Accidental Blogger

NCBI ROFL (Joe)

Bringing new meaning to navel gazing and much, much more, is NCBI ROFL. Am I just giving a shout out to a friend's blog? No -- I'm giving a shout out to a friend's blog that posts abstracts from real scientific research articles that are often hilarious enough to have you rolling on the floor laughing. So check it out!

Hand - Eye Coordination

If only the problems of Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Iran, Israel-Palestine, N. Korea and the Republican right were as easy to swat away! (Link via a friend's e-mail)

Flying Footwear As A Means of Journalistic Inquiry

The Indian elections are just around the corner. Politicians are out bloviating in full force. Journalists are following them around and asking questions. Some of them are not taking "no" or evasive tactics for an answer. Instead, the proactive reporters have begun taking things in their own hands (or feet in this case, perhaps) and are throwing shoes at the offending politicians. Apparently, assaults by shoe hurling have reached epidemic proportions at Indian political venues.

Reporting from New Delhi -- If the shoe fits, throw it. Or so many people in India seem to believe these days.

Taking a cue from Iraqi journalist Muntather Zaidi, who earned a year in jail for his "real-time editorializing" after hurling both of his shoes at then-President Bush, India has witnessed a flurry of flying footwear in recent weeks.

These missiles of malcontent have left politicians on edge and prompted inquiring minds to ponder: Why can't journalists aim better? Do they get their shoes back? And is this so endemic that shoe hurling will become a required subject at journalism schools?

"It's become an epidemic," said Ashis Nandy, a political psychologist.

First off the mark here was local reporter Jarnail Singh, who got into a heated exchange with Home Minister Palaniappan Chidambaram this month. At issue was why a prominent lawmaker of the same party was cleared of all charges in the death of 3,000 Sikhs after he was accused of firing up a sectarian mob a quarter of a century ago. As blood pressures soared at the news conference, Singh, himself a Sikh, launched his size 9 Reebok sneaker at the minister, who was standing five feet away.

Although his question may have been "on target, his shoe was not," one news portal noted. "Perhaps he will practice some more at a nearby shoe-throwing range."

Fame of the 15-minute variety quickly followed. The Shiromani Akali Dal, a Sikh political party, offered Singh a $4,000 reward for his "courage and bravery." And several people pushed for an auction so they could acquire the offending item. Singh responded that hurling was a not-for-profit activity aimed at making a point. And anyway, he said, the police who grabbed it for evidence still haven't given it back. No charges have been filed.

 

A few days later, a 64-year-old retired school principal threw a shoe at popular Congress Party lawmaker Naveen Jindal during an election rally. Let out on bail after a short time, hurler Rajbal Singh Saharan explained that he hadn't aimed at Jindal as much as India's political system. Returning home inebriated that day, he said, he saw the rally and became enraged at the false promises of politicians at a time when his son had just lost his job.

 

Read more about the flying missiles here.  The L.A. Times reporter speculates that the Iraqi journalist who threw his shoes at Bush may have set a journalistic trend. Perhaps. But that applies only to the latest fad in the Fourth Estate. Shoe throwing (or shoe waving) as a gesture of utter contempt, is an age old cultural practice in many parts of Asia. 

Sujatha Struggles With A Philosophical Question

A few years ago on a plane, my husband and I got into polite chit-chat with a fellow passenger. The talk turned to children. The lady asked what our kids were up to with their lives. Our daughter was at the time a graduate student in philosophy. Instead of providing that simple bit of information, my husband said rather grandly, "My daughter is a philosopher." The woman retorted laconically, "Aren't we all?" My husband, I am sure, was properly chastised for his pomposity.

What is philosophy? Who is a philosopher? What do philosophers do?  All tricky questions, in my opinion.  Answering them can be a bit like the "Not this, not this"  approach to describing God / Brahman in Hindu philosophy . Our own Sujatha was interrogated by her young daughter along the same lines recently and came up short.

"What is a Filo- so-fer?" M enunciated carefully.

"What?"

 "Here it says that Muskrat was a..." and she showed me the book page.

"A philosopher. Umm, I think that's a person who ponders hard-to-answer questions, like 'What is the purpose of life?' "

 "Or, how did the Big Bang start the universe", M tried to grapple with this new term.

 "No, that's a scientific question. A scientist can do experiments to try and find the answers to such questions. That can't be done in philosophy."

"Or, how did God create Man?"

"No, that's a theological question, not a philosophical one."

 "Or why are we Hindus instead of some other religion?"

"Not exactly", I was starting to run out of adjectives that could be easily explained (cultural? social? ethnic?). "Though it is possible that people of different religions may develop their own philosophies."

M gave up trying to get a coherent answer from me and went back to her book and the whimsies of Moomintroll and Muskrat.

Original post at Fluff 'n' Stuff.

Where's the Bunny?

Beware of identity theft this Easter! (photos via my good friend Nancy)

 

Food of good intentions

H₂OM - a blessed beverage, Intentional Chocolate - a snack that is "imbued" with a monk's meditation, Creo Mundi - a protein mix that has been praised loudly.  How much will you pay for these "good feeling" (not just feel good) foods? An article in the latest issue of Time magazine reports that some are shelling out generously for foods which are embedded / infused / imbued with good intentions, on the assumption that nourishing powers of edibles are enhanced by good thoughts.  

Move over, organic, fair trade and free range--the latest in enlightened edibles is here: food with "embedded" positive intentions. While the idea isn't new--cultures like the Navajo have been doing it for centuries--for-profit companies in the U.S. and Canada are catching on, infusing products with good vibes through meditation, prayer and even music. Since 2006, California company H2Om has sold water infused with wishes for "love," "joy" and "perfect health" via the words, symbols and colors on the label (which "create a specific vibratory frequency," according to co-founder Sandy Fox) and the restorative music played at their bottling warehouse. At Creo Mundi, a Canadian maker of protein powder, employees gather around each shipment and state aloud the benefits they hope to imbue it with for their consumers--increased performance, balance and vitality. Intentional Chocolate, founded in 2007 by chocolatier Jim Walsh, uses a special recording device to capture the electromagnetic brain waves of meditating Tibetan monks; Walsh then exposes his confections to the recording for five days per batch.

We hear your eyes rolling. But some claim there's actually something to the idea that humans can alter the physical world with their minds, and they offer research to prove it. Dean Radin, a senior scientist at the Institute of Noetic Sciences in Petaluma, Calif., conducted a test in which, he says, subjects who ate Intentional Chocolate improved their mood 67% compared with people who ate regular chocolate. "If the Pope blessed water, everyone wants that water. But does it actually do something?" Radin asks. "The answer is yes, to a small extent."

James Fallon, a professor of psychiatry and human behavior at the University of California at Irvine School of Medicine, is skeptical. "So I take a rutabaga and put it close to my head, and it somehow changes the food and improves the mood of the person who ate it?" he asks. "Nah."

Gimmick or not, in this economy any product that promises a spiritual pick-me-up could be in high demand. Since the recession, says Phil Lempert, editor of health-food site Supermarketguru.com "everyone is ready to jump off a bridge." With the right marketing, he says, embedded foods "could be huge."

Still, not everyone is keen on the idea of packaging spirituality. Once the profit motive comes into play, "it's difficult to keep things pure," says George Churinoff, a monk at Deer Park Buddhist Center in Oregon, Wis., who was involved with Intentional Chocolate in its early stages. "Then [the product] may not be blessed in any way with motivation except maybe to make money."

Like the Navajos, I too grew up in a culture where food is routinely imbued with spirituality and blessings, not so much by humans but by gods. (see prasad) I have therefore consumed large quantities of "embedded" foods, mostly from the household shrines of my mother and other relatives. The divine fare was always delicious and I don't know if the goodies imparted any special benefits because of the worthy intentions infused in them. I however remember my mildly observant but  supremely hygienic mother's cautionary words regarding the consumption of blessed foods outside the home : "Eat only the whole fruits, not the sliced ones;  take very small amounts of cooked food and only if it is still warm; stick mostly to dry items; avoid all cold liquids, milk based products and especially the holy water; do not consume anything in a large communal place of worship." I may have ignored her advice a couple of times - once for a delectable helping of suji halwa in a large, crowded Gurudwara and on another occasion, when I ate some pre-sliced coconut in a South Indian temple. Given the frequent cases of food poisoning, hepatitis and other nasty outcomes of eating in public holy places, it was amply clear to me that the blessings of the gods didn't always protect against earthly maladies.

The foods described in the Time magazine article of course pose few such disease causing threats. What is suspect is their ability to transmit the good intentions and peaceful vibes via the gastrointestinal pathway. If a controlled study can be done to prove their efficacy, perhaps such fare can be of greater use than just soothing the nerves of antsy individuals. How about India and Pakistan sharing "laddus" of peace?  Israelis and Palestinians feasting on falafel of harmony? The whole world exchanging grains of accord and amity? The placebo effect alone may be worth the trouble.

Shameless Ploy to Show Off My Son (Dean)

So Slashdot has this post about a recent study of the cognitive development of toddlers that concludes that kids don't learn by planning for the future. The comments are, as always, provocative, opinionated, droll, and in ways more informative than the underlying article and study [sub. req'd].

The study is of course far more elaborate and sophisticated (read: beyond me) than the article represents, so I'll take exception to the latter. For one thing--and this may be critical--I don't understand the experiment. How does identifying whether or not a cartoon character Blue is happy or sad about the emergence of either watermelon or Sponge Bob measure proactive or reactive thinking at all? If the older kids "can anticipate the answer before the object [the watermelon] appears," I'd say they're better at guessing, not remembering.

That aside, the truly laughable notion of this study is the hypothesis that one "might expect the child to plan for the future." Even more ridiculous is the prospect that this fairly describes how the minds of adults work. If that were the case, I wouldn't be scrambling right now to figure out how I'm going to make good by April 15 on the employment taxes I have known for a full year I would soon owe the federal government. On the other hand, I have been planning to arrange for a babysitter this coming Saturday to allow my wife and me to attend a beer festival in Berkeley. So maybe one's "capacity to anticipate and prepare for future events" is a function of the appeal of those events. Or maybe it's just the case that beer : watermelon :: taxes : Sponge Bob Squarepants.

India - Israel: "Armsdog Millionaire" or A Lethal Love Affair?

Ever since the Indian government established full diplomatic relations with the state of Israel in 1992, a couple of ideas, one historic and the other rooted in the present, have drawn the two countries into developing close, friendly ties. The first, the peaceful and harmonious history of Indian Jews is indeed a cause of pride and celebration for both countries. But the second reason that has strengthened Indian-Israeli relations is not so benign. Targets of radical Islamist terrorism, the two nations find common cause in increased militarization to counter that threat. However in my opinion, if India is not careful, it may feed off Israel's acute existential paranoia. Rather than solve its own problems of religious strife and human rights violations within and around its own borders with diplomacy, fairness and a cool head, India may be tempted into flexing its military muscles unnecessarily, with disastrous results.

Israeli arms manufacturers see a huge market for cashing in on India's security fears. But instead of making an old fashioned sales pitch at arms fairs or in covert meetings, the Israeli armaments company, Rafael is promoting its lethal wares through a Bollywood style song & dance video. The kitschy lyrics evoke historic ties and current anxieties. Examples of the horrendously hilarious and gratingly juvenile dialog between what appears to be the Indian military establishment (the female) and Rafael (the male):  

Rafael: We have been together for so long, trusting friends and partners. What more can I pledge?

Indian Military: I need to feel safe and sheltered. Security and protection. Commitment and perfection. Defense and dedication.

Rafael: I promise to defend you. Fulfill your expectations. Shield and support you [and] meet my obligations.

The song continues with more such mindless and crappy exchanges punctuated by a very annoying  refrain of "Dinga Dinga Dee!"  I am not sure if the actors are a mix of Israelis of varied ethnic origins  who took a crash course in Indian film style dancing and felt confident enough to come up with this amazingly tacky video - some in the cast don't look very Indian. But I suspect that the sales video was probably inspired by the huge success of the movie Slumdog Millionaire.  Don't miss the heavy handed shot of the missile (a phallic symbol?) that floats in the foreground and other weapons in the background around which the dancers cavort.

My co-blogger Sujatha said when she sent me the link, "Don't know whether to be appalled at this attempt to woo the Indian military establishment or double over with laughter." Appalling it definitely is. It could also have been funny if it weren't for the implied deadly message.

Update: The New York Times reports:

Wired’s Noah Shachtman notes via Twitter that the Israeli newspaper Haaretz got in touch with the company that made this video and reports that “The actors are Israelis of Georgian and Indian origin.” Haaretz adds that “A Rafael spokesperson said that the video had been received with much acclaim in India.”

Wash, Rinse, Spin and Liberate!

I love my washing machine - a sturdy, reliable, oversized contraption with a stainless steel drum that doesn't chip like most enameled ones.  But never have I looked upon it as my liberator! Well, not any more than my car, refrigerator, microwave oven, cooking range, garage door opener and sundry other  household conveniences. And in computing comparative liberating power, it is difficult to assign a higher rank to the washing machine than to education, modern medicine, electricity or even indoor plumbing. But the Vatican  has declared that the washing machine (!) deserves special veneration for unshackling women from their oppressed existence.

  As International Women’s Day is celebrated, the Vatican had a novel message for the women of the world: give thanks for the washing machine. This humble domestic appliance had done more for the women’s liberation movement than the contraceptive pill or working outside the home, said the the official Vatican newspaper, Osservatore Romano.

“In the 20th century, what contributed most to the emancipation of Western women?” questioned the article. “The debate is still open. Some say it was the pill, others the liberalisation of abortion, or being able to work outside the home. Others go even further: the washing machine.”

The article is entitled, “The washing machine and the emancipation of women: put in the powder, close the lid and relax”, taking its name from the Washy Talky, the Electrolux bilingual-talking washing-machine launched in India seven years ago, which would remind the absent-minded housewife how to use the appliance.

The Catholic Church was never likely to laud the pill for its transformative power on women’s lives. Since Pope Benedict became the leader of the world’s 1.1 billion Catholics, he has published a religious document condemning contraception for “negating the intimate truth of conjugal love, with which the divine gift [of life] is communicated” and has urged pharmacists to refuse to dispense the morning-after pill. The Osservatore Romano held the pill responsible for polluting the environment and contributing to male infertility.

Slumming at the Oscars

Okay, so we haven't talked about it here despite the hoopla. Slumdog Millionaire that is. But today I came across this hilarious video that is worth posting. I am flummoxed by the mass appeal of the movie which swept this year's Oscars and a bit amused when people ask me slightly breathlessly if I am happy about its stupendous success. Friends of my age haven't bothered but two young people at my gym made the friendly overture of mentioning the Oscars "miracle" to me. I am wondering if other Indian Americans are being asked about Slumdog too.

I know, I know, it is just a harmless icebreaker. I thought it was cute that the two young acquaintances approached me with a smile and kind of "congratulated" me for the success of Slumdog. Of the three, only I had hated the movie. And why didn't the film sit well with me? Well, not because it exposed the seamy side of India Shining. India is a huge, complex and multi-faceted country. People anywhere can believe what they wish about India. I myself harbor many complaints and much anger in my heart about the inequities of Indian society. What director Danny Boyle showed in the movie about the heartbreaking squalor of Indian slum life is exaggerated but not entirely incorrect.  But that is not what the movie is about and why it won awards and accolades. It was the puerile, unrealistic and gaudy triumph of the underdog in the story that made it a hit - with just enough sexual tension, cruelty and filth thrown in the mix to complete the image of India that appeals to much of the world. Here is Indian journalist Tarun Tejpal expanding on what I said. (link: Usha Alexander, another non-fan of the Slumdog)

One feels awe not for the film, but for its miraculous journey. Clearly, in an increasingly low-brow ocean of publicity and hype, the idea of true excellence is a drowned raft.

Not shorn of the hype, but because of it, to an Indian, the film ought to disappoint. It tells me nothing that I don’t already know; and it tells me things I know to be not true. Unlike Amitabh Bachchan I have no problems with the film focusing on India’s abject poverty. That focus is salutary, and crying out for further exploration. My problem is the opposite— that it trivialises it. Uses its excreta and chopped limbs to tell a dubious story that leaves the viewer not disturbed but cheerfully smug. You leave the seat exhilarated, not in pain.

The film tells a very big lie: that India’s poor have a happy shot at leaping out of their misery into affluence and joy. One day you can be in the crap heap — diving into excreta — and the next running down a slum girl who may have failed to make school but seems to have managed to walk through Vogue’s offices on her way to teenage. With a stunning lack of plausibility you see the slum child Jamaal grow into a refined public schoolboy who must surely be eating cucumber sandwiches for lunch. India’s wannabe wealthy — billionaires among them — would slice their fingers to boast such a sophisticated son. For that accent alone, they would throw in their toes too.

Aw! Gee! The camera is shaking, the story is sprinting — there is no way anyone can tell if a few chapters have fallen out, several links of logic lost. You have to be grateful Jamal only grows up to be Dev Patel. Given the absence of any need to explain the miraculous transformation, he could well have become Brad Pitt or Prince Charles. To further celebrate the carnival of implausibility, Master Dev acts with the cool flatness of the cucumber sandwich (that he surely must be eating) — no neuroses of the slums tarnishing his soul.

For those celebrating the authenticity of the film, here’s a secret: the makers clearly had no interest in verisimilitude. It’s been the rough approach of artists working the India material for the last hundred years. It arises from a clear understanding of “audience”. The awgee mobs filling theatres around the world, and paying in dollars or some such muscular currency, cannot tell the difference between Hindi and Hindu or the vast distance between Mumbai and Agra. Much like the American tourists at the Taj Mahal, who cannot distinguish between an unlettered, ignorant urchin and a licensed guide.

Update: I wonder if African-Americans are becoming similarly wary of being congratulated on Obama's election to the presidency. Apparently,they are :-)

Where in the world is Dubya?

Just over a month ago George W. Bush, our most incompetent president in recent memory became a private citizen.  Mr. and Mrs. Bush have moved to their new home in an upscale neighborhood of Dallas. The transition from being the most powerful man on earth to a Texas suburbanite must take some work. I was wondering what George Bush must be up to now that the boxes have been unpacked and he has had time to get familiarized with the new digs (Bush had not seen his new home before moving in). Laura Bush told ABC News that she and her husband are settling in and gradually finding the rhythm of their new life. I believe Mrs Bush when she says that the newspaper is not being delivered on time and that she has had to do little cooking, with friends bringing over food. But I do not believe that she simply forgot to watch President Obama's address to the nation and the joint session of Congress last Tuesday.

After years of having everything they wanted right at their finger tips, the Bushes are finding that sometimes the little things are the most difficult to get.

"The only thing we don't have are the newspapers. It has been slow to get The Dallas Morning News delivered," she said. "People bring the newspaper to us later in the day. It's just not being delivered yet."

Despite the lack of newspaper delivery at their new home, the former first lady said they are keeping up with the news back in the nation's capital but they certainly are not operating on Washington's clock.  In fact, Mrs. Bush said she did not watch President Obama's address to Congress on Tuesday night because she "totally forgot about it."

"The next day I thought it was so ironic that for eight years I would be a nervous wreck before the State of the Union, and for days before, as George would be preparing his speech, worried about it and thinking about what was going to be in the speech. And this time it came and went and I didn't even think about it."

Forgot?  More likely she deliberately avoided it knowing what a painful contrast it would be to listen to a coherent presidential speech after the eight years of drivel that her clueless husband had dished out. And what has George Bush been doing in retirement? Well, it is reported that he is looking for a "play group" in his new neighborhood of Preston Hollow. [link: Sujatha]

Open house at Pershing Elementary on Wednesday drew a dozen Preston Hollow-area parents to check out the prospects for their children. But the Dallas school's most prominent visitors didn't have any kids in tow. Only Secret Service agents.

George and Laura Bush have been little more than rumors the last few months, fleeting glimpses behind tinted windows of big, black Suburbans. But the kids got a first-hand look Wednesday when their new neighbors took a tour. 

The Bushes were scheduled to visit three classes but popped in on any room with an audience.

Ducking in one room, Bush asked, "Hey, kids, do you know who I am?"

Gasps all around, then someone blurted, "George Washington!"

"That's right!" the visitor said. "George Washington Bush!"

Well, the middle initial was the same, anyway.

In a dual-language class, Bush tried to introduce himself in Spanish. But it came off a little too twangy. He tried again. Blank looks. Even held up three fingers. You know, a "W." Still nothing.

Finally, Pershing's energetic principal, Margie Hernandez, stepped in with a proper Spanish introduction.

Ohhhhhhh.

The kids laughed. The former president laughed. The principal laughed, out of relief, mostly.

So much for the ex-president and his wife. At least they can look forward to an idyllic retirement. The disgruntled cadre of right wing followers they have left behind on the other hand, are in the mood for an armed revolution!

  

The Mom Song

With my children all grown up, I no longer have the opportunity to sing the Mom-Song on a regular basis. But the Wife-Song I sing for my husband (to his great chagrin), sometimes sounds awfully close to it. (thanks to Razib for uploading the video on You Tube and my friend Nancy for sending me the original link)

Valentine's Day Love Guide: Think International Relations

Forget chocolates, roses, baubles and bears. Don't fret over the perfect ambience for the candlelight dinner. Ignore Mars-Venus interpretations of the world. What you really need to pay attention to in a romantic alliance is diplomacy, negotiation and balance of power. So says Stephen M. Walt, professor of International Relations at Harvard. Believe me, as a long married person who has had to negotiate and re-negotiate terms of endearment over the years, Walt's perspective is closer to the truth than all feel-good psycho babble out there.  (via 3 Quarks Daily)

To begin with, any romantic partnership is essentially an alliance, and alliances are a core concept on international relations. Alliances bring many benefits to the members (or else why would we form them?) but as we also know, they sometimes reflect irrational passions and inevitably limit each member's autonomy. Many IR theorists believe that institutionalizing an alliance makes it more effective and enduring, but that’s also why making a relationship more formal is a significant step that needs to be carefully considered.

Of course, IR theorists have also warned that allies face the twin dangers of abandonment and entrapment: the more we fear that our partners might leave us in the lurch (abandonment), the more likely we are to let them drag us into obligations that we didn't originally foresee (entrapment). When you find yourself gamely attending your partner’s high school reunion or traveling to your in-laws for Thanksgiving dinner every single year, you’ll know what I mean.

Realists have long argued that bipolar systems are the most stable. So if any of you lovers out there are thinking of adding more major actors to the system, please reconsider. As most of us eventually learn, trying to juggle romantic relationships in a multi-polar setting usually leads to crises, and sometimes to open warfare. It's certainly not good for alliance stability.

IR theory also warns us that shifts in the balance of power are dangerous. There's an obvious warning here: relationships are more likely to have trouble if one partner's status or power changes rapidly. So that big promotion that you both celebrated may be a good thing overall, but it's likely to alter expectations and force you and your partner to make serious adjustments. The same is true if one of you gets laid off. Bottom line: it can take a lot of patience and love to work through a major shift in the balance of power within a relationship.

Are you a serious scholar or merely a "clever-clogs?"

Professor Jonathan Wolff has some clarifying pointers. (via Brian Leiter)

The Inaugural Flub

The only glaring hiccup in Barack Obama's silky smooth campaign and transition to the presidency  occurred on Inauguration Day when Chief Justice John Roberts stumbled during the administration of the presidential oath. The incongruity of the moment was noted by citizen observers and the media. Conspiracy theorists, as well as critics of President Obama raised questions about the legitimacy of his office, absent the "constitutionally correct" oath of office. But as many experts and our own Dean have explained, a mangled oath doesn't de-legitimize the presidency. However just to be on the safe side, President Obama took a second oath  yesterday evening. Justice Roberts apparently got it right on the re-take.

     

Everyone, including the Chief Justice agreed after the event that it wasn't Obama but Roberts, who created the syntactic faux pas. President Obama, a man known for his grace and composure under pressure and amidst unexpected turn of events smiled sympathetically at his oath giver when it became clear that the ceremony had gone awry and the scripted words were becoming scrambled. Theories abound as to why Roberts, also a man known for his minimalistic and cool demeanor, failed to go through a routine for which both men should have been well prepared (what's wrong with a 3 X 5 index card on these occasions?). Bloggers and commentators have speculated that:

• Roberts is so pissed off at Obama for not voting for him during the senate confirmation hearings that he deliberately and vindictively messed up Obama's solemn moment before the whole world.
• Roberts is so pissed off at Obama for not voting for him during the senate confirmation hearings that he lost his customary cool and his sputtering was caused by passionate anger.
• Roberts, a man of "reactionary" judicial leanings (Brian Leiter) who has sided with George Bush on increasing war time executive powers and against individual freedoms, choked up because he fears that Obama will correct the human rights and rule of law violations of the Bush-Cheney regime.
• Roberts became distracted because his hair became unstuck by a strong wind and blew into his eyes.

I had met with some friends on Tuesday to watch the presidential inauguration over lunch and Tequila Sunrise.  We were all taken aback by the faltering swearing-in-ceremony.  Afterwards many of us wondered why Roberts had fumbled. Our consensus was that Roberts, dreaming of the precedence set in 2000, had fully expected himself and his esteemed colleagues on the Supreme Court to once more "select" a president by the imperious judicial fiat and was therefore miffed to have to swear in a candidate actually "elected" democratically by voters.

  (cartoon: Tom Toles) 

Tough Love for the Sex Industry (Andrew)

As long as we are enduring our final spasms of Bush anti-nostalgia this weekend, I thought I'd share a short video I made with some friends (including my lovely co-blogger and spouse Anna), back in early 2001.  You may recall that after the tainted 2000 election, Al Gore seemed to disappear from public life for a while -- and many of us wondered how exactly he was occupying his time...

"The ultimate exit interview"

Yesterday I had the opportunity to catch George W. Bush's final press conference on C-Span. Bush was at his amiable best, displaying the full gamut of predictable emotions we have come to expect from him.  Alternately loopy, jokey, nostalgic and defensive, he reflected on his about-to-expire presidency and upcoming retirement. He expressed confidence that history will show him up in a kinder glow than the harsh glare of the klieg lights of the present has done. All said and done, it was a fun interview - a bit comical and mostly clueless to the end.  (the full transcript here)

Here are some nuggets:

On his record: "I think it's a good, strong record. You know, presidents can try to avoid hard decisions and therefore avoid controversy. That's just not my nature."

On whether America's image has suffered under his leadership: "I disagree with this assessment that, you know, that people view America in a dim light. It may be damaged amongst some of the elite. But people still understand America stands for freedom."

On the disgrace at Abu Ghraib: "I don't know if you want to call those mistakes or not, but they were — things didn't go according to plan, let's put it that way."

On his cocky and premature declaration of victory in Iraq: "Clearly, putting `Mission Accomplished' on an aircraft carrier was a mistake. It sent the wrong message."

With Gaza up in flames, on his administration's peace efforts in the mideast: "It's been a long time since they've had peace in the Middle East. The challenge, of course, has been to lay out the conditions so that a peaceful state can emerge. ... Will this ever happen? I think it will. And I know we've advanced the process."

On the election of Barack Obama: "President-elect Obama's election does speak volumes about how far this country has come."

On the burdens of the presidency: "I believe the phrase 'burdens of the office' is overstated. You know, it's kind of like, `Why me? Oh, the burdens, you know. Why did the financial collapse have to happen on my watch?' It's just pathetic, isn't it, self-pity? And I don't believe that President-electObama will be full of self-pity."

On how he will handle retirement: "I'm a Type A personality. I just can't envision myself, you know, the big straw hat and a Hawaiian shirt sitting on some beach. I wake up in Crawford on Tuesday morning — I mean, Wednesday morning, and I suspect I'll make Laura coffee and, you know, go get it for her."

Ah, but these are just George Bush's own mellow words. The picture tells a different story.

151 Contributors, 107,000 Words (Dean)

That's the tally as I skim the responses to the 2009 Edge Annual Question: "What will change everything?"—or, more prosaically, "What game-changing scientific ideas and developments do you expect to live to see?"

The respondents tend to represent the science crowd (of the hard, social, and popular varieties), with lots of neuro-this and that-ologists. There is a token coterie of artsy folks. Consequently, the responses largely sound like failed pitches for science fiction movies. Lots of AI, some ET, cloning, and the like.

The writers and artists don't fare much better, although their responses are more likely to be quirky. One calls for "a different kind of male subjectivity" (I'm all for that, you jerk.), another (a male, I gather) for "no more reality." To the credit of physicists everywhere, one brilliantly anticipates nothing more than "a very very good battery."

Some of the entries surprise me. I expect mostly drivel from Brian Eno, but I appreciate his sense that the "what" destined to change everything won't be a thought, but a feeling, namely, that we're screwed (my paraphrase). And a television producer(!) envisions "a farewell to harm."

Anyway, were I invited to contribute, I'd suggest, modestly, a very good poem. That will change everything more capably than, say, "superintelligence" (Nick Bostrom) or a "web empowered revolution in teaching" (Chris Anderson). There is one poem among the contributions, but it's not very good. (All credit to Ron Silliman, whose daily posts are replete with this sort of stuff.)

Why the idle life is so much worth living

As a full time person of leisure, I have been trying for long to convince my diligent family that I am indeed supremely content with my idle life.  But who wants to listen to a rat who's not in the race?  Perhaps they will believe a philosopher.  Mark Kingwell explains:  

Mark 1: So what makes that idling rather than work?

Mark 2: Enjoying it for its own sake, for one thing. The reason idling is often closely associated with aestheticism or even dandyism - Baudelaire, Huysmans, Stevenson and Wilde were all accomplished idlers - is that idling sees the possibilities of life being lived as a work of art.

Mark 1: Hmm. Is that what distinguishes idling from slacking?

Mark 2: Yes, exactly! The problem with the slacker is that he is, in the very act of resisting them, wedded to the norms of work. In avoiding work, or pretending to work, or hiding from the supervisor in the mailroom, the slacker is implicitly granting the world of work a dominant position. He gives work power as that which he should be doing even as he does not do it.

Mark 1: And idling?

Mark 2: Idling establishes an independent scale of value. It's like the difference between dozing - falling asleep from overwork - and napping, which we all know is an art form. The true idler enters the moment of not-working and takes it into a new realm of not even thinking about work, of strolling away from that collective addiction of the past 2,000 years.

....

Mark 1: Huh. But surely idle hands are the devil's work. You don't have to be a hard-line Calvinist to appreciate that people need things to occupy them, limits and purposes. Otherwise they fall into ennui or worse.

Mark 2: True, all art is about the tension between constraint and possibility, between discipline and freedom. But work is too often deadening rather than purposeful; that's why it cycles with boredom. We should get over this perverse need to locate people in work terms, to fix them under occupations, the way English proper names make identities: Smith, Cooper, Fletcher. When you meet someone at a party, don't ask "What do you do?" Instead ask, "What are you thinking about?"

Wishing everyone a Happy New Year. Hope you will enjoy many an idle moment in 2009.

(link to Mark Kingwell's comments via Brian Leiter; image of Woman Resting on a Pillow via Indian Contemporary Art) 

Why Women Can't Sleep

Have you ever wondered how a woman's brain works?
Well....it's finally explained here in one, easy-to-understand illustration:

 

Every one of those little blue balls is a thought about something that needs to be done, a decision or a problem that needs to be solved.
  
A man has only 2 balls and they take up all his thoughts.  

(This came from a friend via e-mail)

Shoemanship - bringing down the curtain on a reign of (t)error

Denied respect and attention at home, George W. Bush recently made an unannounced visit to Iraq, hoping I am sure, to perform a victory lap of sorts in the last few remaining days in office. What greeted him there was not the confetti of a ticker tape parade, but two flying shoes aimed at his head by Iraqi journalist, Muntazer al-Zaidi who called Bush a "dog" and described the projectiles as "gifts" from Iraqi widows and orphans. Acquainted as I am with a national culture of shoe throwing, let me tell you that the contempt expressed by the gesture is far greater than a pie in the face or being pelted by rotten tomatoes and eggs. I experienced conflicting emotions while watching the video (see here). Despite my nearly eight years of uninterrupted anger at Bush-Cheney, I flinched a bit at the spectacle and the blunt message of condemnation. I also felt a grudging admiration for Bush's athletic reflex in dodging the speeding footwear and at the same time wondered about the lack of agility of the Secret Service men who allowed the second shoe to fly (Iraqi president Maliki reached out to deflect the missile but missed). However, I was not at all surprised by Bush's clueless and  unrepentant response to ABC's Martha Raddatz with whom he spoke about the incident. Bush thinks that the insulting message was interesting and the Iraqis and the Iraqi press, not he, were humiliated by the action of the irate journalist who merely wanted to get on TV! Or perhaps Bush took it all in stride, smug as he is in the knowledge that truckloads of shoes thrown at him cannot match the injury and insult he has inflicted on Iraq. Read the whole interview for Bush's thoughts on the Iraq war / Al Qaida. He leaves no doubt that his presidential philosophy has been one of lies, alibis and defiance and his governing style, that of ducking and weaving.

Martha Raddatz: Let's start with what just happened. And that is someone threw a shoe at you, whether it's an Iraqi reporter?

President Bush:Yeah, I think it's a reporter. At least that's what they told me on the way out, that it's a person who works in the Iraqi press, stands up and throws his shoe. And it was amusing. I mean, I've seen a lot of weird things during my presidency and this may rank up there as one of the weirdest. On the other hand, I do remember when the president of China came to the South Lawn, and a member of the press corps started yelling. I think it was Falun Gong slogans at the Chinese president. So this happens and it's a sign of a free society.

Raddatz: It's also considered a huge insult in this world, the sole of a shoe, throwing a shoe.

Bush: I guess. Look they were humiliated. The press corps, the rest of the Iraqi press corps was humiliated. These guys were just besides themselves about, they felt like he had disgraced their entire press corps and I frankly, I didn't view it as, I thought it was interesting, I thought it was unusual to have a guy throw his shoe at you. But I'm not insulted. I don't hold it against the government. I don't think the Iraqi press corps as a whole is terrible. And so, the guy wanted to get on TV and he did. I don't know what his beef is. But whatever it is I'm sure somebody will hear it.

The media and blogs are abuzz with the story - numerous variations of "the other shoe dropping" are making the rounds. In my opinion, the other shoe dropped long ago - with revelations about missing WMDs, Abu Ghraib, rendition of prisoners for torture, corruption in the Justice Department and the manipulation of CIA intelligence. But if that were not enough, in an interview with ABC's Jonathan Clark, Dick Cheney, the master cobbler of the Bush administration sent the last shoe flying at our faces.

KARL: But you've heard leaders, the incoming Congress, saying that this policy has basically been torture and illegal wiretapping, and that they want to undo, basically, the central tenets of your anti-terrorism policy.

CHENEY: They're wrong. On the question of terrorist surveillance, this was always a policy to intercept communications between terrorists or known terrorists, or so-called "dirty numbers," and folks inside the United States to capture those international communications....

On the question of so-called torture, we don't do torture. We never have. It's not something that this administration subscribes to. Again, we proceeded very cautiously. We checked. We had the Justice Department issue the requisite opinions in order to know where the bright lines were that you could not cross.

The professionals involved in that program were very, very cautious, very careful -- wouldn't do anything without making certain it was authorized and that it was legal. And any suggestion to the contrary is just wrong. Did it produce the desired results? I think it did.

I think, for example, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who was the number three man in al Qaeda, the man who planned the attacks of 9/11, provided us with a wealth of information. There was a period of time there, three or four years ago, when about half of everything we knew about al Qaeda came from that one source. So, it's been a remarkably successful effort. I think the results speak for themselves.

And I think those who allege that we've been involved in torture, or that somehow we violated the Constitution or laws with the terrorist surveillance program, simply don't know what they're talking about.

KARL:Did you authorize the tactics that were used against Khalid Sheikh Mohammed?

CHENEY: I was aware of the program, certainly, and involved in helping get the process cleared, as the agency in effect came in and wanted to know what they could and couldn't do. And they talked to me, as well as others, to explain what they wanted to do. And I supported it.

KARL:In hindsight, do you think any of those tactics that were used against Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and others went too far?

CHENEY: I don't.

I Think I know... (Sujatha)

why Barack Obama decided to announce that his middle name was Steve in the Alfred E. Smith dinner.

Could this be a reason why? Maybe not, but it would be fun if it were.

"NCSE's "Project Steve" is a tongue-in-cheek parody of a long-standing creationist tradition of amassing lists of "scientists who doubt evolution" or "scientists who dissent from Darwinism."

The catch is, that to become an NCSE Steve, you must be a Steve in name with any of its variations.

"Are you tired of being ignored by your colleagues at professional meetings?
Do your students yawn every time you begin a lecture?
Do neighbors not invite you to cocktail parties anymore because you always talk about dermestid beetles?
Well, my friend, you have the power to put a stop to that today simply by becoming an NCSE Steve. Why settle for being just another Jonathan, Michael, or William when you can be what you've always dreamed of being ... an NCSE Steve.
To see if you qualify, just answer these simple questions:

• Are you named Steve, Stephen, Steven, Esteban, Etienne, or Stephanie?
• Do you have a Ph.D. in biology, geology, paleontology, or a related scientific field?
• Do you want the kind of success in life you always thought was reserved for the "other Steves"?

If you answered yes to all three of these questions, then you have what it takes to become an NCSE Steve! "

Among the founders of Project Steve: Steven Chu, the next Secretary of Energy.

Brick by Brick

With the economy in shambles and jobs scarce, it may be time for some to learn a new skill.

(The video was surely shot in India. I have seen workers, including frail women, do this at Indian construction sites - just not so high a stack and certainly not standing in a boat.)

My Tailor is from Mumbai!

It is human nature to want to find a personal connection to triumph and tragedy. Cries of solidarity, "Today we are all Americans," (here, here and here) were heard from all over the world after 9/11/2001. John McCain declared, "Today we are all Georgians," during the recent Russian-Georgian conflict (although there is reason to believe that Georgia attacked first). Being an Indian by birth, the Mumbai tragedy is of course somewhat more personal to me than it is to the average American, Japanese or Argentinian. But I can hardly claim, "Today I am ... or we are all Mumbaikars."  [Mumbaikar= Bombayite] I cannot in all honesty, quite imagine what the death and injury of the victims mean to them and to their families. But we try to empathize by imagining ourselves facing the same terrifying ordeals that the victims must have encountered.  Several of my friends, all of whom know that I come from Delhi, have called in the last few days to inquire if everyone in my family was alright. The first thing that I myself asked my sister and my journalist brother-in-law was if every one they know in Mumbai was safe. Not everyone was. A former colleague of my BIL is presumed dead. She was in a room in the Taj Hotel that was adjacent to the one where the terrorists had initially gathered on the 6th floor. Text messages from her cell phone went out for nearly two hours following the first conflagration, after which there was no further communication. Does the death of this journalist whom I had never met and which made me quite sad, turn the Mumbai incident into a personal experience for me? I don't think so, unless you compute "personal" in a very loose six degrees of separation kind of way.

We are NOT all Mumbaikars today but it is a polite way to show solidarity by saying that we are. But of course, there are several genuine Mumbaikars within the Indian American community and anxiety was understandably widespread among them when the news of the carnage first broke. Houston Indians gathered at the city's India House to offer prayers and express support for India. Among them were many from Mumbai whose "personal" stories are reported in today's Houston Chronicle.   

Namit spoke of the purple prose of Indian writers in the aftermath of the attack in Mumbai. How about some pale yellow journalism? While reading the Chronicle's general human interest story, I came across a ridiculously irrelevant piece of trivia:

Despite a decade or more of bombings and suicide attacks in their native city, former Mumbai residents said the carnage that began Wednesday and ended Saturday with nearly 200 deaths outdid their worst imaginings. They joined with religious and civic leaders at Houston's India House cultural center on Sunday.

"This attack wasn't an attack on India. It wasn't an attack on Westerners. It was an attack on humanity," said Harris County Judge Ed Emmett, who wore a gray suit tailored for him during a visit to Mumbai. [emphasis mine]

Now, Judge Emmett, a very active public official who was responsible for the evacuation plan during Hurricane Ike, is I am sure, sincerely outraged by the terrorist incident in Mumbai. But what in the whole wide world, does his gray suit tailored in Mumbai have to do with anything? I don't blame Judge Emmett for wearing his desi suit during the visit to India House and I don't even mind that he may have mentioned it to his Indian audience and to the reporter. However, why did the reporter choose to report it? How many degrees of separation are there between the judge, his tailor in Mumbai and a terrorist act?

Bad Sex Award (Dean)

So we've taken lately to writing about writing, and Ruchira chastises some of us for carrying on below the fold when we ought to be generating more copy for AB. I won't bury this in the comments, then, or anywhere else, for that matter. As I write, the decision has already been rendered, but it's worth starting with the early story and then proceeding to the result. (Link courtesy of Ron Silliman's marvelous blog.)