor, and drove him out of business. The law makers in the name of beefing up security can't disengage their common senses. Laws & rules help regulate the society. But their enforcements should be based on practical judgments.A man who says he desperately needed to use an airplane bathroom after eating something bad in Honduras faces a felony charge after being accused of twisting a flight attendant’s arm to get to the lavatory, the F.B.I. said.
Joao Correa, 43, told The Atlanta Journal-Constitution he had a bathroom emergency 30 minutes into a March 28 Delta Air Lines flight from San Pedro Sula to Atlanta but found the single coach aisle on the Boeing 737 blocked by a beverage cart. He said he asked whether he could use the lavatory in business class but was told no.
When the cart wasn’t moved after a few minutes, Mr. Correa said, he ran for the business-class lavatory. He said the flight attendant put up her arm to block him and he grabbed it to keep his balance.
Oddly Enough
From Reuters:
A Russian karate expert has been charged with beating to death a 61-year-old woman and her son, whom he accused of infecting his wife with lice, an investigator said Friday.The drunk 26-year-old burst into a neighboring room in his hostel Tuesday and used karate moves to kill the pair, state investigator Eduard Abdullin said...
I know it's cruel to lighten up such a sad incident. But I wonder what the wife of the karate 'expert' said to him when he came to his room after killing them.
PS: I have the word expert in quotes because he can't be one. Karate and loads of other martial arts heavily insist on self-control and defense before you begin an assault. In fact, one of my schoolmates said that his karate master asked his students to run fast as they can if they find themselves in a confrontation / unfriendly situation.
Irony
For a self-proclaimed feminist, I wonder how Suhasini okayed the following lyrics in her movie 'Indira' for the song 'Thoda thoda':
Pasithavan amudham parugidathane 17 vasanthangal idhazh valarthen...
Experimental Animals
From USA Today:
PS: I'm not against using live animals for such experiments. We've had lab rats, rabbits, cows and pigs getting injected with new formulas before they're tried on human beings. I believe they have contributed to a lot of life-saving drugs in use today. And for most of the world, 'humane treatment' of animals is mostly in regard to cats and dogs not cows or chickens which end up on a lunch menu. (Yes, there are organizations that fight for decent living conditions and 'humane' killing techniques of these animals before they're cooked, but I don't see it far away from being an experimental punch-bag).
Military researchers have dressed live pigs in body armor and strapped them into Humvee simulators that were then blown up with explosives to study the link between roadside bomb blasts and brain injury.Pigs as crash test dummies? Okay, so a safety assurance team strapped a living pig, pressed the accelerator pedal and let the car dash into a wall? The anatomy of a pig is so different from that of a human being, I wonder how a crash test and the injuries sustained by a pig provided meaningful information as to the relevant safety adjustments to be made for humans. In the other case, the military must have it's reasons. But from a layman's point of view, an armored pig blown away by a bomb will be torn away differently from that of a human being. I'm not sure how one can conclude the effectiveness of the armor from inferences based on pigs' brains.
......
U.S. car companies used live animals, including pigs, for crash tests until the early 1990s. They stopped after protests from animal rights groups.
PS: I'm not against using live animals for such experiments. We've had lab rats, rabbits, cows and pigs getting injected with new formulas before they're tried on human beings. I believe they have contributed to a lot of life-saving drugs in use today. And for most of the world, 'humane treatment' of animals is mostly in regard to cats and dogs not cows or chickens which end up on a lunch menu. (Yes, there are organizations that fight for decent living conditions and 'humane' killing techniques of these animals before they're cooked, but I don't see it far away from being an experimental punch-bag).
Recovery Trend
Respected economist Simon Johnson writes on the current economic crisis:
The most likely outcome is not a V-shaped recovery (which is the current official consensus) or a U-shaped recovery (which is closer to the private sector consensus), but rather an L, in which there is a steep fall and then a struggle to recover. A “lost decade” for the world economy is quite possible. There will be some episodes of incipient recovery, as there were in Japan during the 1990s, but this will prove very hard to sustain.Please note that there's no recovery in 'L', but only a struggle for recovery.
Dead Body of Knowledge
Christine Montross writes succinctly, beautifully and persuasively on how important it is for medical students to dissect a dead body even though they can see everything inside a body through medical technology:
Someday, they’ll need to keep their cool when a baby is lodged wrong in a mother’s birth canal; when a bone breaks through a patient’s skin; when someone’s face is burned beyond recognition. Doctors do have normal reactions to these situations; the composure that we strive to keep under stressful circumstances is not innate. It has to be learned. The discomfort of taking a blade to a dead man’s skin helps doctors-in-training figure out how to cope, without the risk of intruding on a live patient’s feelings — or worse, his health. We learn to heal the living by first dismantling the dead.
The Chinese Control
The Chinese foreign affairs minister said the following when asked about China banning Youtube:
Massive unemployment has many moving back from cities to the rural areas and they're not going to be happy to see their new found luxury disappear while their freedom remains stifled. Above mentioned quote reflects the attitude of the Chinese authorities. People put up with it as long as they kept pacing up the social/financial ladder. Now that the economy is taking them for a ride, I wonder how long will it be before a social unrest erupts. I've read news items reporting pockets of violence. If the government keeps crushing valid protests and overpowering the common man in all walks of life and also has the temerity to not responsibly address their actions, it will only be a matter of time before the next mass movement announces itself.
As for what you can and cannot watch, watch what you can watch, and don't watch what you cannot watch.China has traded its citizens' freedom by promising steady growth. After all, the communist government executed the greatest transformation from poverty to middle-class in recorded history, all in less than 30 years. As it happens during every recession, the segment that was recently inducted into the middle-class will slide back and suffer most. It won't be just the loss of material things, but also a social identity - being able to send the kids to a better school, buy better dresses, live in a better house, drive a better bike - all of these will now undergo a downgrade.
Massive unemployment has many moving back from cities to the rural areas and they're not going to be happy to see their new found luxury disappear while their freedom remains stifled. Above mentioned quote reflects the attitude of the Chinese authorities. People put up with it as long as they kept pacing up the social/financial ladder. Now that the economy is taking them for a ride, I wonder how long will it be before a social unrest erupts. I've read news items reporting pockets of violence. If the government keeps crushing valid protests and overpowering the common man in all walks of life and also has the temerity to not responsibly address their actions, it will only be a matter of time before the next mass movement announces itself.
The Big Takeover
Here's an article, that's explains the greed, recklessness and failings of AIG, Fed, Treasury, major banks, regulatory authorities and the administration. A bit lengthy, but a good one. The writer concludes:
The most galling thing about this financial crisis is that so many Wall Street types think they actually deserve not only their huge bonuses and lavish lifestyles but the awesome political power their own mistakes have left them in possession of. When challenged, they talk about how hard they work, the 90-hour weeks, the stress, the failed marriages, the hemorrhoids and gallstones they all get before they hit 40.
"But wait a minute," you say to them. "No one ever asked you to stay up all night eight days a week trying to get filthy rich shorting what's left of the American auto industry or selling $600 billion in toxic, irredeemable mortgages to ex-strippers on work release and Taco Bell clerks. Actually, come to think of it, why are we even giving taxpayer money to you people? Why are we not throwing your ass in jail instead?"
But before you even finish saying that, they're rolling their eyes, because You Don't Get It. These people were never about anything except turning money into money, in order to get more money; valueswise they're on par with crack addicts, or obsessive sexual deviants who burgle homes to steal panties. Yet these are the people in whose hands our entire political future now rests.
It Isn't Your Day Dear
Sometime in 2001, in LA, a couple of muggers tried to stick a gun into a touring van and asked them to get out so that they could drive it away. The van had a bunch of guys who were in town for a Judo convention. Very promptly, the muggers' arms were broken and handed over to the police. Well, at least these guys had a plan and it made an interesting story. Now, read this story about a guy trying to rob a bank:
But as terrified cashiers prepared to hand over a bundle of notes, Mr Stewart calmly walked up to the robber and said: "It's April the 1st isn't it mate? It's April Fool's Day".
When Davidson said to him "I've got a gun I will shoot you", Andrew replied "go on then shoot me" and grabbed the bag from his hands.
He opened it in front of staff and after seeing it was empty sat down and carried on reading his paper, Exeter Crown Court heard.
Davison fled the scene but was later arrested and has now pleaded guilty to affray.
Elegy
There's this brilliantly executed scene from Elegy. The protagonist, fiftyish, a professor of culture, expert on art, a public intellectual, is having an affair. Well, he isn't married, but he sleeps with two women and both of them think that he's non-comitally comitted to them. So they would be enraged if they found out the existence of another woman. And one night comes the estranged son of the protagonist. He says that he's having an affair and wants to have a man-to-man conversation with his father.
Now, I don't want to give away anything. I've seen directors employ such techniques before where they use an extra to tell his/her story and suddenly that relates to our hero strongly. It's a frequently used tool to explore the moral depths of the protagonist. This scene just nailed it. In fact, I recommed this movie for this piece of writing alone. (And Ben Kingsley's performance.)
PS: I'm half-way through the movie and being blown away, I paused and decided to post about it.
UO
Stewie is highly literate and sophisticated whereas Goundamani is nowhere like that. But Stewie's realization comes close to that of Goundamani's where the character says something irreverant and crude but those around carry on as if they didn't hear.
Bharath Bhavan
This is somewhere between stupidity and craziness. I was supposed to meet my friend at this Indian restaurant for lunch. Just before I leave, I check out their website which says that their main access road is being worked on and patrons need to take a detour. (The detour isn't straight forward, where you take the next exit and try to find your way back.. It's a bit long & wound). I make a note of the new directions thinking that I'll call my friend from my mobile on the way and let him know about the alternate route. My cell is out of charge. And I think that I'll call him from the restaurant. After reaching the place I ask the manager if I can use their phone. He politely nods 'no'. And then I explain to him that I'm expecting my friend and he's probably lost. He must have thought that I'm narrating a story that's in no way connected to the current situation. He doesn't react.
I wait in their lounge for 15 minutes. I step out of the restaurant a couple of times just convey the management that I'm expecting someone and if only they would let me use their phone they could get my business. No, they're unmoved. After 40 minutes I tell one of the servers again that may be he's desperately trying to get to the restaurant and he needs directions - no, it's as if somebody's trying to get somewhere, not their place. After 50 minutes of sitting, standing, walking and flipping through junk magazines when I said that I'll have to leave, the guy at the counter said 'Okay'. This was immensely infuriating. It doesn't take an Einstein to figure out that if they had let me call, I would have guided my friend and they would have earned our business, not only this time, but subsequent visits too.
I've had bad experiences at many Indian restaurants in America. The most common complaint being the cleanliness of toilets - you're greeted with a smell that takes you back to some of the train stations in India. There's a marked difference in the way the servers treat Indians and Americans - smirk vs smile. They can't handle crowds - as the restaurant gets loaded, the wait time increases and the server snaps at your questions on how long it will be before you get your food. Sometimes I've had to ask multiple times for my water glass to be refilled. I've gotten my bill when I'm only half-way through my food. There have been cases where I was overcharged or given another party's bill. Of course there have been upset stomachs, loud TV, slippery floors without the 'Caution Wet' sign, buffet boxes that are empty... If only they could amend some of these complaints, the experience offered by an Indian restaurant would be richer.
I wait in their lounge for 15 minutes. I step out of the restaurant a couple of times just convey the management that I'm expecting someone and if only they would let me use their phone they could get my business. No, they're unmoved. After 40 minutes I tell one of the servers again that may be he's desperately trying to get to the restaurant and he needs directions - no, it's as if somebody's trying to get somewhere, not their place. After 50 minutes of sitting, standing, walking and flipping through junk magazines when I said that I'll have to leave, the guy at the counter said 'Okay'. This was immensely infuriating. It doesn't take an Einstein to figure out that if they had let me call, I would have guided my friend and they would have earned our business, not only this time, but subsequent visits too.
I've had bad experiences at many Indian restaurants in America. The most common complaint being the cleanliness of toilets - you're greeted with a smell that takes you back to some of the train stations in India. There's a marked difference in the way the servers treat Indians and Americans - smirk vs smile. They can't handle crowds - as the restaurant gets loaded, the wait time increases and the server snaps at your questions on how long it will be before you get your food. Sometimes I've had to ask multiple times for my water glass to be refilled. I've gotten my bill when I'm only half-way through my food. There have been cases where I was overcharged or given another party's bill. Of course there have been upset stomachs, loud TV, slippery floors without the 'Caution Wet' sign, buffet boxes that are empty... If only they could amend some of these complaints, the experience offered by an Indian restaurant would be richer.
Double-Game Players
I believe the contents of this piece would have infuriated CIA: ISI is in constant contact with Taliban and helps them with money, military power and strategic planning. And when Taliban runs out of man power, ISI agents hunt madrasas to fill their ranks. Everyone knew that ISI is a spoiled uncontrollable brat. But this revelation has the potential to jeopardize the political equations between Pakistan and America.
Pakistan is sinking. Sunnis & Shiites don't get along well. The past decade has numerous cases of deadly attacks by these two sects that go back to the death of the prophet. Baluchis in the north want autonomy. The west is controlled by the Taliban. Jihadis in the east in the name of freedom have at best plundered the resources. There is a yawning gap between the rich & the poor. The economy is in tatters. President Zardari recently went begging around the gulf region to feed the starving economy and came back empty handed. There is a monstrous gap between the rights enjoyed by the men and the women. CII, a constitutional body, denounced the country's women commission's call for 'gender equality'. CII blatantly called it un-Islamic and impractical thinking. Scientific temperament among students is alarmingly declining. Madrassas are better funded than state-run schools. Add to this a sky-rocketing inflation and unhealthy unemployment rates.
Even when a democratic government ruled, military spending ranked one in their budget. Military officers have political clout and good houses. Economic development at the grassroot level has been treated as a nice-to-have feature, never a priority for them. America by this time will have realized that they can't bribe Pakistani presidents to do them favors. ISI is almost an autonomous body, unquestionable by the government, unquestionable by anybody. And since the foreign aid never reaches the man at the bottom of the pyramid, America will never earn his/her good will.
Ever since Obama took over, the strikes inside Pakistan have intensified. I have wondered if that's in part to appeal to the war-mongering right wingers who've looked down on Obama as the commander-in-chief without any military experience. But no, I believe he's a supreme pragmatist who weighs the pros and cons of his military decisions. (Though his financial and fiscal policies, which are to the left, I'm afraid are going to drive down the value of the dollar). Now that the evidence of Pakistani intelligence's official involvement with Taliban had gathered strength and with the toothless civilian government lost in its own cocoon of petty political turmoil standing aside helplessly, Obama will be forced to step up his military actions in the region.
So, a fraction of American tax-payers' money goes towards Pakistan's military establishment in the form of financial assistance and a part of that goes to Taliban and they launch missiles at American troops. A different kind of vicious circle, huh? There's a funny and sad paragraph in that NYT article linked above. British government officers are openly asking the ISI to request their Taliban friends to scale down their militant activities until the Afghan presidential elections due in August. Imagine what they might have conversed:
"We really have no long-term interests in the region. Really, believe me. Okay. We just want to score some political points. Okay. If the elections are free of violence, we can trumpet to the world that as an achievement of our intervention. That's all. And we will be gone in no time. What do you say?"
"Insha Allah."
I'm waiting for Nitin's response.
Life & Times of Common Man - Now Available in Hardcover
James Bridle, a twitterer, has published two years worth of his tweets into a book. He writes:
When Twitter is inevitably replaced by something else, I don’t want to lose all those incidentals, the casual asides, the remarks and responses. That’s all really. This seems like a nice way to do it..One of the comments:
This is a brilliant idea. I have some old family diaries and love reading them - the loss of ephemeral daily information about life passing, not for me (or even my children) but for grandchildren is one of the things that worry me about the way I use sites like this..Clive Thompson, a blogger observes:
Every tiny piece seems daft or meaningless, but -- when you add them all up you get a curiously rich sense of someone's existence.This reminds me of the Up series:
The 'Up' is a series of documentaries that have been following a group of children who were seven years old (in 1964) for every seven years. It seems like wishful thinking for an average film enthusiast to be able to voyeur a handful of lives at periodic intervals.I'm not lamenting that the volume of our private spheres has shrunk and spilled into the public spheres. Of course, by blogging I'm opening up myself - I'm telling you all what I think of this and that. Twitter is the next level in exposure - what I'm eating now, where I went last night, etc. There's a strange sense of heaviness I feel.
Moral Financial Responsibility
As I saw 'House of Cards' yesterday, a documentary produced by CNBC about the sub-prime mortgage crisis, one theme kept recurring in my head - moral financial responsibility. The participants were home owners who are now foreclosed or are on the verge of losing their homes, officers who eagerly sought these people and offered loans, Wall St executives who packaged those loans and sold it far far away, institutions that bought those financial derivatives and finally Alan Greenspan, the ex-chairman of America's central bank.
After 9/11 Bush urges everyone to go shopping. China has been buying U.S treasury bonds left and right, the Federal Reserve has a relaxed lending standard all in effect making credit dirt cheap. The banks just wanted to dole out loans to anyone who would nod their heads. And nod, many did. A black woman from Southern California said "As I stepped out of church, these two guys came to me and said 'Your home loan is approved'. And I thought 'Hallelujah, it's a miracle' ". She bought it. One Mexican immigrant said it was his American dream to own a home and he didn't have to produce his tax papers or salary certificate. Just state his income and his loan was approved. Another family with 4 kids wanted to jump early on the home-owner bandwagon as the prices were skyrocketing.
The going was good. As the house prices kept going upward, these people refinanced their loans and built a swimming pool, bought furniture, paid off credit card debts, refurbished their backyard….. Had anyone sane seen this footage in 2006, it would still have been obvious that this was an accident waiting to happen. Buyers just assumed that their home equity is a balloon that'll never pop and they could live a comfortable life by not moving their butt, but by just refinancing their home loans. Wall St was ravenous, because small credit unions and municpalities and city mayors all over Europe who fully didn't understand what a CDO is or how safe/risky they were, just eagerly piled them up. As long as someone was buying, why stop selling, thought the financial engineers at Wall St. Eventually, sub-prime guys and the CDO buyers were slapped. As their house value collapsed and their mortgage loomed they realized they can't make their ends meet. The fine prints in their loan agreements were now emboldened - they had signed on to conditions that they weren't aware of previously.
This bubble and the growth associated with it is based on magical mathematical models. Nothing was invented or produced that could sustain growth. It was pure consumption made possible by the Chinese & Fed on the assumption that home values can only go North. Alan Greenspan said that he believed banks would regulate themselves in their own interest. As we now know, they were blinded by greed. He said that if he had raised the interest rate thereby choking the flow of credit, it would essentially have killed the economic engine and brought the unemployment rate to 10%, to which the Congress would definitely have not agreed. The SEC was on the sidelines when it should have been an active player monitoring and regulating. And the rating agencies stamped AAA on almost any derivative.
The black woman said "I'm stupid, but they (lenders) are guilty". No dear, you're not just plain stupid, you're humongously stupid, monumentally stupid, criminally stupid. Spend less than you earn - is that so whacky? Borrow money only if you can repay - is it nonsensical? If you're making the biggest investment of your life, like buying a home, why not read the fine prints in the mortgage document? The Wall St executive said, when asked if he felt guilty for making money on stupid people "No. Nobody put a gun to their head and asked them to sign the papers." That's right, but that also spotlights his moral blackhole. It's like raping a woman who is blind, deaf and mute. 'If you can easily get away, why not do it?' was his attitude. Technically, he can't be blamed as what he was doing was absolutely legal.
After 9/11 Bush urges everyone to go shopping. China has been buying U.S treasury bonds left and right, the Federal Reserve has a relaxed lending standard all in effect making credit dirt cheap. The banks just wanted to dole out loans to anyone who would nod their heads. And nod, many did. A black woman from Southern California said "As I stepped out of church, these two guys came to me and said 'Your home loan is approved'. And I thought 'Hallelujah, it's a miracle' ". She bought it. One Mexican immigrant said it was his American dream to own a home and he didn't have to produce his tax papers or salary certificate. Just state his income and his loan was approved. Another family with 4 kids wanted to jump early on the home-owner bandwagon as the prices were skyrocketing.
The going was good. As the house prices kept going upward, these people refinanced their loans and built a swimming pool, bought furniture, paid off credit card debts, refurbished their backyard….. Had anyone sane seen this footage in 2006, it would still have been obvious that this was an accident waiting to happen. Buyers just assumed that their home equity is a balloon that'll never pop and they could live a comfortable life by not moving their butt, but by just refinancing their home loans. Wall St was ravenous, because small credit unions and municpalities and city mayors all over Europe who fully didn't understand what a CDO is or how safe/risky they were, just eagerly piled them up. As long as someone was buying, why stop selling, thought the financial engineers at Wall St. Eventually, sub-prime guys and the CDO buyers were slapped. As their house value collapsed and their mortgage loomed they realized they can't make their ends meet. The fine prints in their loan agreements were now emboldened - they had signed on to conditions that they weren't aware of previously.
This bubble and the growth associated with it is based on magical mathematical models. Nothing was invented or produced that could sustain growth. It was pure consumption made possible by the Chinese & Fed on the assumption that home values can only go North. Alan Greenspan said that he believed banks would regulate themselves in their own interest. As we now know, they were blinded by greed. He said that if he had raised the interest rate thereby choking the flow of credit, it would essentially have killed the economic engine and brought the unemployment rate to 10%, to which the Congress would definitely have not agreed. The SEC was on the sidelines when it should have been an active player monitoring and regulating. And the rating agencies stamped AAA on almost any derivative.
The black woman said "I'm stupid, but they (lenders) are guilty". No dear, you're not just plain stupid, you're humongously stupid, monumentally stupid, criminally stupid. Spend less than you earn - is that so whacky? Borrow money only if you can repay - is it nonsensical? If you're making the biggest investment of your life, like buying a home, why not read the fine prints in the mortgage document? The Wall St executive said, when asked if he felt guilty for making money on stupid people "No. Nobody put a gun to their head and asked them to sign the papers." That's right, but that also spotlights his moral blackhole. It's like raping a woman who is blind, deaf and mute. 'If you can easily get away, why not do it?' was his attitude. Technically, he can't be blamed as what he was doing was absolutely legal.
I'm no economist and reading the contradictory opinion pieces in the business section scares me. The market has lost trillions of dollars in just a year. The U.S government along with many European governments have intervened to stabilize their financial institutions. One school says that we haven't printed enough money to get us out of this mess. The other school says that we should have allowed the correction to happen and by artificially injecting cash we're trying to give birth to another bubble. One economist says this is a great time to set course for innovation in green energy, revolutionize health care, reform education and that's precisely what the Obama administration is doing. Another economist says that we're going to inflate ourselves into a worthless dollar. In the middle of all this, the Chinese premier said that he's a little bit concerned about the value of his colossal foreign reserves. If China decides to dump them for it's infrastructure development, the world will be sloshed with U.S dollars that could lead to a currency collapse.
This severe crisis not only haunts those like the personally irresponsible woman and the morally irresponsible Wall St executive, but also Mr.Joe who has always lived within his means and made prudent decisions. Because of the credit crunch, he has lost his job and he's forced to default on his home loan. Growing up in a middle class family in India, my parents included me in financial discussions when I was 15. Since I knew what my dad brought home and how much we spent a month, many of my dreams that my friends were living remained a dream to me. I learned to say no to myself. Knowing that I will have to live with the consequences of my decisions drives me away from driving home a Lexus though my savings and income and credit history allow me. I hope one of the outcomes of this crisis is that those who had plans for their future paychecks will now take it slowly and start doing something that every American a couple of generations before did: save.
In Bruges
In Bruges features a great screenplay. The darkness of the comedy doesn't quite come close to 'Snatch' or 'After Hours', but to be able to compare with those two gems itself is a testament.
I'll borrow the services of IMDb's memorable quotes for this movie to relive the pleasure of the dialogues:
Ray: Murder, father.
Priest: Why did you murder someone, Raymond?
Ray: For money, father.
Priest: For money? You murdered someone for money?
Ray: Yes, father. Not out of anger. Not out of nothing. For money.
Priest: Who did you murder for money, Raymond?
Ray: You, father.
Priest: I'm sorry?
Ray: I said you, father. What are you, deaf?
I've heard such lines in other movies before, but the 'What are you, deaf?' is a part of characterization. Ray, brilliantly played by Colin Farrell, is doing his first job as a hitman and he's annoyed at having to answer him victim twice.
Here's another scene, this time Harry (Ralph Fiennes) and Ray are in a shootout and there's a pregnant woman in their middle. Now, since they both are men of principle, they wouldn't want to shock or harm her in any way. This is what they exchange
Ray: Harry, I've got an idea.
Harry: What?
Ray: My room faces out the canal, right? I'm going to go back to me room, jump into the canal, see if I can swim to the other side and escape.
Harry: All right.
Ray: If you go outside around the corner, you can shoot at me from there and try to get me. That way we'll leave this lady and her baby out of the whole entire thing.
Harry: You completely promise to jump into the canal? I don't want to run out there, come back in ten minutes, and find you fucking hiding in a cupboard.
Ray: I completely promise, Harry. I'm not going to risk having another little kid dying on me.
Harry: So, hang on - I go outside and I go which way? Right or left?
Ray: [upset] You go right, don't you? You can see it from the doorway! It's a big fucking canal!
Harry: All right. Jesus. I only just got here, haven't I? Okay, on the count of one, two, three, go. Okay?
Ray: Okay.
[long pause]
Ray: What? Who says one, two, three?
Harry: Well you say it.
Oh, it's brilliantly black.
I'll borrow the services of IMDb's memorable quotes for this movie to relive the pleasure of the dialogues:
Ray: Murder, father.
Priest: Why did you murder someone, Raymond?
Ray: For money, father.
Priest: For money? You murdered someone for money?
Ray: Yes, father. Not out of anger. Not out of nothing. For money.
Priest: Who did you murder for money, Raymond?
Ray: You, father.
Priest: I'm sorry?
Ray: I said you, father. What are you, deaf?
I've heard such lines in other movies before, but the 'What are you, deaf?' is a part of characterization. Ray, brilliantly played by Colin Farrell, is doing his first job as a hitman and he's annoyed at having to answer him victim twice.
Here's another scene, this time Harry (Ralph Fiennes) and Ray are in a shootout and there's a pregnant woman in their middle. Now, since they both are men of principle, they wouldn't want to shock or harm her in any way. This is what they exchange
Ray: Harry, I've got an idea.
Harry: What?
Ray: My room faces out the canal, right? I'm going to go back to me room, jump into the canal, see if I can swim to the other side and escape.
Harry: All right.
Ray: If you go outside around the corner, you can shoot at me from there and try to get me. That way we'll leave this lady and her baby out of the whole entire thing.
Harry: You completely promise to jump into the canal? I don't want to run out there, come back in ten minutes, and find you fucking hiding in a cupboard.
Ray: I completely promise, Harry. I'm not going to risk having another little kid dying on me.
Harry: So, hang on - I go outside and I go which way? Right or left?
Ray: [upset] You go right, don't you? You can see it from the doorway! It's a big fucking canal!
Harry: All right. Jesus. I only just got here, haven't I? Okay, on the count of one, two, three, go. Okay?
Ray: Okay.
[long pause]
Ray: What? Who says one, two, three?
Harry: Well you say it.
Oh, it's brilliantly black.
Comedy IQ
Germaine Greer observes on women & comedy:
I've met some funny women and they all were naturals. They weren't keenly bent on making me laugh, but it was just the way they spoke that carried us into a funny situation. Germaine affirms my belief that women aren't as funny as men because they simply don't care much about the success of their jokes. Just like any art, humor is improved through practice. And men practice. This makes sense from an evolutionary point of view: men with a good sense of humor are perceived to be socially adept by women, which in a twisted way translates into the man's ability to make a living and hence a stable relationship. This is one area where emotional investment from a man is generally greater than that of a woman.
The greater visibility of male comedians reflects a greater investment of intellectual energy by men of all walks of life in keeping each other amused. It is now a truism that men never talk to each other about things that matter. Most of what takes place when men are together is phatic communication, intended to build fellowship rather than intimacy. This kind of communication is sometimes derided by women as meaningless, but it is actually functional, because it draws the group together. Men who drink, play and joke together are boon companions, who hang together for fun. He laughs loudest who laughs last; one joke kicks off another. The man who cannot hold his own in repartee will even learn other men's jokes off by heart, so that he can fill a void in the general banter. Women famously cannot learn jokes. If they try, they invariably bugger up the punchline. The male teller of jokes is driving towards his reward, the laughter of his mates. The woman who messes up the same joke does so because her concentration is not sharpened by that need. She is not less intelligent, simply less concerned.Though sense of humor is innate, boys, well before they become men, work on creating and polishing jokes - making up situations, delivering them with a certain flair, one-line quips and sometimes even slapstick. Not generating laughs could be taken as a failure of one's execution, which is why men assess the humor level of the audience in a party before they delve into their lines. When they find someone else on a roll they just don't barge into the joke-fest, but instead play a wait & watch game starting with a few 'accompanying lines' that acknowledge the other person's quality of humor. If a joke doesn't click on live performances, stand-up comedians make fun of those bad jokes and ridicule themselves as a form of saying sorry.
I've met some funny women and they all were naturals. They weren't keenly bent on making me laugh, but it was just the way they spoke that carried us into a funny situation. Germaine affirms my belief that women aren't as funny as men because they simply don't care much about the success of their jokes. Just like any art, humor is improved through practice. And men practice. This makes sense from an evolutionary point of view: men with a good sense of humor are perceived to be socially adept by women, which in a twisted way translates into the man's ability to make a living and hence a stable relationship. This is one area where emotional investment from a man is generally greater than that of a woman.
Medical Technology Vs Empathy
Eric Fischl writes for Edge:
I think of our emotional and our physical capabilities as somewhat mutually exclusive. Fixing the body has definitely not killed our ability to enjoy the sunshine, appreciate a movie, hate a pedophile... if someone were capable of these to begin with, when they step out of a hospital in a better physical condition, they should still be capable. Eric's ultimate accusation is that technology has made robots out of humans, which I think is baseless. You think of a kiss as a collision of lips and an exchange of saliva? Are love and hatred just electrochemical reactions inside the brain? Did you say that that girl acting crazy is just responding to hormonal changes?
Eric's thought that we should embrace disease, aging and death without any resistance is nonsense. Death is inevitable, but why is that we move away from a speeding car? His aversion towards the beauty industry (propped up by medical technology) is in logical progression. I don't know if he has only boob jobs in mind or also the 10-year old boy who suffered a third-degree burn and needs skin transplantation requiring the services of beauty industry. Does Eric realize that what people think about their looks affects their confidence, in turn their emotional faculties?
I was really surprised to see such a piece published in Edge - which aims for a third culture, an integration of scientific and literary intellectuals. I have no idea of Eric Fischl's accomplishments as a painter/sculptor. But this piece shouldn't stand beside Dawkins' and Dennett's.
Ah, Death, you son of a bitch. You and your brothers, Disease and Aging, have tormented us since we became aware of Time. And we have worked like crazy trying to develop ways of extending Time so as to hold off the inevitable.By likening the human body to a collection of cells Eric Fisch states that we have lost, or rapidly losing, our emotional and psychological faculties. We don't empathize anymore, he's afraid. I agree with him that the human body is a biological machine and the clock starts ticking the moment an egg is fertilized. But scientific advancements in the field of medicine have not merely delayed death but reduced suffering, prevented diseases thereby improving the quality of life. Technology has not only extended our stay, but made it more enjoyable.
..scientific advancements focus on rapid repair of malfunctioning parts...
Lower forms of this techno-wish are what fuel the beauty industry.
If the body can be made better by robotics will it enhance our ability to experience empathy?
We fetish-ize the idea of systemic and technological developments geared towards dealing with the problems of fixing our bodies but have only managed to obscure the emotional and psychological underpinnings.
I think of our emotional and our physical capabilities as somewhat mutually exclusive. Fixing the body has definitely not killed our ability to enjoy the sunshine, appreciate a movie, hate a pedophile... if someone were capable of these to begin with, when they step out of a hospital in a better physical condition, they should still be capable. Eric's ultimate accusation is that technology has made robots out of humans, which I think is baseless. You think of a kiss as a collision of lips and an exchange of saliva? Are love and hatred just electrochemical reactions inside the brain? Did you say that that girl acting crazy is just responding to hormonal changes?
Eric's thought that we should embrace disease, aging and death without any resistance is nonsense. Death is inevitable, but why is that we move away from a speeding car? His aversion towards the beauty industry (propped up by medical technology) is in logical progression. I don't know if he has only boob jobs in mind or also the 10-year old boy who suffered a third-degree burn and needs skin transplantation requiring the services of beauty industry. Does Eric realize that what people think about their looks affects their confidence, in turn their emotional faculties?
I was really surprised to see such a piece published in Edge - which aims for a third culture, an integration of scientific and literary intellectuals. I have no idea of Eric Fischl's accomplishments as a painter/sculptor. But this piece shouldn't stand beside Dawkins' and Dennett's.
Wired & Slate
Slate, one of the few entertaining and informative online magazines ran a piece on the best way to break your leg. This is after the news item where a Chilean smuggler fractured his tibia, fitted a cast made of cocaine and tried to get past the security. (Of course, he was stopped by the Barcelona airport officials). Though totally useless to most of the readers, I appreciate Slate's editor in getting this article written as an answer to those who go "How in the hell did he break his leg?" and then move on to browse/surf other tidbits without bothering to spend a few moments on that question.
There are so many questions, right after watching the CNN (What are mortgage backed securities? What's currency manipulation? Who is Keynes?) And there are answers on the web if a topic is perceived to be important. But there isn't much material online for questions that linger after watching Jay Leno. Funny & weird news items aren't taken seriously enough by the mainstream media. Slate & Wired are two among the handful of portals that are attentive to such marginalized audience who enjoy short, clear and easy to read articles on current affairs and culture.
There are so many questions, right after watching the CNN (What are mortgage backed securities? What's currency manipulation? Who is Keynes?) And there are answers on the web if a topic is perceived to be important. But there isn't much material online for questions that linger after watching Jay Leno. Funny & weird news items aren't taken seriously enough by the mainstream media. Slate & Wired are two among the handful of portals that are attentive to such marginalized audience who enjoy short, clear and easy to read articles on current affairs and culture.
Stupid Speakers
I tried resisting posting this very much, after all this would be my third straight entry about movies after I closed ScreenArt. But I have to say it - I've been watching a felicitation ceremony for A.R.Rahman for his Oscars by south Indian cinema musicians. I've seen so far about 20 celebrities praise him - and what a load of crap comes out when they open their mouths. It really can't be that hard, to say something commonsensical, coherent. But no, these stupids are in a freaking competition where they outwit each other for the most boringly idiotic speech. That's everyone from Deva to Ilayaraja.
And the Oscar Doesn't Go To..
A piece in the 'Economist' concludes:
Oscar was once Hollywood's prom night. It still is, in terms of glitz and glamor, but in terms of recognition the members of the academy have opened up and started accepting range. Cannes & Berlin have a different style of scouting films where they go hunting all over the world. Oscars, though still mostly American, many nominations in the recent years have belogned to low-budget no-names in the eye of an international viewer. That's a welcome departure because the prestige & acclaim that comes with Oscar is more valuable than hard currency and that is what keeps the art of moving pictures moving.
*
A.R.Rahman, the wonderboy from Chennai won Oscars for original score & song. A couple of weeks back I was listening to 'Uzhavan', one of his earlier soundtracks. The variety of this album borders on genius. 'Slumdog Millionaire' pales very much in comparison to 'Uzhavan'. So, I think it's fair to assume that if someone from Peru decides to dig up Rahman's earlier works, they're only going to be more impressed. Baradwaj Rangan wrote a piece a few weeks back explaining how the interconnected world has shrunk the cultural gap and increased the base of audience for Rahman's music. That's definitely one of the reasons why Rahman was picked up by Andrew Lloyd Weber in London and why M.S.V or Ilayaraja wasn't popular even in North India. Though Ilayaraja's music is closest to my heart, I'm very proud of Rahman's contribution to international music.
Within Hollywood, of course, the Academy Awards still matter a great deal. Prestige and acclaim are hard currency in the film business, in many ways more valuable than money. The danger is that Hollywood’s taste in its own products is becoming as removed from public opinion as its political views are outside the American mainstream. What viewers will see on Sunday night is an industry talking to itself.But James Patterson doesn't need to win a Pulitzer. He shouldn't even be considered for a Pulitzer because it would be defeating the whole purpose. His purpose is to make money. The purpose of the academy is to identify and honor artistes who made a worthy contribution. The giant financial machine that Hollywood is, it may not have been wise for it to exclude 'The Dark Knight', a giga-blockbuster and include 'Milk', an anemic-moneyspinner in the best picture category. But where else will the producers of 'Milk' be commended for telling the story of a forgotten man? How else can they pat on their backs for embarking on a project that didn't have a viable revenue generating star/story? How else are Melissa Leo & Richard Jenkins (who were nominated in the top acting categories) going to be recognized for their brilliant performances in minor productions that didn't play in theaters near you.
Oscar was once Hollywood's prom night. It still is, in terms of glitz and glamor, but in terms of recognition the members of the academy have opened up and started accepting range. Cannes & Berlin have a different style of scouting films where they go hunting all over the world. Oscars, though still mostly American, many nominations in the recent years have belogned to low-budget no-names in the eye of an international viewer. That's a welcome departure because the prestige & acclaim that comes with Oscar is more valuable than hard currency and that is what keeps the art of moving pictures moving.
*
A.R.Rahman, the wonderboy from Chennai won Oscars for original score & song. A couple of weeks back I was listening to 'Uzhavan', one of his earlier soundtracks. The variety of this album borders on genius. 'Slumdog Millionaire' pales very much in comparison to 'Uzhavan'. So, I think it's fair to assume that if someone from Peru decides to dig up Rahman's earlier works, they're only going to be more impressed. Baradwaj Rangan wrote a piece a few weeks back explaining how the interconnected world has shrunk the cultural gap and increased the base of audience for Rahman's music. That's definitely one of the reasons why Rahman was picked up by Andrew Lloyd Weber in London and why M.S.V or Ilayaraja wasn't popular even in North India. Though Ilayaraja's music is closest to my heart, I'm very proud of Rahman's contribution to international music.
Oscar Live Tweets
- Hugh Jackman did an amazingly fluid opening sequence. He'll be setting a new benchmark in hosting, I hope.
- Slumdog opens its account with an Oscar for adapted screenplay. I'm afraid this undeserving movie is going to sweep the top categories.
- I'm hoping to witness at least one interesting Oscar speech. Three speeches so far, and all have been flat.
- Wall-E wins best animation. I thought the animation (the Earth part) was extraordinarily brilliant. But I found the screenplay sugary-preachy.
- Production Design goes to Benjamin Button. The streets and cars and street lights and beer bottles looked authentic in this movie. The movie didn't have a heart, but had a great body.
- Make-up to Benjamin Button. Really, I didn't know what was computer generated and what was prosthetic. I think this movie will score a lot more in the technical achievements section.
- Oh boy, doesn't anybody have anything interesting to say upon accepting the trophy.
- Wally Pfister didn't get it for his cinematography for 'Dark Knight'. I thought the sweeping epic tone was very much imparted by his magnificent eye. I don't know if I'm sad that he didn't get the Oscar for his work or Mantle won for Slumdog.
- The 4 living actors nominated for a best supporting actor are unlucky - the members of the academy just wanted to see Heath Ledger's family on stage as their thank you note before they forget. Ledger was chillingly brilliant in 'Dark Knight'. But did you see 'Tropic Thunder'? You'll understand why Robert Downey Jr is a magnificent actor. Any other year, hands down, he would have won.
- Bill Maher, my favorite observational comedian, presented the best documentary. But he went on a shameless self-promotion of his own documentary 'Religulous'. 'Man of Wire', a documentary about a man who walked between the two towers in the 70s won in this category. It had a great buzz even before it was nominated. And it's on Netflix Instant Play.
- Rahman wins. Wow, I still vividly remember being blown away by his 'Vellai Mazhai'. Though his score for 'Slumdog Millionaire' is not his best this is a long overdue recognition.
- Rahman wins again for 'Jai Ho'. He caught the eyeballs of film producers all over the world tonight. I wish he had hired a speech writer. Both speeches were a bit clumsy.
- Two talented actors take the top acting prizes - Kate Winslet for 'Reader' and Sean Penn for 'Milk'. Kate Winslet said 'I can't believe we're competing with Meryl Streep' - well, Kate is very nicely maturing into the next Meryl in terms of depth & range.
- Best picture, anybody's guess. What can I say, these are economically bad times and the members of the academy just love to see an underdog win a million.
Amazon, You Know It's the Content, Not the Device
When there is a business tie-up between the content provider and the device manufacturer for using that content, the price of the device has almost always been very inexpensive to lure in new customers. The price of iPods have steadily fallen because Apple makes money out of songs. Cell phones are inexpensive with service packages because of money/minute. Amazon has a deal with almost all the leading publishers, and almost every new book (which I assume is a major revenue generator) published will/should have an electronic version transferable through Kindle. In that case why price the reading device as high as $359?
Are they waiting for Kindle's usability to evolve? Are they waiting for the market for e-books to mature? We're in a recession now, didn't you know? People don't mind shelling out $10 for a Grisham e-novel. And they won't mind another $10 the following month for their favorite painter's e-biography. But they mind a lot paying $359 upfront for an e-reader - which in effect turns away the subsequent cash influx because of the sales of Kindle editions. The recent version, Kindle 2 offers more value (more memory, smaller size, etc) for the same price. For me, lesser price and same value would have made more economic sense. This would be taking a leaf from the success of Netbooks - a computer with lesser memory & lesser processing power at a lower price.
I think Amazon has manufactured only a limited number of Kindles so that it can collect extensive feedback and incorporate them into their next version. This way, a lot of users stand in queue and there are only a few disgruntled users. The electronic publishing industry is still an infant. The publish-on-demand and publish-yourself style services have greatly reduced inventory, thereby only printing copies that has a buyer. As the older generation which held newspapers in the mornings and flipped pages go away, Kindle and its competitors will become the default standard of reading. Reducing the price, say, to $100 and going for an early kill will disrupt the existing publishing model. Either that or Amazon needs to be kicked in the butt by somebody already in the content business - Apple or Microsoft or Sony.
Are they waiting for Kindle's usability to evolve? Are they waiting for the market for e-books to mature? We're in a recession now, didn't you know? People don't mind shelling out $10 for a Grisham e-novel. And they won't mind another $10 the following month for their favorite painter's e-biography. But they mind a lot paying $359 upfront for an e-reader - which in effect turns away the subsequent cash influx because of the sales of Kindle editions. The recent version, Kindle 2 offers more value (more memory, smaller size, etc) for the same price. For me, lesser price and same value would have made more economic sense. This would be taking a leaf from the success of Netbooks - a computer with lesser memory & lesser processing power at a lower price.
I think Amazon has manufactured only a limited number of Kindles so that it can collect extensive feedback and incorporate them into their next version. This way, a lot of users stand in queue and there are only a few disgruntled users. The electronic publishing industry is still an infant. The publish-on-demand and publish-yourself style services have greatly reduced inventory, thereby only printing copies that has a buyer. As the older generation which held newspapers in the mornings and flipped pages go away, Kindle and its competitors will become the default standard of reading. Reducing the price, say, to $100 and going for an early kill will disrupt the existing publishing model. Either that or Amazon needs to be kicked in the butt by somebody already in the content business - Apple or Microsoft or Sony.
The Gazprom Episode
Russia's oil & gas resources not only fills their coffers with money but also adds muscle when it comes to political negotiations. On January 1, the Russian state-run gas company Gazprom closed their pipes that supplies 25% of gas to most of the European countries. This is their argument: The pipes run through Ukraine to other countries. Ukraine has been stealing gas. And going forward they'll have to pay the market value which is $430/cum from their current subsidized $180/cum. This decision comes in the middle of a chilly winter and most of the eastern European nations that heavily depend on this supply to heat their homes, not to mention some of the industries.
Except for island nations, most of the countries today have political issues with their neighbors because of contiguous borders. And there are evergreen discussions to solve them without affecting the daily routine. Responsible nations don't react as sharply as Russia did to seriously undermine the daily affairs of so many dependent countries. One of the reasons is because of the free fall in the price of oil: from $144/barrel in July' 08 to $43 today. Such drops have left Russian foregin reserves in bad shape and Putin is trying to make it up by flexing his negotiating muscle through Gazprom. The other reason is that this cut-off could serve as a warning message to Ukraine for seeking NATO membership. Russia has expressed displeasure at having too many NATO members close to its western border. (Since politically powerful European players like Germany and France too depend on Russian supplies, they turn a blind eye to Ukraine's request for NATO entry.)
Russia is not entirely unjustified in its demand: it has been buying gas from Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan and they have increased their prices. There's also demand for energy from China which contributes to a spike. But cutting off the supply doesn't only grind the gears to a halt, it also has a lot of socio-economic repercussions. Bulgaria, which heavily relies on Russian supply, has about 20 days of energy resources and their economy could cripple if the gas pipes remain locked. Industries are halting production in Hungary and Romania. Many households are bracing to face harsh winter without heat. Although the dependent countries could call Russia & Ukraine 'irresponsible & uncivilized', they also feel the political power of Russia and the effects of antagonizing it.
Twenty years since the end of cold war the west & Russia have only warily shaken hands and have tried to gain geopolitical allies next to their cold enemies. While a bunch of ex-Soviet breakaway countries are now in NATO, Russia signs a multibillion dollar military deal with Venezuela (the largest non-Arab oil supplier). While US bullies by means of shadow confrontation (mostly economic sanctions), Russia bullies like a bully. While Russia is home to a huge number of billionaires and while Moscow is touted as the most expensive place on the planet, the gap between the rich & poor is dizzyingly high. The oil price drop in the eighties is attributed as one of the reasons for the downfall of the Soviet regime. While hard-negotiations like the Gazprom seal may turn out to be in favor of Russia in the short term, it has to understand that it isn't making any friends. Call me idiotically optmistic, I believe we're going to see some viable alternative fuel technologies in 10 years from now and its not coming from Russia. And when the market frenetically switches to them the energy giants are going to find themselves neither with friends nor with any clout.
Except for island nations, most of the countries today have political issues with their neighbors because of contiguous borders. And there are evergreen discussions to solve them without affecting the daily routine. Responsible nations don't react as sharply as Russia did to seriously undermine the daily affairs of so many dependent countries. One of the reasons is because of the free fall in the price of oil: from $144/barrel in July' 08 to $43 today. Such drops have left Russian foregin reserves in bad shape and Putin is trying to make it up by flexing his negotiating muscle through Gazprom. The other reason is that this cut-off could serve as a warning message to Ukraine for seeking NATO membership. Russia has expressed displeasure at having too many NATO members close to its western border. (Since politically powerful European players like Germany and France too depend on Russian supplies, they turn a blind eye to Ukraine's request for NATO entry.)
Russia is not entirely unjustified in its demand: it has been buying gas from Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan and they have increased their prices. There's also demand for energy from China which contributes to a spike. But cutting off the supply doesn't only grind the gears to a halt, it also has a lot of socio-economic repercussions. Bulgaria, which heavily relies on Russian supply, has about 20 days of energy resources and their economy could cripple if the gas pipes remain locked. Industries are halting production in Hungary and Romania. Many households are bracing to face harsh winter without heat. Although the dependent countries could call Russia & Ukraine 'irresponsible & uncivilized', they also feel the political power of Russia and the effects of antagonizing it.
Twenty years since the end of cold war the west & Russia have only warily shaken hands and have tried to gain geopolitical allies next to their cold enemies. While a bunch of ex-Soviet breakaway countries are now in NATO, Russia signs a multibillion dollar military deal with Venezuela (the largest non-Arab oil supplier). While US bullies by means of shadow confrontation (mostly economic sanctions), Russia bullies like a bully. While Russia is home to a huge number of billionaires and while Moscow is touted as the most expensive place on the planet, the gap between the rich & poor is dizzyingly high. The oil price drop in the eighties is attributed as one of the reasons for the downfall of the Soviet regime. While hard-negotiations like the Gazprom seal may turn out to be in favor of Russia in the short term, it has to understand that it isn't making any friends. Call me idiotically optmistic, I believe we're going to see some viable alternative fuel technologies in 10 years from now and its not coming from Russia. And when the market frenetically switches to them the energy giants are going to find themselves neither with friends nor with any clout.
Economic Peace
Charles Krauthammer writes for the Post:
Hamas has always been more interested in the destruction of Israel than the construction of Palestine. Well, I'm not even sure if Hamas leaders ever discussed anything about roads, bridges, schools, colleges, hospitals, doctors, social welfare or even a freaking decent TV show. Hamas has done very poorly as a democratically elected party to address the basic necessities of an average person. Most of the money poured in for development has been well spent on buying rockets and digging tunnels to smuggle those rockets. But there weren't any mass rallies protesting the incompetence & corruption of the management like the ones over offensive Danish cartoons. When Israel's foreign minister says they'll retaliate (not instigate), a Hamas leader responds that they'll continue their attacks - which is only going to result in a strong retaliation, which will result in more deaths, which will provide a strong political capital for Hamas leadership to seek sympathy votes among middle-east.
The stated problem revolves around territorial integrity and religion. One can only achieve ceasefire, not peace in the region when the leaders talk at Camp David. You can call it an accord or a treaty, but in a practical sense it's only an extended ceasefire until someone loosens their grip - and in most cases it will be from a Palestinian territory. I believe lasting peace can only be achieved when there is considerable economic growth. The poverty level is crushing, the unemployment rate is unbelievably high and the leaders incite the youth in terms of nationalism, religion and Israeli oppression. That's why young men line up for the suicide bomber squad. If they all had a decent job and were able to feed their families and had a sense of reasonable financial safety that they wouldn't be broke the next day or week or month, their quest for their homeland and eviction of Israelis would only be of theoretical interest - something that's discussed in tea shops and when they get home they'll worry about how to get their kids to colleges.
Geographically extrapolating, the middle-east cannot for long run their show: drill oil, sell oil, subsidize everything and live happily ever after. They have to look at Turkey which wants to be a modern state morphing itself to align with EU. They they have to look at Dubai and start inviting investors and create a conducive environment for real growth. They have to fund state-sponsored schools better than madrasas. They have to include women in building the society. Unless there's a fundamental change in the way Hamas top brass thinks, not of military leadership but of economic leadership, there's going to be conflict around the corner. I'm extremely saddened when I look at the hospitals in Gaza. The death of 530+ which includes a lot of women and children does seem like a disproportional response. But if one of those killed children would have later become a suicide-bomber, I would say Israel proceeded in the right direction.
For Hamas, the only thing more prized than dead Jews are dead Palestinians.Charles explodes the car bomb at the center of the market (well, my context-equivalent of 'hitting the nail on the head'). Hamas spreads their ammunition and military leaders very well among civilians that it becomes hard for Israelis to isolate and target them. The inevitable civilian casualty is used as a political brownie for the Hamas leaders to send a message to nearby Islamic capitals. In fact, the bigger the number, the better it is for Hamas to paint their horror picture. While the editors of a Pakistani daily write '...amply demonstrate the Jewish state’s unending thirst for Palestinian blood' they make no mention of the 2000+ rocket launches aimed at Israeli civilians in the past two years. While young men from Iran are willing to be suicide bombers to teach the Jewish state a lesson and their leaders funnel arms into Gaza, did any of Hamas' Arab neighbors worry about building the place... building as how it happens in actual development.
Hamas has always been more interested in the destruction of Israel than the construction of Palestine. Well, I'm not even sure if Hamas leaders ever discussed anything about roads, bridges, schools, colleges, hospitals, doctors, social welfare or even a freaking decent TV show. Hamas has done very poorly as a democratically elected party to address the basic necessities of an average person. Most of the money poured in for development has been well spent on buying rockets and digging tunnels to smuggle those rockets. But there weren't any mass rallies protesting the incompetence & corruption of the management like the ones over offensive Danish cartoons. When Israel's foreign minister says they'll retaliate (not instigate), a Hamas leader responds that they'll continue their attacks - which is only going to result in a strong retaliation, which will result in more deaths, which will provide a strong political capital for Hamas leadership to seek sympathy votes among middle-east.
The stated problem revolves around territorial integrity and religion. One can only achieve ceasefire, not peace in the region when the leaders talk at Camp David. You can call it an accord or a treaty, but in a practical sense it's only an extended ceasefire until someone loosens their grip - and in most cases it will be from a Palestinian territory. I believe lasting peace can only be achieved when there is considerable economic growth. The poverty level is crushing, the unemployment rate is unbelievably high and the leaders incite the youth in terms of nationalism, religion and Israeli oppression. That's why young men line up for the suicide bomber squad. If they all had a decent job and were able to feed their families and had a sense of reasonable financial safety that they wouldn't be broke the next day or week or month, their quest for their homeland and eviction of Israelis would only be of theoretical interest - something that's discussed in tea shops and when they get home they'll worry about how to get their kids to colleges.
Geographically extrapolating, the middle-east cannot for long run their show: drill oil, sell oil, subsidize everything and live happily ever after. They have to look at Turkey which wants to be a modern state morphing itself to align with EU. They they have to look at Dubai and start inviting investors and create a conducive environment for real growth. They have to fund state-sponsored schools better than madrasas. They have to include women in building the society. Unless there's a fundamental change in the way Hamas top brass thinks, not of military leadership but of economic leadership, there's going to be conflict around the corner. I'm extremely saddened when I look at the hospitals in Gaza. The death of 530+ which includes a lot of women and children does seem like a disproportional response. But if one of those killed children would have later become a suicide-bomber, I would say Israel proceeded in the right direction.
WTF?
I rarely get offensive. I'm the kind of guy who'd go to all lengths to avoid a confrontation. You have a different viewpoint, let me hear about it; a different faith, fine; you're a gay, enjoy; you're pro-abortion, you're anti-abortion, well I'm pro-choice. But when ignorance is perpetuated as wisdom, it bothers me.
A girl born with two faces (Craniofacial Duplication) is worshiped as a reincarnation of a godess. We already have too many gods, godesses, saints and satans running around. Get a life, guys!
A girl born with two faces (Craniofacial Duplication) is worshiped as a reincarnation of a godess. We already have too many gods, godesses, saints and satans running around. Get a life, guys!
Walking on the Chesil Beach
The process of falling in love is, to use a cliche, beautiful & tender. And to get those authentic feelings in words, another cliche, next to impossible. Ian McEwan's On the Chesil Beach is a beautiful and tender work accomplishing a near impossible task of capturing the thought processes of a young couple. Just before the seventies which indulged the young men & women into sexual liberation, was the sixties where courtship was marked by formalities. It was commonplace for English men and women to remain virgins on the first night of their marriage, which precisely is the central scene of novel. Though sex is the crux, the themes McEwan touches are more mature and universal.
Florence 22, is an ambitious violinist; Edward 23, is close to clueless about his career. Her poise belongs to upper class; he has gotten into street fights. She's rich and he's not. But their diversities dissolve completely in their admiration for each other. She listens to rock'n roll because he brought it to her and let's him touch her so that he'll be happy. But the kind of touch she enjoys the most is arm-in-arm walk down the park or hugging and cuddling in the bed - all fully clothed. She's terrified at the very idea of sex, as if a foreign missile directed at her private space. Edward, like most of the men his age is extremely excited at the very prospect of charting into virgin territories. This clash of bedroom interests leads to moments of youthful foolishness that defines their life.
These are the opening lines: They were young, educated, and both virgins on this, their wedding night, and they lived in a time when a conversation about sexual difficulties was plainly impossible. But it is never easy. You couldn't blame the lady, for how could she openly discuss her sexual preferences (not inadequacies) with a man who has monstrous expectations on that night. And no point blaming the gentleman - his age and the weighty occasion put him on a high-speed lane. Where he merely suffered conventional first-night nerves, she experienced a visceral dread, a helpless disgust as palpable as seasickness. He desperately tries to control his emotions which want him to explode while she bravely wears a happy-face mask in order to accommodate him.
Like in 'Atonement', there's a defining moment in this plot which places their lives on a forked road. Saying something stupid, or not saying anything at all might alter the course of lives. It's not enough to love; sometimes patience with love is what keeps us sane, is what holds a marriage together, is what keeps the family wheel spinning, McEwan reminds us. As soon as I finished the novel, I hugged my wife and said "You know I love you and.... just bear with me".
Florence 22, is an ambitious violinist; Edward 23, is close to clueless about his career. Her poise belongs to upper class; he has gotten into street fights. She's rich and he's not. But their diversities dissolve completely in their admiration for each other. She listens to rock'n roll because he brought it to her and let's him touch her so that he'll be happy. But the kind of touch she enjoys the most is arm-in-arm walk down the park or hugging and cuddling in the bed - all fully clothed. She's terrified at the very idea of sex, as if a foreign missile directed at her private space. Edward, like most of the men his age is extremely excited at the very prospect of charting into virgin territories. This clash of bedroom interests leads to moments of youthful foolishness that defines their life.
These are the opening lines: They were young, educated, and both virgins on this, their wedding night, and they lived in a time when a conversation about sexual difficulties was plainly impossible. But it is never easy. You couldn't blame the lady, for how could she openly discuss her sexual preferences (not inadequacies) with a man who has monstrous expectations on that night. And no point blaming the gentleman - his age and the weighty occasion put him on a high-speed lane. Where he merely suffered conventional first-night nerves, she experienced a visceral dread, a helpless disgust as palpable as seasickness. He desperately tries to control his emotions which want him to explode while she bravely wears a happy-face mask in order to accommodate him.
Like in 'Atonement', there's a defining moment in this plot which places their lives on a forked road. Saying something stupid, or not saying anything at all might alter the course of lives. It's not enough to love; sometimes patience with love is what keeps us sane, is what holds a marriage together, is what keeps the family wheel spinning, McEwan reminds us. As soon as I finished the novel, I hugged my wife and said "You know I love you and.... just bear with me".
Resurrection of the Art
I know that most of the regulars (5, well, may be 6 readers including my family of 4) are here because of my movie-blog ScreenArt. I didn't find myself very passionate about writing for movies and had to cut down on directing my writing skills there. Not anymore. I'm back with a small piece, and plan to chop off a formal tone that I had maintained over there. I plan to write in a more conversational tone and worry less about the completeness of the post. They won't be reviews, just a collection of my thoughts about the movie presented as a coherent piece. Let's see how well this goes!
Technology.Is.Cool
The objective of the video game is to direct any crudely drawn closed figure that you draw to a crudely drawn star on the screen. But forget the objective - just observe your entities perfectly obey the laws of physics on the screen roads you've carved. May not be useful. But an enjoyable way to waste time.
Here's a demo that you can try.
Elite Prostitution & the Art of Listening
In a very good article on prostitution in NYC and other global cities, Sudhir Venkatesh writes:
Thinking about it seriously, I think these men treat these women not as sex workers but as a tool to relieve their stress. I guess it makes a man in his 40s or 50s feel good (say a top executive in a Manhattan office) to have a young beautiful woman listen to what he has to say with fake compassion. He would very well know that the woman might be least interested in the topic he brings to the table; but the point is that he carries home an image of a good looking girl who has also been a good listener which makes him feel good. Now, for someone who makes top dollars, that's better than sex.
What high-end clients pay for may surprise you. For example, according to my ongoing interviews of several hundred sex workers, approximately 40 percent of trades in New York's sex economy fail to include a physical act beyond light petting or kissing. No intercourse, no oral stimulation, etc. That's one helluva conversation. But it's what many clients want. Flush with cash, these elite men routinely turn their prostitute into a second partner or spouse. Over the course of a year, they will sometimes persuade the woman to take on a new identity, replete with a fake name, a fake job, a fake life history, and so on. They may want to have sex or they may simply want to be treated like King for a Day.The writer quotes figures north of $10K a month for these sex workers. And it's not for flesh but to listen to what the guy has to say. I guess the terribly busy workforce womenfolk in the cities don't have as much time or patience or willingness or tolerance or empathy or a combination of these to listen to what their husband has to say when they hit the bed. Now, isn't it usually an accusation on men that they never listen?
Thinking about it seriously, I think these men treat these women not as sex workers but as a tool to relieve their stress. I guess it makes a man in his 40s or 50s feel good (say a top executive in a Manhattan office) to have a young beautiful woman listen to what he has to say with fake compassion. He would very well know that the woman might be least interested in the topic he brings to the table; but the point is that he carries home an image of a good looking girl who has also been a good listener which makes him feel good. Now, for someone who makes top dollars, that's better than sex.
Political Activism
Why is there not an age for retirement from politics? Hunger for power is something I can understand when someone is in his/her 40s or 50s. When one steps into 60s, he/she can't just keep up with the pace at which events happen in the world. Brain being just another biological machine, cannot process information into knowledge & that knowledge into wisdom effectively when its been around for 60 years. And not being abreast with the developments - not just politically, but economically, technologically & socially, the best public service a leader can perform is to retire and let the relatively younger folks take over.Experience is of no use after a threshold. In fact, too much experience in politics is detrimental as one loses the vision to steer the statre. Jyoti Basu (W Bengal), Karunanidhi (TN), Karunakaran (Kerala), Fidel Castro (Cuba), Suharto (Indonesia).... This is not to say that they did/doing a bad job in their old age; but a sad realization that things could have been better if only someone else had been at the helm. As mentioned earlier, when one needs an assistant to help him stand up (literally) it's quite difficult to understand their love for a chair.
That funny & sad cartoon was published in the Time magazine when Fidel handed over the reins to his brother Raul Castro, 76.
Potlatch Effect
Potlatch is a festival among the natives of the Pacific Northwest where a family or an individual establishes or exhibits his supreme status over his neighbors by throwing away his valuables. Though the wealth is shared in some rare cases, in most of the cases Potlatch was marked by burning material. Now, the basic idea should be something like this: I can continue to live (comfortably?) even without these items which are considered essential in the society. Sounds very stupid right?
But this effect continues to exist in other forms in almost all the cultures. Status symbols linked with waste of resources is quite common. Most of the Indian marriages can be labeled a distant cousin of Potlatch. All that needless extravaganza just for the visitors to go gaga! What's worse is that such events continue to raise the bar; money down the drain marriages are seen as benchmarks which the future event organizers will try to match or surpass. Consider tipping at restaurants - I don't have a problem with the waiters making some extra money. But the idea of showing off one's wealth by over-the-top tipping sets the snowball rolling and effectively raises the average because of peer pressure. In a manner of speaking, sometimes some people spending inline with their income can up the ante for those a rung or two below in the economic ladder who are bent on playing a cat & mouse game to catch up - only in the means of spending, but not in income generation. Modern day Potlatch is very vibrant. It almost makes someone frugal like me seem unfit to be a social animal.
But this effect continues to exist in other forms in almost all the cultures. Status symbols linked with waste of resources is quite common. Most of the Indian marriages can be labeled a distant cousin of Potlatch. All that needless extravaganza just for the visitors to go gaga! What's worse is that such events continue to raise the bar; money down the drain marriages are seen as benchmarks which the future event organizers will try to match or surpass. Consider tipping at restaurants - I don't have a problem with the waiters making some extra money. But the idea of showing off one's wealth by over-the-top tipping sets the snowball rolling and effectively raises the average because of peer pressure. In a manner of speaking, sometimes some people spending inline with their income can up the ante for those a rung or two below in the economic ladder who are bent on playing a cat & mouse game to catch up - only in the means of spending, but not in income generation. Modern day Potlatch is very vibrant. It almost makes someone frugal like me seem unfit to be a social animal.
Oh... the choices
Barry Schwartz, a professor of Social Theory talks about the perils of too many choices in affluent western societies in this TED talk. His focal points are that when people are presented with too many choices, they either
- get confused and procrastinate decision-making
- make a hasty choice and repent for not making the perfect choice
- feel dissatisfied with even the best of choices for not meeting their expectations
Barry is of the opinion that when the buyers don't get their choice right, they repent and brood. This scenario doesn't occur when there are only a few, or even better just one choice (in which case, there's no choice at all). It's true that people are unhappy if their selection turns out to be less than what they had in mind. But isn't that how one sharpens their decision making abilities? If there were only one cellphone available in the market, you wouldn't bother to look into its configurations. Just because there are so many brands with varying degrees of features, the user takes the pain of educating himself about all the features, assesses if he needs them and then makes an informed decision. There's still a chance that he may brood, but at least he learns from the experience, owns up responsibility for his decision and in the process becomes a shrewd decision-maker.
The third point doesn't have much to do with the number of options available rather than the personality we're talking about. If one is not satisfied with, say the top of the line Bose stereo system, may be he should just wait for the field of acoustics to get better or sponsor a sound research institute. A negligible chunk of the demographics will always be unhappy because of their ridiculous expectations. They're only a minuscule and the market hadn't cared for them.
Update: Barry is correct when he says that multiple options lead to a little bit of confusion and/or hesitation. But he clearly blames the market and exaggerates the multitude of choices instead of researching how people can and should decide from the pool of options.
Fashionophobia
Jessa Crispin on fashion guides:
Instead of alleviating our body fears, however, so many books advising what to wear do nothing but exaggerate them. The entire structure of Trinny Woodall and Susannah Constantine’s book 'What Not to Wear' is built to help you define your particular version of body dysmorphic disorder. Do you think you have short legs? A big butt? Big arms? There’s a chapter telling you how to dress around each perceived flaw. It’s hard to walk out the door feeling hot and feisty when your entire dressing process has been focused on your main source of anxiety. If I tried to dress to hide all the parts of my body I have ever been self-conscious about, the only thing left to wear would be a hazmat suit.That's bang on target. Any trend that sets in, should at the least be comfortable. If a dress or a decoration comes into vogue inspite of its lack of comfort, the chances are good that it won't sustain. As pointed out by the writer, any guide that provides a fancy work around to hide what you think is your weakest or ugliest organ just feeds to your anxiety. There's nothing wrong in trying to present yourself beautifully; but it shouldn't come at the cost accepting your body as it is.
Tom Evslin writes on failure:
set only low goals; then you’ll fail even if you meet them.Brevity is beauty.
Gender Equality
Amit Varma writes:
... more divorces = less women trapped in bad marriages. An increasing divorce rate indicates that women are being empowered with more choices...But Amit is biased: the increasing divorce rate also frees men trapped in bad marriages who would otherwise have silently put up because of a pseudo moral obligation to hang on to a financially incapable woman. The society would mercilessly foul-mouth an earning man divorcing his home-maker wife even if she's the reason for ruining the marriage. But I believe such cases have always been in the minority and mostly its been men wearing the pants.
Poor Dear
Sharjah has enforced dress code for mannequins. Great. The next logical step would be to allow only men to touch men mannequins & women near women mannequins. And then the minimum distance between those two mannequins. And then the beautiful world of mannequins would be compliant.
Grand Engineering Challenges
Some of the top brains got together to list the top engineering challenges of the 21st century. Most of the challenges are abstract, a view from 50,000 feet without fleshing out any concrete action plans. Here is what they came up with:
Number 14 piques my curiosity. I have some ideas about what the panel may mean when they say 'engineer the tools for scientific discovery'. They aren't talking about scientific inventions, but scientific discoveries which could range from anything between understanding the genetic make up of human species to unearthing fossils or lost civilizations. Scientific discovery in the field of medicine can enable better living standards and in other fields like archeology or paleontology can offer valuable insights about how the earth came to be what it is today and where it may be headed. But this is something only the rich countries can afford to do while the rest are busy either catching up (like India & China) or go down (central African countries).
Number 11 is a no brainer. By the end of the century computers/internet would have radically transformed the way people live. They would have taken new shapes, forms, acquired immense power, would have great reach and will play a vital role in how the economic engine of countries works. Within my lifetime, I'll probably have my preferences set in a repository which will contain data about how hot my bathing water should be, my video rentals, my cuisine choices, etc. When I check into a hotel, they'll have access to these information and will be able to provide personalized services. Now, with this kind of personal data on the internet, security is something that will strongly touch a common man.
- Make solar energy affordable.
- Provide energy from fusion.
- Develop carbon sequestration methods.
- Manage the nitrogen cycle.
- Provide access to clean water.
- Restore and improve urban infrastructure.
- Advance health informatics.
- Engineer better medicines.
- Reverse-engineer the brain.
- Prevent nuclear terror.
- Secure cyberspace.
- Enhance virtual reality.
- Advance personalized learning.
- Engineer the tools for scientific discovery.
Number 14 piques my curiosity. I have some ideas about what the panel may mean when they say 'engineer the tools for scientific discovery'. They aren't talking about scientific inventions, but scientific discoveries which could range from anything between understanding the genetic make up of human species to unearthing fossils or lost civilizations. Scientific discovery in the field of medicine can enable better living standards and in other fields like archeology or paleontology can offer valuable insights about how the earth came to be what it is today and where it may be headed. But this is something only the rich countries can afford to do while the rest are busy either catching up (like India & China) or go down (central African countries).
Number 11 is a no brainer. By the end of the century computers/internet would have radically transformed the way people live. They would have taken new shapes, forms, acquired immense power, would have great reach and will play a vital role in how the economic engine of countries works. Within my lifetime, I'll probably have my preferences set in a repository which will contain data about how hot my bathing water should be, my video rentals, my cuisine choices, etc. When I check into a hotel, they'll have access to these information and will be able to provide personalized services. Now, with this kind of personal data on the internet, security is something that will strongly touch a common man.
On Rape
In a bestial act, seven men raped a 12-year-old girl child in Kanpur, India. This happened in front of her younger siblings; after the act she was battered to death. A crime well accomplished, but a question lingers. Why? It's a open-ended question, with so many possibilities after that 'why' and before that '?' but that was all I managed to come up with. Again: why? It's a helpless cry; you cry because the event warrants an outburst and the cry is helpless because policemen, who were supposed to maintain the law & order were involved in the gang-rape.
Rapes happen all over the world. But such events can almost certainly never happen in the first world countries. It's the animal inside a man that pits him against a hapless tender female body. In a country like U.S.A, I'm sure that for seven men to have cornered a young girl, all of them need to be certified pedophiles working out a well coordinated plan to commit such a crime. Whereas in countries like India and other poor ones, these are normal guys walking the streets. They might have a history of harassment (lightly dismissed as eve teasing) but the police wouldn't bother to pursue, punish or prune such rogues, because they know the taste of female flesh themselves. I know I run the risk of generalization by blaming the entire police force. Mind you, Indian police is one of the 10 most corrupt police forces in the world. Had there been a survey on how they treat women, they would have been in the top 5. Which is why, on popular public demand, India has women-only police stations - such a shame.
Bloodthirsty hounds in human form, the rapists wouldn't even have a fetish for young girls. They rape because they can. That's how dark it can get in such societies. When they see a door open with a young girl in the absence of strong muscles, they jump on her. We have long tolerated a culture of physically over-powering men reminiscent of hunter-gatherers fighting over a piece of skin. And this toleration arises from a multitude of factors with the top 3 being: the offenders have political clout; they belong to the mafia; even worse, they are the police. For an average Indian middle/lower class to fight any of the three mentioned goons is a high stake game. You should be ready to forgo your life to bring them to the book. Since most of victims are aware of the emotional expenses involved in pursuing the criminals, they just put up with the event and get on with their lives.
How are we to prevent such incidents? Women empowerment? Minimize the segregation between men & women in closed cultures? A clean police force? More stringent punishments?.... There are many more bridges that will close the gap. But the primary driving force will be education. I know that I sound very text-bookish when I say education. I refer to education that produces an expanding mind that understands women's role in the progress of a society, a culturally open mind that doesn't fit womenfolk into roles which their grandmothers performed, a loving mind that addresses the need for women's freedom to express. Such a mind cannot be shaped by school education (though it will help to some extent). For a faster & efficient growth, men need to understand that societies need to be built with both hands.
Rapes happen all over the world. But such events can almost certainly never happen in the first world countries. It's the animal inside a man that pits him against a hapless tender female body. In a country like U.S.A, I'm sure that for seven men to have cornered a young girl, all of them need to be certified pedophiles working out a well coordinated plan to commit such a crime. Whereas in countries like India and other poor ones, these are normal guys walking the streets. They might have a history of harassment (lightly dismissed as eve teasing) but the police wouldn't bother to pursue, punish or prune such rogues, because they know the taste of female flesh themselves. I know I run the risk of generalization by blaming the entire police force. Mind you, Indian police is one of the 10 most corrupt police forces in the world. Had there been a survey on how they treat women, they would have been in the top 5. Which is why, on popular public demand, India has women-only police stations - such a shame.
Bloodthirsty hounds in human form, the rapists wouldn't even have a fetish for young girls. They rape because they can. That's how dark it can get in such societies. When they see a door open with a young girl in the absence of strong muscles, they jump on her. We have long tolerated a culture of physically over-powering men reminiscent of hunter-gatherers fighting over a piece of skin. And this toleration arises from a multitude of factors with the top 3 being: the offenders have political clout; they belong to the mafia; even worse, they are the police. For an average Indian middle/lower class to fight any of the three mentioned goons is a high stake game. You should be ready to forgo your life to bring them to the book. Since most of victims are aware of the emotional expenses involved in pursuing the criminals, they just put up with the event and get on with their lives.
How are we to prevent such incidents? Women empowerment? Minimize the segregation between men & women in closed cultures? A clean police force? More stringent punishments?.... There are many more bridges that will close the gap. But the primary driving force will be education. I know that I sound very text-bookish when I say education. I refer to education that produces an expanding mind that understands women's role in the progress of a society, a culturally open mind that doesn't fit womenfolk into roles which their grandmothers performed, a loving mind that addresses the need for women's freedom to express. Such a mind cannot be shaped by school education (though it will help to some extent). For a faster & efficient growth, men need to understand that societies need to be built with both hands.
Insomnia
By the time I hit the bed, she was in the middle of her journey. I slowly moved the hair strands at the back of her neck. Her weight has been oscillating for a while now, a constant flux around her tummy and cheeks. But her neck, which I remember how it was exactly since I met her, has remained the same size.
There are some events, which are of absolutely no significance that have stayed in my mind. I recall an evening when she was talking to our neighbour. Nothing special about the day: neither breezy nor sultry; nothing special about her appearance: neither flashy nor simple; nothing special about her mannerisms: neither forced nor natural. But then, I remember almost every movement she made then, from her shift in balance to hair adjustments, from her lazily elegant leaning on a wall to a semi-brisk walk, from her lullaby of a silence to her cascade-flow words. A happy life, I think is constituted by a collection of such undecorated but memorable, insignificant but worthwhile events.
There are some events, which are of absolutely no significance that have stayed in my mind. I recall an evening when she was talking to our neighbour. Nothing special about the day: neither breezy nor sultry; nothing special about her appearance: neither flashy nor simple; nothing special about her mannerisms: neither forced nor natural. But then, I remember almost every movement she made then, from her shift in balance to hair adjustments, from her lazily elegant leaning on a wall to a semi-brisk walk, from her lullaby of a silence to her cascade-flow words. A happy life, I think is constituted by a collection of such undecorated but memorable, insignificant but worthwhile events.
A Freudian Slip
My wife recently gave a presentation on the book 'Rise & Fall of the Third Chimpanzee' by Jared Diamond. Diamond would argue that if aliens were to figure out earthly animals' sexual fidelities, they would conclude that humans are mildly polygynous - because an average man is slightly taller and broader than a woman of that society. Though not a very convincing point, he would proceed the discussion as to how the species' mate-loyalty can be deduced by the size of the male versus female in that society.
In a slide that discusses this aspect, my wife typed 'Mindly Polygynous' instead of 'Mildly Polygynous' (which now stands corrected) and a friend promptly asked if it was a Freudian Slip and the whole crowd started giggling at me. Just a thought: when it's a man's fidelity that's discussed in a crowd in a somewhat conservative society, it can be treated as a joke; but I'm quite sure that had it been a woman's fidelity questioned in a similar society, the discussion would have assumed serious proportions. If you want to understand the paranoia associated with a woman's loyalty to her partner, read the book, or at least go through the slides which are fairly indicative.
In a slide that discusses this aspect, my wife typed 'Mindly Polygynous' instead of 'Mildly Polygynous' (which now stands corrected) and a friend promptly asked if it was a Freudian Slip and the whole crowd started giggling at me. Just a thought: when it's a man's fidelity that's discussed in a crowd in a somewhat conservative society, it can be treated as a joke; but I'm quite sure that had it been a woman's fidelity questioned in a similar society, the discussion would have assumed serious proportions. If you want to understand the paranoia associated with a woman's loyalty to her partner, read the book, or at least go through the slides which are fairly indicative.
Smoke Signals
Let me do a minor dissection of a piece from Wall Street Journal:
Yet tobacco tax revenues are more than 4,000 times greater than spending on tobacco control... The writer again glosses over and fails to provide concrete numbers through which an educated reader can gain some insights. How much does a country spend on tobacco control? In middle-income countries, which is where I guess India & China would comfortably fall under, the fund allocated to combat such public menaces would line the pockets of bureaucrats and only a ludicrous amount would come into the fore. What kinds of techniques are used to fight tobacco? Billboards, radio/TV advertisements, short films... Do the government officials actually care about these messages reaching its intended audince? I'm not surprised at all that the tax revenues paid by cigarette manufacturers are thousand-fold the budget to fight smoke. This is the only way how it could be and the way the writer puts it hardly shocks me.
Fighting tobacco, comparable to quitting drugs or alcohol, involves a good deal of will and strong encouragement & support from family. I also believe that the formative years between 13 and 21 will heavily decide the course of one's personal traits. As for the WSJ piece, there are a few numbers & names thrown here and there, but not much food for thought.
About 40% of countries still allow smoking in hospitals and schools, according to the WHO report. Additionally, only 5% of the world's population lives in countries with comprehensive national bans on tobacco advertising and promotion. Services to treat tobacco dependence are fully available in only nine countries.
Yet tobacco tax revenues are more than 4,000 times greater than spending on tobacco control in middle-income countries and more than 9,000 times greater in lower-income countries, the WHO says.
When the report says that 40% of the countries allow smoking in hospitals & schools, it fails to mention exactly what percentage of the population have the freedom to smoke in such places. I'm quite sure that those countries all are rich or poor. The rich think of smoking anywhere they want as a symbol of freedom and the poor don't care. Usually the middle-world countries like India & China which assign secondary preferences for personal freedom don't encourage such stupidities. There is no point in keeping a hospital sterile when the patients become passive smokers. Schools are cat-on-the-wall places where kids who're susceptible to peer pressure or who try to look smart & cool pick up the habit.
5% of the world's population lives in countries with comprehensive national bans on tobacco advertising and promotion. Now we're talking about population, which I think is a more concrete and useful figure compared to the % of countries where the actual number of smokers is hidden. I wonder if the lack of advertisements has any effect at all. Well, in a country like India where movie/cricket stars are demigods, their smoking may cause a considerable impact. But I still think the major driver here is your neighbor/friend/colleague/mate. When they stand next to you smoking, the chances are high that you either pick up the habit (given that you're vulnerable) or resume (how many times smokers quit) or increase your frequency (just for the sake of company). Moreover, there are alternatives when it comes to marketing: most of the alcohol beverage brands available in India advertise their.... yeah.. their music CDs.Yet tobacco tax revenues are more than 4,000 times greater than spending on tobacco control... The writer again glosses over and fails to provide concrete numbers through which an educated reader can gain some insights. How much does a country spend on tobacco control? In middle-income countries, which is where I guess India & China would comfortably fall under, the fund allocated to combat such public menaces would line the pockets of bureaucrats and only a ludicrous amount would come into the fore. What kinds of techniques are used to fight tobacco? Billboards, radio/TV advertisements, short films... Do the government officials actually care about these messages reaching its intended audince? I'm not surprised at all that the tax revenues paid by cigarette manufacturers are thousand-fold the budget to fight smoke. This is the only way how it could be and the way the writer puts it hardly shocks me.
Fighting tobacco, comparable to quitting drugs or alcohol, involves a good deal of will and strong encouragement & support from family. I also believe that the formative years between 13 and 21 will heavily decide the course of one's personal traits. As for the WSJ piece, there are a few numbers & names thrown here and there, but not much food for thought.
The.Moral.Science
In a piece that starts softly, wavers a little bit but then progresses strongly and ends with a bang, Frank Furedi writes:
But an extreme insistence on science in every walk of life (anatomically comfortable sexual position, your TV viewing angle shouldn't exceed 30 degrees, sun screen lotion with an SPF of 12.5.....) makes decision-making robotically boring. As humans with free will (don't we?) the fun comes with owning responsibilities for our actions. By thoroughly turning towards scientific proofs/experiments we deny ourselves in breathing a fresh whiff of air.
The slippage between a scientific fact and moral exhortation is accomplished with remarkable ease in a world where people lack the confidence to speak in the language of right and wrong. But turning science into an arbiter of policy and behaviour only serves to confuse matters. Science can provide facts about the way the world works, but it cannot say very much about what it all means and what we should do about it. Yes, the search for truth requires scientific experimentation and the discovery of new facts; but it also demands answers about the meaning of those facts, and those answers can only be clarified through moral, philosophical investigation and debate.Frank brilliantly argues how under-informed, misguided people are trying to replace moral & religious authorities with a shadow of science. In most cases, I try to be a man driven by reason and science is a wonderful tool that helps me wade through the multitude of options available on a daily basis ranging from the trivial like the brand of tooth paste to weighty issues like child psychology.
But an extreme insistence on science in every walk of life (anatomically comfortable sexual position, your TV viewing angle shouldn't exceed 30 degrees, sun screen lotion with an SPF of 12.5.....) makes decision-making robotically boring. As humans with free will (don't we?) the fun comes with owning responsibilities for our actions. By thoroughly turning towards scientific proofs/experiments we deny ourselves in breathing a fresh whiff of air.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)