Cities and Reservations

I wrote this while visiting a friend in Minneapolis on the weekend of the Fourth of July.

There are some places that charm you the moment you drive there. Minneapolis is one of those cities. Beautiful in the summer. 

Don't know about winter; don't want to know. 

The Walker Art Center and the Minneapolis Sculpture Garden are both located downtown and highly recommended. The Mighty Mississippi flows through the city and there is a natural stone arch that stretches 2100 feet across it at one point. 

The people are friendly and the city is cosmopolitan. For lunch you can take a ride into little Somalia or venture into the colorful barrio on E Lake St. and get a table at one of the many taquerias that serve the best tacos I have had. Fill them with Al Pastor (barbecued pork), Carne Asada (grilled steak), Carnitas (roast pork), barbacoa (shredded beef), liver, or spicy refried beans and you are golden. The salsas are to die for. Couple of reasons to go to the barrio during lunch: (a) The bright colors of the barrio catch the eye better during the day, and (b) there is less gunplay before sundown.

I bet you think I'm kidding about that last bit.

Another city that I love is is Washington DC. I think it is under-rated by Indian tourists, especially when stacked up against nearby New York. People will fly to New York and give DC a pass. I think this is a mistake. There are lovely museums and art galleries that line the National Mall in DC. They are all free to visit and you can spend days in each one. Literally.

I spent the summer of 1999 wandering around those museums. I would spend an entire day at a Smithsonian or an art gallery, then pop into an Ethiopian restaurant for some first class grub, before finishing the evening at a jazz club near Georgetown University. Happy times.

Since we are on the subject of cities, I also like Phoenix, Arizona. If you can get past the hundred-degree summer days, it is a beautiful city. The palm trees and the pueblo-style buildings reminds one California, but without the accompanying sticker shock. It's almost like somebody took California, relocated it inland, and then marked down all the prices.

---

The OBC Reservation Bill is a done deal. Whatever the benefits or drawbacks of the Bill, one thing is certain--Hindus will polarize even more along caste lines.

There is no denying that lower castes in India have been systematically discriminated against. They have been excluded from education and jobs and discriminated to the point that most now find themselves locked into a vicious cycle of illiteracy and poverty

The question therefore is not whether we need affirmative action, but how the affirmative action should be structured. I think it will make for better outcomes to shoot for universal primary education than subsidized secondary education.

One pro-reservation stand cites Tamil Nadu as being successful with reservations and tries to prove the point empirically (Tamil Nadu has 69% reservations across all categories at the time of this writing.)

As a categorical syllogism, here is the argument:

Major Premise: Tamil Nadu is economically better off than, say, West Bengal.
Minor Premise: Tamil Nadu has 69% reservations, combined across all categories.
Conclusion: Reservations cause better economic outcomes.

There may be a confusion between correlation and causation going on here. Tamil Nadu may be succeeding in spite of reservations. West Bengal, to compare, has been saddled with the Communists for a while now and Tamil Nadu has had better leadership. That could be a cause. Tamil Nadu may have better human capital. Why not? Tamil Nadu has had more fertility programs with better outcomes and has a thinner population density than West Bengal. That could be a cause.

I could equally well argue that Gujarat has both a higher per capita State Domestic Product (SDP) and a lower Gini coefficient (indicating greater income equality) than Tamil Nadu and Gujarat also has lower reservation quotas than Tamil Nadu. Therefore reservations do not lead to better economic outcomes.

Maybe Tamil Nadu would have been even better off without reservations. Prove me wrong.

Mumbai Madness

I was following an online thread of discussion on the train-bombings in Mumbai. Emotions ranged from anger to confusion to resignation and all the way up to optimism. The optimism was because some people thought that the West will now empathize with the terrorism that India suffers. Fat chance; people don't notice a burn until their own skin gets singed, so we can forget about that.

Pakistan was brought up. Religion was brought up. In the middle of all this, someone piped up with this:

[...] People who do these kind of things do not follow any God or religion.

I sometimes wonder what is it exactly that leads people to speak or write a sentence such as this one above. Is it an inability to comprehend the nature of the world, or a refusal?

My brief response:

Sez you. The people in question, on the other hand, follow a very specific God, notwithstanding your denial. And they would in all likelihood severely resent your assigning to them a theological position of your choice.

This is very presumptuous of me, but judging from your comment, I would place a small bet that your personal God, if you have one, is a gentle, kind, live-and-let-live, hang-loose kind of God. Quite possibly a reflection of yourself. But why do you simple-mindedly project the attributes of this God of yours onto the Gods of other people? Do you not acknowledge the reality that other people might have--and indeed do have--other, very different kind of Gods?

Gods are bound by the imagination and shaped by the motivations of the people who create them. Hence it is perfectly possible to have jealous gods, vindictive gods, and murderous gods as it is possible to have gentle, loving gods. It all depends on who is creating the god. And the rum thing is that such a god, once created, in turn affects the actions of the descendants of its creators, reaching across the gap of centuries like a long malevolent shadow. It is a bi-directional and symbiotic relationship.

People who do "these kind of things" indeed follow their God and religion. To the letter.

Down with chain letters

You know for sure that you have no life when you sit down and write responses to chain letters. I got the following chain letter from someone who lives in another country but is never very far from my thoughts. The chain letter has obviously been written by someone who is both spiritual and a Hindu.

I am aware that the person who forwarded this chain letter to me might one day read this post. To her I would like to say that I am not making fun of her. I couldn't. I love her too much for that. I am making fun of the amusing gent who actually wrote this chain letter. My responses are addressed to him.

I also harbor the hope that someone reading this will copy and paste my responses and create a counter chain letter that will ultimately flood the original author's mailbox. Fair is fair.

To authors of chain letters: If you must write meaningless stuff for people to read, use a blog. Like this one. That way people at least have the option of ignoring you.

The original letter is titled "Isn't it strange?" and is in red italics. My responses follow.


Isn't it strange how Rs. 20/=
seems like such a large
amount when
you donate it to temple, but
such a small amount
when you go shopping?

Donating even half a rupee to a temple that is not explicitly and entirely set up for human charity is a waste of anyone's money. But of course, you could do worse than donate to a temple. You could donate to a mosque.


Isn't it strange how 2 hours
seem so long when
you're at place of worship, and how
short they seem when you're
watching a good movie?

Not if the movie has Vin Diesel in it. Oh sorry, I just noticed that you said good movie.


Isn't it strange that you can't
find a word to say when
you're praying,
but you have no trouble
thinking what to talk about
with a friend?

I find a lot of words to say when I'm talking to or about God. Unfortunately most of those words would have trouble clearing a squelching committee.


Isn't it strange how difficult
and boring it is to read
one chapter of
the Bible / Quran / Gita / Granth , but how easy
it is to read 100 pages of
a popular novel?

A word of advice: instead of reading one chapter from a book of fairytales, read one page from Wikipedia each day. Wikipedia has a section on morality too, if that is what you hope to extract from the Bible/Quran/whatnot. And of course, in matters of morality, it is always an option to use your own common sense and judgment rather than derive it from a book written by a bunch of medieval, parochial, misogynistic goat-herders.


Isn't it strange how everyone
wants front-row-tickets
to concerts or
games, but they do whatever
is possible to sit at the last
row in a holy place?

That one is easy. The last row is usually the closest to the exit.


Isn't it strange how we need to
know about an event for
temple 2-3
weeks before the day so we can
include it in our agenda, but we can
adjust it for other events in
the last minute?

OK now, come clean. Which temple exactly are you pimping here and just how hard up are they for money?


Isn't it strange how difficult it
is to learn a fact about
God to share it
with others, but how easy
it is to learn, understand,
extend and repeat gossip?

Hmmm...a fact about God? The usage of the word "fact" seems strange when you are basically talking about something that has as much evidence for its existence as Frodo the Hobbit. So what fact about God do you know? Please share so these goosebumps will go away.


Isn't it strange how we
believe everything
that magazines and newspapers
say, but we question the words in the
holy books?

I don't believe everything that magazines and newspapers say. And there are some very questionable words in the holy books I have read. The Bible and Manu-Smriti come to mind. And really, what is a holy book? Is it a book that you read while willingly suspending your judgment and thought? Damn, I ought to take a shot at writing a holy book. Sounds like there's money in it.


Isn't it strange how everyone
wants a place in
heaven, but they don't want
to believe, do, or say anything
to get there?

What must I believe or say to get into heaven? That there is a heaven? Sorry, circular reasoning was never my thing.


Isn't it strange how we send
jokes in e-mails
and they are forwarded
right away,
but when we are going to send
messages about God, we think
about it twice before we share
it with others?

My company has explicit policies about forwarding jokes. I don't know if they have anything about forwarding messages about God. What if it is a joke about God? Can I forward that?

IT'S STRANGE ISN'T IT

Yes, very strange. Now get the fuck back to work and stop writing chain letters on company time.

Some Politics and some High School Memories

I have been busy. And while I have been chasing the green stuff, much water has passed under the bridge...or many leaves have turned brown...or something like that.

For one, there is the OBC reservation bill and the very lukewarm anti-reservation protests in India. I read a transcript of Arjun Singh's interview [Hat tip: Kshitij] speaking on the reservations. If you ever wondered why reservations are desirable--or even necessary--this interview with Arjun Singh will not tell you why.

What Arjun Singh will tell you, however, is how to be an evasive weasel and a fawning asskisser. You know, it does not strike me as odd that Arjun Singh is an asskisser--or pretending to be one for political reasons-- but what does strike me as odd is that we the people elected this man with complete disclosure that he may one day occupy an important public post. The mind boggles.

Here is the link. The interview speaks for itself. I am personally speechless.

Then there is Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's smarmy preaching to the Indian troops about human rights violations in Kashmir. I don't know about you, but I find it strangely comforting and poetically just that India is led by a grinning idiot. The people get what they deserve. The law of perverse consequences at work.

Mr. Prime Minister, if you can spare a moment to disengage your lips from Sonia-ji's behind and pay attention to a humble citizen, here is what I will suggest. It is not a good idea to call your own troops publicly on human rights violations by asking them, in almost so many words, to stop being beastly to those that will spare no qualms in blowing them up in the name of Allah. It does terrible things to morale. What is preferred is a private, sensitively-worded memo to the poor grunts who risk their lives everyday just so that you can draw the map of your country a certain way.

Mr. Prime Minister, here's a surefire way to stop human rights violations in Kashmir. Pull out the troops. This is guaranteed to stop human rights violations by the troops. The only thing left in Kashmir then will be the human rights violations by the terrorists. Problem solved.

Let me say this simply and I will try very hard not to elevate the PG-13 rating of this blog. I hate Manmohan Singh and the spinelessness that he stands for. I hate this fucker, so help me God. This rank twat known as Manmohan Singh must go. Motherfucker. 

Ratings duly elevated, but that felt good.

Then there is the big Communist victory in West Bengal. The people, having come to grips with the fact that there is no other alternative, have decided that getting sodomized by the Communists is the preferred way to go. After all, the Communists are reforming of late and using a smaller dildo now. Until, of course, they suddenly decide that they are being too pro-business and regress. Ideology is such a capricious thing, no?

The codependence of the Bengali people is an amazing thing to behold. Every Bengali is at heart, a battered and codependent spouse, faithfully serving up a hot dinner to the Communists every election night with a broken nose and smiling lovingly across the table through battered lips.

The justifications for choosing the Communists yet again come fast and furious if you only care to listen. I heard this somewhere from a Bengali in defence of the people's choice: The Communists, after spending decades beggaring Bengal, have built up a wealth of experience in governing. So they are the best placed to govern. Get used to it.

Nice logic. I have a question though. If experience is what we wanted, why the fuck did we spend all the time and effort to kick out the British? They were best suited to govern. Been doing it for two centuries. Much more experienced than the Communists, certainly. Why did we put them on the eight o' clock train and wave bye-bye?

Bengalis are idiots. No really, we are.

---

Let's talk football.

I am usually glued to the television set these days whenever I get some free time. This is because the Football World Cup is happening right now.

If you are going "Huh?" at this point, chances are that you are American.

I am of course, talking about "soccer".

Football still interests me, as you can tell. I used to be a footballer in school and very briefly in college. I even considered taking up football as a career before good sense kicked in; it is unrewarding to be a footballer in India.

So I was a footballer. I thought I was a pretty damned good one too. I made Captain of a school house team. Take that.

But see, I wasn't a damned good ball player. That is the darn thing about growing up and taking a grown-up view of things. You find out that you in fact kinda sucked arse at a lot of things that you thought you were good at. Here are the weaknesses I had as a footballer.

(1) I favoured my right foot. In fact, I couldn't shoot with my left foot to save my life.
(2) I was terrible in the air.
(3) I never got any exposure to real competition outside of school. I wish I had. It would have been a humbling experience.
(4) I wasn't a good team player.

I would have been a dedicated project to any coach. What I did have was good dribbling skills. And I thought then that this was what it was all about. Beating three opponents in midfield was more important to me than scoring a goal and winning. I believe this is known as grandstanding. I loved grandstanding. Any team manager worth his salary would have asked me to shape up and get with the program after watching me in action the first time; and would have further kicked me out without ceremony if I didn't. Of course, this was high school, and no such thing had a chance of happening.

Our football coach in high school was a gentleman by the name of Francis Baretto. I still remember him. He was very fond of me; there's no accounting for taste. I recently heard that he has passed away. Gone to that great big football field in the sky. I remember that he taught me to lean my body into long range shots so the ball won't fly over the crossbar. Thank you Mr. Baretto, that was an important lesson. I don't use it any more, but I will never forget it.

The highlight of my football career was being selected the captain of a school house team for an intra-school tournament. There were four houses in our school. I was Falcon House.

With hindsight, I was an extremely poor choice for captain. Anybody who does not understand teamwork usually is. A good captain should have a clear awareness of the strengths and weaknesses of everybody on the team, including his own. At the school level, a captain should almost be as strategic as the coach. I did not possess that quality. Too individualistic to care about the big picture.

But we had a good team and we reached the finals. And the game started.

I did my usual thing, which was occasionally dribbling past two or three people in midfield. Moves that ultimately went nowhere. I drew some applause (which is what I suppose I was really after) from the crowd on my "ball skills" and that pleased me. Not to be too harsh about them after so many years, but those applauding were probably as clueless about football as I was.

But I did score a goal in that match. Fittingly, it had nothing to do with any individual skill. The only goals I have scored after dribbling past five players and beating the goalkeeper all ends up have been those that happened while I was sleeping. The goal in that match, however, was the result of a brilliant through-pass by a team-mate who had in turn been fed the ball by another from the midfield. I only tapped the ball home. Only a Parkinson-stricken baboon would have muffed the opportunity that I was given. I didn't.

It took me several more years of playing football before I cottoned on to how football really works. The lesson came too late though, because I got busy with college and seldom played after.

So I scored on that day. Unfortunately, the opposing team equalized soon afterwards. The final result after full time of play was a 1-1 draw. The rules required a penalty shootout to decide the match. We won the penalty shootout and won the tournament. It was a thrill, in spite of the lessons not learned.

And that is my story.

I should have learned how to play cricket instead. More money in it. Cricket is a religion in India. Cricketers are gods. People get upset when somebody calls them overpaid, underperforming twits. But remember, I don't do this. I know better. People who label them such are severely mistaken. Technically speaking, Indian cricketers are overpaid, underperforming twats.

---

You couldn't pry me away from the TV set with a crowbar these days. Football still sets my veins on fire. I just watch it with a more critical eye now.

---

An interesting thing happened this morning. A friend calls me up and asks me if I want to go watch a local cricket match. He is a non-Bengali, non-Goan, non-Keralite Indian and hence is completely unaware of the irony of asking a red-blooded Bengali male to go watch a cricket match on a day when there are three World Cup football matches being telecast live.

The irony was lost on him and may be lost on some of you. So let me frame that in a picture that a non-Bengali Indian mind can grasp. Let's say you, a non-Bengali Indian, are watching Pakistan play Australia in the Cricket World Cup and I call you up and say, "Hey so-and-so, do you want to drive up to the airport fence and watch the planes land? It's gonna be fun." 

Get the picture?

This post is not really going anywhere and is threatening to devolve into an anti-cricket rant, so I shall soon stop. For the record, I have nothing against cricket. Cricket is a sport and I like almost any sport. I watch it. I pay good money to go see India get whipped raw by Australia. Cricket is neither good nor bad. It is neutral. What I don't understand is the fixation that Indians have for this sport to the exclusion of every other sport. Monocultures are never good.

So I shall stop. But I gotta say the following.

American television channels can be confusing about match coverage. So this time, just for the lark, I switched to a Spanish channel to watch the World Cup. I discovered an immediate disadvantage--I don't understand the commentary. I however soon discovered an advantage.

Latin channels have Latina women in them.

I mean folks, ai-ai-ai-ai-yaa...Latina women must be some of the prettiest women on the planet, I just discovered. Muy Caliente!

I pointed this out to my wife. She agreed, and then looked me up and down and went, "Is this what a mid-life crisis looks like?"

Honey, you don't need a mid-life crisis to appreciate a gorgeous Latina. You just need a pulse.

Me so cranky

Have you seen those idiotic Indian Idol shows? Those shows modeled after American Idol? Now let it be very clearly understood that Americans come up with some really stupid fucking entertainment ideas. But at least they are ORIGINAL stupid fucking entertainment ideas. We Indians are not original enough to come up with stupid ideas of our own. So we copy stupid ideas that others have come up with.

I have a desire. I desire to be a contestant on an Indian Idol type show. Not because I believe that I will win or anything. When I sing, I sound like a bullfrog in heat calling out to its mate to come get some. I have no illusions about winning. I want to be a contestant just so I can answer those retarded personal questions they ask their contestants. Which they then post all over the Internet proudly.

Here's a sample from just such a show that I found a link to: http://ekmainaurektu.sifymax.com/contestants/saptak/

If you don't have time to click the link (and I suggest that you do not make the time), here are the questions and the contestant's answers.

Hometown - Kolkata

Source of Inspiration - My Mom & Dad

Learning Music from - My Father, Alip Banarjee, now Pandit JAYANTA BOSE

Best Friend - My Father

Can`t live without - My Mom & Dad.

Weakness - Family, Music

Crazy About - My Father & Mother, Home Food

Love is - Music & Happiness

Music is - Life

Okay, I have to stop at this point, because I feel a retch coming on something fierce. The rest of this inanity can be found if you follow the link. I can almost see the giggling, overflowing, thirty-something-but-acting-all-seventeen, pansy-boy host of the show asking these bland questions and gurgling happily when the contestant gives his cloying answers.

What's up with these sugary answers? Why can't people be crabbier and crankier? Like me. Grinning idiots come a dozen to a dollar; it's nice and fresh to be a fucking crank.

So I want to be on this show and answer these questions. And I have my answers prepared right now.

Hometown - Today, Milwaukee. Tomorrow, who the hell knows.

Source of Inspiration - No one you would want to trust your child with. Actually, no one, full stop.

Learning Music from - Learnt how to play the guitar once from some guy. Either he was not a good teacher or I was not a good student.

Best Friend - Whoever is buying me the next drink.

Can't live without - Stupidest and most pointless question I ever heard. Okay, let's say: you. Let's say I can't live without you. What's it worth to you? ...Yes, my point exactly.

Weakness - Nothing. Or Everything. Depends on how you look at it......Okay, now STOP looking at it!

Crazy About - Yo Momma.

Love is - Like a beautiful unicorn. In other words, it's like a convenient fucking fairytale that no one has ever seen, and not seriously believed in by any sane person over the age of twelve.

Music is - Expensive, depending on where from and how much you're buying.

Hobbies - None of your fucking business. Pansy-boy.

Favourite Color - Remember when I called one of those questions above "the stupidest and most pointless question I ever heard." Turns out I was wrong. That wasn't the stupidest.

Superstitious About - Nothing.

Place where you would like to go on Vacation - I personally wouldn't go on vacation. I'll rest when I'm dead. I know where I would like to send some people though so they would leave me the fuck alone. Also, yo momma.

Favourite Actor - Fuck them all. God will recognize his own. Actually, come to think of it, fuck God too.

Favourite Actress - See above.

Achievements - What's an "achievement"?

Favourite Singer - See fourth line above this line, counting from this line.

The Evolution Debate

The debate on how evolution should be taught in American high schools is old. Kitzmiller vs. Dover is just the latest brawl. I have heard many viewpoints on the issue and they usually boil down to the following two main lines.

(1) Teach evolution only.
(2) Teach both evolution and Biblical Creationism. Or, if you prefer to call it by a different name, Intelligent Design.

As you might have noticed, the above two options do not form an exhaustive matrix. The four missing options that complete the matrix are:

(3) Teach Biblical Creationism only.
(4) Teach neither.
(5) Teach all possible Origin theories.
(6) Teach a non-trivial subset of all possible Origin theories that does not include Biblical Creationism or evolution.

Here's a discussion question that comes from all this. Why teach Biblical Creationism? Why not Hindu Creationism? It is funner. Really. If you don't believe me, consider that Hindu mythology has waaay more sex and alcohol. Word.

Why not teach Norse Creationism? What makes these creation hypotheses less compelling than the Christian creation hypothesis?

The standard argument is the argument from numbers. The argument is that the majority of Americans are Christians and so believes in the Christian version. Therefore the choice is clear.

My weighty, well-pondered, scientific response to that is: Fiddlesticks! The quality of a theory is entirely divorced from the number of subscribers to the theory. There was a time when the majority held to the idea that the earth is flat. Take that, Behe.

No religious creationist story is more credible than another. Without empirical evidence and testable ideas to back it up, any story is as good as the next. If you hold the door open for one, you might as well invite everybody else in.

My opinion is that the sensible approach is to teach the best-fit theory with the disclaimer that it is not an absolute truth, but only a reflection of the state of the art that most accurately explains observed reality. Darwinian evolution is the best-fit theory that most accurately explains observed reality.

On a related note, the most brilliant refutation of Darwinian evolution that I have personally ever heard came from a Senator in Arkansas, "If we teach kids that they were descended from monkeys, don't you think they'll act like monkeys?"

Yes, that is an actual quote.

If you ask me, I don't find it surprising that we are descended from monkeys and apes (which, technically speaking, we are not). I find it surprising that some of us, including senators, haven't quite made that leap yet.

[To be continued]

How fast, Speedy?

How fast are you moving right now? If you are reading this on your desktop computer, you might reply that you are not moving at all. If you are one of those types on the go at all times and you are reading this using wireless on a laptop in a cab on your way to the airport, you might say that you are moving at 65 miles per hour.

The really clever ones will say that their total velocity is the vector sum of the velocity of the cab plus the velocity of the earth as it spins around its axis plus the velocity of the earth as it revolves around the sun plus the velocity of the solar system as it revolves around the galactic center plus the velocity of the Milky Way galaxy as it travels outward from the singularity that expanded into our Universe. This would be a very large number and a very clever answer, but it still wouldn't be close. [**]

One of the more startling conclusions of the theory of special relativity is that we are each of us individually and at all times, moving at the speed of light.

We know that each of us moves freely in three dimensions and forward-linearly in a fourth. The four dimensions are x, y, z and time.

It is easy to think about motion in terms of three dimensions. Newtonian mechanics does exactly this. Then Einstein came along and introduced the idea of space-time as a single fabric. The theory of Special Relativity states that each of us is, individually and at all times, moving at the speed of light. This is the only idea that explains time dilation.

This seems astonishing, but here's one way to visualize this.

Note: What follows below is not meant to be an intuitive proof, and certainly not a mathematical one. Also, it uses sex to get your attention.

Let's say that you are strolling in a park and this being your lucky day, you see this cute thang in a thong in the distance. You readily and randily figure out that she's about 100 yards away from you. You start running towards her at the speed of 1 yard per second to take a closer look at her chest. Elementary math tells us that you will reach her in exactly 100 seconds, at which point she will refuse to date you.

Now imagine a slightly different scenario. Same girl, same park, same distance, same loser...you. But this time, you are prepared. You are brandishing a shiny new toy that you picked up at the Radioshack: a LOX Jetpack. Humor me.

Wanting to impress the Fraulein, you fire up your jetpack and take off at a 45 degree slope from the ground. After traveling at the same speed of 1 yard per second and for the same 100 seconds, you stop and hover over the park. Anybody with basic spatial sense will know that if you now dropped a perpendicular from your position in the sky to the ground, you will find that you are still some distance away from the Fraulein.

You travel the same 100 yards in both instances. But you cover less ground in the second case. In the first case, all of your motion was in the x dimension--you traveled straight to the girl. In the second case, however, your motion was shared by both the x and z dimensions, i.e. you traveled both forward and up. To reach the girl within the same time in both cases, you would have to increase your speed in the second case. 

The key idea here is that motion can be shared among dimensions.

We are each of us moving relentlessly in all four dimensions at the speed of light. But this motion is shared by all four dimensions. We inhabit a low-velocity world and therefore move quite slowly in the three spatial dimensions. Most of our velocity is in the temporal dimension. We are moving at nearly the speed of light through time.

Since the speed of light is the theoretical maximum speed at which any particle/wave can move, it follows that if we increase our motion in one dimension, there should be a corresponding decrease in our motion in another dimension. In the case of the girl in the park, we increased our motion in the z direction with the jetpack. This decreased our motion in the x direction and we failed to reach the girl.

Similarly, if we were to hop on board a really fast spaceship that was traveling at close to the speed of light in space, our increase in motion through space will decrease our motion through time. In other words, time slows down as we approach the speed of light. Time dilation occurs.

Time dilation has been observed experimentally [cf Hafele-Keating Experiment]. Time dilation occurs perceptibly for objects moving at near-light speeds. If you are a passenger on a spacecraft that is moving at a significant fraction of the speed of light, time will noticably slow down for you. Clocks on this spaceship will move slower relative to clocks not on the spaceship. Physical processes will slow down relative to other frames of reference.

In theory, it is possible for you or I to accelerate to near the speed of light. If we did that and since we are now moving faster and faster in space, we will have to "borrow" this motion from somewhere. And we'll have to borrow it from--you guessed it--the temporal dimension. This is why time slows down as we approach the speed of light. When our speed through space reaches the speed of light, our speed through time is zero.

A particularly interesting limiting case is that of a photon--a particle of light. A photon is always traveling at, well, the speed of light. Since all its motion is in space and at the theoretical maximum, it has no motion left in time. Time does not exist for a photon. It is, in a literal sense, immortal.

I am taking a bit of liberty here. I think photon decay is a thing, but the physics of that is beyond my tiny brain. At any rate, even with photon decay, photons have incredibly long lifetimes. A billion billion years or sumsuch. That is way more time than the Universe itself has been around.

Each of us is moving at the speed of light. All the time. So the next time a police officer pulls you up for speeding and asks you if you know how fast you were going, you know what to say. Remember to say it with a straight face. You'll probably make his day.

[**] The Milky Way is moving at about 600 km/s towards the constellation Hydra. Compare that to the speed of light, which is almost 300,000 km/s.

[Ref: The Elegant Universe, Brian Greene]

The Sting

I like Paul Newman. I am probably in the minority. I mean, who likes Paul Newman? Everybody liked the pretty-boy Robert Redfords. Who liked Paul Newman?

Do you want to know why I like Paul Newman? I'll tell you anyway.

I like Paul Newman because his face has character. He may or may not have any--I don't know--but his face does. For some reason, he seemed to pull off rather well parts that involved playing a little serious, a little lonely, a little dark and a little brooding character. It suited him. He remains one of my favorite actors.

Good movies to watch: The Sting, Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, The Hustler, The Color of Money.

I was watching The Sting last night.

A Meeting of Minds

As usual, the item of news that I am about to present below is outdated. March 17, to be precise. The conference in question has probably already been held.

Why am I not johnny on the spot with current affairs and stuff? My excuse: 100 ppt of Lazy, 100 ppt of Lack o' Time, and 800 ppt of--what is known in the scientific community as--Lack o' Smarts.

The buzz, so says trusty old Rediff, is this:

Shahi Imam of Jama Masjid Syed Ahmed Bukhari has intiated a move to bring all Muslim religious and political groups under one platform to evolve a joint strategy for social, economic and educational uplift of the minorities.

The Imam has convened a National Conference of Muslims in New Delhi on Saturday, which is being attended by over 300 top Muslim clerics, scholars and religious heads. They will discuss ways and means to form a confederation that will take care of socio-economic problems of 160 million Muslims.

Hurriyat Conference chairman Moulvi Omer Farooq will also be present at the conference. He is expected to present his views on the current political scenario in Jammu and Kashmir.

Jamait-Ulemai Hind chief Maulana Arshad Madni, vice-president of Jamaat Islami Professir Munis Shafi, general secretary of Majlis Mushwarat Maulana Ameeduzaman Kairinavi, top Islamic scholar Sheikh Abu-Baker Qadri, Bharti Majlis chief Jaweed Habib and Maulana Fazul-Qasmi will attend the day-long meet to iron out differences and work towards the common goal of launching a joint movement for minorities' rights, Syed Ahmed Bukhari said.

"Our goal is to meet leaders of all political parties and to seek their support for removing economic and educational backwardness of minorities. For the past 59 years, nothing concrete has been done in this regard," Qari Mian Mohammed Mazhari and Chaudhry Rahat, co-convenors of the Conference said.

They said that a 10-point agenda has been circulated to the delegates, which would be the main focus of the deliberation.

This includes compensation for Gujarat riots, Constitutional amendment for restoring minority status of the Aligarh Muslim University and resolution of the Kashmir issue through dialogue.

Former cabinet secretary Zafar Saifullah, former union minister C M Ibrahim and Qazi of Kanpur Qari Abdul Sami will present their views on educational problems of the community.

So somebody has started a movement to bring all Muslim religious and political groups in India under one platform. Uh-oh...I mean, that's nice.

Further note that the conference is being attended by over 300 top Muslim clerics and religious heads, who will discuss educational reforms, among other things.

Religious heads are getting together to discuss education. What me worry? What could go wrong?

The convenor of this conference is Mr. Syed Ahmed Bukhari, who is the Shahi Imam of Jama Masjid and a top-ranking PITA (qv). Quite a likable man. I do not speak from experience, only hearsay. I have met many people who have never met him who say he's nice.

As you can see, a co-convenor of the conference said, "Our goal is to meet leaders of all political parties and to seek their support for removing economic and educational backwardness of minorities."

Doublespeak usually requires translation. So, helpfully for all concerned, I have provided a translation.

Original Sentence:
Our goal is to meet leaders of all political parties and to seek their support for removing economic and educational backwardness of minorities.

Translation:
Of late, it has come to our notice that we haven't nearly been pampered enough by this stupid fucking country... beg pardon, by the rest of India. We already have our own personal laws, such as they are. We get nice sops once in a while like the Hajj subsidy which the rest of India--which means mostly the foolish Hindus--finance with their ill-gotten income and such. But we have noticed that we are still poor and backward. So is a majority of the Hindus, but so what? Shut up and pay attention.

So we are poor. Conveniently, we are also Muslim. Best of all, we are Indian Muslims. And now that one of the most divisive political parties that India has had the misfortune to be saddled with is in power --a party whose kiss-spittle still remains on our behinds--we feel that the time is right to ask for our pound of flesh.

I have a question. Why the fuck do they need handouts again? What about the money in the more than 300,000 Waqfs held throughout India? Isn't that supposed to be for the welfare of poor, needy Muslims? Oh wait, I forgot. In India, a Waqf can be a Family Waqf, which is not really a Waqf, but an umbrella.

Briefly, a Waqf is an inalienable endowment for a philanthropic cause such as a school, or a mosque, or an orphanage. Like a trust. In a Family Waqf, or Waqf Al Aulad (yes, that's really the name), the philanthropic cause is your family. My understanding is that if you are fortunate enough to be simultaneously Muslim, rich, and living in India, you can designate your property as Waqf property and designate your heir as the trustee. In general, property designated as Waqf does not form part of your estate, so no estate duties. No capital gains on assets sold. Sweet. Quite naturally, Waqf applies to Muslims only, it being a part of Muslim personal law. Hindus get no such free rides.

Any proposal to modify the Waqf laws meets with resistance in India, because it is seen as an attempt to meddle with Muslim personal law.

This personal law thing is sweet. Hmmm...hey you Indian government, fuck it, I want a personal law too. I've changed my mind. I don't care about all that Uniform Civil Code song and dance amy more, I want my own personal law. Within three business days.

Here is an interesting bit of news for those who like to think of the British as the sole engineers who created this divide between Hindus and Muslims (as if they needed one). The Privy Council that governed India post 1857 ruled to abolish the Family Waqf. It would appear that the system of Family Waqf struck even the greedy, money-grubbing bastards of the Privy Council as slightly inequitable. But a particular Indian political party actually protested and asked that the Waqf laws be left as they are.

Which political party, you ask?

**Shuffles cards for shell game**

Watch for it...watch the red queen...here it comes...is it the Muslim League, seems logical...round and round and round she goes, where she stops nobody knows...is it the principle-peddling, two-timing Commies, maybe...

No, ladies and gentlemen, the party that resoundingly voted to maintain Family Waqf and uphold Islamic law was the ever secular Indian National Congress. Old habits die hard, eh?

Back to the conference. Let's look at some of the items on the agenda.

(1) Common goal of launching a joint movement for minorities' rights.

Somebody reading this please tell me what rights Muslims do not have in India.

(2) Constitutional amendment for restoring minority status of the Aligarh Muslim University.

Yes, especially the lucrative rider that gives 50 percent reservation to Muslims.

(3) Resolution of the Kashmir issue through dialogue.

How will the Kashmir issue uplift Muslims? While I agree that it will in general be a blessing when the Kashmir issue is solved, I don't see the relevance of this particular topic in such a meeting. Well, maybe its a filler, to be discussed at leisure over biriyani and kababs.

---

Glossary of Terms
PITA: Pain In The Ass

Varanasi Blasts

Recent events bring one fact home. Indian newspapers are uncommonly interested in international news. I have noticed, for example, that Indian newspapers fall all over themselves to report sixty Europeans getting plastered all over the subway. They report this from several angles for several days. They fret and brood over it.

As an interesting study in contrast, navigate to the UK Guardian's front page today, one day after the Varanasi explosions. Or the Times Online. They are just such a bundle of agony right now about twenty vaporized Indians, it will touch your heart.

I know that you are simply looking after your own, Europe. I understand self-interest, and I wish most Indians did. But notwithstanding, here it is one more time. Europe, I may never see the day. But I hope my great-grandchildren see you raising your behinds skywards five times a day and blubbering before Allah, the most merciful. Actually, it occurs to me that my great-grandchildren will probably be doing the same. So THAT'S a wash.

And a gentle note to the average Indian journalist: Here's a quarter, go buy yourself a fucking clue.

I mean...It. Has. Been. Five. Thousand. Years, people.

You and yours have been colonized, brutalized, sodomized, pulverized, and partitioned. Often by the very same people whom you reserve your angst for.

Still no clue.

Even a completely vapid moron gets it after a few tries. But not you.

Collective racial memory: Zero.

Here's one idea for you: Self-respect. There are machines today that will eat for you, breathe for you, and defecate for you. But no machine has yet been built that will instill a sense of self. Gotta do this on your own time.

Creature of a strange stripe indeed is the Indian journalist. A creature ruled by a few simple equations.

Graham Staines = News.
Sixty dead Europeans = News.
A few unfortunate Indians = News, but not if there's a bloody cricket match on!

What can I say? I'm running low here, people. Someone help me out.

On the positive side: The Daily Pioneer is covering the story well. People tell me that it is a right wing paper. If this is right wing hatemongering, India needs more of it. May their tribe increase. Also, again, just for the contrast, check out the front page of Outlook Magazine Online, a left wing paper. It is difficult to believe that both newspapers share the same inertial frame of reference.

Surprisingly, The Times of India (link not provided for your own safety) has not lost interest yet and is covering the story better than usual. The age of miracles is not over.

Twenny More

Something went boom and twenny little Indians went splat. Yesterday. In Varanasi. Near a temple. No one knows who did it. Though many have a good idea. But no one can be sure. Maybe they blew themselves up by accident. Indians have a habit of doing that. Careless lot.

No need to get angry. It creates communal tension. That's what Pakistan wants. Here's an idea. Let us create a boom in Islamabad. Near a mosque. And create some communal tension in Pakistan. But wait, you need at least two communities to create communal tension. Pakistan has only one. Ha, ha. Those clever Pakis.

The world condemned the boom-and-splat. Not the real world. You know...the pretend one.

What's the cricket score?

Journey

What is it that wires our brains so that certain songs suck the air out of us? Why does some song by Journey suddenly remind me of somebody? Why not Baby Got Back?

Well, I'm glad I asked. Here's an ontological view of this.

There is this hypothesis that psychologists call the neural correlate of content experience. Certainly a mouthful, but the idea is simple. Every emotion--love, anger, hate--corresponds to an unique neurological configuration inside your brain. So a state of mind is really a state of the brain. If you identify yourself philosophically as a materialist, this point of view should seem natural to you, i.e. mind is really matter. They are not distinct.

It follows that every state of mind--which an emotion really is--can be ultimately reduced to and described in terms of matter, because every state of mind or emotion has a direct neural correlate.

All the neural correlates taken together forms the neural correlate of consciousness. It defines, in a definite structural and material fashion, what you think of as your conscious mind.

Electrochemical disturbances. That's all there is to it. Every emotion someone feels, every stupid fucking emotion that anyone has ever felt, is nothing but a sublime, subtle, electrochemical dance inside the head. Boo-ya.

Have we found the neural correlates yet? I believe we are trying.

Many disciplines have a central problem. Physicists face the problem of reconciling general relativity with quantum mechanics. The Holy Grail for physicists is the union of the world of the gargantuan with the world of the microscopic under one Unified Law.

Similarly, a central problem in psychology is finding and mapping the neural correlates. Much as we have mapped the human genome, I suppose it will be a day of triumph for psychology when every human emotion is mapped and formulated into balanced valence equations. Equations of love, hate, faith, loyalty. Equations that solve for sudden liking. Equations that solve for chronic dislike.

I wish them luck and god speed. Find them correlates. Map them correlates.

And then just give us the fucking antidotes.

A Very Long Rant

Our world is fast succumbing to the activities of men and women who would stake the future of our species on beliefs that should not survive an elementary school education.

-- Sam Harris, The End of Faith

D commented that there's nothing in my blog about Mohammed's caricatures. I guess one of the reasons is that I don't really give much one way or the other. But okay, I'll bite.

Here's a story.

Let's say you work for a medium-sized company called SlaevDryver. Things are chugging along nicely, times are good, and the company is seeing a lot of work. Since you're hiring, you hire this new guy by the name of--now, let's see if I can come up with a suitably vague, culture-neutral name that won't offend anybody...I got it--Abdullah.

You hire Abdullah after a diligent interview. Abdullah does nicely in the interview and seems otherwise competent. Then comes the orientation on Monday.

Your team trudges into the big conference room by the elevator and after some general bitching and moaning about how your respective weekends went, you turn to Abdullah for introductions. Abdullah gets up, clears his throat a bit, and says:

Abdullah: Hi, I'm Abdullah Rahmatullah ibn Mohammed. For those of you who're blinking, I also answer to Al.

Chorus: Hi Al.

Al: It's so nice to be working here. It's always been my dream to work for SlaevDryver. To give you a brief sketch of what I've been up to, career-wise...well, after graduation, I worked for Duzntpae-Well for ten years as Senior Software Dude, before upping and moving to the Midwest to work for a further five years in So-u-wanna-rayz in the capacity of Very Senior Guy Who Does Mysterious Stuff. And now here I am.

Chorus: Welcome, Al.

Al: Thanks.

Chorus: Sure.

So all of you get up to leave and schlep on back to your desks to indulge in a couple of hours of the Mandatory Monday Morning Zone Out. Al clears his throat again. You look at him curiously.

Al: Guys, just one more thing. I have a request, and I want you to bear this in mind very well. I'm generally a nice sort of guy but you should never, NEVER, ever, use the words "Great Bearded One-eyed Mooh-Daddy" in any sort of writing to me. Never, ever, because it goes against certain deeply held beliefs that I have which prohibits using those words in that order in writing. You can say it out loud, but you can never write it. Anybody who uses this sacred phrase in any sort of writing commits blasphemy and insults my beliefs. So please, just don't do it, okay. I cannot stress this enough.

Now of course, this strikes some of you as very strange, but most of you are like, "Yeah whatever, dude. Just don't drink all the coffee and hog the refridgerator shelves, okay. Remember to clean out your shit once a week."

So time goes by and Al seems to be doing all right at work. He's considered a little strange because five times a day, he lies on his stomach on the carpet in his cubicle, circles his arms and his legs in a swimming motion and chants in a sing-song voice. It appears to be a strange form of worship involving "Mooh-daddy".

Now, some people are a little annoyed at this because the chants can get a little loud at times. But then again, most of you just chalk it up to harmless eccentricity. And besides, as you like to point out to the annoyed people, Al is at least doing his worship-thing in the privacy of his own cubicle and also, he's quite good at his work. So leave him be, you say.

There is also this incident at work when someone, just to see if Al was serious about the Mooh-daddy thing, sends him an e-mail that says: Hey Al, remember that time when you said that we shouldn't mention Great Bearded One-eyed Mooh-Daddy, so were you, like, serious, dude?

Five minutes later, Al is at the sender's desk, red in the face and foaming at the mouth, yelling, "I told you not to write that, I told you. Blasphemy! I demand an unconditional apology, Sir. I demand satisfaction."

He calms down only after the co-worker apologizes humbly and profusely. You guys pretty much don't go there ever again, because for chrissakes, this guy seems serious about this blasphemy business.

Some more time passes, and somehow, there seems to be this growing bunch of people who are a little ticked off at Al. Part of the reason, you overhear at work one day, is this. Apparently a colleague who was invited to dinner at Al's house a few times got the impression that Al's domestic arrangements are a little, umm...shady. It almost appears that Al has more than one wife! Either that, or he's trafficking. Now most of you guys, being what you are, are not really disturbed by this news. You are more like, "Way to go Al. Monogamy is for wimps. Rock on." But for some unexplained reason, the women at work see this differently. 

Women! Who'll ever understand them, eh?

Gradually, more tidbits about Al's other life start floating in. You have a hard time sorting out the truth from the hatemongering, but here's what people say. Al is a wife-batterer. He is rumored to have gotten into a brawl at his local pub over his religion. It was all sorted out in the end and everybody shook hands, but still.

Most disturbing of all however is the strong rumor that Al and a bunch of his bullyboy friends apparently tried to convert a sixteen year old boy into Al's cult, and when the boy refused, severely beat him up and broke his arms. The police almost got involved, but backed off later because it now appears that these cultists are a sizable population in your town and more violence may follow if Al and his buddies are pulled up over this.

The more liberal among those of you at work still take the following position: Al's personal business is his personal business. He's never slipped up at work, and that's what matters. Besides, most of the stuff about him are rumors anyway. So just leave him be.

Everybody is not so liberal though, and so one day some jokers at work get together and decide to pull a nasty on Al. They know that a particular phrase pisses off Al real good, so they decide to paint a big banner in red with the dreaded phrase on it and hang it on the bulletin board in front of Al's cubicle over the weekend, so that it's the first thing that Al sees on Monday morning.

Al does see it, and what follows is quite predictable and unpleasant.

Now my question to you is this. Let's say that you indeed worked at this hypothetical company. Where would you fall on this issue? Would you side with Al, because he was deliberately and needlessly provoked. OR, would you side with the jokers, because they were completely within their rights to put up a banner, and besides, Al seems such a mental sort outside of work, anyway.

How you answer that question might determine how you will vote on this caricature issue, because the situation described above is analogous to the caricature deal. And if you don't see the analogy, then either I don't communicate well, or you don't have any imagination. I am, for obvious reasons, inclined to believe the latter. Kidding, kidding.

Anyway, while you mull that question over, let me say this.

No one will argue against the fact that dear Al is irrational in his beliefs. It is quite irrational to get upset over the breach of a nonsensical convention. Most people would agree that if somebody really behaved like Al at a workplace, he would shortly be given an official letter asking him to seek alternate employment, most likely followed by some unofficial advice to spend a little time with a mental health professional.

At the same time, the jokers at work deliberately chose to be insensitive to Al's irrationality. So (and I'm sorry to switch horses on you) here's the real question: Just how sensitive should someone be towards irrationality?

And I would request you to answer that very carefully, unless of course, you claim complete exemption from irrationality.

Here's what I would say. And let me put it in the form of two rules.

(A) If one person's irrational belief does not interfere with your own designs in any way, it is the path of least resistance to be tolerant of it.

(B) Quite naturally, the opposite also applies, i.e. if a person's irrational belief encroaches on your freedoms--even a little--oppose it by all means available.

As an example of Rule A, consider that I, an atheist, am tolerant of your rather harmless belief in God, because the alternative is to call you delusional and lose a friend. Yes, yes, it's a compromise. The same applies to you. You are tolerant of my non-belief (I hope) because the alternative is to...you get the idea.

This is another example of Rule A with respect to Muslims. Muslims consider the representation of their prophet in a visual medium to be blasphemy. As a non-Muslim, I am not particularly disturbed by this because it is a convention that I would have no trouble following. It's not like I just love to draw pictures of a bearded, long-dead Arab businessman every day, and bite back tears if deprived of this right.

On the other hand, if a Muslim insisted that I not eat pork in front of him because it offends him, I would apply Rule B and ask him to go make tender love to a camel.

Note: If a Muslim asked me to stop eating pork in front of him in an officially Islamic country, I would say, "Yes, Sir. Where's the nearest trashcan, Sir?" Keeping that in mind, here's a thought for all the fucking head-in-the-asses pseudo-liberals of this world. This is why you should never, ever let your respective countries go Islamic, you clueless fuck-all morons. If for nothing, at least for the privilege of eating pork in public. Islam is a one-way street, you confused cretins, and if you don't get that, may Allah grant you mercy.

To take much license with Will Durant: Civilization is a precious good and guard it as such, you sainted idiots; don't sell it for tuppence and a fucking song.

Sorry, I had to get that out of my system. I'll come back to the topic at hand. So this is where I stand. Everybody has a right to free speech, and everybody has a right to be offended. So it follows that the Muslims are right to be offended. But they do not have to right to be violent because that infringes on another's right to remain unharmed.

Note that it is very hard for me to say that Muslims have a right to be offended because in general, I find it very hard to be sympathetic to any Muslim cause. Given the near-history of my country, it's difficult for me to be otherwise. There is also another reason. I am turned off by revealed theology of any kind in general, but even among rotten ideas, there are some that are more rotten than others. Islam ranks among my least favourite philosophies. If somebody came up with a painless and quick scheme to reverse the brain-washing that one billion people on Earth have been subjected to since 626 A.D, I would fund it.

Okay, okay, so maybe I ask for too much when I ask for both painless and quick. Let me downsize my expectations. I'll settle for quick.

But I grudgingly admit that Muslims have the right to be offended over the Danish cartoons.

The Danes of course have a right to free speech and are quite right in publishing the cartoons. But broadly speaking, I don't see how upholding your freedom of speech will make a difference in the long run if your country is poised to become majority Islamic in the not too distant future anyway, as some demographers say it will.

This is my problem with the European countries: They make all these noises about freedom of speech and corruption of cultural values, but don't do anything fundamental to prevent Islamic influence on their precious culture. France outlaws headscarves, Danes paint the prophet, but tell me this: Has France limited Muslim immigration? What about Denmark? Nope. France, at least, needs the labour. So all this talk of freedom of speech is just so much irrelevant hogwash, if you ask me. Why polish brass on a sinking ship?

I have to pause here and say this. What the fuck am I writing? I am actually defending something that I wouldn't defend if paid a salary for it. It's like I'm stuck in this surreal nightmare that I can't shake myself awake from.


Disclaimer: I am categorically not arguing for or against limiting of Muslim immigration into European countries. Quite frankly, I couldn't care less. The only two countries that concern me at the moment are India and the United States. Europe's problems are Europe's problems. I don't care if fifty years from now, the Danes are all wearing skullcaps and raising their asses to the sky five times a day in deference to an imaginary Sky-Poppa.

All said and done, an average European doesn't give two fucks about an average Asian, and I reciprocate that sentiment doubly. This callousness has been demonstrated many times before , and most recently when everybody went batshit about 57 deaths in London and precious few eyebrows were raised when 60 people got splattered over the pavement in Delhi shortly afterwards. Yes Europe, cry copious tears for us, and make it convincing, if you expect tears and sympathy from us.

Here's my personal note to Europe and its near-unconscious racism: Sink or swim, it's your problem. In a perverse and ultimately self-destructive way, I almost hope that you grovel before the Muslims.

Various

Balajee writes about Mohammed (YKTG) and his caricatures, Anne Coulter, George Bush's refusal to visit M.K. Gandhi's mausoleum, and the Superbowl.

Some Answers

Rob's cheesy, nosy questions and my corny answers. Rob's questions are in blue italics.


1) When you think of someone, what pushes your "wow" buttons? In other words, is there a "type" or "types" that you go for? Are you an "eyes" person, one who goes for the artistic type, or rough around the edges? (This is a gender-neutral question, I think.)

She's got to have a backbone. I don't go for f***ing invertebrates. A proud, straight back with a spine is a bare minimum requirement. Everything else is negotiable.


2) Name something about the people you work with that pushes your "That really pisses me off" button. (Okay, be careful, cuz you never know who may read this. If in doubt, substitute a "people in general" response.)

There's really only one kind of person I hate at work--the clueless boss.

I have consistently hated working for stupid people. Some people have the idea that working for a dumbass is a good thing, cuz you don't have to sweat it much and can get by in slipshod fashion. The response is that someone who is incapable of recognizing shoddy work will also be incapable of recognizing good work. Work for a dunce, and you can kiss any hope of professional recognition and job satisfaction goodbye.

There's another problem. Quite often you find that your professional future is tied to your supervisor's. Especially if you have long-term commitments to a company. Some people will find what I just said counter-intuitive and argue against this. After all, if your boss is an imbecile and you don't do too badly, you will actually shine by contrast and be noticed, right?

Not so. A number of workplaces have strict, inflexible power hierarchies where the careers of workers and supervisors move in lockstep. If your boss is a bottom-feeder, chances are that you won't be seeing sunlight very soon either. In reality, you often have to work harder to get promoted past a bad boss.


3) 4) and 5) If you could have three wishes what would they be? (Difficulty- No "world peace and puppies for everyone" wishes. Let's be realistic about our unrealism, shall we?)

I'm going to say this very carefully and hope for some understanding, because what I am about to say will sound very strange and slightly coy.

I have no wishes.

It's not because I have everything--far from it. It's not because I'm some kind of hermit/recluse/nut-job--I'm perfectly social, amiable, and grounded. It's not because I suffer from bouts of fatalism--my professional life has been a steadily climbing graph, if I may say so myself. It's just that I have no wishes.

Please note that this is not some sort of bizarre cop out. It's just that whatever I put down as my three wishes in the space below will be lies. I'm not above lying, but I don't feel like doing it tonight.

Think of it this way, if you will.

What do I wish for? Several billion dollars? Why? So that I can stop working? But why would I want to stop working? I don't want to.

Wish for all the knowledge in the world, maybe? But what would I do with all the knowledge in the world? Because with all the knowledge in the world will also come the knowledge that there is no more to learn. That the pleasure of discovery is forever closed to me. Is that how I would define happiness?

Aside: Here's an interesting thought. Let's consider a guy who knows everything. Like the alleged God-dude, for instance. Don't you think that if there really is an All-Knowing dude out there, the man is cursed, not blessed. For surely with all the knowledge in the universe must come all the sadness in the universe. For surely with omnipotence and omniscience must come incredible, crushing loneliness. And perhaps grinding boredom. If there is a God, I humbly put forth the idea that I believe He needs us more than we need Him. Verily have I spoken.

I do not have wishes. I have looked inside and I have drawn a blank. I do not say this with any sense of fatalism or resignation, I'm just making a bald, plain statement. With approximately the same passion I would put into noting the fact that the sun is hot.

I cannot convince you of this--it just occurred to me that I don't have the language--and I'm not going to try.


6) SuperBowl- Did the Steelers win outright, or did the Seahawks just lose an otherwise winnable game? (Sougata gets a pass on this, being a godless heathen and a ferriner to boot..)

Whew!

An Article in The Economic Times

For a good chuckle, please see the post Funny, not ha ha on Ashok's blog. Make sure that you follow the link and read the article in The Economic Times. It's funny.

Responses

The last post generated some interesting comments. I'm struggling for time because of a few things that need not detain us here, and hence response times may suffer. But here's a quick response to D. I figured that if I wait to write a more well-thought out response, I'll never get to it.

---

Babu (or rather, D),

I liked the distinction you drew between God and Truth. I also agree that the distinction between the two--for those who care about such things--is a little more than artificial.

In my humble but studied opinion, there are obvious problems with the popular notion of God.

Consider the following.

God, as the lore goes, is supposed to be this all-around good guy who, in spite of loving us to death, still somehow manages to be slightly vindictive and a tad insecure. His overarching message in a lot of holy books seems to be: "Rub me wrong way and all your base are belong to us."

Most empiricists, after a cursory glance at the world around them, find this notion of a basically good God to be cognitively dissonant.

Just one example of the inconsistency of the God-concept should serve: God, some maintain, is both Omnibenevolent and Omnipotent. Among other similarly grand things.

Omnibenevolence demands that God should display zero tolerance towards Evil and Suffering. Further, since God is also Omnipotent, enforcement of this zero-tolerance policy should be a snap for Him. God can either pre-empt Evil, or magically wink it out of existence if it does happen. No sweat.

Yet, even basic empirical observation tells us that there is tremendous Evil and Suffering in the world. Ergo, God cannot be simultaneously Omnibenevolent and Omnipotent. Evil could not exist if that were so.

The notion of a tri-omni God is problematic.

In stark contrast, the notion of the search for a Truth--whatever the attributes of this Truth--is a more pragmatic effort. IMHO. Indeed, science does this very thing, i.e. look for Truth by filling in the gaps in our knowledge. That is an easier train to get on, at least for me.

God is supposed to be all sugar and spice. He is painted as a prop-ah gentlemanly sort, and he is also supposed to be a touch concerned about us. 

The Truth (TM) may not be any of those things.

The Truth (or Truths) may be a disinterested, barenaked, incurious force that gives two fucks about what attributes we assign to it.

It will likely not give a toss about whether we go to Church/Temple/Mosque regularly like a bunch of tranquilized, brainfucked zombies. Or whether we write pretty prose about It. Or what kind of meat we avoid eating in It's name.

Sougata.

---

Tom,

You have always had kind words to say about my posts/responses. Just wanted to acknowledge that.

Sougata.

Religious Tolerance -- Part I

Wise men say that you must always keep yourself busy. It keeps the devil away.

On the first day of the new year, I wasn't following that particular advice. Thus I was surfing the Great Big Network idly and came across this interesting web site called http://www.religioustolerance.org/, and, since I had nothing better to do, immediately took exception to something on the web site. Hey, some people take drugs, I take exceptions, awright?

Beforehand though, to be fair to the web site, it is pretty good for the most part and does attempt to take a balanced view of religion and rightly calls many of the the excesses committed in the name of religion. However, I found a little paragraph that intrigued me because it seemed to lack the balance shown by the rest of the web site. And still having nothing better to do, I wrote them a small email, which I reproduce here:

This excerpt is from your web site on the page http://www.religioustolerance.org/news_02mar.htm:

[Begin Excerpt]
During 1992, some Hindus burned down a 16th century mosque in the northern Indian town of Ayodhya. Their plan was to build a Hindu temple on the site, which is sacred to followers of both religions. This action has resulted in the occasional outburst of rioting. In 1993, Hindu-Muslim riots in Mumbai (formerly Bombay)caused the deaths of 800 people. On FEB-26, a group of Muslims attacked a train in the western state of Gujarat. It was filled with Hindu fundamentalists who were returning from a pilgrimage to Ayodhya. Fifty-eight died. This generated retaliation by Hindus: As of MAR-3, 499 people have died -- mostly Muslims. Many have been burned to death. By the middle of March, over 700 people have died.
[End Excerpt]

Why are the people who were burned to death by Muslims on the train in Gujarat tagged "Hindu fundamentalists"? What, in your opinion, are the fundamentals of Hinduism, and why do you think the people who got incinerated were following these "fundamentals"?

I find it interesting that you do not say either of the following to describe the incident:

On FEB-26, a group of Muslims EXTREMISTS attacked a train in the western state of Gujarat. It was filled with Hindu fundamentalists who were returning from a pilgrimage to Ayodhya.

OR,

On FEB-26, a group of Muslims attacked a train in the western state of Gujarat. It was filled with Hindu PILGRIMS who were returning from a pilgrimage to Ayodhya.

Saying either of the above would indicate that you apply equal standards to intolerant behaviour, regardless of the religion involved. But that is apparently not the case here. Your language exposes your own pet biases and bigotry. The standards of behaviour applied to Hindus and Muslims seem to differ in your opinion. A group of people are promptly dubbed "fundamentalists" by you because they were returning from a visit to a disputed religious site, whereas a group of people who merrily barbecued fifty-eight men, women, and children deserve no such tag, apparently.

I find it surprising that a web site with a name like religioustolerance.org gratuitously uses a patently bigoted term like "fundamentalist" to describe the victims of a tragedy. I take it that with a name like religoustolerance.org, you are positioning your web site to promote religious tolerance rather than religious bigotry. Is this a fair assumption on my part?

Sougata Sarkar

I am waiting for a response and hoping for an amendment to the paragraph in question. Also, if you agree with what I said in my email, care, and can be bothered, do write to them asking for a rewording, perhaps a little more politely than I have.

Coda: I have often wondered idly about the bad press that Hinduism gets. Even when the source is otherwise credible and reputable. Anybody with even a rudimentary sense of fairplay must wonder about this.

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?