Tuesday, September 27, 2011

Popservation

Think of a Mobius strip when listening to Kelly Rowland's Motivation. The Mobian tone flips that Ms. Rowland produces stand out; it probably does not take an exceptional effort from a trained singer to perform it, but it is pleasantly startling because of its uncommonness, like seeing somebody do acrobatics in a doctor's waiting room.

Another exceptional thing is the unabashed, unrestrained carnality of the song-content. Makes a grown blogger blush; one has to block it off the mind to get the Mobius-strip experience.



Lil Wayne is featured on the song; while his performance is nothing to write home about, one line attributed to him is particularly amusing:
"...she hold me like a conversation."
See it? Personification is a rather common tool in the literary arts, but such anti-personification is rare. Its the difference between saying "I had a sweaty jog today" and "I jogged like sweat today". But Lil Wayne makes it works here.

* * * *

Talking of personification, whenever the stock market falls sharply, I keep my eyes peeled for a certain headline that is expected to follow. Inevitably, some copy-editor somewhere thinks it fit to use the phrase "the stock market swooned...". Literarily speaking, even delicate ladies don't swoon any more; its awfully cute of stock markets to keep the tradition alive.

Saturday, September 24, 2011

On dogmas









Another insightful proclamation by Danae. In the American political jungle, I would suggest that flexible dogmas are more a characteristic of the right than the left.

While not agreeing with any liberal positions, I must concede that those positions - such as social justice and a propensity for a large central government - are relative constant and internally consistent.

But, not so with the other camp. For instance, some bedrock dogmas of conservatives such as free trade, personal liberty and pro-life are countered by other dogmas held by the same camp. For example, an onerous border policy is at odds with free trade, a propensity for laws against marijuana and gay unions undermine personal liberties, and the pro-life position is corroded by the pro-war one.

Of course, liberals have one gaping hole in their otherwise stellar reputation.  One dogma that liberals held during the Bush years was an aversion to war; personally, I got completely fooled into thinking this was a permanent liberal position.  Of course, as we all know now, that aversion has quickly diffused once their own warmonger came to power.  Far from the Bush wars being wound down, the American militaristic orgy has been expanded in scope since 2009, when a liberal president was elected.

Wednesday, September 21, 2011

That Palestinian entity

Palestine seems to have mightily unsettled the United States by approaching the United Nations for statehood.  In a speech at the UN today, the American president insisted that the Palestinian move was misguided, and that "there is no shortcut to peace".  His Secretary of State has said that "the path to an independent Palestinian state lies through direct talks (with Israel), not through the United Nations".  To paraphrase the American position:
Palestine, wait another 60 years while we jerk you around some more.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has derided the Palestinian decision to seek statehood for being "unilateral".  It seems that the word 'unilateral' has come to mean 'without American support',  which would explain why the Prime Minister does not consider Israel's successful bid for statehood in the UN in 1949 as unilateral. Double standards, you see, lie only in the eyes of the beholder.

Monday, September 19, 2011

Capitulation - a tiny bit at a time

The Indian media's obsession with any references to India in American media or government is morbid, but one does not expect the same from senior Indian statesmen.

After a US congressional study was reported to have praised Narendra Modi's governance and predicted a future national leadership role for him, LK Advani picked up the story and posted it on his blog, as if the report was vindictive.

This is sovereignty turned on its head. Next, perhaps Mr. Advani will suggest that elections are unnecessary in India. Why bother when the US Congress does the job of picking leaders for you?

Friday, September 16, 2011

Baby deserves to be thrown out with the bathwater

Rick Perry, candidate for the Republican presidential  nomination, is catching flak for claiming that Social Security is like a "ponzi scheme".  I am not sure what is wrong with the comparison.  Even if you set aside any kind of personal judgment about Social Security, it does fulfill the definition of a ponzi scheme to the extent that it pays off previous "investors" based on the the income from new investors, without any kind of new-money-making activity taking place.  Yes, it is a ponzi scheme, just like the housing market (yet, how common it is for commentators to yearn for the housing market to come back up).  Or like religion.

On that subject, Mr. Perry has been effusive about his religiosity at a number of public appearances.  He deserves to not be nominated for just that reason (sir, what part of separation of church and state do you not understand?).

Sunday, September 11, 2011

Ball and chain

For a long-past period of time, I considered Ball and Chain sung by Janis Joplin as one of my better-liked songs. I had assumed she had also written the song, till I recently discovered it was by blues singer Big Mama Thornton, a discovery most satisfyingly accompanied by a video of Big Mama performing it.



A powerful, powerful voice. Art with unmistakable force, like stone-sculpting the form of a feather. Notice how muted, almost minimalist, the accompanying music is.

Here is the Janis Joplin version, with its emphasis on distortion of both the vocal and rhythmic parts.

Friday, September 09, 2011

Three years in, where is the change?

The US is still in Afghanistan and in Iraq, like it was under George Bush. As a matter of fact, American diplomats are presently putting the screws on the Iraqi government to extend the agreement to keep their troops in Iraq after the end of this year. And of course, under the current administration, America opened yet another war of aggression against a country which posed no danger to it (Libya).

And to think that Barack Obama was ostensibly elected on an anti-war sentiment. Regarding those who yelled out against Bush's wars, supported Mr. Obama, and are silent now, there is only one explanation: they were disingenuous in their opposition to war.

As I have quibbled before, a dangerous moment for democracy is when there is no disagreement, and consequently no debate, about a major policy decision. When it comes to American militarism today, Republicans have no inclination to oppose it because war-mongering is their adopted gene characteristic and Democrats have abandoned their briefly+conveniently adopted anti-war position. If America's finances were not so messed up, this would be a golden time for the military industry.

* * *

A friend of mine has always argued that the bell curve of American political positions is tightly clustered around the average position, and that average position is too much to the right for his comfort. An example of this: a number of people I know who call themselves liberals think that while the Iraq war was a bad idea, American should intervene militarily in humanitarian situations (e.g., genocide). That means, of course, that America should keep a standing army at all times, capable of striking anywhere in the world where humanitarian duty beckons.

It is up to anybody's imagination if a powerful standing army like this is open or not to abuse. I find this mindset analogical to that of those who who keep pitbulls "with good intentions"...

Sunday, September 04, 2011

A step backwards

My father being a keen follower of scientific developments, I first heard of Annasaheb Hazare from him in my early teens, around the time the successful story of the village of Ralegan Siddhi in Maharashtra became more widely known. There, Annasaheb had employed what is now known as a 'comprehensive watershed treatment' approach to tend for natural resources and transform the village agriculturally and economically. A few years later when I chose a career in watershed hydrology, I may not have listed Anna Hazare as a direct motivator, but thinkers/doers like Anil Agarwal and Rajendra Singh who influenced me certainly did count him as an inspirational figure.

Anna Hazare would sometimes be invited to speak/advise at Center for Science Environment, a New Delhi environmental think tank where I worked for a period of time. As a rookie, I was once charged with receiving Anna at the railway station and riding back with him to the office. At that point of time, he had little recognition in broader public life but was already a hero in water/environmental circles, and I remember feeling privileged and in awe. Being a non-native Marathi speaker, I don't look forward to conversations in Marathi with native Maharashtrians for fear of sounding boorish, but Annasaheb was quite comfortable conversing in his Marathi-accented Hindi, and my last name never came up, so it was all good.

In my later years in rural watershed development, Anna Hazare and Ralegan Siddhi were always in the backdrop, as ideological tools to be employed during friendly debates with colleagues about our work. For rural watershed practitioners, Anna holds a place similar to what Frank Lloyd Wright holds for some young architects or John Milton does in the minds of some aspiring economists.

The purpose of the above passage, besides gloating about my remote brush with fame, is to preempt the projection of prejudice against Anna Hazare when I make the following argument. I hold the man in very high personal and professional esteem.

I do not have the same warm feelings for what went down with the Lokpal bill. As unreasonable as the idea of an unelected ombudsman is, let us assume for a moment that it is a good idea. But it is certainly questionable whether the way it was hustled to debate is a healthy precedent for a democracy. Ironically, the blame for it does not lie with Anna Hazare's movement. As a free citizen, he has the complete right to advocate a position in an orderly and non-violent way like he did.

Should the central government have acted on such a long-range and weighty issue, given the fact that it had no electoral mandate on it (i.e., the government was not elected on a manifested position for or against the Lokpal bill)? Perhaps not. It had two options - to negotiate tabling the issue till the a mandate for it is won in the next election, or offer to dissolve the government and see if the Lokpal bill is mandated by voters in the resulting election.

There is no disagreement about whether many Indians want the Lokpal Bill enacted, the question is whether implementing policy changes through a show of strength at Ramlila Maidan is not an abuse-proof way to proceed.

I rarely agree with Nitin Pai on anything, but when he says that this development has "injected a dangerous element into the Indian polity", I must grudgingly nod in approval.
free html hit counter