If you hadn't heard about it before, Roman Polanski recently got arrested for the crime of raping a minor. He was arrested in Switzerland for a crime he had committed in the early 1970s. France and Poland have expressed outrage at the arrest. They are shocked that their famous citizen was arrested for raping a minor and then fleeing before being sentenced for a crime he doesn't deny having committed.
I was going to write my general reaction, but here is an article that does it way better than I ever could. Every time someone laments the issue, remind them please that Roman Polanski raped a minor child, and not a technical rape because she was minor, but he had sexual intercourse despite her lack of consent. He pleaded guilty and then fled the US because he didn't get a lenient plea deal, which in itself is a crime.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Friday, August 28, 2009
Killing the aged ...
This is a bit dated. Everyone must have heard the news that the Healthcare Bill has a provision related to Death Panels. If you wondered where that started from and what its about, here's an enlightening interview.
Make up your own mind as to whether the Death Panel rumors are overblown.
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Exclusive - Betsy McCaughey Extended Interview Pt. 1 | ||||
| ||||
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Exclusive - Betsy McCaughey Extended Interview Pt. 2 | ||||
| ||||
Make up your own mind as to whether the Death Panel rumors are overblown.
Saturday, July 11, 2009
Racism and hypocrisy ...
This ad on Indian TV was included as part of an NPR report.
NPR points out that while Michael Jackson's preoccupation with his skin color was the subject of much controversy in the US, in other countries the skin whitening industry is thriving. In India it is a multimillion dollar industry.
Anyway, I couldn't help think that if someone had attempted this ad in the US, they would have been excoriated for racism. Shows you how morality differs in different parts of the world.
Meanwhile, if you haven't been following the John Ensign saga, I can't blame you for it. Marital infidelity and the ensuing hypocrisy has surfaced on both sides of the political spectrum, and John Ensign is the latest in a long list. However, John Ensign, for a number of reasons, appears to be attempting to win the crown of the most hypocritical. This article does a good job expressing why.
NPR points out that while Michael Jackson's preoccupation with his skin color was the subject of much controversy in the US, in other countries the skin whitening industry is thriving. In India it is a multimillion dollar industry.
Anyway, I couldn't help think that if someone had attempted this ad in the US, they would have been excoriated for racism. Shows you how morality differs in different parts of the world.
Meanwhile, if you haven't been following the John Ensign saga, I can't blame you for it. Marital infidelity and the ensuing hypocrisy has surfaced on both sides of the political spectrum, and John Ensign is the latest in a long list. However, John Ensign, for a number of reasons, appears to be attempting to win the crown of the most hypocritical. This article does a good job expressing why.
Sunday, June 7, 2009
Some interesting stuff ...
In a recent article, Nicholas Kristof touches on a growing body of research that suggests that success in even intellectual fields depends more on nurture than inherited nature.
There is increasing evidence that Asians, Jews, and others succeed because they have cultures that emphasize and celebrate hard work, perseverance, and most importantly, intellectual accomplishment. This suggests that without adequate and the right type of training, inherent skills are of little worth, and that disciplined training can overcome a lot of the gap in inherent abilities.
In customary fashion, Malcolm Gladwell has picked this very subject for his best seller, Outliers. I have grave reservations about Gladwell's choice of data. For instance, at one stage he uses a list of the richest people ever. Really? How did he arrive at this conclusion? For instance, in a book that discusses biases at such length, didn't he notice the information bias which makes the list ridiculously biased towards the recently wealthy? Having said that, the basic point of his book bears a closer examination. We are quick to ascribe human successes to the individual's merits, when in fact, nurture, environment and sheer luck may have more to do with it.
In the same vein, this article published several weeks ago makes amusing reading, as it debunks a bunch of medical myths.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
India and the US ... updates galore ...
India recently cut its key interest rate to offset a slowdown due to a global recession. The Reserve Bank of India (Indian Fed) announced that it didn't see any signs of a quick turnaround. This seems to make the over 20% rise in the BSE Sensex, from 9000 to 11000, over the last few weeks seem a little premature.
Meanwhile, while Krishna Byre Gowda seems like a case for a genuine Obama-like figure in India, Mayawati is also laying claim to the fame. I read recently that she says her status as a lower caste person rising to the top makes her the Obama of India. Here's the Times of India drawing a similar comparison. Clearly being like Obama is a badge that everyone is going to claim, but this seems a little far fetched.
Finally, I was in a discussion recently about the excessive nature of US debt. As of 2008, US public debt was ~US$ 10.7 trillion, i.e. 74.6% of GDP. India's public debt is 78% of its GDP. Japan's public debt is now 170.4% of its GDP.
What does this mean for the US?
Meanwhile, while Krishna Byre Gowda seems like a case for a genuine Obama-like figure in India, Mayawati is also laying claim to the fame. I read recently that she says her status as a lower caste person rising to the top makes her the Obama of India. Here's the Times of India drawing a similar comparison. Clearly being like Obama is a badge that everyone is going to claim, but this seems a little far fetched.
Finally, I was in a discussion recently about the excessive nature of US debt. As of 2008, US public debt was ~US$ 10.7 trillion, i.e. 74.6% of GDP. India's public debt is 78% of its GDP. Japan's public debt is now 170.4% of its GDP.
What does this mean for the US?
Monday, April 13, 2009
Namma Obama
The 2009 Lok Sabha elections are still a few weeks away. But our Nethas have already broken old records for how low they are willing to stoop to win votes. Between Varun Gandhi's hate speech & the hate contest that followed, and SP's manifesto effectively calling for a ban on English language and Computers, the prospects for Indian politics is rather bleak.
But before all hope is given up, I wanted to introduce an emerging politician that is attempting to prove that there is still HOPE! The politician I'm talking about is Krishna Byre Gowda. There have been blogs out there calling him "Namma Obama" (Our Obama in Kannada). You can find out more about him at krishnabyregowda.in or from just searching on his name and reading blogs. Here's a good one http://krishnabyregowda.blogspot.com/2009/04/krishnas-obama-of-bungaluru.html
For a refreshing change, Krishna is actually a clean politician with a vision (How sad. His wife actually works for a living). In any case, I bring this up because a common discussion topic among the desi diaspora is how corrupt Indian politicians are. But what we too often forget is that it is next to impossible to emerge in Indian politics without money to campaign. Take Krisha for example. He has to reach out to a vote bank of ~2 million people in about a month. His main rival Ananth Kumar was a cabinet minister in Vajpayee's government and has very deep pockets (you know what I mean). So, short of a miracle, it is hard for anybody with limited access to capital to give him a serious run for his money (pun intended).
I'm curious to know if any of you (particularly those that contribute to above mentioned discussions) has thoughts on how clean politicians can break this barrier. Maybe Internet marketing will solve this problem for future politicians--at least in places like Bangalore (Bihar can wait for another 100 years). It seems to have already come to Krishna Byre Gowda's rescue in a big way. He should be glad he's contesting from the IT hub of Asia, and has a techie as his wife to manage his online campaign. Maybe this will go down in Indian history as the first time Internet was effectively used for election campaigning by a major candidate. I doubt Mulayam Singh has the vision. Otherwise, I would have wondered if this had anything to do with his dislike for computer education.
Saturday, April 11, 2009
American exceptionalism ...
Is the US the most powerful nation in the world because the US is in some ways special? Clearly, the US must have done some thing right. However, does this make the US exceptional, i.e. culturally or otherwise superior to everyone else?
The idea of American Exceptionalism isn't new as the Wikipedia entry makes clear. In fact, it is almost as old as the US. And, the US isn't even the first country to think of exceptionalism. The German's had a similar idea which ultimately led to the second world war. The Romans did too. As did the Greeks. In fact, the world 'barbarian' as used by the Greeks was meant to imply you couldn't speak proper Greek (equivalent to the Hindi "bur bur" or babble, so barbarians are babblers). The British, to paraphrase George Mikes, didn't actually say they were exceptional. They just fought such dangerous ideas in others while never actually saying who they thought was exceptional. :)
The Romans, in particular, grew powerful by conferring Roman citizenship on the power wielders, scientists, artists, etc. of the people they conquered (sound familiar). If it does, it isn't surprising. It isn't an accident that the National Monuments in DC look Roman or that Roman architecture inspired so much of the Third Reich architecture and motifs.
Does a belief in US exceptionalism matter?
One of the most interesting comments about the holocaust I had ever heard was from a history professor patiently trying to explain how otherwise good people could have let such crimes occur. His point was that if you dehumanize someone or something, you are no longer project your own emotions on them, and so, no longer feel their pain. So, your normal moral compass does not operate. The first step in dehumanization is to believe you are different, or worse, better.
I experienced the downside of a belief in US exceptionalism in a weird way. In 2002, I was in a conversation with a finance professor from a US University about how the US might have drawn lessons from the UK Cadbury Committee's Code of Best Practice in 1992 that may have prevented debacles like Enron. That, in fact, most of the Sarbanes Oxley Act drew on lessons that had been learned many times in many countries, and that the US might have been able to anticipate these issues, if they had assumed that the US is just as prone to these human tendencies as any other country. The professor, despite the evidence, wasn't willing to acknowledge that such lessons can be drawn. He went onto assert that, for instance, the US financial system was so sound and so much superior that debacles like the Japanese asset bubble and subsequent banking collapse could never happen here. :)
The idea of US exceptionalism has cropped its head up in recent times in rather more disturbing ways. It has been alleged that the neoconservatives were driven by the idea of American Exceptionalism, i.e. that the US is somehow special. Unfortunately, this quickly devolved into the belief that rules don't apply to the US. Neoconservatives used this theory to argue for the setting aside of foreign treaties, redefine torture, describe as "collateral damage" the deaths of hundreds of thousands in Iraq, and castigate as unpatriotic anyone who questioned the US.
It became an issue in the 2008 Presidential elections, where, Obama's lack of deference to the theory led to questions about his patriotism as articles like this remind us. Those who were driven to make these arguments seem to conflate exceptionalism with irreproachability.
So, perhaps, it wasn't surprising that Obama was confronted with a question on this very question on his European tour. Here is Obama's answer:
As answers go, this was perhaps one of the more eloquent. Without actually saying so, Obama drew a distinction of being proud of the very laudable and commendable things about the US, and drawing any conclusions about the US' inherent moral superiority or manifest destiny. Good stuff!
The idea of American Exceptionalism isn't new as the Wikipedia entry makes clear. In fact, it is almost as old as the US. And, the US isn't even the first country to think of exceptionalism. The German's had a similar idea which ultimately led to the second world war. The Romans did too. As did the Greeks. In fact, the world 'barbarian' as used by the Greeks was meant to imply you couldn't speak proper Greek (equivalent to the Hindi "bur bur" or babble, so barbarians are babblers). The British, to paraphrase George Mikes, didn't actually say they were exceptional. They just fought such dangerous ideas in others while never actually saying who they thought was exceptional. :)
The Romans, in particular, grew powerful by conferring Roman citizenship on the power wielders, scientists, artists, etc. of the people they conquered (sound familiar). If it does, it isn't surprising. It isn't an accident that the National Monuments in DC look Roman or that Roman architecture inspired so much of the Third Reich architecture and motifs.
Does a belief in US exceptionalism matter?
One of the most interesting comments about the holocaust I had ever heard was from a history professor patiently trying to explain how otherwise good people could have let such crimes occur. His point was that if you dehumanize someone or something, you are no longer project your own emotions on them, and so, no longer feel their pain. So, your normal moral compass does not operate. The first step in dehumanization is to believe you are different, or worse, better.
I experienced the downside of a belief in US exceptionalism in a weird way. In 2002, I was in a conversation with a finance professor from a US University about how the US might have drawn lessons from the UK Cadbury Committee's Code of Best Practice in 1992 that may have prevented debacles like Enron. That, in fact, most of the Sarbanes Oxley Act drew on lessons that had been learned many times in many countries, and that the US might have been able to anticipate these issues, if they had assumed that the US is just as prone to these human tendencies as any other country. The professor, despite the evidence, wasn't willing to acknowledge that such lessons can be drawn. He went onto assert that, for instance, the US financial system was so sound and so much superior that debacles like the Japanese asset bubble and subsequent banking collapse could never happen here. :)
The idea of US exceptionalism has cropped its head up in recent times in rather more disturbing ways. It has been alleged that the neoconservatives were driven by the idea of American Exceptionalism, i.e. that the US is somehow special. Unfortunately, this quickly devolved into the belief that rules don't apply to the US. Neoconservatives used this theory to argue for the setting aside of foreign treaties, redefine torture, describe as "collateral damage" the deaths of hundreds of thousands in Iraq, and castigate as unpatriotic anyone who questioned the US.
It became an issue in the 2008 Presidential elections, where, Obama's lack of deference to the theory led to questions about his patriotism as articles like this remind us. Those who were driven to make these arguments seem to conflate exceptionalism with irreproachability.
So, perhaps, it wasn't surprising that Obama was confronted with a question on this very question on his European tour. Here is Obama's answer:
As answers go, this was perhaps one of the more eloquent. Without actually saying so, Obama drew a distinction of being proud of the very laudable and commendable things about the US, and drawing any conclusions about the US' inherent moral superiority or manifest destiny. Good stuff!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)