I just watched the Jon Stewart show of Wed Sep 21, 2011 and found it downright to the point and extremely hilarious and wanted to note it right away. The topic of comical discussion in the show was President Obama's plan to reform the tax code so that high income ( > $1m) and large corporations pay more tax. Stewart shows a clipping of Fox News (as always, either Fox which is fairly right wing or CNN which is so fluffy) interview with Louisiana Republican Representative John Fleming as a 'small' business owner. Fleming owns 33 Subway franchises and some UPS franchises and makes an annual turnover of over $6m and would technically be affected by the tax reform plan.
This is where the fun starts. Fleming claims that after all the taxes he pays now, pays his 500 employees, he has around 600000 left to 'feed' his family. And after he feeds his family, he has 'only' 400000 left to reinvest in his business (Mr. Fleming, reinvestments are not personal-taxable, get a better tax consultant). That means his ravenous family 'feeds' on 200000 per year! Guess what you can buy with that amount - Stewart very smartly points out, that there is a place where you can buy a full 12" of food for $5 (yes, its Subway of which he owns 33) - would buy 40000ft of food to eat in year by his family.
This is the best example for what Obama mentioned - this tax reform and debt resolution is not class warfare, its simple math. Mr. Fleming definitely needs some math lessons. And for the same reason, I cannot wait for Sarah Palin to enter the 2012 presidential race and behold, even better if she ever manages to get the job!
Thursday, September 22, 2011
Monday, September 19, 2011
நான் சொல்வது எப்போதும் சரியா ?
சற்று முன்பு நான் சுகி சிவம் அவர்கள் பேசுவதை கேட்டேன். அவர் சில மனிதர்கள் அவர்கள் சொல்வது எப்போதுமே சரி என்று சாதிப்பதை மிக எளிமையான உதாரணங்களைக் கொண்டு விளக்கினார். அவை என் மனதை கவர்ந்ததால் இவ்விடத்தல் குறித்து உள்ளேன்.
1 ஒரு ஜமிந்தார் ஒரு கொக்கை வேட்டையாடி தன் சமையல் காரரிடம் கொடுத்தார். அப்போது அங்கு வந்த அந்த சமையல் காரரின் பிற்கால மனைவி அந்த கொக்கில் ஒரு பகுதி தனக்கு வேண்டுமென்று கேட்டாள். ஒரு பகுதியை சமையல் செய்ய வில்லை என்று தெரிந்தால் ஜமிந்தர் தன்னை கொன்று விடுவர் என்று சமையல் காரர் மறுக்க, தன் மீது காதல் இல்லை என்று அந்தப் பெண் வருடினாள். கடைசியில் சமையல் காரர் ஒரு காலை தன் பிற்கால மனைவியிடம் கொடுத்துவிட்டார். மீதம் இருந்த கொக்கை நன்றாக சமைத்து ஜமிந்தர் இடம் கொடுக்க, அவர் ஏன் ஒரு காலை காணவில்லை என்று கேட்டார். அதற்கு, கொக்கிற்கு ஒரு கால் மட்டுமே உண்டு என்று சமையல் காரர் ஒளறினார்.
1 ஒரு ஜமிந்தார் ஒரு கொக்கை வேட்டையாடி தன் சமையல் காரரிடம் கொடுத்தார். அப்போது அங்கு வந்த அந்த சமையல் காரரின் பிற்கால மனைவி அந்த கொக்கில் ஒரு பகுதி தனக்கு வேண்டுமென்று கேட்டாள். ஒரு பகுதியை சமையல் செய்ய வில்லை என்று தெரிந்தால் ஜமிந்தர் தன்னை கொன்று விடுவர் என்று சமையல் காரர் மறுக்க, தன் மீது காதல் இல்லை என்று அந்தப் பெண் வருடினாள். கடைசியில் சமையல் காரர் ஒரு காலை தன் பிற்கால மனைவியிடம் கொடுத்துவிட்டார். மீதம் இருந்த கொக்கை நன்றாக சமைத்து ஜமிந்தர் இடம் கொடுக்க, அவர் ஏன் ஒரு காலை காணவில்லை என்று கேட்டார். அதற்கு, கொக்கிற்கு ஒரு கால் மட்டுமே உண்டு என்று சமையல் காரர் ஒளறினார்.
Sunday, July 17, 2011
Patronage democracy, civil society and elected government
As an Indian, I have been amazed at the recent scams involving billions of dollars in what is still a developing country. I also found a interesting detail giving out information about how India isn't actually poor but rich. The India that the article talks about is the government (GDP) and not the people (PPP). So who is the government in a democracy if it is not by, for and of the people? Politicians. Ever since the birth of the concept of a republic, things haven't changed much. I sure agree that a republic is better than an absolute monarchy. The concept of a constitutional monarchy isn't too different from a republic in terms of governance to talk about. The thing that separates a republic from a kingdom is the presence of a council of people's representatives that somehow are better in making decisions than one person, the monarch. But what happens when the representatives are not taking proper decisions? What if they do not present a clear choice? What if the choices they provide are not really solutions and not the one that people really want?
I want to recollect two examples, one in India and one in the US. In India, there is the center-left Indian National Congress and the right-wing Bharatiya Janata Party. How different are they in terms of policy towards terrorists, Pakistan, industrialization and corporations? Honestly, there are some minute details that are different and most of these differences are seeming to be determined by what is called 'coalition-dharma' which is often called upon by the most-honest corruption-free integral prime minister India has had, to answer questions of inefficiency, clogged-policy making at the parliament. Is this because of the pressures of regional parties that try to cater to a smaller region and make sure that their voices are heard? What is the difference between the parties in terms of fight against corruption, improvements in government, proper spending and audit of tax payer money? Almost nothing that I can note - apart from the obvious commissions set by successive governments to investigate the corruption of the previous government and continue to follow the interesting ideas set by previous politicians to increase kickbacks for themselves. There just isn't a big difference between them for me to choose one over the other. But of course, like the wise people of the southern state of Tamil Nadu, we could alternate between them so that one group will not get more time to 'get-settled' and empty the treasury on its own.
In the US, there is a clear difference in terms of domestic and fiscal policy between the two main parties - the left-leaning, big-government, more-tax democrats and the opposite right-wing republicans. Again, no single party has held on to power for a long time in order to get the country on to a single type of policy. However, I see the once-in-two-years form of elections (congress and presidential), sort of limiting the administration's ability to have a clear mandate. By the time the new president starts implementing major reforms, the two years are up and invariably loses congress support as the next party gains majority. And of course, they have to say no to almost all that he has done and clean the slate.
So, we either have parties that aren't that different and provide no choice, or there are parties that hardly want to continue good things of the other party and delay reforms. In either case, things that should happen in a country do not happen and leads to undergrowth and stagnation. What would be a way out? Civil society - a collection of non-politicians that are interested in a set of aspects of economy, polity demonstrating lobbying, garnering public support to make sure certain things happen in the country? Does this sense of shadow government actually work? I for one, find the idea that a group of individuals holding the government and the public hostage by conducting 'fast-unto-death' protests a bit backward. It is quite different from the non-violent civil-disobedience sort of thing that Gandhi stood for. There need to be more practical approaches that actually gain results, rather than threaten, subvert and coerce certain policies with an emotionally charged public support based on certain ideologies.
These thoughts lead me to believe that a higher degree of direct democracy should be entertained. In the past, lack of technology to easily understand people's wants, lesser understanding of society and world affairs, and the absence of an independent judiciary and media might have prevented the spread of direct democracy. This form of purest democracy which involves making decisions directly by the people through referendums is only seen in very small countries like Switzerland. I believe that with current technology, biometrics and instant connectivity, referendums can be easily conducted. Also, the spread of independent judiciary, under the watchful eye of the ubiquitous media, can keep a check on the fundamental problem in direct democracy - a majority enforcing a 'wrong' decision on the minority. This problem exists to a lesser degree in a representative democracy, but with the absence of choice, it is almost the same as that in a direct one.
Who would not want such a direct/patronage democracy? Maybe an indecisive, lazy minority who want the others to take decisions for them, sit on their couch and do nothing. But they are served anyway in even an autocratic government. And of course, corrupt politicians who need to be rid off society. I'd like to be asked if I want my country to attack another state, ask two states in a country if they are OK to share water, build a $500m bridge to nowhere, etc.
I want to recollect two examples, one in India and one in the US. In India, there is the center-left Indian National Congress and the right-wing Bharatiya Janata Party. How different are they in terms of policy towards terrorists, Pakistan, industrialization and corporations? Honestly, there are some minute details that are different and most of these differences are seeming to be determined by what is called 'coalition-dharma' which is often called upon by the most-honest corruption-free integral prime minister India has had, to answer questions of inefficiency, clogged-policy making at the parliament. Is this because of the pressures of regional parties that try to cater to a smaller region and make sure that their voices are heard? What is the difference between the parties in terms of fight against corruption, improvements in government, proper spending and audit of tax payer money? Almost nothing that I can note - apart from the obvious commissions set by successive governments to investigate the corruption of the previous government and continue to follow the interesting ideas set by previous politicians to increase kickbacks for themselves. There just isn't a big difference between them for me to choose one over the other. But of course, like the wise people of the southern state of Tamil Nadu, we could alternate between them so that one group will not get more time to 'get-settled' and empty the treasury on its own.
In the US, there is a clear difference in terms of domestic and fiscal policy between the two main parties - the left-leaning, big-government, more-tax democrats and the opposite right-wing republicans. Again, no single party has held on to power for a long time in order to get the country on to a single type of policy. However, I see the once-in-two-years form of elections (congress and presidential), sort of limiting the administration's ability to have a clear mandate. By the time the new president starts implementing major reforms, the two years are up and invariably loses congress support as the next party gains majority. And of course, they have to say no to almost all that he has done and clean the slate.
So, we either have parties that aren't that different and provide no choice, or there are parties that hardly want to continue good things of the other party and delay reforms. In either case, things that should happen in a country do not happen and leads to undergrowth and stagnation. What would be a way out? Civil society - a collection of non-politicians that are interested in a set of aspects of economy, polity demonstrating lobbying, garnering public support to make sure certain things happen in the country? Does this sense of shadow government actually work? I for one, find the idea that a group of individuals holding the government and the public hostage by conducting 'fast-unto-death' protests a bit backward. It is quite different from the non-violent civil-disobedience sort of thing that Gandhi stood for. There need to be more practical approaches that actually gain results, rather than threaten, subvert and coerce certain policies with an emotionally charged public support based on certain ideologies.
These thoughts lead me to believe that a higher degree of direct democracy should be entertained. In the past, lack of technology to easily understand people's wants, lesser understanding of society and world affairs, and the absence of an independent judiciary and media might have prevented the spread of direct democracy. This form of purest democracy which involves making decisions directly by the people through referendums is only seen in very small countries like Switzerland. I believe that with current technology, biometrics and instant connectivity, referendums can be easily conducted. Also, the spread of independent judiciary, under the watchful eye of the ubiquitous media, can keep a check on the fundamental problem in direct democracy - a majority enforcing a 'wrong' decision on the minority. This problem exists to a lesser degree in a representative democracy, but with the absence of choice, it is almost the same as that in a direct one.
Who would not want such a direct/patronage democracy? Maybe an indecisive, lazy minority who want the others to take decisions for them, sit on their couch and do nothing. But they are served anyway in even an autocratic government. And of course, corrupt politicians who need to be rid off society. I'd like to be asked if I want my country to attack another state, ask two states in a country if they are OK to share water, build a $500m bridge to nowhere, etc.
Monday, February 14, 2011
There's no there there
The quote "There is no there there" appears in Stein's Book "Everybody's Autobiography". When Stein returned to California on her lecture tour to the United States in the 1930s, she wanted to visit her childhood home in Oakland, CA. She records that she could not find the house. Hence, "there is no there there." –Sonja Streuber
Well, I was on one of my random wiki hopping session and came across the above on another site. It immediately captivated my attention. Not for the reason that things change a lot and places do not always exist, but another connotational meaning of the phrase.
There, to me, refers to a specific place with unique qualities, differentiating itself from all other places. There is something that it offers that justifies the 'there'. Increasingly, globalization is making the world a really small place. As with all perceived good things, there are some bad effects. To me, the two big effects are loss of local economy (and the subsequent reliance on transportation and logistics) and uniqueness. The first one is a major issue and is more or less the way it is going to be and I hope there is some way that technology will lend a hand.
The second issue is a more personal thing. When I read old books by non-resident Indians, they talk about the big changes that they had to adapt to live in their country of residence and how difficult it was to get Indian food etc. I seem to be of the thought that this is to be expected and it is these changes, experiences and being outside the comfort zone is what is normal. Why would you want to live in a country that you don't like? Before I digress into the sensitive "multi-culturalism" topic, the point I am trying to make is that places are ought to be different and should be digested as such.
When I travel around in the US, a vast country with fabulous geographical features, one thing that is interesting is the enormity of commonness among states and cities. I am fairly sure that things will be very different when I hop a few states in India - and that is a good thing. What good will it be if the entire world does things the same way? I am sure such things will never happen, but the small extent that things are now common is itself disturbing to me. I for one have not watched a Tamil movie at a theatre in US and I make it a point to see one whenever I visit India. Even if I wanted, I cannot get the Arisi Murukku laced with coconut in the US or any other city other than my hometown. There should be things that are very nice to do in every part of the world that they will be cherished. This cherished sense diminishes when things can be done anywhere anytime at any cost.
I am sure there is a differing level of things that people agree to accept as necessary to replicate at another place, but there could be some sense of individuality maintained, else, there's no there there, there is there here and here there and everywhere...
Well, I was on one of my random wiki hopping session and came across the above on another site. It immediately captivated my attention. Not for the reason that things change a lot and places do not always exist, but another connotational meaning of the phrase.
There, to me, refers to a specific place with unique qualities, differentiating itself from all other places. There is something that it offers that justifies the 'there'. Increasingly, globalization is making the world a really small place. As with all perceived good things, there are some bad effects. To me, the two big effects are loss of local economy (and the subsequent reliance on transportation and logistics) and uniqueness. The first one is a major issue and is more or less the way it is going to be and I hope there is some way that technology will lend a hand.
The second issue is a more personal thing. When I read old books by non-resident Indians, they talk about the big changes that they had to adapt to live in their country of residence and how difficult it was to get Indian food etc. I seem to be of the thought that this is to be expected and it is these changes, experiences and being outside the comfort zone is what is normal. Why would you want to live in a country that you don't like? Before I digress into the sensitive "multi-culturalism" topic, the point I am trying to make is that places are ought to be different and should be digested as such.
When I travel around in the US, a vast country with fabulous geographical features, one thing that is interesting is the enormity of commonness among states and cities. I am fairly sure that things will be very different when I hop a few states in India - and that is a good thing. What good will it be if the entire world does things the same way? I am sure such things will never happen, but the small extent that things are now common is itself disturbing to me. I for one have not watched a Tamil movie at a theatre in US and I make it a point to see one whenever I visit India. Even if I wanted, I cannot get the Arisi Murukku laced with coconut in the US or any other city other than my hometown. There should be things that are very nice to do in every part of the world that they will be cherished. This cherished sense diminishes when things can be done anywhere anytime at any cost.
I am sure there is a differing level of things that people agree to accept as necessary to replicate at another place, but there could be some sense of individuality maintained, else, there's no there there, there is there here and here there and everywhere...
Thursday, December 30, 2010
Software journalism
I was appalled by the BBC article " Windows bug 'behind Skype crash' ". The title seems to suggest that Windows operating system has a bug and that was exposed by Skype software and is one of the reasons behind the recent Skype outages.
When you look inside the article, the summary becomes, "Server overloads and a bug in Skype for Windows caused the two-day outage for the net phone firm."
Shame on you, BBC. There has been a rise in number of cases, where the articles tend to gloss over technical facts and results in such incoherent sentences. I was under the impression that in order to become a journalist in the IT arena, you need to have an IT background in addition to the generic journalism background. I hope this indeed becomes the case in the future. How bad it'd be if Jeremy Clarkson knew nothing about cars and continues to present TopGear (notwithstanding many people think this is the case :) )
When you look inside the article, the summary becomes, "Server overloads and a bug in Skype for Windows caused the two-day outage for the net phone firm."
Shame on you, BBC. There has been a rise in number of cases, where the articles tend to gloss over technical facts and results in such incoherent sentences. I was under the impression that in order to become a journalist in the IT arena, you need to have an IT background in addition to the generic journalism background. I hope this indeed becomes the case in the future. How bad it'd be if Jeremy Clarkson knew nothing about cars and continues to present TopGear (notwithstanding many people think this is the case :) )
Tuesday, December 28, 2010
Supercooled water
While watching a documentary on the aircrash investigation into the now famous Roselawn incident, I came across a natural phenomenon that I was not aware of, but was living with for a while now - supercooled water. It has been a long time since I learned of chemical properties of basic materials like water and was immediately enthralled.
Essentially supercooling is the process of taking liquids to temperatures that are lower than it's freezing point. How is that possible? Wouldn't it become solid? That's when I read that all solidifications need crystallization agents! Water ice needs a small non-water particle to form ice. What happens otherwise is, water continues to be supercooled until it touches such a agent - precisely how it happens during a freezing rain. In the case of freezing rain however, it happens because the ground temperature is much lower (like a snow storm blew over the previous week) and there is a pressure system that moves hot air in the higher atmospheres and causes rain, and that rain water becomes supercooled as it approaches land and then, the glaze that looks like frozen snow (ice) and can bring down power lines, trees etc!
In the case of an aircraft flying through freezing rain, it immediately forms a glaze around the protruding wings, completely changing the aerodynamics. This was apparently unknown until the Roselawn incident and has since be studied well.
And, the reason why I thought this was so cool is because the humble slush that I so much like during summer is actually supercooled water! I always thought its crushed ice, but no! There is this perfect YouTube video that explains what I mean by cool! (pun intended).
Essentially supercooling is the process of taking liquids to temperatures that are lower than it's freezing point. How is that possible? Wouldn't it become solid? That's when I read that all solidifications need crystallization agents! Water ice needs a small non-water particle to form ice. What happens otherwise is, water continues to be supercooled until it touches such a agent - precisely how it happens during a freezing rain. In the case of freezing rain however, it happens because the ground temperature is much lower (like a snow storm blew over the previous week) and there is a pressure system that moves hot air in the higher atmospheres and causes rain, and that rain water becomes supercooled as it approaches land and then, the glaze that looks like frozen snow (ice) and can bring down power lines, trees etc!
In the case of an aircraft flying through freezing rain, it immediately forms a glaze around the protruding wings, completely changing the aerodynamics. This was apparently unknown until the Roselawn incident and has since be studied well.
And, the reason why I thought this was so cool is because the humble slush that I so much like during summer is actually supercooled water! I always thought its crushed ice, but no! There is this perfect YouTube video that explains what I mean by cool! (pun intended).
Thursday, December 23, 2010
Flash mobs and social media
I very recently was made aware of the phenomenon of a flash mob. I understand that a flash mob is a sudden gathering of people mobilized by social media that perform some activity for a brief time for various 'causes' to attract passerby. The thing that makes me find this interesting/weird is the impact of social media. I am not a Facebook 'updater' and do not follow Tweets. I do use Facebook, but I do not find the idea that I might find or someone will find my updates on where I am at that moment or what I am eating to be appealing in any sense.
As an extension, I find the concept of social media quite ironical. I say that because I think the term 'friend' seems to be thrown around a lot. I agree that there might not be a better term that is slightly more personal that an 'acquaintance'. The ironical part in all this is that the amount of time you spend on 'connecting' with one's acquaintances reduces the amount of time that you spend with yourself or your real-life friend. I for one do not think that I'm becoming more social by knowing what 200+ 'friends' in Facebook are doing that day - doesn't it give a false pretense that you 'know' what everyone is up to? and eventually know none? I like Facebook in the sense that if I suddenly remember what an old classmate is doing now, I can quickly look it up just like what the original paper face book would do. Nothing more!
Now, back from my rant on social networking, the idea of a flash mob seems too hip to me! Wiki seems to suggest that flash mobs occur because people want to conform to something and be part of something big that is happening. This reminds me of shady links which say, oh click on me and you'll be donating a buck for some cause - and we in our generous urge to 'freely donate' something, click on it and feel good about it. Do you expect something to turn out by such simple acts and say a 15min flash mob? Numbers do help, just in the context of democratic protests, but for social causes, people should be involved in their community and personally help people. These social media based events seem to take people away from directly involving and is deluding the actual cause, or it appears so to me.
These things make me feel that I'm old and reminds me that I'm not catching up with technological changes brought about in society - or is it that certain things should not change and these are just passing clouds? How weird it would be to get married online? I'm sure at least a few happen that way every year. If I'm old and not social in this context, maybe I am!
As an extension, I find the concept of social media quite ironical. I say that because I think the term 'friend' seems to be thrown around a lot. I agree that there might not be a better term that is slightly more personal that an 'acquaintance'. The ironical part in all this is that the amount of time you spend on 'connecting' with one's acquaintances reduces the amount of time that you spend with yourself or your real-life friend. I for one do not think that I'm becoming more social by knowing what 200+ 'friends' in Facebook are doing that day - doesn't it give a false pretense that you 'know' what everyone is up to? and eventually know none? I like Facebook in the sense that if I suddenly remember what an old classmate is doing now, I can quickly look it up just like what the original paper face book would do. Nothing more!
Now, back from my rant on social networking, the idea of a flash mob seems too hip to me! Wiki seems to suggest that flash mobs occur because people want to conform to something and be part of something big that is happening. This reminds me of shady links which say, oh click on me and you'll be donating a buck for some cause - and we in our generous urge to 'freely donate' something, click on it and feel good about it. Do you expect something to turn out by such simple acts and say a 15min flash mob? Numbers do help, just in the context of democratic protests, but for social causes, people should be involved in their community and personally help people. These social media based events seem to take people away from directly involving and is deluding the actual cause, or it appears so to me.
These things make me feel that I'm old and reminds me that I'm not catching up with technological changes brought about in society - or is it that certain things should not change and these are just passing clouds? How weird it would be to get married online? I'm sure at least a few happen that way every year. If I'm old and not social in this context, maybe I am!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)