The lynch mob aka the raving righties

So, Miers is out. She was both nominated and booted out the wrong way and for entirely wrong reasons. An utterly out of touch Pres. nominated her and the lynch mob, i.e. the raving righties, got her out. I can't help feeling some pity for Harriet. But you can't give the keys to the US constitution to every nice person. If I were a law student, I wouldn't have someone with that thin a resume as my advisor. Sorry.

There are many conspiracy theories going around right now. That she was a stalking horse for an ultra conservative waiting in the wings is one of them. Since I blog, I guess I have the power to start my own conspiracy theory. She is a single woman with no kids. That takes you far with Bush (Rice despite botching up Iraq got a step up this term). That doesn't take you very far with the raving righties. Not much color to the theory, but entirely possible given Bush's and the right of Taliban conservatives' records.


I am curious who the next nominee is going to be. Another woman? Gonsalves (that would be machine gunning oneself in the foot)? I don't think so. It's most possibly going to be some moron who will get the lefties screaming bloody murder. Will keep the news interesting for some more time. More fodder for my idle brain.

In other news, here is a link to an excellent radio interview about India's caste system. The interviewee is N.Jahdav, famous author and economist with Reserve Bank of India, India's version of the Federal Reserve. His dad was someone who broke the stone ceiling of India's caste system and educated his kids. His book is a story of his parents' life.

Chicago public radio

Johnny depp as shantaram

Did the title surprise you. i got a shock reading a similar title in Reuters. Actually its the story (real life) of an Australian prison escapee who found his way to Bombay and adopted the name shantaram. He lived in the slums, set up a clinic where he masquerades as a doctor and eventually became a gun runner for the Bombay underworld and drug gangs. The gun running and drug trade led him to Afghanistan and fighting Russians . Caught, transformed by love he settled down as a writer.
Shantaram, Gregory Roberts in real life, wrote the novel Shantaram based on his life. Now they are making a movie out of it. Johnny Depp is Shantaram. And ya, the movie is in English AND Marathi!!! I can't wait to hear Marathi gaalis and Bombay slang in a Hollywood movie. Imagine Johnny Depp swearing in Marathi (: I am pretty sure this movie will teach Bollywood a lesson or two about making gangster movies.

Two movies, a book, and a coffee machine

What do you get when you add lots of coffee to one book and two movies?


























It turns out that you keep awake, watch more movies, read more books (hopefully work more in between) and drink even more coffee. A week of trying to meet a self imposed deadline resulted in hyperkafemia (word play on hyperkalemia...my own contribution to the world of medicine). As is usual with me, I take breaks from work with books or movies. This time, the movies were Star Wars IV (I think I have watched it more number of times than seven samurai by now) and the newly released Serenity (if you haven't seen it yet, you should...where else can you watch a psychic girl kick ass with style). The book was the Future of Freedom by Fareed Zakharia. The book is a nice read if you like somewhat weighty stuff. It does a good job of talking about the role of constitution in democracy and it documents the rise of illiberal democracy.

The book starts with an interesting historical note about the separation of church and state. Apparently the first time that concept came about was when the holy Roman Emperor left Rome for Constantinople (moved his entire capital) leaving only one guy behind: the Bishop of Rome or the Pope. This physical separation was the first impetus for the two to get out of each other's way and grow separately for many centuries. Then it goes on to differentiate between the romantic French equality, fraternity etc type of democracy and the initially elitist Anglo/American keep the government out of my hair democracy. Fareed makes a valid point that the French system invariably failed (France got its first real democracy after Hitler was driven out and its former colonies, except Pondicherry, are still mired in shit) while the British system which relied on the equally abstract but more enforceable concept of fairness and legality succeeded not only in England but also in its colonies (US and India being prime examples though for entirely different reasons). Other arguments about the relationship between per capita income and the chances of a successful democracy seem plausible.

However, one senses Fareed trying to romanticize the kind of democracy and society prevalent in the 1950s or 1960s with limited democracy (meaning no primaries and most governmental bodies like political parties not being democratic in themselves). He repeatedly cites the increasing "democracy" of society and social institutions as reasons for public ills (e.g. Fareed moans the disappearance of elites/experts in various fields and the reliance on people participation). Its easy to agree with his viewpoint in this age of FEMA being led by a non-expert and "Brownie, you are doing a heck of a job". But it must be remembered that Bush is a whole different level of incompetence. Instead of accepting larger citizen participation as a gift and recommending how such interest can be channeled for overall better governance, Mr.Zakharia falls into the trap of finding fault with the democratizing of everyday institutions.

Too much coffee also made me think of a weird connection between the book and the two movies. In all three, the democratic forces (Senate in Star Wars, the parliament in Serenity and American society and its ever expanding quest to ask the people what they want in Future of freedom) are the bad guys. Given how easy (and correct?) it was to support Luke and Leia in Star Wars and Malcolm, River Tam and company in Serenity, it wont be surprising if Fareed finds lots of support for his cause of making democracy safe for this world by lowering our appetite for democracy.

rebels without a pause

I had the opportunity to watch Noam Chomsky on DVD and hear Sandeep Pandey (more on him later in the text) speak live this past weekend. A weekend on the left end of thinking if you might.

I am pretty uncomfortable with the anti-corporate types who offer no solutions other than protesting against everything under the sun. So i have diligently kept myself away from the left wing type propaganda bs (fyi...irrespective of what limbaugh and other loons say, i dont consider New York Times or Washington Post to be left wing but to be centrists with left wing social sensibilites). However i was familiar with Noam Chomsky's name and picked up a DVD on him as i had nothing better to do on Friday night (it was that or go around town getting smashed or hooking up with people more smashed than me).

I have seen brilliant people on and off screen, but Noam Chomsky conveys a sense of intelligence on a very different level. If i might, he is to rebellious thought what Richard Feynman is to QED, optics and college level physics. Noam Chomsky's opinions on the role of fear and free media in society are especially worth noting. For example, he makes a very valid point about privatization and how it might acutally defeat the forces that bind us all together as one society. Paraphrasing, just imagine that the social security network is privataized and is fueled mainly by stock options. For you to have enough money when you grow old, your stocks will have to be valuable enough and they can be valuable enough if and only if the companies are doing well which in many cases is tied to lower wages to.....you and your kids. Such a privatization also leads to a situation where you are less likely to care about the old woman on the other side of town as the private pocket of yours is an investment and not a debt towards a common future in a common society.

Interestingly, this DVD was shot in the lead to the Iraq war. I believe the DVD was not released in the US till recently, but i might be wrong. In any case, Noam Chomsky is not particuarly well recieved in the US but is a rock star in Canada and Europe. Noam Chomsky coolly asserts that an insurgency will rise in Iraq. He says this not out of experience of the middle east but a simple analysis of human history towards aggression or perceived aggression on sovereignty. His views on 9/11 are harder to digest for most Americans which he basically views as the first time western style aggression was wrought on the West. So, if your local video store is not a junk video shop and actually stocks sensible titles, watch it. If nothing else, you will learn critical thinking 101.

The other talk i was talking about: Sandeep Pandey. A colorful personality with lots of passion but not an intellectual of Chomsky's caliber. When a grad student at Berkeley, he co-founded Asha for education, a pretty successful charity for education in India. He returned to india as a professor at IIT Kanpur where he stayed for a full 3 semesters before being kicked out for multiple reasons. He organized relief for Babri Masjid riot victims, refused to hold exams for his classes and wanted the students to take the test again and again till they felt satisfied with their performance, rallied behind the univ workers in a wage dispute, refused to work on a Govt of India project on defense related issues, etc. He is now a full time pain in the butt for Coca Cola, BJP and other communal parties and other perceived enemies of the people. He recieved the Magsaysay award a few years back for all his people organization and has been to Indian jails around 51 times for various civil disobedience issues. Despite the number of times he has gone to jail, he is an official part of the government of India. He serves on the Central Advisory Board for Education (CABE) which includes luminaries like Prof.Yashpal, Anil Sadgopal etc.

His talk was on education (CABE) and the anti-coke movement in India. I went to the talk expecting lots of vitriol. However i was pleasantly surprised to see a person who believes in government and its ability to get things done. He just believes that a social movement to act as a royal pain in the neck of the government is necessary to get things moving and not letting things stray. He also believes that it is also necessary to not lose ground to communal forces and becoming an illiberal democracy (i.e. a democracy where the electorate sides with religious nuts or other people who reduce liberty). Though i couldn't agree with half of what he said, it was interesting to see brilliant people give up their "careers" and put time into non-political social work.