One of my favorite artists of the 20th century is M.C. Escher. Born in the Netherlands, Mr. Escher is particularly adept at playing with perception. The angles that he uses in his works make the most implausible things seem plausible. Many of his works feature tessellations (repeating tiles so that they perfectly fit in a given area) and impossible constructions. Some of my favorites are:
Day and Night
Drawing Hands
Ascending and Descending (notice how the step are continuously ascending)
Reptiles
Hand with Reflecting Sphere
Sky and Water (perfect example of tessellation)
Belvedere (look at the columns carefully)
Waterfall
Snakes (this one isn't one of my favorites, but it reminds me of the one of the doors in the Chamber of Secrets in the second Harry Potter movie. I wonder if this was their inspiration.)
Monday, April 30, 2007
Saturday, April 28, 2007
Stay the Course or Cut and Run?
Last week, the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives passed a bill which committed $100 billion to the Iraq war with the provision that troop withdrawal begins in October 2007 and is completed by March 2008. Mr. Bush has already said that he is going to use his presidential veto for this bill.
This is such a tricky issue that I spent the last few days trying to understand where exactly I stand on it. It is clear that thus far, the American occupation of Iraq has been a hopeless failure. After the much touted WMDs did not materialize, spreading democracy in the theocratic and/or autocratic Middle East became the next goal. Even that has not been achieved. Due to the poor performance of the Coalition Provisional Authority led by L. Paul Bremer III, the Iraqi economy is in a shambles, and the current Iraqi government has been unsuccessful in reviving it. The supply of basic amenities like electricity and water is very erratic. Health care facilities are woefully inadequate. The state of educational institutions is shameful. Of course, the problem that dwarfs everything else is security, or the lack thereof. The senseless and relentless carnage that occurs on almost a daily basis has left the American and Iraqi forces reeling. A civil war has erupted between the Shias and Sunnis and they seem quite intent on destroying each other. Most of the recent bombings have targeted one group or the other. The reason the Americans want to pull out is that their presence there does not seem to be making any significant difference. Moreover, many Iraqis want the occupation to end. Both of these make for a very compelling rationale for the Americans to withdraw from Iraq.
On the other hand, the Americans did create this dangerous situation in Iraq. Do they have some kind of a moral obligation (if nothing else) to leave the country safer than they found it or in other words, clean up the mess they made? More importantly, would the violence escalate even further after they left? Is the current Iraqi administration capable of stemming it and eventually forming a peaceful and united nation without the presence of the American military? Will it be able to stabilize the economy to the extent that the Iraqi citizens can live comfortable lives? I know it is difficult to imagine the situation getting worse than it currently is, but it could. The militias could get even more active and there is a possibility, though slight, that a massacre of the minorities, a la Rwanda, might occur. Millions of Iraqis have already fled the country and another mass exodus would be detrimental to the economy.
I fear that the solution to Iraq is going to be a complex and protracted one. Part of that solution would be to prepare the Iraqi forces well before the Americans leave. Another part would be to carefully analyze the consequences of the absence of the American soldiers as much as their presence. Unfortunately, I don't think I have nearly enough knowledge about Iraq and Iraqis in general to make that call. So, whether the troops should withdraw from Iraq - I still cannot make up my mind. On the other hand, the Bush administration and the US Congress are better equipped in that manner, and I hope that for once, they do whatever is in the best interests of the people of the country they needlessly invaded.
This is such a tricky issue that I spent the last few days trying to understand where exactly I stand on it. It is clear that thus far, the American occupation of Iraq has been a hopeless failure. After the much touted WMDs did not materialize, spreading democracy in the theocratic and/or autocratic Middle East became the next goal. Even that has not been achieved. Due to the poor performance of the Coalition Provisional Authority led by L. Paul Bremer III, the Iraqi economy is in a shambles, and the current Iraqi government has been unsuccessful in reviving it. The supply of basic amenities like electricity and water is very erratic. Health care facilities are woefully inadequate. The state of educational institutions is shameful. Of course, the problem that dwarfs everything else is security, or the lack thereof. The senseless and relentless carnage that occurs on almost a daily basis has left the American and Iraqi forces reeling. A civil war has erupted between the Shias and Sunnis and they seem quite intent on destroying each other. Most of the recent bombings have targeted one group or the other. The reason the Americans want to pull out is that their presence there does not seem to be making any significant difference. Moreover, many Iraqis want the occupation to end. Both of these make for a very compelling rationale for the Americans to withdraw from Iraq.
On the other hand, the Americans did create this dangerous situation in Iraq. Do they have some kind of a moral obligation (if nothing else) to leave the country safer than they found it or in other words, clean up the mess they made? More importantly, would the violence escalate even further after they left? Is the current Iraqi administration capable of stemming it and eventually forming a peaceful and united nation without the presence of the American military? Will it be able to stabilize the economy to the extent that the Iraqi citizens can live comfortable lives? I know it is difficult to imagine the situation getting worse than it currently is, but it could. The militias could get even more active and there is a possibility, though slight, that a massacre of the minorities, a la Rwanda, might occur. Millions of Iraqis have already fled the country and another mass exodus would be detrimental to the economy.
I fear that the solution to Iraq is going to be a complex and protracted one. Part of that solution would be to prepare the Iraqi forces well before the Americans leave. Another part would be to carefully analyze the consequences of the absence of the American soldiers as much as their presence. Unfortunately, I don't think I have nearly enough knowledge about Iraq and Iraqis in general to make that call. So, whether the troops should withdraw from Iraq - I still cannot make up my mind. On the other hand, the Bush administration and the US Congress are better equipped in that manner, and I hope that for once, they do whatever is in the best interests of the people of the country they needlessly invaded.
Friday, April 20, 2007
Gun control in the US
On April 16, 2007, a student at Virginia Tech shot 32 other students and professors before killing himself. We have yet another wake-up call for America to tighten its gun laws, and it is almost certainly going to be ignored.
The issue of gun control has always been somewhat of a political hot potato in America. When confronted with the issue, gun enthusiasts first invoke the Second Amendment to the US Constitution. They have a right to bear arms, and so help them God, they will. Unfortunately, they seem to have a selective memory regarding the Second Amendment. It actually states, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." To put it in its proper perspective, this was a provision made by the founding fathers to protect Americans from a British invasion after the American Revolution. Today, obviously, civilians do not form a militia for the defense of the country and the amendment is thus being willfully misinterpreted and bandied about by right-wing, trigger-happy, aspiring Western movie cowboys.
Another argument is that other countries like Canada or Switzerland also allow their citizens to own weapons, but since the rates of gun crimes are substantially lower there than those in the US, the link between stringent gun laws and gun crimes is tenuous. This could very well be true. Maybe the problem has to do with social pressures and expectations. However, this does not change the fact that homicidal-suicidal psychopaths (of whom an inordinate number seems to make headlines in the US) find it ridiculously easy to obtain guns and go on killing sprees. For instance, Texas residents do not need a permit to own a gun, nor do they have to register it (The Economist, 19 April 2007). I also recently visited http://www.armedamerica.org/ which has photographs of civilians brandishing guns they have absolutely no business owning. Do people really need Bushmasters and AK-47s in their homes? Clearly, regardless of whether lax laws are the disease or a symptom, they most certainly need to be toughened.
There has also been a frenzy of damage-control interviews from various members of the pro-gun faction. One idea that literally leaves me bereft of speech is to arm teachers in schools and colleges with guns so that they can effectively stop any rampages by madmen on the campuses. In effect, fight guns with guns. Maybe I'm being completely myopic about the situation here, but should not the general idea be to try to reduce the number of guns on school/college premises? Furthermore, whether the teachers carry their weapons on their person or store them somewhere, it would not be too difficult for a determined and clever student to get his/her hands on them. I really do think that in this case, the risks will always outweigh the benefits and I hope that reason prevails and such idiotic ideas are summarily dismissed.
Unfortunately, no politician wants to touch this issue any more. In general, the Republicans firmly stand behind their right to their guns and the Democrats worry about losing votes in the swing states (like Virginia). Any efforts made by Bill Clinton towards gun control have been undermined by the Bush government. In 2004, due to the heavy lobbying by the National Rifle Association (NRA), a 1994 ban on assault weapons was allowed to lapse. Even now, after the Virginia Tech massacre, there seem to be no serious discussions in the government regarding gun control.
The mantra of the members of the NRA is, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people," but to quote the British comedian Eddie Izzard, "I think the guns help." A disproportionately large number of people are killed in the US by gun assisted homicides and suicides. It is past time that the government realized that the lives of its citizens are worth far more than an archaic and anachronistic provision in the Constitution, and actually take some steps to fix it.
The issue of gun control has always been somewhat of a political hot potato in America. When confronted with the issue, gun enthusiasts first invoke the Second Amendment to the US Constitution. They have a right to bear arms, and so help them God, they will. Unfortunately, they seem to have a selective memory regarding the Second Amendment. It actually states, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." To put it in its proper perspective, this was a provision made by the founding fathers to protect Americans from a British invasion after the American Revolution. Today, obviously, civilians do not form a militia for the defense of the country and the amendment is thus being willfully misinterpreted and bandied about by right-wing, trigger-happy, aspiring Western movie cowboys.
Another argument is that other countries like Canada or Switzerland also allow their citizens to own weapons, but since the rates of gun crimes are substantially lower there than those in the US, the link between stringent gun laws and gun crimes is tenuous. This could very well be true. Maybe the problem has to do with social pressures and expectations. However, this does not change the fact that homicidal-suicidal psychopaths (of whom an inordinate number seems to make headlines in the US) find it ridiculously easy to obtain guns and go on killing sprees. For instance, Texas residents do not need a permit to own a gun, nor do they have to register it (The Economist, 19 April 2007). I also recently visited http://www.armedamerica.org/ which has photographs of civilians brandishing guns they have absolutely no business owning. Do people really need Bushmasters and AK-47s in their homes? Clearly, regardless of whether lax laws are the disease or a symptom, they most certainly need to be toughened.
There has also been a frenzy of damage-control interviews from various members of the pro-gun faction. One idea that literally leaves me bereft of speech is to arm teachers in schools and colleges with guns so that they can effectively stop any rampages by madmen on the campuses. In effect, fight guns with guns. Maybe I'm being completely myopic about the situation here, but should not the general idea be to try to reduce the number of guns on school/college premises? Furthermore, whether the teachers carry their weapons on their person or store them somewhere, it would not be too difficult for a determined and clever student to get his/her hands on them. I really do think that in this case, the risks will always outweigh the benefits and I hope that reason prevails and such idiotic ideas are summarily dismissed.
Unfortunately, no politician wants to touch this issue any more. In general, the Republicans firmly stand behind their right to their guns and the Democrats worry about losing votes in the swing states (like Virginia). Any efforts made by Bill Clinton towards gun control have been undermined by the Bush government. In 2004, due to the heavy lobbying by the National Rifle Association (NRA), a 1994 ban on assault weapons was allowed to lapse. Even now, after the Virginia Tech massacre, there seem to be no serious discussions in the government regarding gun control.
The mantra of the members of the NRA is, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people," but to quote the British comedian Eddie Izzard, "I think the guns help." A disproportionately large number of people are killed in the US by gun assisted homicides and suicides. It is past time that the government realized that the lives of its citizens are worth far more than an archaic and anachronistic provision in the Constitution, and actually take some steps to fix it.
Monday, April 16, 2007
Homophonous Phrases
I was directed to an entry on Wikipedia on homophonous phrases:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Homophonous_Phrases
One of my favorites has got to be Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo. In this instance, buffalo can refer to a) the city in NY, b) the animal and c) the verb meaning to bully. So in essence, the statement means those buffaloes from the city of Buffalo that other buffaloes from Buffalo bully, themselves bully other buffaloes from Buffalo.
The one about badgers is also quite amusing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Homophonous_Phrases
One of my favorites has got to be Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo. In this instance, buffalo can refer to a) the city in NY, b) the animal and c) the verb meaning to bully. So in essence, the statement means those buffaloes from the city of Buffalo that other buffaloes from Buffalo bully, themselves bully other buffaloes from Buffalo.
The one about badgers is also quite amusing.
Imperial Life in the Emerald City: Inside Iraq's Green Zone
I just finished reading a book by a Washington Post reporter Rajiv Chandrasekaran called Imperial Life in the Emerald City: Inside Iraq's Green Zone. The book details the aftermath of the Iraqi invasion by the Americans and delves into their policies to rebuild the country as a mini-America. One of the first groups of Americans in was the Office for Reconstruction and Humanitarian Aid, most of whom were grossly unqualified and were given inadequate resources. The ORHA was then reorganized to form the Coalition Provisional Authority and L. Paul Bremer III was appointed the viceroy.
The most striking aspect of the book is that it illustrates just how much the Bush administration valued loyalty over competence. Applicants for CPA positions were often asked questions regarding their party affiliations, opinions on Roe v. Wade and so on. Consequently, important tasks were given to people eminently unsuitable for them. For instance, a 24-year-old with no prior experience in finance was put in charge of reopening the Iraqi Stock Market. His attempts to bring in state-of-the-art equipment and to enforce new laws failed miserably and eventually, the Iraqis reverted to their whiteboards and hand-written notes. The mishandling of the State-owned companies is another example. Some of the CPA staff had come to the conclusion that only a handful of the 48 State-owned companies were viable and that the most efficient use of their small budget would be to allocate it to these companies. Paul McPherson, Bremer's economist, believed otherwise. He decided to use the money in Iraqi banks to pay off private depositors and State-owned companies would start with a clean slate. $60 million was to be distributed among the 48 state companies. Unfortunately, the companies which were doing better and had some money to be used as start up capital lost it all, and companies which were heavily in debt were in the clear.
The book also makes the hubris and delusions prevalent in the Bush administration all too clear. Clearly, Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney, Mr. Rumsfeld and Mr. Wolfowitz made no attempt to understand the country they were invading and the people they were "liberating." They thought they would be done in a few weeks at most and would be welcomed by the Iraqis. They failed to keep their promises, and yet after the botched 2005 elections, when Mr. Bremer handed over sovereignty to the Iraqis, he called the CPA's time in Iraq a success. Now Iraq lacks a decent supply of electricity and water, adequate health care, acceptable educational institutions, and most importantly security. The country is in the midst of a civil war, there is a mass exodus of Iraqis from the country and despite glaring evidence to the contrary, no admission of error is forthcoming from the administration.
I highly recommend this book. As distressing and disappointing as the information is, it is quite an eye-opener. The breathtaking stupidity of some of Mr. Bremer's beliefs and policies, the prevalent bureaucracy, the self-serving agendas and the incomprehensible inflexibility to adapt to changing circumstances make it crystal clear that Operation Iraqi Freedom was doomed from the very beginning.
PS - In honor of the approaching tax deadline, a little tidbit I picked up on Jon Stewart's The Daily Show is that $8.8 billion of cash (in bricks of paper money) that was sent for reconstruction efforts went missing, and Mr. Bremer, who was still in Iraq then, is unable to account for it. $8.8 billion of your tax money...MISSING...think about that for a while!
The most striking aspect of the book is that it illustrates just how much the Bush administration valued loyalty over competence. Applicants for CPA positions were often asked questions regarding their party affiliations, opinions on Roe v. Wade and so on. Consequently, important tasks were given to people eminently unsuitable for them. For instance, a 24-year-old with no prior experience in finance was put in charge of reopening the Iraqi Stock Market. His attempts to bring in state-of-the-art equipment and to enforce new laws failed miserably and eventually, the Iraqis reverted to their whiteboards and hand-written notes. The mishandling of the State-owned companies is another example. Some of the CPA staff had come to the conclusion that only a handful of the 48 State-owned companies were viable and that the most efficient use of their small budget would be to allocate it to these companies. Paul McPherson, Bremer's economist, believed otherwise. He decided to use the money in Iraqi banks to pay off private depositors and State-owned companies would start with a clean slate. $60 million was to be distributed among the 48 state companies. Unfortunately, the companies which were doing better and had some money to be used as start up capital lost it all, and companies which were heavily in debt were in the clear.
The book also makes the hubris and delusions prevalent in the Bush administration all too clear. Clearly, Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney, Mr. Rumsfeld and Mr. Wolfowitz made no attempt to understand the country they were invading and the people they were "liberating." They thought they would be done in a few weeks at most and would be welcomed by the Iraqis. They failed to keep their promises, and yet after the botched 2005 elections, when Mr. Bremer handed over sovereignty to the Iraqis, he called the CPA's time in Iraq a success. Now Iraq lacks a decent supply of electricity and water, adequate health care, acceptable educational institutions, and most importantly security. The country is in the midst of a civil war, there is a mass exodus of Iraqis from the country and despite glaring evidence to the contrary, no admission of error is forthcoming from the administration.
I highly recommend this book. As distressing and disappointing as the information is, it is quite an eye-opener. The breathtaking stupidity of some of Mr. Bremer's beliefs and policies, the prevalent bureaucracy, the self-serving agendas and the incomprehensible inflexibility to adapt to changing circumstances make it crystal clear that Operation Iraqi Freedom was doomed from the very beginning.
PS - In honor of the approaching tax deadline, a little tidbit I picked up on Jon Stewart's The Daily Show is that $8.8 billion of cash (in bricks of paper money) that was sent for reconstruction efforts went missing, and Mr. Bremer, who was still in Iraq then, is unable to account for it. $8.8 billion of your tax money...MISSING...think about that for a while!
Tuesday, April 3, 2007
Movie Review: Guru
Guru is the story of Gurukant Desai (Abhishek Bachchan), a street-smart adolescent in a small village in Gujarat, India. After failing his exams in school and yet another tiff with his father, he leaves for Turkey to take up a job there. A few years later, fed up of working for the "goras", he returns to India where he gets married to Sujata (Aishwarya Rai). He uses her dowry to start up a business in polyester. As his business grows, he gets involved in increasingly murky dealings. Eventually, the owner of a newspaper Nanaji(Mithun Chakraborty), who once was like a father to Guru, realizes the extent of corruption prevalent in Guru's company and is determined to bring him to justice with the help of his trusty editor Shyam (Mahadevan). Guru is required to appear before a commission where after a rousing speech, in typical Bollywood candy-floss manner, he is let off with only a minor fine.
As I wrote the above summary, I realized that there really isn't much going on during the almost-3-hour movie. It could have been mind-numbingly boring were it not for Abhishek Bachchan, who really gives a wonderful performance. He effortlessly portrays Guru as a man with naive arrogance, boyish exuberance, steely determination and almost frightening ambition and ruthlessness, and makes him quite likable. Even though there were moments when one could see the Amitabh Bachchan in him (which isn't necessarily a bad thing), one can see that he has come into his own. Aishwarya Rai, for a change, is pretty good as well. She doesn't giggle or ham, and the difference between her in Guru and in Dhoom 2 is remarkable. Mithun Chakraborty and Mahadevan are pretty good. Vidya Balan's character in the movie did not add anything substantial to it and was quite pointless.
AR Rehman's music was pleasing, though a couple of songs were redundant and misplaced. Mani Ratnam has again given us an eminently watchable movie with some stellar performances. While tighter editing would have helped, Guru is one of the better Bollywood movies I've watched in a long time.
Rating: ***
[Rating Scale:
****: What a fantastic movie!
*** : Pretty good. Could be better, but not bad at all.
** : Below average. Snooze fest.
* : Seriously, what were they thinking? How dare they put their audience through such hell? This movie should really never have been made. I want my money back!]
As I wrote the above summary, I realized that there really isn't much going on during the almost-3-hour movie. It could have been mind-numbingly boring were it not for Abhishek Bachchan, who really gives a wonderful performance. He effortlessly portrays Guru as a man with naive arrogance, boyish exuberance, steely determination and almost frightening ambition and ruthlessness, and makes him quite likable. Even though there were moments when one could see the Amitabh Bachchan in him (which isn't necessarily a bad thing), one can see that he has come into his own. Aishwarya Rai, for a change, is pretty good as well. She doesn't giggle or ham, and the difference between her in Guru and in Dhoom 2 is remarkable. Mithun Chakraborty and Mahadevan are pretty good. Vidya Balan's character in the movie did not add anything substantial to it and was quite pointless.
AR Rehman's music was pleasing, though a couple of songs were redundant and misplaced. Mani Ratnam has again given us an eminently watchable movie with some stellar performances. While tighter editing would have helped, Guru is one of the better Bollywood movies I've watched in a long time.
Rating: ***
[Rating Scale:
****: What a fantastic movie!
*** : Pretty good. Could be better, but not bad at all.
** : Below average. Snooze fest.
* : Seriously, what were they thinking? How dare they put their audience through such hell? This movie should really never have been made. I want my money back!]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)