Kurt Vonnegut is now eighty-three and one of my favorite authors. He is endlessly fascinating and a far cry from the academics who put can put you to sleep writing about the same topic in a dead-pan style. I reviewed his book - A Man Without a Country on the book blog.
Kurt Vonnegut is among the few grandmasters of American letters, one without whom the very term American literature would mean much less than it does.
Every few months, the blog world and the real world collide. The past week has been one of them. While we DO have the right to say whatever we want, we DON'T always make sense.
"Just because your voice reaches halfway around the world doesn't mean you are wiser than when it reached only to the end of the bar."
- Edward R. Murrow
Blogging, like most things on the web, is so darned convenient. It's easy, you can be anonymous; in fact, you can be whoever you want. Not only can you make your own rules, you can live out your wildest fantasies. So at some point, all of us become somebody we aren't. I looked at some of my old posts and I wonder, "Aren't we all a little schizophrenic?" I look at my own posts; posts and comments on other blogs and I see a number of personalities surface. The convenience of not having to physically face someone or tackle reality makes us armchair experts on everything and turns even the most mild-mannered Dr. Jekyll into a Mr.Hyde in a few keystrokes.
The Born-Again Blogger
Who doesn't believe in reincarnation? Larger-than-life personae are constantly being created and reinvented in the blogworld in bigger and better versions.
The Cerebral Cerberus
These are the people for whom blogging has less to do with exploration of ideas and civilized debate but more to do with attacking other people, often without provocation.
The Cowardly Custard
Shares all the characteristics of the above and invariably fails to leave an address or name behind. Occasionally hides behind some alias. Tends to be more inclined towards rude behaviour.
Grammar, Damn Her!
Everyone makes the occasional typo, grammatical error and usage error. But this lot lives without shame. They seem to be literally throwing themselves at the keyboard with scant regard for the gentle reader who can't help but cry out,
Wrote yet another guy who stings like a bee,
What keys get hit, his eyes can't see.
You mumble man mumble, I fumble man fumble
Dear Diary Blogger
Very few of them around that I know of.
"Today, was a Sunday ..." As Holden would say, "Spare us the David Copperfield crap!"
The Eve-Pleaser
These guys seem to be trying their luck with every female blogger they can('t) lay their hands on by leaving little puppy-notes. (The Orkut variety is decidedly more more pathetic!)
The Crapal Tunnel Syndrome
While these chaps don't seem to suffer from CTS, you can get one by simply having to scroll reams of screens. Reading such posts is like entering a deep, dark tunnel with only a faint hope of light at the end.
The Hyper-Linker
Some deserve 'The Tim Berners-Lee Lifetime Achievement Award' for creating blogs that contain only links. No content, no explanation, just links.
The CutPaste Copycat
This one is like the above, but saves you the trouble of reaching for your mouse. The 'benign' type acknowledges the "stealing" and the 'thief' type seems to be more interested in the AdSense revenue.
The Papal Bull
Cannot help pontificating (Like this post!). Mostly all bull.
Common diseases and ailments:
Verbal Exhibitionisist: They feel morally compelled to follow the adage of "Use it or lose it!" and you are in turn impelled to look up every fourth word in order to stop feeling like a dummy. Those Word-a-Day calendars!
E(pi)-llipses
The kinds who cannot supress the desire to hold the flow of ... Kindly use a .
Bloggorhoea: Too many posts, all full of **it!
Blogstipation: Infrequent and irregular blogs that tend to be painfully produced.
Last week, a few blogsites were blocked in India by ISPs. Bloggers were up in arms within a click of the 'Publish' button. Now the government is claiming that they wanted to block only 17 or 20 sites and not entire domains and the ISPs screwed up. But, even blocking a single site is an infringement of freedom. The fanatics, cranks and crackpots are the ones who really make the blogosphere interesting and provide endless entertainment. With petitions filed by a number of people, I would like to see how the government now passes the buck.
Terrorists committed a heinous, horrible and cowardly crime in Mumbai again today.
Mumbai will be back on its feet again tomorrow and will not let you terrorists scare or rob it of its spirit. Shame on you!
In a way it was an odd coincidence that I went to see Al Gore in an Inconvenient Truth today. I wanted to stay away since I have been subjected to a lot of Powerpoint Poisoning in my short life, but reviews from my labmates, Roger Ebert, Lawrence Lessig and Ashutosh were too overwhelming to ignore. Al Gore makes a presentation - even the great Edward Tufte would approve - that would be no small crime to ignore.
As Al Gore compared 9/11 and global warming, I thought about today's blasts and last year's downpour (which figures in the movie) in Mumbai. I can see why Gore is having so much trouble getting his point across. I am reminded of Peter Sandman (via Freakonomics):
According to risk communications consultant Peter Sandman, “risks that scare people and risks that kill people are different."He uses the equation: Risk is equal to hazard plus outrage (hazard + outrage = risk) to assess situations and determine people's reactions. The equation is quite simple, according to Sandman. "When hazard is high and outrage is low, people under-react and when hazard is low and outrage is high, they overreact."
While the bomb blast toll figures are still being updated, last year 750 people died from torrential, record-setting rains that soaked Mumbai. While murder and violence is definitely deplorable, I consider it one of the great injustices in the world that we cannot punish ourselves or others for being accomplices in the murder of the planet and its ecosystems.
While India is still nowhere near the USA in terms of its emissions, we and other developing countries are fast catching up. While I am all for rapid economic growth, it often and unfortunately correlates with a larger ecological footprint. Will we choose to be different? Historically speaking, we won't. We see this with regards to health: Richer and more educated people are in better health than poorer and less educated counterparts. Substitute people with countries and health with the environment and Bjorn Lomborg's assertion that "... air pollution diminishes when a society becomes rich enough to be able to afford to be concerned about the environment." makes perfect sense (hat tip: Amit Varma).
I am all for economic progress but the environment is too important to be expected to simply piggyback on a prosperous economy. As Jared Diamond has pointed out in his book Collapse - (review), China and India's economic success might be a Pyrrhic victory. "Sin now, atone later", might have worked in the past, but if the Gore charts are to be believed, we might not have the luxury of turning the clock back on the damage done. It is easier said than demonstrated. Only if environmental costs and benefits were as tangible and easily quantifiable as economic success stories via freer markets, or terrorist attacks. Cracking ice-shelves will never beat bomb blasts in terms of outrage.
More:
The best way would be to reconcile market forces and environmental issues. The set of articles in this issue of the Economist make very interesting reading(see). There are some excellent ideas.
But it is very, very tricky.
In one of the examples the writer talks about Panama. It is more economically and environmentally advantageous for Panama to bottle and sell its water from its freshwater lakes than allow it to flow out into the Miraflores locks for operating the Canal, but the US will never allow it.
So even in such cases where both economic and environmental imperatives are aligned reality pans out differently. In any case, sooner or later, rich or poor, the whole planet will have to pay.
An interesting article from Science on the The Geometry of Musical Chords by Dmitri Tymoczko. See related perspective by Hook.
(email me if you need access)
You have seen the movie, now read the book! I received a few free copies of Water by Bapsi Sidhwa which is based on the film by Deepa Mehta. I also have umpteen copies of the poster for Water. Send me an email if you want a copy and are willing to pay for postage.
* *
Ashutosh reviewed the movie a few months ago.
As the World Cup unfolds, there have been a number of articles and posts talking about - Why is a nation of a billion people not among one of the 32 teams in Germany? Here are a few thoughts that discuss the Ghost of India-in-the-World-Cup; Past, Present and Future . What's wrong, what's being done and what needs to be done. Shall we ever find 22 people to kick a ball around properly?
We might not be competing, but we are definitely participating. I am far from upset; in some sense, India has won the World Cup and the World of Sport. How?
Let me explain.
During the last WC, I was in India and hence could not appreciate or assess our contribution to the World Cup or any global sporting event, for that matter. Germany 2006 is my first experience of watching the World Cup in the company of people from all nations. The first big game Brazil vs. Croatia expectedly drew massive crowds in the 'student lounge'. (Note this exception to this post). Between 11am and 5pm on gamedays, graduate students are clearly not doing much work and can be found lounging in front of the massive TV screen in the Pierpont Commons.
Guess which country has the largest contingent? Mera Bharat Mahan! Isn't it remarkable that we turned out in such large numbers to watch a sport which is not even a minor sport in our country, and for whose biggest prize we have never qualified, except once (even then, we did not make the trip for tragic reasons). Amidst a sea of nations, the rather contented Indian faces (mine included) made me realise India's contribution to Sport. In this era of globalization and capitalism, should we not leverage our competitive advantage? India has a long way to go before calling itself a great sporting nation, but there is no doubt that we are truly the world's finest spectator nation. We would easily win every possible medal if 'Spectating' were a real sport. Why?
1. Sport Omnivores: We are truly catholic in our tastes - we watch anything you can throw at us.
2. Endurance and Stamina: We can watch forever. While the average American tires after 2-3 hrs, we can go on and on. We can watch for days on end. Why is cricket so popular in India? Because it provides so many hours and days of spectating. Too bad that even Tests have to end after 5 days.
3. Professionalism: We don't watch just for petty parochial or nationalistic reasons. We cheer teams from other countries playing sports we don't even play. We are truly professional in our attitude.
4. Intelligence and Agility: It does not take more than a few games, at the most half a season, for the worst among us to pick up the nuances of any sport and start talking like an expert. Plus, we don't even need to leave our armchairs to do this. Take American football or ice-hockey, two sports which most Indians have little experience playing, or would not be able to play even if they wanted to; yet we can advise Peyton Manning what to do next.
5. Indian women also rule: While watching and discussing sports is still largely a male bastion, relative to her sex the Bhaartiya nari kicks some serious **tt. I still do not know of any videshi female who can compete with the Indian female fan. She can often be any man's equal when it comes to watching sports.
So, whatcha worried about? Grab the remote and plonk yourself in the coziest chair. No matter who wins, we have won!
Ode to the Indian Spectator
In the shade, beside the green glade,
Wherever a game is being played;
Fought to be lost or won.
There will be at least one
Quick to grasp and understand
An alien game on an alien strand
Neither does he tire nor does he pespire
Going swifter, stronger and higher
Sports' common denominator
The Great Indian Spectator.
Update: India@the World Cup (from the official website)
A recent study shows that Coffee may prevent Type II diabetes. It's not the caffeine but the anti-oxidants, so decaf coffee is just as good. One more reason to rejoice.
Previous post on the benefits of coffee
Gaurav responded to my previous post on 'Ayn Rand' and I felt a few clarifications were due. Enduring a little repetition is not too much to ask of Ayn Rand devotees who are used to ploughing through 1000 or more pages of repetitive rhetoric, but I ask the others for their kind indulgence.
Firstly, I owe Gaurav an apology for calling him an 'Ayn Rand fanatic', which as his post clarifies, he certainly is not. Also, I mistakenly assumed that he is or was an Objectivist. My apologies. Secondly, I also need to apologize for a lack of clarity that suggested ad hominem. I thought that it was quite clear that the sentences in question were observations and chiefly, I assumed that the extensive links on this page and other resources on the web would prove adequate to settle the debate.
On Utility
Hard core Ayn Rand-ians are reluctant to concede what Gaurav and I both agree upon, as he writes,
"I completely agree with Hirak when he says that "Ayn Rand's philosophy is eventually mythical and full of too many big IFs and relying on too many conditions/assumptions for it to really work". He is speaking about the utilitarian value of Rand's ideas. Of course the world is not black and white."
A painting by Picasso doesn't need to have an immediate practical or utilitarian value. It's a painting, it's art; utility is not what it aims for. But is it unfair to demand of Objectivism which claims to be "a philosophy for living on earth", to have at least a few working examples of its practical utility? Doesn't its non-utility make the whole idea rather questionable?
If wishes were really horses?
But, there are lots of ideas that have no utility and they should not be dismissed offhand. So, is this one of them?
Firstly, you can't call Objectivism 'Randian' philosophy, because it borrows endlessly from other philosophers, chiefly Aristotle, Nietzsche and even from her arch-enemy -- Immanuel Kant. All that Rand should get is gift-wrapping credit. Her core ideas and principles have been questioned in articles like WHY I AM NOT AN OBJECTIVIST -
Michael Huemer.
Personally, I do agree with the broadest brush-strokes of her ideas and who really doesn't? I have no moral objections to what she says, but I do have other objections. The problem with her philosophy is that is pathetically reductive. This is why it is appealingly simple and practically useless. So, as far as living in Rand's ideal world goes, my response is: "What exactly is her ideal world ?" I know what she is trying to say but I don't think she has defined or explained her terms properly. Terms like 'heroic being' or 'happiness' are floating. Like John Galt's motor, which he miraculously managed to conjure up using his reason and individuality, in complete defiance of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the floating definitions are applied over and over again to create a magnificent edifice. Her concepts and Galt's motor, borrowing from Dennett(who used this analogy distinguish between the ideas of evolution and ID), are 'sky-hooks' as opposed to 'cranes' which are grounded in reality. How does one obtain the ideal government? How do we replace it? What about externalities that are imposed on people? (eg: global warming). In comparison, take Richard Dawkins or Daniel Dennett's books which contain radical thoughts and ideas, but which are firmly grounded in reality.
* *
While fanatics are best left alone, there are those who want to debate ideas meaningfully and are willing to re-examine their beliefs. In the course of writing this post I stumbled upon this book -
Intellectual Morons : How Ideology Makes Smart People Fall for Stupid Ideas. It is a rather ambitious effort that takes on not only Ayn Rand but even Chomsky. I would like to get hold of it and in case you have read it, please leave a short review.
I had to step forward in defence of coffee. My friend Gaurav is known for his out-of-the-box views, but I think he really crossed the line here when he likened Ayn Rand's philosophy to black coffee. If you wish to be an Ayn Rand fanatic, great! But why blacken coffee's good name in the bargain? Aren't there better smilies out there?
Objectively speaking, Ayn Rand's philosophy is better compared to a Pan Galactic Gargle Blaster - the best drink in the universe, the ultimate drink fantasy. A drink one can logically make since it has a recipe, but only IF you can obtain the ingredients.
However, I am certain that even after having a Pan Galactic Gargle Blaster it will be hard to find any literary merit in Rand's work. But that was never the bone of contention; we are talking about the Ayn Rand Philosophy and Logic Package. A casual search on the web will yield a cornucopia of criticisms of her faulty logic, sloppy scholarship of philosophy and endless borrowing from thinkers and philosophers from the past. These have been discussed at length in any number of articles, some more casually than others. Upon reading the more scholarly ones, I think it would be better to hurl rocks than throw terms like metaphysical_realism, representationalism at you. We will have an Atlas Shrugged size post if we start talking about how the Grand Dame herself couldn't lift the weight of her own lofty ideals - her refusal to submit to peer-review, or willingness to publish opposing views in her own journal, her lover's tiff with one-time protege Nathaniel Branden and her unwillingness to stomach any criticism. In any case, the most common stance of Ayn Rand and her cultists is in the manner recently popularized by George Bush, Jr. - "If you are not with me, then you are against me!". When the Objectivists are not fighting the rest (a.k.a. the Collectivists), they are fighting amongst themselves, thankfully without the use of physical violence.
However at 18, I was very impressed and at that age Ayn Rand reads like nothing you have ever read before and it is very refreshing. I devoured her books and relished them one by one. But, then you grow up and realise even if you are like one of her cardboard cutout superheroes, not many women will want to submit to the really interesting concept of rape as a religious rite. No wonder the BDSM community considers Ayn Rand as one of their mascots. From personal experience, first you believe in Santa Claus, then you believe in Superman, then in Jackie Chan and in that chain, you later believe in Ayn Rand and then you move on.
Like the Pan Galactic Gargle Blaster, Ayn Rand's philosophy is eventually mythical and full of too many big IFs and relying on too many conditions/assumptions for it to really work. I have yet to meet or hear about a real-life John Galt or Howard Roark. Rand, herself confessed in one of her introductions - "My books are not about what things are, but what they should be". Sweet dreams! Even decades later while her theories have still to find consistent practical application, she has not even found much favour with serious scholars of philosophy or literature. Knowing this, the Ayn Rand Institute quite rationally cultivates her largest fanbase -- high-school and college students. I see it as more of a note of regret than of tribute that at her funeral they read Kipling's If.
* *
If you seemed to have missed out on the fun and want a quick start in the Ayn Rand scheme of things then follow these 10 easy steps . Once you master that make sure you don't say the 25 Most Inappropriate Things An Objectivist Can Say During Sex.
I do not wish to be a bore so I suggest that you read links on this page which is the source of many serious, and hilarious links above.
Right from its cover everything about this movie is off-beat. If you are looking for a whimsical composite character check Steve Zissou out. He is Capt. Ahab, Yves-Cousteau, Capt. Haddock and a jaded James Bond all rolled into one. I cannot think of anyone else who can play the eccentric Steve Zissou other than Bill Murray. He manages to be all-at-once full of sadness, reckless bravado and ennui. Zissou says, "I thought I was going to go in a blaze of glory, but I think I am just going home." His best friend gets eaten by a shark, then he bumps into his illegitimate son, no one will finance his expedition, his wife(Anjelica Huston) leaves him, and a rather pregnant Cate Blanchett shows up to write a cover story. What could possibly go wrong here? The boat is then attacked by pirates and the crew threatens mutiny. Still there is no sight of the elusive jaguar shark.
The movie is of the sink-or-swim type. If it does not swim in the first 20 mins it's already a lost cause. But if it manages to hold your attention beyond that then this movie is treat in a way it's really hard to describe. It has so many bizarre things going all at once. Pele is constantly singing David Bowie songs on the acoustic guitar in Brazilian Portuguese. While there is that script girl who is always wandering around topless, the sparkling dialogue is more fascinating. Full credit to Wes Anderson & Noah Baumbach. They shot the Zissou documentaries in the movie using old Ektachrome stock to give it the saturated color look. There is an apparent method in this madness and one wants to indulge the director's idiosyncrasies. Now I sorely want to catch Baumbach's The Squid and the Whale and Wes Anderson's other movies.
* *
Steve Zissou to a pirate: Don't point that gun at him, he's an unpaid intern.
* *
Steve Zissou to the pregnant Jane-Winslet: You really think it's cool for you to hit the sauce with a bun in the oven?
* *
I liked the odd-ball scene where Zissou's team 'attacks' a fellow rival Allison Hennessey's (played by Jeff Goldblum) research station to find it locked.
Ned Plimpton: Who locked us out?
Anne-Marie Sakowitz: No-one, we're trespassing.
Ned Plimpton: Steve, are we allowed in here?
Steve Zissou: It's a scientific community, man.
Then Steve Zissou instructs his team to make off with the scientific equipment including a coffee machine after confirming that it can make cappuchino with the vague promise of returning it. (Coffee does fuel research.)
In my best David Frost accent -
"According to the Guinness Book of World Records the Mousetrap by Dame Agatha Christie is the world's longest running play. It was first performed in 1952 at the Ambassador Theatre and is still running today at the St. Martin's theatre."
As a quizzer you tend to pick up all kinds of mostly useless information and I knew this fact before I had read any of Agatha Christie's works. The Mousetrap was a really cute Christie trap since it got me interested in reading her books, except the play in question which was hard to get hold of. Finally, I did get hold of the script and I was a little disappointed with this just-about-average Christie plot. I can imagine that the lighting, the colorful cast of characters and the eerie-in-the-context tune of the The Three Blind Mice might make a stage version more appealing, yet one would not think that this would be the story that will keep audiences entertained for 50 years. In any case, the play is a rich source of all kinds of trivia and the Wiki Page explains another question I always had - "Okay, you have the book and the play, where's the movie?"
BTW: For a long time, Guinness was more the book than the beer. Well, you live and learn.
