More self-inquiry

Just when you thought it was safe to look at this blog again, I am forced to get personal again. You see, Rob has hit me with a tag.

Rob got tagged with the following question: What are your top five quirks? He answered that in a post here and with devilish glee, tagged me.

So now let's see...what are my quirks? As Rob said of himself in his post, I seem quite normal to myself. So, to help me out with my quirks, I turned to the one person in the world who is foolish enough, er...I mean, loves me enough, to actually tolerate living with them. Namely, my wife. Who better than she will know what my quirks are? So I asked her. The conversation went as follows.

Me: Honey, what are my quirks?
Wife: You don't have quirks, you have disorders.
Me: Sorry dear, I forgot. Sweetness, what are my disorders?
Wife: Who wants to know?
Me: Er...just some people on the Internet.
Wife: Are you getting paid for this?
Me: No sugar-dove, this is pro bono.

Okay, so I am trying to be funny. To cut a long story short, she came up with three quirks without much head-scratching. Then she lost interest. I'll fill in the other two.

(1) She says that I sleep too little. I sleep with the lights on and can't sleep in a noiseless room. Meaning, I need some sort of white noise, like the noise of a table-fan to fall asleep. I like that mechanical lullaby. She says that I fall asleep with the laptop in front of me and with my fingers on the keys. She also says that she sometimes wakes up in the night and tries to move my fingers away from the keyboard, but I fight her in my sleep.

(2) She says that I'm a restless sort who can't sit still for long. I pace the room while thinking, talking, and even eating. I hardly eat at the dinner table at home. She says that trying to have a conversation with me is like trying to have a conversation with a tennis ball in a tennis match. Only more annoying.

(3) She finds it strange that I used to go for months eating nothing but canned food when I was a bachelor. "Didn't you need fresh, hot food once in a while?" she wonders. "Fresh, hot food is nice, but not necessary," is my thinking.

So those are the three quirks my wife came up with. For the record, she said after, "I love you anyway." She then added, absent-mindedly, "What choice do I have?"

Er...ha, ha, she's a regular comedian, my wife.

(4) I smoke, but I am not addicted to tobacco. I'll go out drinking one day and smoke a whole pack (usually by bumming from other people; most smoker friends avoid me), and then go for months without touching a cigarette.

(5) I probably talk a little too much and hold a few too many opinions. Sadly for me and for those around me who suffer through it, my opinion on a topic usually towers over my knowledge on the topic. I'm trying to change. It's hard.

My understanding is this: The spirit of tagging dictates that I pay it forward. Forgive me if you can find it in your hearts, but Balajee, Ashok, Jyoti, you're it.

The Dance of Creation

Thank you Balajee and Rob, for your comments on my previous post. It occurs to me that if the moves that God made as He was going about the business of Creation were recorded using chess notation, the record might look something like the following.

1. Create Light !
2. Create Earth ! 
[Note: There is wide disagreement among experts about this move; some give it a !, while others give it a ??]
3. Create Sky
4. Create Oceans
5. Create Mountains
6. Create Pat Robertson (Wait, Lord...never mind, too late. Carry on.)
...
105. Create Monisha Koirala !!
106. Create the feeling in her that she has acting ability, thereby subjecting millions of people to a mild form of torture ??
...
565. Create cellphones !
567. Create cellphone ringtones that play a tinny, metallic Fur Elise ?
...
...
12,546. Create Sougata !? 
[Note: According to some analysts, this should be ?!]
...

OK, now that we have established beyond reasonable doubt that the stuttery-looking description below my name is not simply a case of keyboard epilepsy, we'll get off this ego trip and move on.

I am cycling backwards through the various comments on the previous posts and trying to respond to them, driven by the rather pitifully buoyant pair of assumptions that the commenters are (A) still around, and (B) give a f***.

Ironluca says that history has a tendency to repeat itself for those who disregard it as well as for those who do not. I find this observation to be wiser than Santayana's original assertion. Even those who are aware of history often repeat it. Foresight inertia, maybe?

Ironluca is the creatively menacing name for an old friend. Welcome, Ironluca. Who sleeps with the fishes tonight?

About me--A bit of narcissism and self-indulgence, perhaps (Does blogger handle such long titles? I'm about to find out.)

Those who play chess will know that there are several notation systems that are used to record the moves in a chess game. The systems and their variations are all quite easy to understand and I will not tire the reader.

A small example should serve. In algebraic notation, which is most commonly used at present because it is culture-agnostic, the chess board is divided into eight horizontal ranks numbered from 1 to 8, and eight vertical files denoted by the lowercase letters "a" to "h". So the square at the lower left corner is called a1 and the square at the upper right corner is called h8. Other squares are similarly named. Under the algebraic notation system, the King pawn moving two squares forward from its initial position would simply be recorded as "e4".

The names of the pieces are abbreviated also. So a knight moving from the square g1 to capture a pesky bishop sitting on h3 would be recorded "Nxh3".

There are also symbols that is used to comment moves. This meta set is used by people who analyze chess games. Pick up any book of recorded chess games of the past or present, and you will find that some of the moves in a game have strange symbols like !, ?, or ?? next to them. Like so: "Nxh3??"

These symbols are used by chess analysts to annotate a move and tell the reader what they think of the move in question. The short list of such comment symbols is:

! -- a good move

!! -- an excellent move

? -- a mistake

?? -- a blunder. Alternatively known as "Ye great gads, what was the moron thinking?" Most of the moves from my own games are annotated with this symbol.

!? -- an interesting move that may not be best

?! -- a dubious move, but not easily refuted


When I started this blog, blogger.com presented me with a space to describe myself. I did. The description appears right below my name at the upper right hand corner of this blog. It is "!?". I struggled with it for a bit because it was a toss-up between the last two on the list. I'm still not completely sure which one of the two it should be, but I went with what I went with.

Two posts for the price

Post un: Iraq

While driving to work this morning, I tuned in to NPR and heard the President outline his future strategy for Iraq. More of the same, about says it. I won't dwell on it. I want to discuss something that came after the speech and something that I have often thought about.

It is my understanding that what goaded the President into addressing the nation is the criticism that terrorism seems to be far from declining in Iraq. Insurgents are hitting Iraqi civilian and American military targets daily.

There were post-speech analyses by various grand poohbahs. Also, this being NPR an' all, there was an effort to be balanced. So you had Russ Feingold, Democratic Senator from Wisconsin, telling us what exactly what he thought of the President's plan, and also, his grip on reality.

And then there was Iliana Ross-Leighten, Republican Congressperson from Florida, who spiritedly defended the war in Iraq. It is something she said that I want to focus on.

The host of the show (I forget his name) asked this question of the Congressperson: "But ma'm, there is no link between 9/11 and Iraq. So why are we in Iraq?"

Now this is something that I have often wondered about myself. Though idly, because I am a non-American and therefore there are a few degrees of separation between my individual self and this war. I do not even personally know anybody who is serving in or has died fighting this war. Am I within my rights to wonder about the reasons for this war, then? Well, only to the extent that it is a global event. Just as an American has the right to wonder about and investigate the cause of the Asian tsunami, I suppose I might, as an Indian, be forgiven my curiousity about the cause of a war that is responsible for the death of regular people in another part of the world. Why did the US invade Iraq, specifically? Why not Pakistan, father and occassional peddler of the Islamic nucelar bomb? Why not Sudan? Or Saudi Arabia. So the host's question to the Congressperson made me sit up and pay attention.

Now before I tell you what Congresswoman Iliana Ross-Leighton's reply was, let me go off on a minor tangent and tell you that I, personally, believe in simplicity. Simple is good. And the simple answer to the host's question is of course this, "Well, we decided to go into Iraq because of a pressingly important reason which can be summed up with the following two words: just cuz. And since we are now in it, we gotta knuckle down and fix it. Or at least, we have to try."

But the Congresswoman did not say this because no politician can, for obvious reasons, speak the embarassing truth. Also, the above answer does not make for good copy.

So instead, she said this (And I may not be getting this verbatim because I am not an aural eidetic, but I'm pretty sure that I am capturing the gist):

Quoth she, "The point I am trying to make is: people say that we are getting attacked by terrorists because we are in Iraq. But what about 9/11? We were not in Iraq then, and we got attacked."

I would have driven off the road laughing, except for the fact that I didn't. That answer is such a mess that I don't even know where to begin. It first attempts to avoid the question, then begs the question, is trivially true, and misdirects.

Let's examine misdirection first. Note that if you invert the last sentence, this conclusion arises: Had we been in Iraq then, we would not have been attacked.

Invert the logic and you create a bogus link between Iraq and 9/11! Sweet! It becomes a little frightening when you consider that a minor variation on this sort of reasoning, dressed up in political spin, was essentially the rhetoric that was used to sell the war to Americans in the first place. Apparently, some people still hold to it.

Consider that sentence again: We were not in Iraq then, and we got attacked.

So what IS the problem with the reasoning in that last sentence? The problem with that sentence is NOT that it is not true. The problem is that it is too true.

Here is what I am talking about. You can substitute the name of almost any country for Iraq and it does not change the truth content of the Congresswoman's statement. For example, how about this: "But what about 9/11? We were not in Greenland then, and we got attacked." 

Or: "But what about 9/11? We were not in Germany then, and we got attacked." 

That is the problem with the reasoning. It can be used to sell ANY war against any country.

Actually the replacement word does not even have to be the name of a country. It could be a profession or a hobby or anything. How about this: "We were not into Feng Shui then, and we got attacked." Or: "We were not into semi-nude mud-wrestling then, and we got attacked."

The statement is trivially true.

The statement becomes non-trivial only when it can be proved that Iraq (or Greenland or Feng Shui) was responsible for terrorism directed against the United States ex ante, and hence we could have pre-empted 9/11 by being in Iraq (or by being in Greenland or by following Feng Shui).

The good Congresswoman is stretching mightily to draw (sell?) the inference that Iraq was actively involved in: (A) terrorism in general, and (B) 9/11 in particular, by implying that not being in Iraq led to the attack on 9/11. 

But that is exactly the sort of conventional wisdom that we are questioning. The question is if Iraq was connected to 9/11. The question is if the United States did not just waste a whole bunch of resources (yes, that is an insensitive and callous way of saying "lives") fighting a war that did not need to be fought. Or needed to be fought elsewhere.

The Congresswoman's statement is therefore also a good example of begging the question. Simply restate the question as an assertion and use it to support your argument. Turn your desired conclusion into a premise. Sweet. I must learn to do this sometime.





Post deux: A Photo Blog

I sometimes analyze the content of my blog. It is a sobering thing to do. Criticism is the cheapest kind of talk and my blog has a lot of it.

If you want to see creativity, check this out: Babu's Photo Journal. I was surprised to find the author commenting on my earlier post. If I am not mistaken, this is of course my friend D from New Jersey. D, I really like the comments that you tag your pictures with; they make the pictures come alive. I liked this one especially: Traffic is chaotic and unruly in Aizawl, as in most other Indian cities. Police is a mere witness. But everything works out in the end.

My First Kiss

Do you remember the thrill of your first kiss? Do you remember the pain of the first dent on your car? I bet you do. Any first always holds a special place in one's heart. Well, today I am thrilled at a first of my own. I have received my first hate mail. I am moved.

No really, a real live hate mail. Not the civilized, well-articulated, but basically tame, non-abusive (ha, ha) stuff that some of the readers of this blog sometimes hit me with. So outright hate is a first. Okay, give me a moment here. I have to swallow this lump in my throat.

Oh I know I'll get used to it. I'll eventually develop a crust and take it as the normal course of things. I'll (horrors!) learn to ignore it even. But this is my moment and I intend to live it.

Okay, enough foolin' around. The background is as below.

I wrote a post about Bengalis called La Nuit Bengali and how we are naive to have let ourselves be governed by the Communists for this long. Well somebody--who is without doubt a fellow Bengali--got all heartbroken at the way I put it. And he posted a comment, mysteriously enough under a different post called Eighty-Twenty expressing his pain. Go figure, eh?

Now I must warn you, brace yourselves. This guy is a real wordsmith. Very articulate. His comment in its entirety, edited a little by yours truly for family-friendly presentation, went:

You bustard [sic], bleep bleep, bloody bleep, go & bleep ur mother before calling bengalees idiots

As you can see, he is a regular Shakespeare whose time hasn't come. So there you have it folks, my first hate mail. I am touched. Shucks.

After the initial excitement of my first kiss dwindled to nothing, a wonderful thought struck me. I always had this idea that India is behind the curve when it came to per capita Internet access. Internet was for the rich dudes who could afford the steep prices. The fact that a person like Anon is loose on the Internet posting ummm...comments on blogs and stuff proves that this reality is changing. The arena is opening up. The Internet has obviously touched even the lowest strata of Indian society. Very encouraging.

Also, after the excitement went away, I thought about how and whether to respond to Anon or not. I thought for about five minutes and decided thus.

At first, I thought to myself idly, why not rip this obvious retard a new one. Publicly. A reaming that he will talk to his little grandchildren about, over after-dinner coffee and brandy.

But on second thoughts, I have decided to be nice to him. There are four reasons.

First, the general level of conversation by way of comments has been quite high on this blog. Don't want to lower that by getting medieval on and tearing to shreds someone who is, judging by the symptoms, a lobotomized mental dwarf.

Second, it would be just too easy to take this poorly-funded lab experiment (Anon, that's you) to the cleaners, given that it has demonstrated the same linguistic ability and gift for expression as flotsam. No challenge here.

Third, it wastes my time. I am not in the business of tutoring morons who are beyond redemption in the niceties of basic netiquette. I am also not in the business of dispensing free lessons on how to conduct a civil discussion in mixed company, in a public space.

Fourth, it is unsatisfying to beat up on a nebulous entity that you can't even assign a name to. It's kinda like backchatting to yourself in front of a mirror. Pointless and lame.

But I will tell Anon a little something. Just this once. This is why.

As is the norm I suppose among folks like Anon, he did not display even the superficial courage of leaving his name (fake or otherwise) and an email address in his comments. If he had, I would have contacted him at his email address to discuss things in a private manner. Instead, he safely and anonymously hurled some random insults in the public comments section on my blog and moved on to happier hunting grounds.

Well I hope the little bastard comes back and reads this at least.

Dear anon, my little dimwitted songbird, the fact that I called Bengalis idiots obviously annoys you and makes you jump up and down like the retarded ape you no doubt are. You very likely did not ponder carefully everything that I said. You do not consider why Bengal, from the position of being a relatively rich and industrialized state, is now damn near at the bottom of the heap and is just recently making a whimpering effort to scramble back some scraps. You do not think--quite possibly because you are a brainwashed, foul-mouthed, Commie stooge--that every Bengali who really cares about what happens to that state should be screaming from the rooftops about what idiots we have been, by repeatedly electing the Leftists (and still doing it) into power like whip-crazy masochists.

No, you did not do any of this. Instead, you jumped up and down and displayed your ignorance/arrogance by vomiting infantile, unstudied garbage into my blog. Well, being the helpful sort that I usually am, please allow me to do something about your obvious discomfort.

Bengalis are idiots.
Bengalis are idiots.
Bengalis are idiots.
Bengalis are idiots.
Bengalis are idiots.

There, are we feeling all better now? No? Well there's more where that came from. Here you go.

Bengalis are idiots.
Bengalis are idiots.

And you, my dear, with your well thought out comment, just helped along that notion better than I ever could have done myself. I was putting on a bit of rhetoric when writing about Bengal. Remember that I am a Bengali too. But you went well above and beyond the call and provided a concrete example of what I was only talking about in the abstract. Do yourself--and by extension the rest of us regular Bengalis who suffer the ignominy of getting equated with the likes of you--a favour by:

(1) Learning to read. In particular, read the postscript at the end of that post which got you all excited and doing wee-wee on the floor, you misshapen mutt. It might give you a hint.
(2) Educating yourself.
(3) Learning to spell common words correctly.
(4) Learning to think for yourself.
(5) Letting the Commie bastards who first violated you and then brainwashed you at the tender age of six know that you have decided to think for yourself and will no longer wash their dirty laundry for them like the good little slave they brought you up to be.

Apologies as always to regular Bengalis (Anon, this is not you). Do forgive the rhetoric. It is directed at Anon, a fellow Bengali whom nature has obviously not been terribly kind to. It is our patriotic duty to bring him into the light. But slowly and carefully, because he is not completely housebroken yet. Roll up that newspaper and keep it handy.

Dear anon, you don't yet get how this whole Internet thing works, do you? Let me clue you in, you imbecile. The Internet gives you anonymity, but not unchallenged artistic license to spew whatever bilge your unfortunate upbringing lets you think is okay to spew in mixed company. Expect to be called on it, you insufferable friggin' bastard.

But really anon, pleasantries apart, here are some serious thoughts for you to chew on. Take it slowly and you should be fine.

Anon, I am every bit as proud a Bengali as you make your own self out to be. It hurts you to see bad written about Bengal; it hurts me to write bad about it. I am proud of Bengal's past, not terribly impressed with its present, and want to be proud of its future. I hold a lot of things about Bengal sacred also, as you undoubtedly do. But here's something to think about. Never hold anything so sacred that you blind yourself to its faults.

It occurs to me however, judging by the blunt hint that you have provided of your general level of intelligence, that there are grave chances you will not understand much of what is written in this post. But this is okay. I'll let you in on a secret. This post is really not for your benefit. Writing this post gave me something to do late on a Friday night and hopefully will provide much amusement to the civilized readers of this blog who will laugh at you and be entertained. It has nothing to do with you.

Anon, here's my take on you: you are either a prepubescent, sweaty, acne-ridden visual catastrophe who has just yesterday discovered this crazy little thing called the Internet. In which case, the natural question must be, "Does Daddy know that you are stealing time on his computer and peeking at stuff you are not supposed to see? And will he take you out to the shed and spank your sorry behind when he finds out?"

Or perhaps, you are an over-the-hill, lower-echelon Commie-grunt who, against party directive, is trolling blogs when he should be out there on the streets getting in the way of progress.

If the former, my friend, there is perhaps hope for you. Hope that you will one day grow up and get yourself an education that will in turn free (what currently passes for) your mind. If the latter, allow me to say to you: you poor, poor fool; you probably deserve more pity than scorn, because you are beyond the reach of medical science now.

Respectfully Yours (Come now!)
Sougata Sarkar


Postscript: Hey you anon, it occurred to me a little late that the content on the Internet is what may be called a gated private good. Which is a meaningless but cool sounding phrase I just made up. What that means, you idiot, is that once you have paid a gate fee in the form of access charges, the entire content of the Internet including public forums like blogs become available to the best of us (that would be everybody except you) and the worst of us (that would be you).

Internet content is not a purely private good once you (or in your case, the university or somesuch that made the mistake of admitting you) has paid the gate fee. It is non-excludable, which means, you moron, that any worthwhile content that is available to the best of us is also available to vermin like you. It cannot be withheld from you. And actually, in my personal opinion, this is how it should be. Reading blogs and other content written by regular folks offers troglodytes like you the only decent shot at becoming human beings. But mind you, I said reading, not writing. You are, in your current primitive state, still far from contributing anything to the sum total of human knowledge.

Bearing that in mind, if you are thinking of posting any further comments on my blog, please don't tax the few brain cells you have in the effort. Your comments will be deleted and sent to the trashcan, where quite honestly, you yourself likely crawled out of.

Feel free to come in to my blog and browse. You can even engage in civil dialogue with me or the bright people who occassionally read this blog. They or I will be happy to improve your (A) knowledge, and (B) manners. But any attempt at puerile, adolescent commenting will be dealt with severely. In plain English, if I see so much as another swear word in your comments, I will personally and digitally spank you till you are raw, like the bad little child that you are.

I have noted your IP address and will follow up on this quite mercilessly, I assure you.

Don't know what an IP address is? It is this dotted number quad that...oh screw it...this is the magical shit that makes the Internet happen and allows total asses like you to make themselves publicly manifest.

Fucking cretin.


The Campaign

This is probably one post too many on the same topic, so I would like to offer my apologies in advance. But I could not resist taking one more potshot. Sue me.

Here's the situation as rediff would have it.
Film personalities from Kolkata on Tuesday joined the chorus of protests over Ganguly being kept out of the national squad, as demonstrators conducted signature campaigns and tore tickets of Friday's India-South Africa one-day match.

Kapil Dev (Remember him? Yeah, that guy.), after the matter was brought to his notice, had this message for Kolkatans.
Why did you not protest about (Anil) Kumble [who was excluded from the one-day squad] not playing ? Don't you feel bad? It's the same thing.

The time Kolkata people feel bad about Anil Kumble, then I will feel bad about him [Ganguly's exclusion]. When they feel bad about (V V S) Laxman, then I will feel about Sourav Ganguly," he said, in response to a question at an interaction in Bangalore, arranged by GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare.

Because India comes first, then the State; You cannot think about your State and not think about your country. Country is much more bigger.

Aw golly-gee Kapil, I am not sure if that's a lesson in patriotism or geography, but thanks. Sorry, couldn't resist that.

Seriously though, he's right of course. Conducting a signature campaign to protest the exclusion from the national team of a cricketer that belongs to your state is parochial and indicates misaligned priorities. What's more important, it's stupid. I fail to understand the reason for the fuss. Does having Sourav play on the team improve Bengal economically? Culturally? Spiritually? Nope, negative, and feh. So what gives?

Meanwhile, here's how the All Bengal Signature Campaign Counter (brought to you courtesy of a big business house that wants your money) reads:

Number of signature campaigns to protest Sourav's exclusion, that I know of: 1
Number of signature campaigns to protest the Delhi blasts, as far as I know: 0

It is heartening to note that Bengalis, for one, have their priorities all lined up.

Yes, that's sarcasm.

Sideways

Sideways is a nice movie.

One scene in the movie is pertinent. I suspect that altogether too many people end up opening their best bottle of wine in a McDonald's.

What do I mean? Don't ask me. See the movie.

Yes, I know; cryptic, touchie feelie, philosophical bons mots annoy you. Me also. Ditto.


the prayer

On October 29, 2005 sixty-two people in New Delhi doing their Diwali shopping and going about their business were murdered by terrorists in three separate explosions.

This is November 13, 2005 and we are happy to report that we have since moved on. No, ladies and gentlemen, these terrorists will not defeat us. I am not quite sure what "defeat" means in this context, but whatever it is, they will not get it by us. Just two days after the blasts, for instance, we were getting all excited about sticking it good to Sri Lanka in a cricket match. The display of spirit was astonishing. Of course, the fact that nobody I personally knew got their insides splattered over a pavement helped boost my spirit some. I suppose everybody else followed a similar reasoning also to keep their respective morale up.

We are an apathetic people. And it is not the fact that India is a largely poor country that makes us so. It is not purely the struggle to overcome resource constraints and earning three square meals that keeps us busy and blinkered. Not entirely. After all, we do find time to devote entire days at a time to cricket. Even the inane movies we create and consume are double-length, three-hour inquisitions. We lack the time for empathy? I think not.

Two emotions struck me after the explosions. I found the display of concern by Pakistan amusing and the apathy of the media stunning.

Let's take the latter first. Allow me to go off on a tangent and bring up an email that my sister wrote to me after the London blasts. She said this, in effect: Dada, I am sickened by Americans and Brits who moan about 3000 and 57 lives lost to terrorism, respectively, and turn away disinterestedly from a similar loss of Indian and Chinese lives.

I basically agreed with her, but my reponse was as follows, and I quote verbatim:
Why just massacres in India and China? Brits and Yanks are famously callous even when Russian schoolchildren get shot up by Chechens. But what are you going to do about it? They have the media muscle. Now India, Russia, and China have two choices: either build up muscle and lecture back to the Brits and Yanks, or just shut the fuck up.

And besides, why do we blame the Brits and Yanks? Indians themselves have no self-respect. When exactly three Australians die in India, the press goes wild and everybody and his brother beats their breasts about it. We are told their names, what brand of toilet paper they use to wipe their white asses, and also gently informed that the bereaved wife will get a Padmashree the next time around. [You do realize by now that I am talking about Graham Staines, right?]

But when a hundred pilgrims are butchered in cold blood in Amarnath, we take this as normal. Do you know the names of any of the victims of the Kashmir insurgency? Name one, I challenge you.

Don't blame the Brits. They are simply looking after their own. Develop some self-respect first. Others won't do it for us.

I personally think that the media is apathetic because we are apathetic. It is not an accident. The few who take the time to write stupid blog posts and bitch and moan about terrorism do not form a critical mass. How do I know? From a simple observation of cause and effect. If there was critical mass and if we were vocal enough, the situation on the ground would have been different.

Next up on the stand: Pakistans' angst over the explosions.

Immediately after the blasts, Pakistan offered its sympathy and further offered to help us probe into the terrorism. The blasts are quite likely the handiwork of Lashkar-e-Tayiba, a terrorist organization from Pakistan that Pakistan will not break up.

See, it's kinda like this. Suppose I have a deranged son who is a physical menace to all around him. I have repeatedly been asked to commit him but have consistently refused to do so. Part of the reason is because he makes life unpleasant for my neighbour by vandalising his property every once in a while. My hope is that my neighbour will finally tire of it and move, selling his house in a fire sale. This will give me the oppportunity to snap up his property real cheap. One day, my son goes above and beyond the call of duty by raping and then battering to a pulp my neighbour's daughter. Now if I continue to protect and encourage my son, and at the same time send my neighbour flowers and my commiseration, what would I be called? A hypocritical, sadistic, fucking criminal-by-proxy, is my guess.

Now I know how the story goes, okay? I know that given the unfortunate reality that Pakistan has a few nukes, we must play nice with them. We cannot invade the bastards. We cannot even go after the terrorist camps in Pakistan because that may provoke an all-out nuclear war. So we make pathetic, lisping, PC noises when sixty people are vaporized in a Delhi market. Better sixty people once in a while than sixty million in one go, is how the thinking goes, I suppose.

Within the country, we repeal POTA (we do not modify it, we ditch it) because we would rather have a few people go up in smoke once in a while than offend a few potential terrorists and sympathizers.

So I know how the script goes. We must be nice. But can we spineless, thickskinned horse's-asses please, please at least stop playing cricket with these murderers Pakistanis? Is this too much to ask? It is not correct to note that an embargo on cricket will solve nothing. It will too, solve an important problem. It will allow me to keep my lunch down and not upchuck everytime I hear my fellow Indians talk about the wet dreams they are having thinking about Sachin Tendulkar going head to head, no pun intended, with Shoaib Akhtar.

Those who know me some will also know that I am an atheist. So I deny myself the luxury of prayer. However, on the outside chance that I am wrong and there is really something to this god-hypothesis and reincarnation hooey, I would like to tender this prayer:


Please oh Lord of the Skies, Earth, and All Creatures Great and Small, please let me not be reborn into this pathetic, snivelling, backbone-free, self-loathing culture that I am currently a part and parcel of. Better being born the son of a panhandling bum and a homeless crack whore in a culture with a trace of respect for itself, than the son of a rich gutkha king in a prideless one.

Om.



But wait, no, that doesn't sound quite right. On closer examination, you will notice that there are several things wrong with that prayer. I noticed this too. In fact, I thought about that prayer long and hard. I slept on it. And these are the flaws I discovered with the prayer:

(a) It reeks of escapism.

(b) It does nothing for me. I am asking for a limiting of personal material comforts in my next edition by choosing to be the son of a crack whore. Not a smart move.

(c) It does nothing for my culture. My culture will not miss one petulant individual (namely, me) and therefore the above threat of abandoment will not create an incentive for my culture to change in any fundamental way.

So I thought about it and modified it. Here is the modified prayer:


Oh Lord of the Earth, Skies and Too Many Other Things to Mention Here, please do not let such horrific acts of terrorism transpire on Indian soil in the future. Or any other soil, for that matter.

But if you do--and pay close attention here--IF YOU IN YOUR INFINITE WISOM DO ALLOW THIS, please arrange it so that the next explosion, instead of just taking out nameless, unwept, disposable people who will be written off as a statistical footnote to a proxy war, also takes out the son or daughter of a very important person. Like the son of an influential newspaper editor, for instance. Or the daughter of an extremely important politician.

Let me repeat that oh Lord, in case you've forgotten to take your usual recommended dose of Ritalin today, you attention-impaired son of a bitch. The SON or DAUGHTER of an important person, not the important person himself. Taking out an important person will do no good. A Laloo will be replaced by a Paswan and we will be no better off. The one who gets killed has to be someone who holds great emotional value to an influential person.

You may ask: Why do I ask so of our attention-impa... er, dear Lord? Reason is below.

Premise A: As I write this, India is ruled by uncaring, corrupt politicians. These politicians see no need to do anything fundamental in response to random acts of terrorism. The lives of sixty odd people is negotiated cheaply over the counter without missing a beat.

Premise B: Perverse though this may sound, these same politicians are in a position to make a change. Simply by the virtue of office. You or I will not make a difference. Not in my lifetime at least; there is no criticial mass. So yes, strangely a Laloo Prasad can bring about change. But for that, a Laloo Prasad must himself change. That is a binding precondition.

Premise C: People often change in response to a massively negative external stimulus. In plain English, people react to pain. The language of pain is universally understood.

Conclusion: Those who are in a position to bring about change must suffer a direct loss to be shaken out of their apathy.

You may further ask: Is this prayer too harsh? Not really, if you think about it. All I am asking is that the sixtieth non-entity who is destined to get blown up by an improvised explosive be substituted by the offspring of an important politician. I am not asking for more bloodshed than will happen anyway. At least this way, there is a small but non-zero chance that an important politician will act. Or a newspaper will actually take a stab at forming opinion. Otherwise all you have is a meaningless and needless blood-sacrifice as happened in Delhi on October 29, in the year of our Lord two thousand and five.


i have a prayer after all

...but first some background. Before I leave for work each morning, I quickly glance at the headlines of one US newspaper and one Indian newspaper. The New York Times does it for me as far as local news goes. And since no self-respecting Indian with even half a brain will read The Times of India, I read http://www.rediff.com/ to get the lowdown on India.

This morning, I was expecting the Indian newspapers to be full of news from Delhi. I was expecting see a few reports on the explosions, perhaps some sort of writeup on the Islaami-Inquilabi Mahaz outfit, some analyses from the movers and shakers, the impact on the peace process with Pakistan, preventive measures, general outrage. Things of that nature. In short, I expected the newspapers to be in a tizzy.

I would say that this is not an unfair expectation, given that the explosions took place on Saturday evening and today is only two days later. Everyone remembers how everybody, including the Indian media, went batshit after the London blasts, yes? So I was expecting a bit of media chatter.

Here are the top headlines on rediff today:

• Dhoni demolishes Sri Lanka
• Noted Indian writer Amrita Pritam passes away
• Death penalty awarded in Red Fort attack case
• Delhi blasts toll: 62, Compensation doubled
• Did Jobs kill the iPod mini too soon?


In my opinion, it says a little something about a country and its people when the top news story two days after a terrorist attack that wipes out sixty people gushes about how wonderfully our cricket team is doing.

I was a little surprised at the general sense of calm and poise among the editors of Rediff. Then a thought crossed my mind, "Maybe the folks at Times of India, in an uncharacteristic fit of journalism, are covering this story better."

I saw the following headlines on http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/:

Suniel Shetty has a bumpy ride: Onlookers peer at the star’s imported 'Hummer'
Army rushes in to help Chennai tide over rain waters
Court reserves order on JN Yadav's bail plea
Your old pals are dead, find new ones
Gulshan Grover to beat up Bond
Indian faces racist brunt in UK
When Prince Harry dropped his pants


Nothing about the bomb blasts. Zip, zilch, nada. Then I noted that the entire web site was dated October 27. And I remembered the first commandment of journalism: A daily newspaper shalt not feel the urgency to update its web site more frequently than once a week, especially after a human tragedy.

I smacked my forehead, a little ashamed at my general lack of smarts, and moved on. I did not go very far.

My next stop was http://in.indiatimes.com/usdefault.cms, from the TOI group again, and they seemed current and up to date. I have no idea why TOI has two web sites; my guess is that they maintain one for those who are merely braindead, and the other for those who are beyond all repair. The top headlines were:

Dhoni rains sixes as India thrash Lanka
Dhoni is the king, Gilly goes for a six
In pics: hits and misses of the 3rd ODI
We have a lot more options now: Dravid
Noted writer Amrita Pritam passes away
Ms Perfect: send birthday wishes to Ash
Tabu @ 33: 33 leaves from her album [Author's Note: Whaa?]
Shahid Kapoor does a Mr India!
In the loop: 20 times sexier in desiwear
Indra Nooyi all set to lead the world
Vani Kola: an NRI success story


I will now request the few readers of my blog to join me in raising a toast to Mr. Dhoni. As you can see, he has done admirably. I moved on to Indian Express. Their web site was dated October 30. Out of time and patience, I went to work.

So where's the prayer? That comes tonight. To be continued, for sure.

a moment of silence

Sixty people perish in Delhi bomb blast.

A little known terrorist group from Kashmir called Inquilab has claimed the responsibility for snuffing out the lives of sixty ordinary men, women and children who were going about their business, doing their Diwali shopping on a Saturday evening.

Pakistan lost no time in strongly condemning the terrorist action.

I don't know about you, but it warms my own heart to see the prompt and compassionate heedfulness of our brothers from across the border. I heard the following in a Mafia movie once. Two gangsters are attending the funeral of an executed mob boss, and one of them says to the other: "If you want to know who ordered the hit, see who sent the first flowers."

The Minister of State for Home Affairs, Mr. Sriprakash Jaiswal, has promised to "get them" in 48 hours.

It's not that we don't trust you Mr. Jaiswal, but excuse us if we don't hold our breath.

i have decided to switch to all lowercase titles

And you run, and you run to catch up with the sun, but it's sinking
Racing around to come up behind you again.
The sun is the same in a relative way, but you're older
Shorter of breath and one day closer to death.


-- Pink Floyd, Time 

This post is a continuing thread from the previous post. It contains some random thoughts which are just rehashes of old theist and atheist positions. I doubt this covers any new ground.

Here goes.

(1) It is unfair to ask atheists to prove the non-existence of God, as is sometimes done.

To prove the non-existence of X, one must search the entire universe of discourse (in this case, the entire universe) for X, and when X is not found, only then the conclusion can be drawn that X does not exist. It is a negative search. And very expensive to do.

On the other hand, it is not so unfair to ask a theist to prove the existence of God, because this is a positive task. Someone needs to find only one instance of God and produce him to prove his existence.

Of course the standard response to this is that God is unknowable and all mysterious and such **wooooooooh**. The curtain usually falls on rational discussion at this point.


(2) There are problems with the definition of "God".

First of all, there seems to be a wide lack of consensus on what God is. Ask a Hindu, Christian, Jew, and Muslim individually what God is, and you get very different answers. Some of the answers are scary.

Even so, there are some common attributes that most people assign to God. One of these attributes is: Omnipotent. Apart from the obvious question of, "How on earth can you possibly know that?", another question can be brought up. If God is omnipotent, can he create a Being that is more powerful than himself? If he can, then he is not omnipotent because he must now bow to this newly created entity. And if he can't, then he is clearly not All-Powerful.

You've heard this before. Can God create a stone that is too heavy for him to lift?

Omnipotence suffers from self-reference. One way to reconcile this is to admit that God cannot be omnipotent--he has his limits. The other way to reconcile it is to suspend logic and disbelief. If there is a third way, do tell.

Omnipotence is also often fucked up the ass by the Problem of Evil, but that is another post.


(3) I don't know why certain people like Behe mess around with science and try to prove its inadequacy to prove the existence of God.

Proving the inadequacy of something does not prove the adequacy of something else, unless you live in a binary universe. It reeks of insecurity. People should simply have the intellectual honesty and the courage of their convictions to say, "I believe in God because I believe in God. It gives me comfort. I have absolutely no idea why, and can provide no explanation. Besides, I don't need to provide an explanation, so there."

This argument will be equally compelling to most fair-minded folks. Instead, these people bash up on science and point to gaps in our knowledge as if that will prove something.

Here's what I would say to Behe and others like him. Do not resort to pseudo-scientific nonsense and tell me that there is evidence all around us that points to an omnipotent, omniscient, and loving God. Do not state conclusively that the complexity of the world can be explained only if we accept the presence of a mysterious yet fair-minded father figure.

Instead, do the following. Either:

(A) Stop being so smug and express doubt.

OR, if that does not appeal to you:

(B) Plump for your belief unabashedly by brazening it out. Do not offer hesitation. And for heaven's sake, do not appeal to logic.

Anything else is dishonest and invites scorn. Oh, and if you do decide to follow the second approach, recognize and respect the fact that other people might have different, equally inexplicable, and cherished beliefs. So leave the automatic weapons at home.


(5) Balajee says: "Most of the Athiests I know have a more condescending attitude towards the rest of humanity."

I recognize this to be true but not universally so. And I would like to point out that atheists don't have the monopoly on condescension. Have you ever told a Pentecostal that you are a Hindu and see no reason to be otherwise? He'll offer you a choice among condescension, distaste, disdain, and pity. Atheists haven't cornered the market on condescension yet.


(6) Some people express surprise at an atheist, "You are godless. You don't believe in prayer. What do you use to draw comfort from in difficult times. What do you use to pick yourself up when you are down?"

Coffee.

Response to Balajee, Part Something

Balajee commented:
*Filed along with the 'Flying Sphagetti Monster' Theory*
I liked the Stuhring theory. Clearly, ID has a lot of holes. Holes that are conveniently filled by non-falsifiable notions.

Just one thought though - If you consider all the work, time and effort that mankind has put into documenting religion today - hundreds of thousands of pages of manuscripts, stories, sacred texts, institutions, its mind numbing. Why does it seem to be that 98% of mankind is in some form of grand delusion? Could there possibly be something in there that does not quite fit the scientific framework? It's like looking for life in outer space that fits our definition of intelligence. Why should it fit our definition of life? If the only tool you have is a hammer, all the problems start resembling nails.

I'm not agreeing with ID, but maybe our approach to experimenting ID is not right.

But what do I know? My biggest problem right now is figuring out what to do for Lunch.

I will selectively and conveniently pick one statement from your comment to focus on. More discussion of the other points in your comment will follow.

You said: I'm not agreeing with ID, but maybe our approach to experimenting ID is not right.

I want to clarify if you are referring to the same ID that Michael Behe holds a brief for. I want to clarify because I think there is a big difference. Or at least, there ought to be.

Balajee, I am philosophically and culturally a Hindu. As far as I can tell, you are too. For any Hindu to back Behe's version of I.D. would be like putting up all his money on a blackjack bet when he is holding a bust card and the dealer is showing an ace.

I will bet my last dollar that Behe's version of I.D. is quite different from yours. What Behe is championing is thinly disguised evangelism masquerading rather unconvincingly as science.

Behe seems to be saying, "Yes, there is an Intelligent Designer." I will throw in my last remaining cents on the wager that if pressed, he would go on to say, "Yes, there is an Intelligent Designer, and Jesus is his Son."

If unopposed, he would add, "You devil-worshipping Hindus and godless atheists are going to Hell anyway, unless you repent. Yea, verily. You can, however, draw comfort from the fact that it will be an intelligently designed Hell."

Behe is an insult to science, not to mention the fact that he is also an insult to the larger section of average fair-minded Christians. In my personal opinion, he and his sort are giving Christians a bad name. I only hope that Lehigh University does not make the mistake of removing him from his teaching duties. What we do not need is another martyr like Judge Roy Moore. Did you know that Roy Moore is running for governor of Alabama?

The scientific community is doing a stellar job of showing up Behe's non-scientific, logically untenable mumbo-jumbo for what it is. But that is because they can still get to him since he is still part of the scientific community. Once out of his teaching job, I think we'll only see him on Evangelical cable channels, safely out of reach of scientific peer review and doing far greater damage as a result.

People like you and I do not fit into Behe's worldview. It would be a serious error thinking that he is doing this for science, or for theists around the world, or for the larger section of humanity, or whathaveyou. His list of beneficiaries is not that long.

I don't claim to know your mind, but I am aware of the general worldview of a Hindu theist. I would be a fair bet that when you--as opposed to a Behe--talk about an Intelligent Designer, you are talking about a Greater Force, an Unit Law that does not discriminate against a particular section of humanity because they read the wrong book. 

And the presence of this one Greater Force seems conceivable to me. It sounds like a fair conjecture. As a matter of fact, it may also be a cooperative effort by several Greater Forces that makes things so. Why only one?

But an atheist's position is this. He affords zero belief when presented with zero evidence. He does not reject the possibility that a Greater Force exists but he does not accept something at the present time, in the belief that evidence for this something will be available in the future. I hope this sounds fair to you.

I share your surprise that 98% of humanity does not take a similar position as the one I have outlined above.

I have a Problem with Gravity

I have a problem with Gravity. It does not strike me as a particularly satisfying organizing element of the space-time continuum. I have a theory that I want taught alongside Gravity in public schools in the United States. I developed it over the course of a particularly insightful afternoon and without the help of any mind-altering drugs whatsoever.

I am calling it the Stuhring Theory. It is a needlessly complex theory and even I don't understand it completely even though I theorized it. But the essentials are quite simple.

At its heart, it makes this simple and smug statement: We are not held down by Gravity or centripetal force or what have you; we are held up by stuhrings.

It says that we are all--each man jack of us--held up by invisible lines of force called stuhrings. This is why we are able to stand up straight, walk around, and flap our arms and stuff. This is what makes birds fly and airplanes go up and planets and stars go around.

Somebody up there that I am for the moment calling Gus (Great Underhanded Stuhring-puller), has all the stuhrings attached to his hands ... no wait, what I meant was, he has all the stuhrings affixed to his tentacular extremities; yes, that sounds more scientific. And since we are all held up by stuhrings, we move and shake when he pulls on these stuhrings. Gus also is, what we refer to in scientific terms as, a "mean ol' nasty", because he sometimes makes me fall down.

I will now submit that my Stuhring Theory be taught in public schools. Why not? The complexity of the Space-Time Continuum cannot be explained by Gravity alone. Scientists themselves admit this. Therefore it can be explained by stuhrings.

I take my cue from Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design follows a similar reasoning. Some people say: Biochemical complexity cannot be explained by evolution, hence Intelligent Design should be taught as science in schools.

Now substitute "The complexity of the Space-Time Continuum" for "Biochemical complexity", "gravity" for "evolution", and "Stuhring Theory" for "Intelligent Design" and we reach the same square on the chessboard.

I have a request of you. Please take a close look at my Stuhring Theory and tell me exactly how it is any less or any more suitable for teaching than Intelligent Design. I'm serious, tell me where the holes are. I will then patch 'em up, refine ze theory and submit it to the Dover School Board--or whatever the heck passes for the Dover School Board--and respectfully ask them to teach it alongside Gravity.

You see, opening the door of the Science class in public schools a tad too wide is a little risky because it lets in assorted nutcases like me. And that my dears, is a scary thought. Even to me.

Intelligent(?) Design

[Jyoti and Rob have a few comments on my last post called "The Dilemma". I tried to respond as best as I could. This response of mine, which is in reply to Rob, became too long and so becomes a post. Rob's comments are in blue italics below.

Let me also take this opportunity to say a little something about Rob, whose blog is here. I started reading his blog because he made me think. He is a South Park Republican, something that was new to me at the time. Many of his posts are interesting examples of a South Park Republican's views. His description of himself on the blog is priceless: "Geek, Musician, History Buff, South Park Republican. I don't blindly subscribe to either party's full agenda- just enough of each to piss off the other."]



Rob answered my question about whether deeply religious folks are comfortable in the company of science-minded folks:

Oh, heavens no. At least not the one's I've met. They have too many precious assumptions challenged. That makes them squirm.

Yes, that was my suspicion too.


I guess was referring more to the proponents of Darwinism, as opposed to pure science-minded individuals.Proponents aren't nessearily scientists- Just in need of a handy soap box.

I am not sure who exactly fits the description of "proponent of Darwinism". Does being a proponent of Darwinism prevent you from being science-minded? Some people like Stephen Gould who are scientists by profession are proponents of Darwin's theory of evolution. A much smaller number subscribe to Lamarck's theory. Are they are not science-minded?

It is true that proponents aren't necessarily scientists. However, just as you don't have to be a  mathematician to do math, you don't have to be a scientist to be science-minded. For instance, I am not a scientist by profession, but I nevertheless see the value of the scientific method.

Rob says about scientists:

Science? You're right.. If given enough evidence to test, they would do what they do.. Which is quantify that which is in front of them. In the case of Creationism/Intelligent Design, there's more of a sneaking suspicion than actual empirical evidence.

If I have my theories correct, I believe that Creationism and Intelligent Design are two different things. I am not sure why you club them together. My post referred to Creationism, not Intelligent Design.

Michael Behe, a professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania who champions Intelligent Design, explains the difference: "Creationism is a theological concept but intelligent design is a scientific theory. One can be a creationist without any physical evidence. That's 180 degrees different from intelligent design."

So there you have it. Creationism does not depend on evidence, in the professor's own words.

And of course, when you jettison the requirement that something needs evidence to be accepted by fair-minded people, the possibilities become limitless.

So much for Creationism.

The professor was not done, however. He went on to make several other interesting statements about Intelligent Design.

He said that he personally believes the designer is God but said that belief is not part of his intelligent design theory.

If you understood the above statement, do explain it to me in some detail. I would much appreciate it.

Meanwhile, let me take a stab at it. The professor seems to be saying that there is evidence of intelligent design but that each of us is free to insert his or her own belief into the slot where the actual designer is supposed to be sitting. Since the professor has opened up the floor, once again the possibilites boggle the mind. John might say, for example, that the designer is a bored alien named Bob from the fourth binary system in the Crab Nebula, while Jim will counter that he has a nagging suspicion that it is Pat Robertson's janitor. 

Now this sort of free association sounds like a very fun activity to do, but it is surely not science, is it? Or is science defined a little differently in the United States than in other parts of the world?

The professor then went on to contradict himself by saying that the theory of intelligent design would be undermined without the existence of God.

He then inserted his foot deeper into his mouth by saying, "You can't say that because you don't have a natural explanation for something now, you won't in future."

Please note that going by this logic, I can say all manner of unnatural things right now, based on flimsy suspicion in the fond hope that the future will take care of making me look less like a blubbering halfwit. I can further insist that said things without natural explanation be taught to impressionable young children in schools using public money. But isn't that kinda the same as saying that our children should be taught about supernatural things in school? In Science class? 

Well, then why not teach the GS Theory, i.e Ghosts-n-Spooks Theory, also? Evidence, you say? Pish-tosh, we know how much value that has. According to Professor Behe, none.

I now know which college my child is NOT going to.

Okay, let's brush aside everything that I just said. Let's wipe the slate clean.

I personally think that there is some meat to the ID theory. Maybe there is a chance that there exists a Great Force--An Unit Law if you will--that describes the complexity of nature as we see it. But why do we assume that this Unit Law is something called God that is also worthy of our worship? It may be a blind, idiot, and mindless force, maybe something like Gravity. Why do we automatically assume that it is a benevolent, kind, and just force that from time to time speaks to us words in Hebrew and Sanskrit. Words that we then furiously scribble down in 500 page books. Why do we assume that this God, when it so pleases him, sends prophets down to earth for our salvation? And what the heck is salvation anyway?

Why do we call this theory Intelligent Design? I know why the good professor Behe calls it so. He says that the complexity of the world cannot be explained by Darwin's theory. Fair enough. He says that the complexity of nature indicates that there is an intelligent creator. Fair enough.

Now, since we are free-associating, this is what I think. I have noticed that the world is not only complex, it is also flawed. Many species are flawed in design and become extinct. Even within a particular survivor species, there exists large differences in natural endowments. This ensures that some individuals within the species are more handicapped than others and don't make it. 

Then why do we call it Intelligent Design? Can I submit a new theory called Brain-dead Design? Can I say that yes, there may be a greater force, but that it is quite likely an idiot. Or at least designs like an idiot some of the times? Can I further insist that this BD theory should be taught to your children, using your tax dollars, in public schools?

Why not?

The Dilemma

There is a logic trap that most of us fall into at some point in our lives: the False Dilemma. The False Dilemma occurs when a limited number of options are presented, when in reality more exist. It is also called a False Choice.

The False Dilemma works on the basis of an over-simplification of choices. I might say: Something is not A, therefore it must be B. This is a false dilemma because it ignores the possibility that the something may be C, D, E or a zillion other things.

In multi-valued logic, saying something is not A only implies that it is not A. It does not automatically follow that it is B.

Take the current rumble between Creationists and Darwinists everybody else. A Creationist's entire brief revolves around proving that Darwin is wrong. Okay, let's make this simple. Let's say that Darwin is wrong. So what? How does that make Creationism right?

Another example is this. When I watch TV, I sometimes flip channels and I hit these Christian Evangelical channels. Sometimes I linger and watch these shows (and believe me, they are shows). One time, there was this guy sitting with flipcharts and whatnot explaining how radiocarbon dating does not date things reliably beyond ten thousand years. Hence, he said loudly, this world must have been created not more than ten thousand years ago. That is a false choice.

I am guessing that the only people more brain-dead than flipchart guy must be the people who watch flipchart guy with devotion and straight faces. At least flipchart guy is getting paid.

If we follow these false choices all the way through, many interesting claims can be made. And by interesting, I mean fucking stupid.

For example: "Radiocarbon dating has limits; hence there is a Creator God." You will notice that I can substitute almost anything for the phrase "hence there is a Creator God" and it will make precisely zero difference to the truth of the statement.

I could say for instance, "Radiocarbon dating has limits; hence the founders of Ben & Jerry's are really purple aliens."


Or, "Radiocarbon dating has limits; hence smearing pineapple jam on your toes in a slow circular motion will make you smarter."

Or, "Radiocarbon dating has limits; hence polyunsaturated fats are bad for you." In this case, the two clauses are individually true, but the link is bogus.


When you do not respect the causality between a premise and a conclusion, you can say anything followed by anything else. Maybe somebody will even give you your own TV show.

Dear Anon

Dear Anon: Thanks for your comments and questions. The answers are quite simple really and follow. A word of caution: the answers are not interesting even though the questions are. Apologies in advance since the shortcoming is entirely mine. A profitless note to you: You really should get a name. It gets hard to tell you apart from the other Anons after a while.


The questions:

Interesting reads Sougata and Balajee (must allow anon comments B). you sound fierce.
How about a post from you 2 to cool some of that rage, say, a post with a line or 2 commenting on these:

music that you like,
how you met your wife,
your fav pic of yourself-c'mon post just one,
if you had a million $$ would you still work where you do,
your pet peeve,
your high school sweetheart,
what you think death is,
if you could undo one thing

...Then we can seethe on....



The answers:

I like Kishore Kumar and rock ballads.

I met my wife by chance.

I will look for my fav pic, but this may take a while because all my pictures are terribly unflattering. Since I am not above small vanity, picking out the most acceptable picture is not going to be an easy task.

Yes, I think I will choose to work. I have the sinking feeling that it's no longer strictly about the money.

My pet peeves will not fit into this one post; that is why I maintain this blog.

I cannot imagine why anybody would be curious about my high school sweetheart. In any case, there is nothing to tell.

Here's how the Oxford dictionary defines death: 1 the action or fact of dying. 2 an instance of a person or an animal dying. 3 the state of being dead. 4 the end of something. I believe the Oxford dictionary.

I would not undo a single thing. What's more important, I cannot undo a single thing. We are ruled by entropy, my dear anonymous friend. And entropy is quite the bitch about letting us undo stuff. Because it likes to always and necessarily increase to a maximum. And sadly, it is irreversible. You cannot turn smoke and ash back into a tree.

Note to Balajee: Please Turn on Anon

Balajee: I don't know if you are in the habit of reading the comments on my posts. Please see comment #5 on my last post, which is also directed at you.

Also, please gather from the comment that either you or I (or both) have been advised to just cool it. Pretty sane advice, if you ask me.

La Nuit Bengali

Balajee has a very nice post on his blog. He talks about his daughter who'll come into this wonderful and complex world of ours in six weeks. I wish him and his wife Anu the best with their approaching parenthood. He also talks about how India has changed since he last saw it three years ago. It is a very interesting read.

He also asks some pointed questions about Indian cricket, including one directed at me. The question, slightly paraphrased, is: Why do Bengalis insist on supporting Ganguly, given his obvious incomptence as a batsman and his inability to captain the team to success?

It is an interesting question. Why indeed do Bengalis support Sourav Ganguly? I think there are two reasons.

Part of it is parochial regionalism laced with a healthy shot of narrow chauvinism. Who cares about the team, as long as a person from MY state gets to lead it, I suppose. And part of it is because Bengalis are idiots. Let me prove that second part.

When it becomes necessary to prove something true, it is sometimes easier to start with an assumption which is the opposite of what you believe, and prove that to be false.

Let us start with the assumption that Bengalis are NOT idiots. 

Now picture this. It is the decade of the 70s in Bengal. The Mass of Bengalis (MOB, for short) who live there is doing its day job, sitting around, talking about cricket, scratching its ass, and generally getting on with life. Life is good. A few hiccups here and there, but the script is being mostly followed. One evening, as MOB is getting ready for dinner, it hears a knock on the door. A little ticked off, it being dinner time and all, it gets the door in a bit of a huff. And finds a greying old man, wearing a twinkle in his eyes and black horn-rimmed glasses on his nose, standing outside the door in the gloomy light of the late evening.

Old Man: I'll get down to business without beating around. Guys, I don't know how to break it you gently; but you have made a frickin' mess of running things for yourselves here.

Bengalis: Beg pardon?

Old Man: A snafu, if I ever saw one. You, my dear misguided friends, need help. In my personal but studied opinion.

Bengalis: What the heck are you talking about? What mess? I think we've done quite well for ourselves. Our per-capita is among the highest in India. We have thriving heavy industries. It was a bit of bother losing that large chunk of land to East Pakistan during Partition because it was a good farmland and a source of raw material to feed the industry, but I think we'll live. Literacy is not great but increasing. It is in any case not significantly lower than any other state. Our educational institutions still rank among the best in India. So what gives?

Old Man: And that is your story?

Bengalis: Well, actually there's more. Not to boast, but our recent history is rather glorious, wot. We were considered to be the leaders in the fight for independence. From within us emerged veritable giants like Swami Vivekanada, Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose, Sri Aurobindo Ghosh. Spiritually, politically, intellectually, economically, we were
pretty much swingin'. And the future looks good, we dare say.

Old Man: Snap out of it, guys. You haven't done squat. I have here with me what I call *fanfare* The System(TM). All I ask is that you try The System for sometime. Say about five years or so should do it. It takes a little time to work; what good thing doesn't? But if you think you are prosperous now, come meet me in five years after you've tried my System.

Bengalis: Well, okay.

Old Man (blinking): Huh? Okay? Did you just say ok?

Bengalis: Yeah, you heard us. Okay, we'll try it. You have an honest face.

Five years pass. Bengalis are a little poorer, thanks in no small measure to the System. It is not too much cause for alarm yet, but a few large industries have closed their doors or moved their shops elsewhere because trade-unionism is getting just a wee bit out of hand. Adult literacy isn't even crawling slowly upwards, it's frozen. What was merely a trickle of illegal immigrants from across the Bangladesh border has become a steady and strong stream. Rumor has it that the old man is in the know and on the take about this immigration thing. He encourages it in exchange for support for his System by the immigrants. The state of West Bengal, which usually ranked in the company of a Maharashtra or a Gujarat when considering human development indices, is now increasingly being mentioned alongside a Bihar or a Uttar Pradesh.

Sure enough, after five years, Bengalis hear a knock on the door. The Old Man stands there, looking a little sheepish.

Old Man: Okay, alright, before you jump down my throat, let me say it out loud myself. I know things are not so hot.

Bengalis: We wouldn't exactly put it that way.

Old Man: Alright, alright, go easy on me man. Sheesh. So things are super suckass. You happy now?

Bengalis: What's up with you? We think you've done a great job. Look around you. Things are so nice. We've never had it better. Here's our check, we'll buy another five year's supply of The System.

Old Man: (faints)

We know how this story ends, don't we? That Old Man is the Communist Party of India. And he has been in charge of Bengal's destiny for over two decades now, and counting. Bengal is near the bottom of the heap today--economically and culturally. Years of the Grand Old Man's dirigiste communism has beggared Bengal. Yet the Grand Old Man is in charge. Why? Because Bengalis have repeatedly elected him as their leader. And he didn't even have to resort to hard sell.

A group of clever, perceptive, foresighted people cannot keep choosing corrupt, rapacious goons to lead them. Goons that have made it a business of systematically impoverishing those that they rule. But Bengalis have repeatedly done this very same thing. Ergo, Bengalis are idiots. Not only that, they are masochists to boot.





IMHO, asking whether Bengalis are smart is like asking if the management of Apple Computer was smart. Both of these people took a promising something (a lead in technology in the case of Apple, an economy in the case of Bengalis) and totally blew it. Going by that rubric, no we are not smart.

Folk wisdom tells us that stupid people don't get rich. But how stupid do you have to be to actually travel in the reverse direction, to go from riches to rags?

At the time of independence, Bengal had a few things to boast of. What Bengal thinks today, India thinks tomorrow, and all that sort of thing. Or so I have been told.

And then we elected the Communists. And there was no looking ahead after that. Too, we didn't elect them just once, we elected them again. And again. And again. There are limits to how much one can flog himself, I would think. But no such luck here.

Today, Bengal is an economic basket case full of defeated people. It's industrial base is gone, thanks to rampant trade-unionism that has paralyzed manufacturing. Even it's much talked about "culture" is now flapping in the wind. I remember a time when Hindi cinema stole liberally from Bengali cinema (now they have switched to stealing from the South, the unoriginal bastards). Giants like Ritwick Ghatak, Bimal Roy, and Satyajit Ray strutted about. Now it's the reverse. Bengali cinema now looks to tired Bollywood movies for inspiration. Bengali literature hangs on, but only just. Adult literacy is barely over 50 percent.

There is glimmer of hope. The Leftists in Bengal are waking up, taking a whiff, and making noises about creating a pro-investment environment so that they don't miss out on the incumbent software boom. Having missed out on every other boom before this, they are not taking any chances with this one. But alas, I am a realist. Does the proverbial leopard change his spots? Nuh-uh. Do people really change? Nuh-uh. I have a feeling that the Commies are not quite done with Bengal yet.


Rather Lengthy Postscript:

(1) I do not write the above with any pride or glee. I am a Bengali and it brings tears to my eyes to see my people reduced. I have seen the hopelessness and helplessness. For quite some years, I lived it. So I know what I am talking about. And remember that I come from a background that is more privileged than most. I shudder to think of the Bengalis living close to subsistence under the Leftists.

(2) Any Bengalis reading this blog and intending to jump down my throat please note that starting to fix something is a two-step process. You have to first recognize that something is wrong with it, and then, determine what is wrong with it. And sometimes one must resort to rhetoric to get the first task done. The tale of the downfall of Bengal is not a splendid one. It cannot be told gently. I'm sorry.

(3) Rhetoric aside, this is what I truly believe. The intelligence of Bengalis is normally distributed with the same skew and kurtosis as the intelligence of any other group of people. Yes, I know my statistics; ha, ha. Put simply, they are no smarter or dumber than any other group of people. I would bet that if you took the normal curve of Bengali IQ and superimposed it on the normal curve of say, Bihari IQ, they would be indistinguishable. Nature is equally kind (or equally unkind, depending on your point of view) to every group of people. It is Nurture/Conditioning that makes our natural attributes appear different. And conditioning is a very powerful force. As a small example, consider the former East Germans and West Germans. Similar groups of people with similar natural attributes. Yet it took only two generations of good old Soviet-style conditioning to make them appear quite different from each other.

Explanations

The recent bombings in London have created a lot of talk about radical Islam. A lot of illiberal talk. This must stop. Yes, you heard that right. This hate-mongering must forthwith stop. So what if these guys sometimes blow up women and children? There are some second-order benefits of Radical Islam (RI, for short) that are lost on you folks who like to bash it. There are some definite upsides to RI that the gullible among you just don't get. Time to fix that hole.

Every cloud has a silver lining. This, munchkins, is also true of Radical Islam. Because RI has vomited up...er, what I mean, is...spawned a shiny new profession that gainfully employs many. That is the benefit. These professionals proudly call themselves the Apologists for Radical Islam, or ARIs for short. This is not quite the same as dhimmis. Dhimmitude is lowly and passe; ARI gets you spots on TV shows.

Skeptics should note that being an ARI can be quite profitable. Witness the wise and noble Fareed Zakaria, editor of Newsweek and one of my absolute favourite heroes (hey, there's no accounting for taste, to each his own and all that), who recently appeared on Jon Stewart's Daily Show and forwarded a rather interesting theory of why exactly British Muslims are inclined to terrorism. He said that we must keep in mind the general underprivileged condition of the Muslims in Britain before pointing our forefingers in their direction and jumping up and down like we have a colony of fire-ants in our pants.

Another ARI: Richard Bennett commented on rediff.com about the cause and effect between the London bombings and the war in Iraq. "If in Iraq you play, London must pay." He didn't write that pome, I did. Nice, no?

Or take another personal favourite apologist of mine called Ms. Teesta Setalvad, who heads a very liberal (and I use the word "liberal" in the sense of "illiberal bigoted fundamentialist") organization called Sabrang Communications or somesuch. This is the person who wagged her carefully manicured finger at us after the Godhra train-burning and reminded us that yes, fifty-nine innocent people were incinerated including women and small children, but we must not forget the provocation. Exactly what sort of provocation this was that justified the barbecuing of sixty-odd human beings, she did not say. I guess I am slow so I still don't quite get it.

I would request all to note at this point that all ARIs are not necessarily Muslims. In fact, some of the biggest and loudest ARIs are often non-Muslim.

The more illiberal of us like to point out that these ARIs are--either knowingly or simply because they are logically-challenged cretins--bearing out the unfortunate law of unintended consequences. 

Good intentions don't always lead to desirable consequences. The unintended consequence in this case is that the ARIs are doing the very large section of average moderate Muslims a huge disfavour by attempting to rationalize the behaviour of a deranged minority. They are also contributing to the fog of war by distracting us with non-issues and therefore shielding Islam itself from critical examination and reform.

Most ARIs suffer from a peculiar kind of hubris. They don't consider the rest of us to be too bright. Hence, out of the goodness of their tender hearts and strictly for our edification, they point out a few "root causes" that sometimes cause Islamic terrorists to lovingly place powerful explosives within easy reach of children.

Let us consider some of these causes that are cast about hither and thither.

(1) Yes, what the terrorists did in London was wrong, but they were simply acting out of the sense of outrage that they felt about the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Now far be it from me to question the general intelligence behind that reasoning, but my limited grasp of logic leads me to conclude that the speaker of that above sentence is kinda...like...you know...saying that a British Muslim identifies more with a Muslim in Iraq than with his own British countrymen.

Or put another way, religious identity takes precedence over national identity. And that we should be understanding of this.

Now I always try to revere wise men and imbibe their wisdom. And the best way to do that is to imitate them devotedly. I will be more than simply understanding about this.

So thus, without further ado, and purely in the spirit of emulation, I sincerely request all my fellow Hindus in India to start identifying with our Hindu brothers in Bangladesh more than our own Muslim Indian citizens. In fact, I would ask them to lovingly displace one Muslim from India for each Hindu displaced from Bangladesh. I would request them to gently and thoughtfully dishonour exactly one Muslim woman for each Hindu woman abducted in Bangladesh. I would also like them to, with tender care, level exactly one mosque for each temple desecrated in Bangladesh.

I would also like to apply this guiding model of Hindu behaviour retroactively, so that we take into account all Hindus brutalized in and displaced from Bangladesh (and oh by the way, Pakistan) since 1947. And when my dear Hindu brothers reach this stage of evolution, I would request the likes of Mr. Zakaria and Ms. Setalvad and other assorted liberal folkses to kindly be understanding about this.

There is a lot one can learn by simply paying attention to these clever ARIs, no?

(2) We must understand and empathize with the fact that the general poverty of the Muslims in Britain and elsewhere leads to their radicalization.

Yes, of course. And once again, having internalized that sage piece of observation, I would like to make an observation of my own. I have noticed that there are a lot of poor Hindus in India. And to these poor oppressed brethren of mine, I would like to extend a call to arms. Any Christian in India who is richer than you is fair game, my poor Hindu friend. Every Muslim who is more prosperous must be stripped of his wealth and made poor (so that he, in turn, can take up arms against you).

Yes, I like this logic. Very appealing. And I am, as the days go by, filled with admiration for these ARIs who take such pains to educate us about the finer points of liberalism and go to such lengths to keep us honest.

Fucking worm-infested, regressive cretins.


Postscript and Disclaimer: I am not suggesting that Hindus actually do any of the things that are suggested above. That would be stupid. My intent is to point out, with a parallel, the utter ridiculousness of suggesting that anybody should be understanding of terrorism.

Second, it should be noted that when people of the likes of Zakaria
--who is a high-profile editor of an influential magazine--make excuses for radical Islam by appealing to poverty or when someone else brings up Iraq to justify terrorism, it sets a dangerous mood. Because it implies that terrorism is a justified policy tool for expressing social or economic dissatisfaction and political disagreement. It implies that I am within my rights to go blow up uninvolved bystanders simply because I disagree with my government's foreign policy, or because I don't have a job. No right-thinking person would do this. These are not root causes; these are dangerous cop-outs.

Third, it occurs to me that ARIs often ignore Occam's Razor. One should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything. Poverty and outrage over Iraq are needlessly contrived explanations for radical Islam. The insight that a statistically significant section of Islamic folks preach virulence against non-Muslims, coupled with the fact that the much larger section of moderate, educated, peaceful, spineless, yellow-to-the-core Muslims sits there with its head stuck firmly up its ass in fear of fatwas and such, is the simplest explanation for radical Islam that I would personally buy.

10 Kinds of People

There are 10 kinds of people in the world -- those who understand binary numbers, and those who don't.

Category: Attempted Humor

Balajee commented on my last post that the job of God is up for grabs and George Bush and Sonia Gandhi have submitted their resumes.

Balajee, I was thinking. Maybe we can persuade Monisha Koirala to apply. She'd make one hubba-bubba Goddess. It'd be fun worshipping her, wot?

I mean, I’ll let you folks be the judge, okay? Here are your candidates for God(dess). Take a good look-see and then tell me if there is any room for doubt.

God Candidate #1: Mata Anandmayee Pujjya Sri Sri Sri Sonia-ji-ji-ji (A single Ji can scarcely convey the reverence an average Indian feels for her.)

















God Candidate #2: Dubya

















God Candidate #3: Monisha, in her God work clothes (left) and in her chill-out, "I so Human" clothes (Right)






















It is not even remotely a contest. Oh, and in case Monisha is busy and cannot be bothered, my next vote would go to the entire Russian women's tennis team.

In a related development, upon hearing that George Bush and Sonia Gandhi have applied for the position of God, (A) Bin Laden, (B) Mr. A. B. Vajpayee and, (C) all Democrats who rooted for John Kerry, have submitted their own nominations for the post of Satan.

This just in. In a late move, Ralph Nader, seeing how it was an election and all, has submitted his nomination also. In an even later move, both he and his Ego have been stripped naked, whipped raw and chased out of town by some seriously pissed-off Democrats.

Postscript: Here's some food for thought, though. If Monisha does indeed become Goddess and her administrative skills are anything like her acting skills, we are looking at serious trouble.

The Boon

One evening I sat and called on the Big Guy. You know, the Big Guy in the Sky. The Head Honcho. The Big Cheese. They say you really gotta pray long and hard to get his...beg pardon, His, attention. And even that is iffy.

They are wrong. It took about fifteen minutes. And He was standing in front of me.

He was smaller than I expected and several pounds overweight. He needed a shave.

"Wazzup?" He said.

"I need a boon."

He belched. He had onion on his breath. And alcohol.

His shirt was half-buttoned; looked like he might have put his clothes on hastily.

"Yeah well, who doesn't?"

"So you'll give me a blessing then?" I asked.

He scratched his stubbly chin and looked at me with a shrewd eye, sizing me up. Then He shrugged, "Awright, let's boogie. But make it quick. You kinda caught me in the middle of something."

We had a short conversation then.

He offered comfort. I asked for strength.
He offered fame. I asked for sweat.
He offered love. I asked for respect.
He offered friends and lovers. I asked for loneliness.
He offered peace. I asked for pain.
He offered More. I asked for Less.
He offered to make me a ruler of Men. I asked Him to make me a ruler of Myself.

He shrugged and said that He didn't have these things to give that I asked for, I was on my own on this, so sorry. I smiled and said that I understood completely.

He said that I was a little weird. I thanked Him for his time.

He didn't stay long.

I sat by myself after He left and thought of cabbages and kings. Outside, it grew dark as the ebony night slowly strangled the yellow evening.

Good going, Mr. Singh

The Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh met with the U.S. President George Bush in New York and minced no words when he pointed out that Pakistan was still being cozy with terrorists. Mr. Bush looked suitably surprised.

"You don't say", were his exact words.

They also fruitfully discussed cooperation in the nuclear sphere between India and the United States.

According to reports, while greeting the prime minister, Bush said, "You are a good man and I can do business with you."

"Why do you wear that funny hat?" he later added.

All Hail The Mother

I hear they are making a movie on the life and times of Sonia Gandhi. This of course makes her a bit of a living legend as far as politicians go. Even Rajeev Gandhi did not get this sort of honor. Neither did Indira. No one decided to make a movie about their lives while they were still alive. And a movie about Vajpayee? Yes, I hear the laughter too.

I will watch this movie of course. I will watch it closely and try to get a sense of the attributes that someone must possess or cultivate to enable her to rule over a nation of a billion people. A billion foreigners.

I personally think that the Imperial British needlessly committed a lot of money and troops in their troubles to conquer and rule India. It could have been done rather simply and without much fuss, as Sonia has just demonstrated so convincingly. All it needed was a bit of social engineering.

All Hail Sonia, the Brilliant White Mother Goddess. We bow to Thee.

And thank you for governing us skinny brown assed bastards. May your rule be long and fruitful.

The Solution

One day Mal-2 asked the messenger spirit Saint Gulik to approach the Goddess and request Her presence for some desperate advice. Shortly afterwards the radio came on by itself, and an ethereal female Voice said:

YES?

"O! Eris! Blessed Mother of Man! Queen of Chaos! Daughter of Discord! Concubine of Confusion! O! Exquisite Lady, I beseech You to lift a heavy burden from my heart!"

WHAT BOTHERS YOU, MAL? YOU DON'T SOUND WELL.

"I am filled with fear and tormented with terrible visions of pain. Everywhere people are hurting one another, the planet is rampant with injustices, whole societies plunder groups of their own people, mothers imprison sons, children perish while brothers war. O, woe."

WHAT IS THE MATTER WITH THAT, IF IT IS WHAT YOU WANT TO DO?

"But nobody Wants it! Everybody hates it."

OH. WELL, THEN STOP.

-- From the Principia Discordia


The Cold Within

Six humans trapped by happenstance In bleak and bitter cold. Each one possessed a stick of wood Or so the story’s told. Their dying fire in ...