Typing at 85 wpm sure beats illegible handwriting.

New Office, New Post

2007-12-17T19:50:00.000Z

It’s not that I didn’t have anything to write about, it’s just that I …didn’t write anything. For 3 months. There’s just something about an office environment that is conducive to blogging…what did you say? Boredom? Nah, it’s too early in the new job to be claiming that already. Things are quiet here, though. It’s holiday season, half of my would-be team is on vacation, and the new manager is in and out of meetings.

The office has beautiful views. We’re on the 48th floor down on Water Street, and man, does the Statue of Liberty seem tiny from up here! I can see out the window behind me when they leave the conference door open; otherwise, I have to get up and walk up to the room to gawk around.

I sit around the corner from the CEO. And I’m writing a blog post. Hmm.

They gave me a laptop, but it looks exactly like the one I have – Dell 2004. And I don’t know how to take it out of the dock. Hmm.

I might get sent up to Boston soon, yay!

Better posts to come, and more often. I hope.

Update: I am now the proud owner of the company laptop bag and fleece. And I have a badge so I can get in and out of the building without lying down on an x-ray conveyor belt.

What will it take to get our elected leaders to do their job?

2007-09-20T23:54:00.000+01:00

While I think it's unfair that General Petraeus has become a scapegoat for the Iraq quagmire, this is a flagrant waste of time and an insult to this country's collective sensibility. But I suppose it makes sense - after all, going after an ad is much easier than dealing with the actual problem.

Sign here if you agree.

"It's not about liberal. It's not about conservative. It's about the Constitution." - Rick Perlstein

VICTORY!

2007-09-18T15:25:00.000+01:00

Effective at midnight tonight!

Let's take down the WSJ next. Or will Rupert Murdoch take care of business himself?

No Child Left Behind

2007-09-05T15:05:00.000+01:00

Oh, Miss Teen South Carolina. Surely you’ve seen the video by now. But is it all really that bad?

Okay, so she can’t form a coherent sentence, but still manages to burst out into some spontaneous exclamations (our education here! In the US!). Actually, it’s much funnier if you write out the response word for word with no punctuation:

I personally believe the U.S. Americans are unable to do so because some people out there in our nation don't have maps and I believe that our education like such as in South Africa and the Iraq everywhere like such as and I believe they should our education over here in the U.S. should help the U.S. or should help South Africa or should help the Iraq and Asian countries so we will be able to build up our future for us.

Hilarity aside, the people that are targeting Miss Upton as “what’s wrong with America today” seriously need to come off the high horses. First off, I don’t believe that statistic is right, and The Machinist backs me up on that one. My clever friend Brian, who first showed me the YouTube clip and has a useful post on his own blog, says “Never underestimate the stupidity of the American people.” I’m not normally one to engage in such underestimation, but I find it very difficult to believe that 20% of Americans above a certain age cannot locate the US on a map. I don’t know if this survey even took age into account, but in any case, I’ve found no conclusive research that proves it.

Secondly, this girl is a beauty pageant contestant, for fuck’s sake. Most people I know are fairly quick to judge the intelligence levels of beauty queens. So is the fact that she gave a dumb answer to an unresearched question really any basis for serious cultural introspection? Personally, I think we should just laugh - which I’m still doing every time I come across the phrase “everywhere like such as”, by the way.

You can tell me to stop talking to judgmental people, but it ain’t gonna happen.

If you need a comparable example that is relevant to our national psyche, then consider the following. In 2002, National Geographic released the results of a geographic literacy survey that showed only 13% of Americans between 18-35 could locate Iraq on a map (a statistic I can easily believe). A few weeks later, Gary Trudeau (cartoonist of Doonesbury fame) drew a strip with an Iraqi official asking “Is it true only 13% of American kids can find Iraq on a map?” The American reporter to whom the question was posed then retorted “Yeah, but all 13% are Marines.”

After the strip was published, the quotation somehow got attributed to Gen. Colin Powell, then Secretary of State, and made the rounds around many proud Americans. Now that, in my mind, is a much bigger cause for concern.

“Never mind our own ignorance; we got the whip, we got a better bomb. We will use brute force to get our way.” Rhetoric that’s become dangerously commonplace over the past 6 years.

And cheers to you if you know where that lyric was from.

Anarchy in the U.S.

2007-08-19T13:17:00.000+01:00

Every now and again, I find myself astounded afresh that a Connecticut-born Yale alum with a summer home in Maine managed to re-invent himself as a Texan cowboy. And given a very long list of possible criticisms the press can choose to thrust on Mr. Bush, at the end of the day, they will still revert to that folksy-guy image that has proved to be such a lasting PR success.

The Economist published an interesting briefing of the “American right” a couple of weeks ago. It was suggested that more Americans happily label themselves as “conservative” than “liberal” (roughly 33% versus 20%). Of course, when you define conservatives as “God-fearing patriots who dislike big government and are tough on crime and national security,” it’s very easy to classify yourself as such: even I would do so. Maybe minus the “God-fearing” part. So that leaves liberals to be amoral atheists who love red tape and getting attacked by terrorists? That’s interesting.

It seems that very few Americans remember that conservatism used to equate to small government. Neither side of the spectrum appeals to the “bureaucracy is the problem, not the solution” school of thought nowadays. Strange, because there are countless examples to prove that axiom to be true, and not just during the reign of Bush junior. George Washington said over 200 years ago to avoid “entangling alliances” at all costs; today, that advice is neglected both US foreign and domestic policy.

Libertarians who choose to vote Republican often like to label liberals as “emotional” and “irrational.” But the fact of the matter is, Republicans don’t spend a lot of their time pandering to fiscal conservatives – those votes aren’t the ones that give them the edge. Instead, they spend their time on the campaign trail talking about gay marriage and abortion ruining American society. It’s the putative moral rhetoric that delivers the votes. Show me a socially liberal fiscal conservative that gets elected president by talking about letting free markets solve our problems, and then I might start to think otherwise. Until that day, both elephant and donkey are equally emotional and irrational in my book.

Top Trumps

2007-08-16T12:25:00.000+01:00

Big news. I have a new favourite columnist.

The honour goes to Robert J. Samuelson of the Post.

Nick Kristof didn’t do himself any favours by first ignoring the human rights factor (which, accompanied by the persistent moral pleas, is what essentially drew me to his writing in the first place) in his comparison of China and India. Even worse was his assumption that if couples were given a choice, sexism would significantly impact the number of male versus female births in those countries, but not in America. He even stuck to this claim in his response to the comments on that particular column:

And in these troublesome ethical areas, I have a strong bias toward letting parents decide. That also explains why I would let parents use PGD to choose a boy or girl (in this country, though not in China or India because of the son preference in those countries).

As if the “son preference” is archaic in American culture.

In comparison, Samuelson mostly does an excellent job of balancing journalistic accountability with moral high ground, as evidenced by the column I referenced on Tuesday. This piece on climate change also attempts a reconciliation.

But the icing on the cake is this column. I absolutely love it.

Yeah, I’m a major nerd. But if you’re reading this, I’m going to go ahead and make the assumption that you like me because of – or in spite of – that fact.

Jana Gana Mana

2007-08-15T10:44:00.001+01:00

Happy Swatantra Divas.

In honour of our Indian offshore teams who are doing on-site training, our desks have been decorated with miniature Indian flags! I’ll post pictures soon. Some of them have green on top. :-/ Still, it was a nice thought.

Also on the bulletin board: Balloons in the colours of the triranga along with a brief history and the Indian national anthem in Hindi, Bengali and English, complete with translation. Aw, I’m feeling a bit senti.

Upon observing all the festivity, one of my Indian friends, Swati, commented that “I think they’re feeling guilty about the tyranny.” Imagine a stampede of Indians, fuelled by a sudden jingoistic fever in the spirit of Independence Day, storming out screaming “DOWN WITH THE OPPRESSORS! WHY ARE WE HELPING THEM?”

Swati’s answer: “They pay better.”

Ah, of course. Silly me.

Antitrust!

2007-08-14T17:17:00.001+01:00

Already not doing a good job of the consistent posting. Anyway…

I’m so upset that the NY Times has taken over the Freakonomics blog!

Sure, it’s great publicity for Levitt, Dubner and company, but they had such a cute and individualistic web space on their own. What was wrong with just mentioning the old site in the extremely exhaustive blog roll that the Times already touts?

There’s been much commentary on news conglomerates lately what with Mr. Murdoch’s acquisition of the WSJ. While I’m not one to have the knee-jerk reaction of “He’s going to turn the paper into the briefcase-friendly arm of Fox News”, I still find the merger and white-knight business disturbing when it has such profound effects on our news culture. Some time ago, I posted a link to a column where the author pondered whether it’s possible to reconcile business with journalistic integrity, and whether standards today are any lower than they were forty years ago. This particular writer concluded that the landscape is much the same as it used to be in terms of news content, despite transformations in the ways in which we receive our information. The gap between big business and quality journalism, however, was reduced to something of a myth due to snobbishness on the part of the press.

Is it, though? Maybe I have a rose-coloured view of American journalistic history as a child of immigrants who, in their youth, greatly admired the freedom of the American press. This is, of course, in comparison to a post-partition South Asian society struggling with the challenges of newfound independence. Still, allowing business principles to overwhelm our journalism just seems like bad news (please excuse the pun), and this time it’s not an issue of economic monopolization – though you could certainly make that case as well.

Instead, the important issue should be encouraging outlets for free thought through journalistic integrity, and trend of news conglomerates could significantly undermine that. I don’t think the Sulzbergers are necessarily poring over every line of Freakonomics looking to strike anything that they find disagreeable, but my fear is that the American news landscape will ultimately begin to mimic its political landscape: two giants, both polarizing, neither of which captures the whole story. They may change their slogans to adapt to the times, but at the end of the day, we are forced to choose one side or the other.

What can be done to make the mold more malleable, I wonder?

SIR -

2007-08-01T14:14:00.000+01:00

It would seem that I’m incapable of writing more than 10 posts/month. That’s no good. I’ll change that this month.

So I found myself getting up on the feminist soapbox yet again earlier this week. Note the following passage from this week’s Economist, discussing the problems posed by a falling population:

States should not be in the business of pushing people to have babies. If women decide to spend their 20s clubbing rather than child-rearing, and their cash on handbags rather than nappies, that's up to them.

Also note the accompanying image, this week’s cover:

That’s a bit besides the point, but it does have a certain “WTF?” effect to it.

My first reaction to the above statement was to laugh. But after re-reading it, I thought, “Wait…that’s not so funny.” It paints twentysomething women as shallow and frivolous, and fails to recognize the fact that women often have those options as a result of increased independence. I realize that the article is about demography and not women’s life choices and what triggers them, but there was no need to throw that stereotypical rhetoric in there.

And so I wrote a letter to the editor:

“SIR –

I was disappointed that you chose to attribute the falling number of births among women in their twenties to the desire for nightlife and handbags. What about the women who choose to delay child-rearing to pursue higher education and successful careers? You’ve failed to acknowledge the fact that women’s increased financial independence is often what makes those handbag purchases possible in the first place. As a woman in her early twenties, I’d be most appreciative if an astute and influential newspaper such as yours moved away from the stigma that so many already thrust upon my demographic.”

Probably sounds familiar. I don’t know that it’s worthy of publication, but I’m satisfied nonetheless. Ciao, bella.

I am not a Luddite.

2007-07-24T16:58:00.000+01:00

Ok, I may have to take that stupid Feedburner ticker off my page. It lies! Seriously, no ego there – I know for a fact that my number of readers is greater than (okay, fine, maybe equal to) my shoe size.

My UK shoe size.

I think the issue is that it tracks who accesses the Feedburner feed rather than the Blogger/Atom or whatever feed. Blogger recently posted some information on how to integrate the two, but I think it does so by redirecting Blogger traffic to Feedburner. But I don’t want to do that, because the Feedburner page is ugly! Hmmph.

Apparently Microsoft offers something similar, but Feedburner is owned by Google and Google >>> Microsoft.

I don’t know where I’m going with this, except maybe to suggest that maybe Sho and RSS don’t mix… “Really Simple” my left foot.

Oxymorons

2007-07-24T16:50:00.001+01:00

I’m constantly surprised at people’s disbelief when they find out I’m American, accent notwithstanding. A year ago I would’ve jumped up and down with glee at that fact. Now I just find it mildly interesting.

The thing is, I’ve drawn an important conclusion after living in London for nearly a year. I used to think I had more in common with the average Brit than the average American– reserved, slightly passive-aggressive, with a sense of humour that needs to be washed down with a pint (dry, in case that wasn’t clear). Actually, those things are still largely true of me. But the conclusion I’ve made is this: being around people so similar to myself kind of, well, sucks.

There’s something to be said for friendliness, and I noticed the difference in cultures even when I travelled up to Edinburgh. As annoyed as I can get by people, I’m finding that it’s far more pleasant to be around a gregarious crowd. I met more interesting people during a weekend in Scotland than the entire month of May in London. I would’ve chalked it up to the novelty factor, but even seasoned Londoners will largely agree (while still looking down their noses).

That said, get a Brit drunk and he/she will likely be sloppier than an Irish or Scottish counterpart. And the impropriety of the English workplace – be it dress code, language, or flirtations – continues to confound me. Interesting.

Flummoxed.

2007-07-17T22:10:00.000+01:00

Two and a half months since Madeleine McCann went missing.

A few co-workers of mine were discussing how tragic the situation is just a couple of days ago. And of course it is tragic. No parent should have to go through that kind of torture, and I sincerely hope, futile as it may be, that no harm has come to her.

Now J.K. Rowling is using the launch of Harry Potter VII to raise awareness about the plight of missing children worldwide, with Madeleine as the poster child. It’s admirable that she felt moved to the point where she’s using her considerable influence to promote a worthy cause.

What’s incomprehensible, though, is the mass outpouring of sorrow for the Madeleines and the Natalees of the world, and the indifference towards Darfur, Congo, or Iraq. Nicholas Kristof actually wrote a column on this strange phenomenon entitled “Save the Darfur Puppy,” which you can find here. It reminds me of a story a friend of mine once told me – how one man, in an incident of particularly destructive road rage, threw another driver’s dog into traffic. People went absolutely mental over the incident. I probably would too, as I adore dogs. But what kind of sense does it make that people are so moved by Fido, and not at all by scores of civilian deaths – oh, sorry, “collateral damage” – in a single instance in Iraq? Why does no one care that no one is keeping a bona fide count of civilian casualties Iraq, or that the means to do so does not even exist?

I guess the only explanation, as stated in the column above, is that our capacity to feel and empathize is severely limited. And that will probably serve as our best evolutionary advantage, given the state of the world we live in.

Not all 5-year plans are stifling.

2007-07-13T17:37:00.000+01:00

I need to tell you how much I love Marks & Spencer.

How many high street retailers do you see massively promoting initiatives such as this?

“Because there is no Plan B.” I absolutely love it.

Any prepared meal you buy from M&S carries a label detailing how to dispose of each part of the product: Film recycled through plastics, sleeve recycled through papers, tray recycled through plastics. Common sense? Sure. But the extra effort is commendable.

Factoring in environmental concerns invariably raises the price of products. The most impressive part is that M&S has undertaken this scheme while it’s still in a relatively delicate situation following recent financial woes. Its profits have increased measurably over the past couple of years, but it’s still in no position to compete with the Evil Empire. Nor should it try. M&S has been so successful at pushing its green campaign that it’s forced Tesco to commit to its own line of fair trade products. In doing so, they’ve helped to change the rules of the game. It’s quite possible to argue, somewhat cynically, that the green initiative was conceived solely to establish a trendy campaign with universal appeal. But it’s raising awareness regardless, and that counts for something.

Not all liberals hate corporations. Many would simply like to see a greater amount of corporate accountability accepted by a greater number of successful firms. Thanks, M&S, for being a pacesetter.

For the micromanagers

2007-07-13T15:22:00.000+01:00

Dear Economist...
Published: July 13 2007 09:04 Last updated: July 13 2007 09:04

Dear Economist,

My diary is back-to-back meetings from 9am to 6pm almost every day. These are not meetings I can avoid, and often I am double and triple booked. As well as this, I have real work to do. Having delegated everything I can to my team, I still find it difficult to leave the office before 8pm most days. This has gone on long enough! What should I do to get back control of my diary?
PM, via e-mail

Dear PM,

Your diary displays communist tendencies. Your delight in Stakhanovite posing shows the old communist confusion between input and output. This reached an extreme in Mao’s great leap forward, where kitchen utensils were melted down in order to produce...more kitchen utensils.

You are also making the classic central-planner’s error, trying to run a team without giving anybody else real decision-making authority. You say you are delegating all you can, but are evidently not doing it. And with you booked to attend more meetings than there are hours in the day, I am willing to bet your subordinates know a lot more about what needs to be done than you do.

You simply need to introduce the price system into your little politburo. Charge by the hour, as do lawyers or psychiatrists. Better, auction off spaces in your diary to the highest bidder. The bidders could include clients, superiors, or subordinates. If they want your attention, they’ll have to find the cash.

If the total sum raised exceeds your salary, many congratulations! You will have justified your existence and at the same time cut out all those time-wasting, low-value activities. However, I fear that you may find less demand for your unique talents than you anticipate. Stand ready to offer a discount.

source

Aggravation

2007-07-12T15:33:00.000+01:00

Damn vending machines!

It hadn’t happened to me in awhile, so I guess it only makes sense that my NutriGrain bar got stuck in the machine today. But the worst part is, it seemed I couldn’t wail on the machine hard enough to free the wrapper from its grasp.

At first I thought that the people watching me would barely take notice and walk away without a word, as is the British way. But one nice girl tried to enlist the help of a prissy British boy, who was hesitant to even give the thing a tap for fear of hurting himself because “Waaah, the machine’s so much bigger than me!” Um, hello? I guess if he’d seen me palming and side kicking the thing he might’ve been slightly ashamed.

I actually did palm strike and side kick the machine several times.

I felt a little better when two boys decidedly stronger than me (and therefore obviously stronger than the prissy British boy) teamed up and still failed to get the stupid NutriGrain bar out. I don’t even like NutriGrain bars that much, but I needed something to sustain me for later in the afternoon. It was just so profoundly disappointing that my TKD skills failed to solve a problem that I thought I’d never have to face again. I was so proud that time before an Econometrics exam when my tropical Skittles got stuck in the Q-level vending machine and I made it pay with a single palm strike. Those were the days...

Forbidden questions

2007-07-11T14:35:00.000+01:00

When I went to India in April, everyone on my father’s side of the family asked me one main question: some variation of “When are you getting married?” Everyone on my mother’s side of the family also asked just one main question: “When are you going back to school?”

At least one side of the family is progressive…but only relatively speaking. When anyone on my mom’s side claims that they favour their daughters getting married “at a later age,” that translates to 26, maybe 27 years old. Do they not realise that we’re living in a country where average life expectancy for women is around 80 years old? 50+ years is a freaking long time to spend with someone, and I don’t understand the rush. There’s substantial evidence that women who marry later and therefore have children later raise children who are more socially and economically successful than women who start having kids earlier (read Freakonomics). And it makes perfect sense, as it allows for women to pursue further education and better careers that provide increased financial stability and independence. Call me crazy, but I think that’s worthy of more admiration and celebration than getting married young and cranking out babies straight away. Yes, it means a shortened time frame for having kids, but that’s not such a bad thing. No one needs to be having ten kids in this day and age.

Maybe part of the appeal lies in the fact that we have fewer and fewer legitimate reasons to celebrate ourselves as we get older, and so everyone gets starry-eyed over an event that brings them attention, gifts, and an excuse to dress up. And hey, if it doesn’t work out, you can always have a do-over with spouse # whatever to celebrate yourself all over again!

My new computer background

2007-07-11T11:28:00.000+01:00

I could stare at this picture all day. Which is why it's on my personal computer, and not the work one...

Are you effing kidding me?

2007-07-10T14:56:00.000+01:00

No. NO. NOOOOOOO!

How are these people even serious?

And what's next?

"Hmm...algebra is way too hard for kids to learn. Let's make a whole new, easier set of rules, beginning with that quadratic formula. [-b + and - sqrt (b^2-4ac)]/2a is now simply b + and - 2. All roots will universally be accepted as b + and - 2 going forward. Now we'll have lots of kids doing better at algebra."

Yeah, I remembered that formula off the top of my head, and yeah, that was me showing off just a tad.

Seriously, though, what kind of sense does it make to change an entire language because some people are too dumb to learn it properly? Seems like a scary precedent to me. I'd love to watch advocates of changing "learn" to "lern" try to learn Mandarin, where in addition to spelling, they'd have worry about roughly eight different intonations per syllable. Spelling "anyone" properly doesn't seem so bad now, does it?

fvck fvck fvck

2007-07-03T15:28:00.000+01:00

Busy few days in the UK.

Car bombs defused outside Tiger Tiger.

Burning car rams Glasgow Airport.

Suspect package at Stansted Airport.

Terminal 4 at Heathrow, which I'm due to fly out of in 18 hours, evacuated due to bomb threat.

Awesome timing. When I moved out here in August, the liquid attack had been foiled just days earlier, and passengers could only bring clear pastic bags of non-liquid toiletries on board. I miss the good old days when flying was fun.

Well, to be fair, I've never found flying particularly fun. So, I miss the good old days when you could get to the airport 20 minutes before your departure time and still have a chance of making the plane, when security and immigration queues weren't overloaded and understaffed, and when the whole experience wasn't tainted by logic-numbing paranoia.

Re: the below post

2007-06-29T14:39:00.001+01:00

I'd highly recommend reading the comments posted on this topic through the link provided, as they're really fascinating.

Also, I didn't intend for that post to be quite so long. I always start a post thinking "This'll be a relatively short one." As it turns out, I have a lot to say...pretty much all the time. Who'd have thought?

;)

More belated commentary

2007-06-29T14:31:00.000+01:00

I suddenly like Nicholas Kristof a little less.

I’ll let go of the fact that his voice is nothing short of squeaky and I was so profoundly disappointed when I heard it for the first time. I was expecting a mysterious-stranger-in-a-trench-coat-and-fedora-smoking-a-cigar-
while-leaning-against-a-lamppost-in-the-dark-of-the-night kind of voice. A voice – to steal a description from Dan Brown – that is like “chocolate for the ears”. Anyway, not the point.

Mr. Kristof (yeah, no more informal “Nick” – at least not for awhile) wrote a column and filmed a video a couple months ago comparing the relative growth and potential of India versus China, asking readers to place their bets on which country will be on top in 2100. Kristof, predictably, picks China. I’m not surprised by that fact, as he’s more invested in China than he is in India, and not just because he’s married to a Chinese-American. What bothers me, though, is that the idealistic and moral appeal that Kristof usually applies to his writing is absent from this particular column.

Though he has brought up China’s human rights and free speech failures in recent weeks, these factors are strangely absent while he’s weighing the strengths and shortcomings of both countries. It’s easy to dismiss India’s democracy by calling it corrupt and chaotic – or “functioning anarchy” as one enlightened [sarcasm] poster dubbed it – but the fact remains, and it matters. I’m aware that I’m not completely objective here, but neither is Kristof. That said, I’ll try to make my point as objectively as possible.

Kristof pinpoints the fact that India has a long way to go in terms of making the most of its human capital and widening the base of people that reap the benefits of the economic boom. Fair enough. We all know that the Indian system reeks of corruption, lack of discipline and overall inefficacy. Social conduct values that are conducive to efficiency (e.g. punctuality) are seriously lacking in the overall cultural consciousness. Still – the story of India over the past sixty years is a gripping one, and it’s full of successes.

If you’re a young student in China, you can’t Google the truth about what your government did in Tiananmen Square in 1989, or to the Falun Gong throughout the last decade. You can’t get full access to BBC News. You can’t find out what Buddhism really is, or what the Dalai Lama is really about. You can’t have a sense of humour about your people, because sites that mock anything near and dear to the hearts of the Chinese are censored. That. Is. BAD. And I’m pretty disappointed that none of this came up in Kristof’s speculation. The Indians may have issues with sex toys, but as far as I’m aware, there are no comparable instances of censorship. Call me idealistic or what you will, but I value an open society and I take it as a sign that a community or a country is doing well. We have enough problems at the moment with the US government being secretive (DOWN WITH DICK/KARL/ALBERTO) – we don’t need to condone it in other societies as well.

In a different vein, India’s recent history has been ignored in this account. If you’re going to make this sort of comparison, that’s something that you can’t neglect. India came out of imperialism with a fierce dedication to democracy, a truth stranger than fiction, when you consider that democracy had no foundation there previously. The panchayat system hardly counts as a predecessor. It also managed to bounce back from the 1970s Emergency, an event that could've easily destabilised many other post-colonial nation-states. These facts are indicative of how absorbent Indian society is when it comes to outside influence (sometimes annoyingly so, when it comes to Bollywood and pop culture in general). It’s the reason that Indians have maintained a strong sense of identity even after centuries of foreign rule. China, by comparison, retreats further into its introverted and autocratic regime and states for the official record that it is 100% atheist. By deduction, India’s more likely to be a trustworthy ally, either to the US or whoever else is a major player in 2100.

I’m well aware of how idealistic all of this sounds, and I don’t necessarily believe that it’ll be India on top in 2100 for the reasons outlined by Kristof and several bloggers. I just think that the issues outlined above are wrongly overlooked by many when making this comparison.

Much of this can be summarised using Olympic athletes as an example. The Chinese hand-pick young children who show athletic prowess and breed them into successful Olympians through rigorous single-minded training. The Indians, despite all their genuine interest, always fall short of the Olympic dream. So it’s really a question of priorities – do you want to create a society of clones that still bring home the gold, or do want your society to value personal freedom of choice above a superficial, though somewhat glamorous, gauge of success? I think I've made it clear where I stand.

Has Feministing heard about this?

2007-06-25T13:36:00.000+01:00

Yesterday, rather than making the trek out to Southall to get my eyebrows threaded, I wandered around my neighbourhood looking for something similar. I found a salon owned and operated by a bunch of Arab men, but I realised too late that I was the only female in sight. They were well-behaved, and my initial apprehension subsided. But I didn’t really want the threading done by a dude. Is that sexist? Anyway, I had already walked in and asked how much they charged, so I decided to give it a try since I already felt invested. It turned out well enough- not as good as the girls in Southall, but everything’s a trade-off.

Speaking of sexism, though, I’m reminded of a book I came across while browsing in Soho over the weekend. I don’t often find myself getting up on the feminist soapbox, but the title of this book, along with the credentials of the authors versus its content, distressed me. It’s called “Skinny Bitch,” and it’s something of a guide to healthy eating written by a former model and a modelling agent (insert hysterical laughter here). I didn’t think too much of it at first glance, but after picking it up and reading something to the effect of “The authors might be bitches, but at least they’re skinny bitches” on the back cover, I got a little ticked off.

Why does being skinny mitigate bitchiness? Why is it necessary to use a title like that to draw people to your cause? If anything, I’m repulsed. That title validates anyone who believes that women have a tendency to be more petty and shallow (not to mention anyone that judges LA on its ostensible superficiality).

As far as the actual content of the book is concerned, I’ve come across some contradictory reviews after some cursory research. It’s worth noting that the authors are vegan, and therefore dish out some of the typical “If slaughterhouses had glass walls, everyone would be a vegetarian” rhetoric. I think that quotation is from Linda McCartney, if anyone cares. The negative review focused on some of the things that caught my attention – the stupid title and the authors’ complacency, or even pride, after dubbing themselves “skinny bitches” – in addition to the gratuitously graphic accounts of slaughterhouses and the folly of veganism in principle. The positive review, sourced from the objective site www.vegparadise.com, praised the book for constructing a “thoughtful argument for adopting a vegan diet and lifestyle” and goes on to say “Rory Freedman and Kim Barnouin are to be commended for their unique approach in bringing the vegan message to young women.” The review brushes off the stigma inherent in the title as plain and simple “attitude” – convenient, since they’re primarily concerned with the vegetarian/vegan agenda.

The most pathetic thing is that the authors confess in the end that they “conceived the title ‘to get attention and sell books,’" that they don’t advocate bitchiness, that they realise that kindness is important, blah blah blah. Hilarious. Seems quite typical of the bitchy persona – a two-faced approach that’s really just a publicity ploy to get ahead. It’s pretty obvious that these model types aren’t interested in helping young women with their self-esteem if 1) they’re equating skinny with healthy, and 2) they’re playing off stereotypical female insecurities so they can make a buck.

Utter ramblish

2007-06-22T16:39:00.000+01:00

Man, I had hastily jotted down a list of things I wanted to write about. As it turns out, I can’t read my own handwriting and my short-term memory sucks.

Actually, I can still think of a couple of things worth writing about. But they’re incredibly profound topics, and I’m not in the mood for profundity.

That was meant to be taken with a grain of salt and a dash of irony.

“Jow”? WTF did I mean when I scribbled down “jow”? This is grinding on my nerves.

It seems I’ve picked up a base of loyal readers who yell at me when I don’t post for days on end. I find this simultaneously flattering and disturbing…don’t you lot have anything better to do with your time? Kidding. Cheers to you- you know who you are and so do I, even if you aren’t leaving comments :)

This is ridiculous and it pisses me off.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men, no matter their creed, colour or native continent, will inevitably pick out the most trivial aspects of their societies to wax moralistic about.

And then this old related article. I love how the dude at the end of the article jumps to his desi brothers’ defense by citing India’s population growth.

That’s not the point, buddy. It’s time to stop pretending that successful procreation is the only factor to consider.

Crazy Indians. At least no one can ever say we’re boring.

On the Obama kerfuffle.

2007-06-20T10:45:00.000+01:00

Does Obama hate Indians?

Does it matter?

No, it really doesn’t. That title is ridiculous, and to the people that started when they read it: you’re taking the bait and playing into the sleazy side of politics. Don’t waste your time.

For the record, it was Hillary’s campaign that started the negative campaigning by targeting Obama’s relative inexperience and alleged “ambivalence about Iraq.” The Obama camp had the upper hand for a minute, because their candidate responded to his more seasoned competitors with exceptional grace- something that’s pretty much unheard of in this business. But then some of his idiotic junior staffers decided that they wanted to fight fire with fire, and voilà, “Punjabgate” was born.

“[The memo] severely contradicts the tone that Obama has tried to set in his speeches of a unified America.” Hypocrisy in politics. Shock of my life, that is. This strategy is geared to appeal to the emotions of those who don’t bother to think about the issues that matter. No sensible person actually buys into the “content” of the memo. People who do use their logical faculties to consider the big picture shouldn’t get bogged down in this tripe.

Did people really expect the Obama camp, with its efforts to tout its candidate as a breath of fresh air in American politics, to be immune to lowly mud-slinging? That just seems a bit naïve to me.

As an aside- Indian-Americans are hardly in a position to play the victim card. From the FT:

Alienating Indian-Americans is an increasingly expensive prospect in US politics. With a median income of $61,000 (£31,700, €45,500) compared with a national median of $41,000 according to the US census bureau, Indians are the richest ethnic group in America. More than 300,000 Indians work in Silicon Valley, where their average income is $200,000.

Can you honestly blame people if they are a little jealous? ;)

Please excuse the gratuitous profanity.

2007-06-19T12:16:00.000+01:00

British accents.

Not hot, contrary to popular belief. Ask a Brit to pronounce the word “momentarily” and you’ll see (hear) what I mean. It’s so ridiculously accented that they have no ability to spread the emphasis across a word evenly. Which is why they SUCK SO MUCH at pronouncing Indian (Asian) names, even more so than their American counterparts. What’s worse is that UK born and bred Indians are consequently incapable of pronouncing their own names and shorten seemingly easy names to “Dal,” “Sanj”etc. Most second generation Indian-Americans are at least able to pronounce their own names properly, and most Americans I know are perfectly capable of shortening the vowel to say “sun-jiv.” Brits, though, will inevitably say something to the effect of “SAN-jeeeev.”

Yes, I know I often tell people to shorten my name as well. I’m so sick of hearing people butcher the fuck out of it. I like my name when it’s pronounced the Bengali way. Very few people are able to pronounce it the Bengali way. Which brings me to another dilemma: what do you do when senior people at work completely fuck up your name, and by the time they’ve finished talking, it’s too late to do anything about it? This isn’t a rhetorical question, by the way- I’m genuinely pondering. Ideally, these people should ask how to pronounce an unusual name rather than assume they got it right/know they’re fucking it up but continue to do so regardless. Sometimes they do, but more often, they don’t. At which point you (I) pretty much suck it up and try not to care.

“Yeah…my name is actually Sony Batterycharger. Yeah, my parents really were that cruel.”

People I work with directly have it down tolerably well by now, but they seem to get confused all over again whenever they hear someone else fuck it up. Then it’s back to square one. I give up. I’ll answer to anything by now. Some guy said “shaky” earlier and I looked over my shoulder to see if he was talking to me. True story.