Vertex Correction

Natural Law

2011-08-23T00:21:00.003-04:00

What is typically described as natural law has had a long history in philosophical thought. It gained particular prominence during the Age of Reason and Enlightenment of the 17th and 18th centuries and was linked with development of democracy, individual rights, and political freedom. It is a notion that was advocated by the religiously-minded Thomas Aquinas several centuries earlier as by other, more secular philosophers and nation builders later, like John Locke and Thomas Jefferson. It had a tremendous impact upon the revolutions and upheavals during the period and this can be seen in its influence on British politics and law, French Bill Of Rights, and the United States Constitution. The natural law holds, in one form or another, that all men have an inherent right to be free and pursue life and liberty.

The key point to note here is that, the natural law is understood as something fundamentally distinct from any particular human-created jurisprudence. Its origins are meant to lie in human nature itself, and it is believed to be true regardless of the period of human history or the location of the people to whom it is applicable. In other words, it is considered on the same footing as laws of physics. The doctrine claims that, being a part of nature, human beings behave and act according to a certain set of laws. Just as copper has certain properties owing to its nature, so do human beings. This, we must believe, is self-evident and no further explanation is required to justify it. It is often held that natural law prescibes actions that maximize happiness as Sir William Blackstone explains," .. demonstrating that this or that action tends to man's real happiness, and therefore very justly concluding that the performance of it is a part of the law of nature ".No mention is ever made of the fact that one man's happiness could potentially cause harm to another. Furthermore, the advocates of this theory posit that the rights that follow from them are just as inviolable (according to the decree of nature). Quite clearly, all this is a steaming pile of nonsense.

First off, the comparison of human beings to copper is egregious: we are fundamentally different from inanimate objects for the simple reason that properties of copper are well-defined and constant. Human beings, on the other hand, are very complex products of nature, who behave radically different from each other under similar circumstances and appear to demonstrate choice in actions. Comparing us to copper or lead is baseless. More importantly, given how complex we are, there is absolutely no physical law that applies to our actions even at an qualitative, approximate and coarse-grained level. That is a scientific fact and not merely my opinion. Thus everything all these philosophers have said under the guise of naturalness is not based on any scientific methodology but involves either some form of divine prescription(the religious ones) or vague speculations(for those who have no such excuses).

However to see the utter foolishness of this idea, such established scientific truths are an overkill. The most basic question that comes to mind when faced with such a sweeping declaration is how to account for those innumerable cases where these are not true. How do we explain the oppression of people, murder of innocents and discrimination against certain groups if nature encoded every individual to just pursue life and liberty. Why would colonies have to fight a revolutionary war and declare independence from a supposedly oppressive empire? What empirical evidence do we have that nature has granted anything resembling such rights? The fact that some privileged folks had the time and leisure to babble such nonsense? What does nature care if you are poor and your life is nasty, short and brutish? Or, you were dead a few minutes after birth owing to several medical complications? Does nature prevent you from being condemned to enslavement for eternity, not having experienced even a whiff of free "life" so grandly stated in the U.S Declaration Of Independence? Aren't these the realities of the world inhabited by those who made such grandiose proclamations. Perhaps, a certain clause that beneficiaries of nature were meant to be rich white men was implied (after all, who else matters?).

Its intellectual absurdity becomes even more apparent when you consider the fact that proponents of the concept of natural laws further insist that we must defend these rights? What is the need for defending something if natural state of affairs conforms to the desirable situation (by definition of natural law)? Why does the question of defending such liberties arise when human nature never would transgress it? It is incredible that such cognitive dissonance that is immediately apparent has never registered in the proponents of this Utopian doctrine. Why set up a government, a system of politics with laws and regulations, and bodies to enforce them, and punish the violators when human nature is naturally good and favors liberty and freedom.

Perhaps I am being overly critical. Maybe a more limited interpretation of the natural law can be regarded as being closer to the truth. What if the natural law is to be understood as human tendencies, rather than rights, to want to be free and enjoy life and pursue happiness? Initially, this re-characterization sounds a lot more reasonable. Until of course, you realize there are other less benign human tendencies as well. In all cases of tyranny, exploitation and massacres the inclinations of man -greed, egocentric-ism, callousness,vengefulness, domination and power - emerges to destroy such hypothesis. Evidence does not support the likely defence that we should ignore the latter as mere aberration to the deep inherent goodness of man. If anything,the record of human history is mixed: indications of good behavior often being side to side with examples of cruelty, destruction and horror being as much a human story as love and kindness are. Considering these facts, natural law looks like a really uneven fit with the data.

And yet, the law itself - and the rights derived from it - is anything but nonsensical. In fact, they are some of the most basic foundations on which much of the progress of civilizations has occurred over centuries. And they do sound like good principles to start building a society and government upon. Except they are not natural, not even close. Acknowledging this would fundamentally alter the very significance of them. Framing it in its original language gave it a veneer of universalism. That was sufficient justification to not question its supreme status in the theory of ethics. After all, if these laws are not natural, then what is ethics based upon? The religious have a simple, direct answer to this question but it is wholly unsatisfactory to those who do not share their faith. Most secular people don't ever get this far to question the basis of their ethical framework. Most likely, the response will be some platitudes and appeals to nature, abusing whatever little they know of evolutionary psychology and anthropology along the way.

I should stress that I see this as an extremely crucial dilemma as this represents my starting point for the argument for expanding our circle of consideration to include sentient animals. The way I understand this is to first admit that, yes, from the strict point of view of nature, these "natural laws" are as arbitrary as any other. Nonetheless,I contend that these laws seem the most reasonable and fair for everyone concerned. A fair compromise is implicitly involved in the trade-off between enjoying certain liberties while being prohibited from encroaching on those of others. The same record of human history will show that all societies and cultures have always placed significant importance on being fair (even if that applies to a very narrow group) and human bonding and a concern for the welfare of others(again, narrowly applied to a subgroup) is also a common trait. The philosophy of ethics, under which the "natural" laws are stated, argue that these considerations should be expanded to all human beings. And indeed, the sphere of consideration has shown enormous progress is different societies, starting from kith and kin, to tribe,moving to the village, the state and kingdom and sometimes even cutting across ethnic, cultural and geographic boundaries. At the same time, these liberties cannot be taken for granted, something that is again obvious glancing at the darker portion of human history and examples where even members of your family can turn against you. Hence, there has to be an external mechanism to protect these liberties and the means to enjoy a good life.

It is in this context that one has to understand animal rights. Lots of people demonstrate an inherent aversion to wanton cruelty to animals. And yet they suffer from cognitive dissonance and continue to be full participants in the industry that is responsible for unfathomable amounts of the same. The reasonable thing to do here is to recognize the interests of animals and duly accord them proportional rights. At the very least, they cannot be used as products for our benefits.

The appetite for American dollars

2011-08-16T00:03:00.003-04:00

Amidst all the discussion, analysis, forecasts and alarm surrounding the credit downgrade of the United States,the soaring national debt and potential default, an obvious question is never being asked by anyone in the mainstream media establishment. Why would any government want to hold onto US debt in the first place? This question is almost never addressed directly although issues surrounding it such as concern over foreigners funding America's consumption, debt-fueled spending and dangers of the possible run on the dollar are reported and discussed (even then, either incorrectly or hysterically or both). The explanation for this has to do with the fact that exploring that question and reaching to its logical conclusion would reveal the full extent of American economic imperialism for over 60 years and the rigging of the entire global reserve system around the dollar.

The question is so plainly obvious that it is conspicuous by its absence in any public debate. Why would any foreign nation want to stack up on Treasury securities when their yield is so low? All the more baffling when you consider that several under-developed and developing nations that are otherwise strapped for money have considerable dollar-denominated reserves piled up. Imagine if these nations could invest the same amount of money into a lucrative business, they could use the profit earned to fund domestic social services like healthcare and education. Why would a government not choose that more profitable option or alternately, use that same reserve for important developmental projects at home? During those really rare occasions that this issue is considered in the mainstream American media, the usual explanation that is provided points to the fact that the US government debt is a safe haven for all investors. To bolster this position, we will be informed that at times of severe crisis and market shocks,such as, for example the collapse of Lehman Brothers and other large financial firms in August of 2008, investors were rushing to hoard Treasury notes because of their perceived low risk. The same pattern was observed, most oddly, immediately after Standard and Poor announced the downgrade of US debt recently. There is, undeniably, a grain of truth to this claim but like so many other simple-minded blanket explanations this still does not account for how willing governments to pay for America's extravagant ways (with so little ostensible benefit).

Bretton Woods System

The real answer goes back all the way to 1944 and to a small town in New Hampshire where the major Allied powers set out to lay the foundation of the future global economic system. With the country clearly emerging as far and beyond the most powerful economic power whose future domination was obvious, the United States was able to structure the international financial system to its immense benefit. The scheme that was developed, called the Bretton Woods system, had the United States dollar as the the primary currency with respect to which the exchange rate of the other countries were fixed. The dollar itself was pegged to the gold standard and in return for this agreement the US promised to exchange dollars held by any nation within the system to an equivalent amount of gold. To coordinate and maintain this global economic system, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) was established which was stated to provide assistance to distressed nations in the form of debt relief or to offset balance of payment and provide counsel wherever required. Every country had a quota in the IMF and with the United States having more than one-third of the total, it had to ability to veto any decision taken by the institution. In little or no real position to negotiate a better settlement, most countries accepted this proposal and although Britain was reluctant to let its position of pre-eminence slip away, the reality of its financial dependence on Washington for several decades into the postwar period made it acquiesce to the demands of the new imperial hegemon. Moreover, the sheer economic power of the United States was able to override any voice of concern that might have been raised amongst the 40 odd nations gathered there. That pact guaranteed American economic hegemony throughout the world. The dollar, which, at this point, was the only currency still convertible to gold, was stipulated to be the global currency; it was the most "liquid" asset with the highest demand, and consequently, the safest bet. As part of the agreement all the nations were expected to open up their markets for trade which gave the US the full coverage of regions that had previously adopted a more protectionist stand. However, capital controls were not only allowed but were recommended.

Consolidation and Stability (1945-1972)

In the few years following the Bretton Woods agreement, with Europe devastated by the war and its foreign reserves exhausted, it became an unfavorable situation where the US had plenty of surplus and instead of the dollars entering the international arena (as was desired under the system), it stayed at home predominantly. While the reason why Washington benefits from having the dollar as the global currency today is because it allows deficit-spending, in late 1940s when nearly half of the world's production was within its borders, it was the reverse: the US wanted to get rid of the surplus. This Atlantic divide was known as the "dollar gap" and in order to reverse this trend, and also to improve Europe's industry and welfare and prevent it from succumbing to anything that scented of left-wing sympathy, the Marshall Plan was proposed under which Washington would assist European countries with several billion dollars in aid. In the next few years, partly because of the Marshall Plan, partly due the reversal of the policy to dismantle the German industrial capacity(again, delusions of Soviet influence), and partly because of many other internal factors, Western Europe recovered, its industries restored, its economy revitalized and its currencies strengthened. By the middle of 1955, dollars were copiously flowing out of the United States, and European exports (particularly German) were doing very well. In fact, much to the consternation of American financial leaders, an independent Euro-dollar market was established which basically traded the dollars and dollar-denominated assets outside of American regulatory authority. This was a period marked by tremendous prosperity in the West with low inflation, low unemployment, increased economic stability and high standards of living. However,by 1959, the opposite problem was becoming the main concern, with lot more dollars circulating outside the US than what America could support with whatever gold reserves it held. The situation became increasingly untenable and culminated in 1972, when President Nixon announced that the US would no longer back the dollar with gold. That marked the collapse of the original monetary arrangement and from that time onwards, the only "backing" for the dollar was the trust of the United States government and the size and stability of its economy. This ushered in an era of fiat currency and floating exchange rates which led to greater instability and fluctuations. Nonetheless, the dollar still remained, by inertia alone, as the global reserve currency and its demand strong as ever.

Global Economic Order 1972-

When a particular currency has established itself as the primary exchange for international trade, commodity pricing and adjusting exchange rates, it becomes imperative for every nation to maintain a sufficient reserve of that currency. Why would that be so? Imagine a situation where a small country is struck by a famine and needs to import food for its starving population. The reserve currency is required to make such purchases without jeopardizing the domestic economy. Likewise if a nation's currency is falling, the standard move is for the central bank to sell the reserve currency and purchase the domestic currency thereby increasing demand for the latter. Conversely, if the value of the domestic currency is appreciating, the central bank would have to sell the domestic currency and the reserve currency is typically purchased in return. Settling debt with the reserve currency would prevent any unforeseeable negative consequences to the domestic economy. Such concerns underlie the desire to hoard reserve currency even by the poorest of nations despite the fact that the interest rates are so low. The natural question one may ask is why the euro or the yen is unable to take up that role. This is because although a significant amount of reserves are held in euros, the dollar still dominates the international markets and most commodities(especially oil) are priced in dollars and most currencies are pegged to the dollar. My answer sounds like question-begging but the real point to note here is that once something acquires the market share in the world that the dollar has done it is very difficult to displace it from that position. Also, EU has never been very happy with letting the euro reach the hands of investors far from the eurozone (this was true ever before Irish, Portuguese, Spanish and Greek problems brewed). The Bretton Woods system was so formulated with this intent precisely in mind- securing the global hegemonic role of the dollar and thereby the United States. With the US running deficits for the last 15 years or so, cheap credit has always been the order of the day because foreign governments are more than willing to buy Treasury paper. Even with the debt growing stupendously, having to fund imperial wars of aggression and invasion and making up for the refusal of both the corporate parties to tax the rich, countries are willing to lend money for next to nothing. This situation clearly exposes the unfairness and ridiculousness of the global reserve system. Even on the face of it, it should be odd that that a single country's domestic currency also functions as the global currency. Having rigged it this way, such problems are of course, inevitable.

Much like the Euro-dollar market in the 1960s, this form of economic dominance can unexpectedly be a double-edged sword for Washington. The case in point here is China. The latter holds more than a trillion dollars in US debt, and unlike several other nations, it is not for any specific emergency. The primary motivation for buying up the dollars is to prevent the yuan from appreciating. That way China can ensure its exports remains competitive and under free market trade agreements, the US domestic market is flooded with Chinese goods (a case of defeating you at your own game). With this mutually dependent(and simultaneously unfair)relationship between the superpowers at the background, the accusations that they level at each other is a complete farce. Despite all the bickering about Chinese manipulating currency, the last thing America wants is for China to call in its debt, which will surely shake the very foundations of the global economic order. Likewise,China will not stop buying US debt because the the US is the greatest consumer for its products. During the start of financial crisis in 2008, the decrease in exports led to unemployment problems for China and the last thing Beijing wants is a restive population demanding for political reforms and freedoms. Hence the stalemate and the status quo and the downgrade is going to do nothing to change it, just as the Beijing and Washington annually sending critical reports of human rights condition to each other does little to change the multitude of abuses in either.

Where does the world go from here? Nobody really knows. Any reasonable analysis of the prevailing situation taking into account how such entrenched global standards -like eating meat and abusing animals, to quote another example - refuse to go away despite uncovering all the irrationality and destruction associated with it. It is of course, incredibly surprising how little all this gets mentioned in the media. The amount of loss accrued from accumulating Treasury papers more than outweighs any benefits from the US aid including those that come with the political conditions duly attached. The ethnocentricism and conservatism of mainstream American media prevents any honest discussion and debate on this topic. Much like other crucial issues, the problem is never fully addressed and instead what the public hears is a completely narrow and limited perspective of it.

Capitalism vs Communism

2011-08-03T02:40:00.003-04:00

Capitalism vs Communism

The above comparison stands alongside other dichotomies such as good vs evil,God vs Devil, victory vs defeat, with us vs against us, as a notorious example of framing a debate in terms of a silly binary choice. Needless to mention, this approach is incredibly wrongheaded not merely because it does not consider a third alternative, but more importantly, confines you to think about the issue in very narrow terms. It already establishes a narrative for confronting the original issue that led to this false choice being presented as a genuine option. Of all these misleading binary divisions, this one is amongst the most dangerous of all in the modern political milieu.

Why must it this be so? To begin with, it is really asking you to make a choice between two economic systems (strictly speaking, one is also a political system) without addressing what the basic motivations are? Imagine if you knew nothing about the history of the world, or the economic paradigms that have existed, but you have some basic sense of what is right and wrong (yet another dichotomy!), and if faced with a choice as this, how would you react? Most certainly with confusion and bewilderment. What must be even difficult to understand is how people are able to declare their allegiance to one over another without much thought to how it actually relates to the basic questions of right and wrong. What are the reasons behind their ideological inclinations. Either they find one or the other appealing as an economic system, or they use history as evidence to choose between the two. It is very important to observe here is that these two approaches are almost completely unrelated to one another i.e the theoretical foundations of the politics and economics that are espoused by these systems is very different from what their actual realizations were. That is not taking into consideration the various strains of thought and varying ideas - sometimes leading to contradiction- that exists even at the theoretical level. Thus, if historical examples are compared to determine political orientations, then the debate is about the realizations of these ideological systems and not their original formulations. Then we have already stepped away from thinking through from basic principles about what is the best system to adopt and merely used the historical precedents to arrive at a decision. I consider this an intellectually lazy attitude that fails to question the basic mechanisms behind the structure that built on (ostensibly) these ideological systems. But, as some defenders of such thinking will will argue, the principles, ideas, and guidelines laid out by their respective political philosophies will, inevitably, naturally lead to the kind of monsters that we normally associate with them. This is untrue.

Capitalism, as an economic system in theory(and whatever liberal-democratic political philosophy it accompanies) , does not require or accept sweatshop labor as a fair system just as communism as a theory does not call for forced labor camps to send dissidents. Neither does capitalism - as a political philosophy, again- ignore environmental destruction regarding it as a burden for future generations to be worried about nor does communism suggest ignoring victims of famine and callously allowing millions to perish. Capitalism does not call for integrating the economic system with military imperialism or any other asymmetrical relationship enabling domination and oppression of the weak. In much the way communism does not require every singly political party in the world to abandon independent policy and follow the line of some megalomianiacal leader. Capitalism does not imply state corporatism and communism does not imply bureaucratic nightmare. Capitalism does not demand violently crushing labor movements and communism does not demand complete censorship. Capitalism does not require state terrorism to impose its system elsewhere and communism does not need agent provocateurs and propaganda to sustain it. Inequality does not follow from capitalism much like economic stagnation does not follow from communism. Capitalism does not need right wing dictators maintain order and likewise communism does not require their - equally brutal - "left wing" counterparts. The principle of "invisible hand" does not imply (according to Adam Smith, mind you) leave-everything-to-the-market-and-we'll-all-be-happy-ever-after and "dictatorship of the proletariat" was never meant to be understood as we do so today. Capitalism does not promote individualism anymore so than communism. The list goes on...

It is simply unquestionable in the light of these facts that we have to separate the theoretical underpinning of these philosophies from the real-world materialization of political and economic systems either devised by individuals or organizations at their inception and/or metastasized into the complex forms they have assumed. If of course we refuse to be confused and dismiss these false associations, then the only other rational way to choose one system over another is for us to consider their basic premises, their various assumptions,the arguments and reasoning that are employed to construct a social, economic and political theory based on those premises. All of this comparison is meaningful only if, at the end, it complies with some core principles. What would those core principles be? Would it be the "liberty" to drive a gas-guzzling vehicle when it is responsible for speedy destruction of the environment and depletion of limited natural resources? Would it be that education and basic health services must be available only to those who can afford them? Would it be the principle that the market should always determine the wages even if those wages are criminally low and creates enormous disparity in wealth? Or, on the other hand, do you want a giant bureaucracy that involves inefficiency and waste? Do you want the state to adopt a completely protectionist policy and ban all imported goods ? Do you want hard-earned money to be simply given away to maintain that same bureaucracy? Do you want to navigate through tons of regulation before you get an innovative idea to translate to a successful enterprise? The answer, I hope to ALL, is no. What do we want then? Although there will always be disagreements, we can spell out a few of what these core principles are. These include upholding fairness and justice for all and protection of fundamental liberties. Just to be clear, what I have stated in one line as some unambiguous fact, has been extensively debated by philosophers, political scientists, legal theorists and economists for ages. I am not going to pretend that they all just missed some basic point. I can acknowledge that and at the same time claim that there are several cases where the reasonable and fair position is more-or-less clear. As an example is the assertion that everyone born into this world has equal opportunities (or, more accurately, equal consideration). This is an ideal that has found universal acceptance and you will hear lip service to that even from the worst tyrants on this planet. Now consider a situation - a fairly common one - where we have evidence that children born into families with lower socio-economic status have much fewer opportunities in their life, thereby not only violating our principle but also creating generations trapped in the same status. It would of course lead to a heated debate on what exactly the approach must be but it must be obvious that the existing situation cannot be acceptable. Consider another case - also very prevalent- where your income is taxed significantly but there is extreme secrecy about how that revenue is allocated, its accountability, oversight, and audit. The ostensible reason for taxing is the greater common good and that includes at the minimum, ensuring safety from crime and vandalism, protection of basic liberties, fending off external threats to the society, arbitrate cases of alleged violations of law. If these are the stated aims, then it is again obvious that much of the dealings of the authorities and agencies handling the public money must be open to review and answerable to the taxpayers. This would be a legitimate case where the "fairness and justice" requirement demands greater transparency. The same arguments can be furnished for secularism, civil liberties – no discrimination of racial or religious minorities, reproductive rights, consensual sexual relations with any adult and even treatment of such cases under law, freedom from arbitrary arrests and detention, assumption of innocence before proven guilty, protection of privacy, defence of free speech-, independent and free media, proper procedures for copyright, protection of environment and natural resources, long-term sustainability of projects etc. There are many more but the general idea must be clear. We need to ensure that individuals are treated as such -as entities in and of themselves,and when sacrifices are necessary for the common good, the burden must be fairly distributed. A government requiring the poor to bear the brunt of savage cuts to heal the financial health that was brought into disarray by the wealthy cannot be considered a fair society, whether it proudly calls itself capitalistic or communist. The point then is what kind of broad economic and political system must be adopted by the political entity -which can be safely assumed to be a nation-state (idealistic visions of anarchy,aside) - in order that these ends are met?And this ought to be the question you should ask and whatever narrative is constructed must be based upon these ideals, and those narratives must never assume greater importance than the ideals themselves leading to absurd abstract binary choices like "Communism or Capitalism?"

Still, it worthwhile to to consider in some more detail what the precepts of each economic system would entail in different scenarios. This would highlight even further how ridiculous it is to talk in terms of such misleading choices. A typical example of ideological posturing is taking sides on the question of free trade vs protectionism. We consider two situations: in case A, we have two nations X and Y, and X is most efficient in production of electronic goods and Y manufactures automobiles at the lower price. If we allowed free trade, then X can focus on electronics and export them while simultaneously importing automobiles from Y. Doing so would benefit both economies and we have a fine example of Adam Smith's principle. If you stubbornly reject free trade, then nobody stands to gain from it - productivity is reduced in both nations and inefficiency is being promoted. In case B, we introduce a third nation Z, which is largely an agricultural society and is able to produce food crops at the most competitive price. Now, consider free trade between Z and Y. Proceeding along the same lines as in the previous instance, we are tempted to declare that a free-trade arrangement would be best choice for both nations. However, there are other factors we have to consider that were not as important in the previous case. The amount of food crop traded for a single automobile would clearly be quite considerable. Now, depending on the size and output of the two countries, there is a good chance that this kind of agreement would lead to annual trade imbalances in favor of Y -the total value of food traded exported would be less than the value of the automobiles imported. This situation would mean that the national debt of Z would grow steadily and that make its position less powerful and vulnerable to unfair policies and practices against it. More significantly, this would imply that Z would be never develop the technology to manufacture automobiles and as a consequence not only become dependent on Y for it, but also possibly never cultivate industries that are connected with automobiles – iron and steel, material sciences, assembly line standards, research in mechanical or chemical engineering. If this status were to be maintained Z would permanently remain an agricultural country without any industrial capacity or production facility or high-tech research. Its people will have little option other than having to do the same farm work forever. Obviously, I have simplified things here to focus on an important issue - the necessity for the state to intervene and impose certain protectionist measures to develop indigenous industries. Thus, it may be necessary for its citizens to pay more for a product produced locally but it is a required sacrifice if in the long run the country needs to remain competitive in global marketplace. In other words, in this case, insisting on free trade without paying attention to the specific details of the economic structure would be impose unfair conditions between nations. These two cases illustrate that one cannot take a simple-minded universal approach and apply that unconditionally in all situations.

Another example is the debate surrounding minimum wages: is it required? Again consider two cases, one where a company can employ N workers. If the total number of people who are seeking this job is of the same order of N, say 1.5N or 2N, then it would be reasonable to assume that the wages can be fixed by the market. If in case a job-seeker is greedy and demands more money than what is fair, then a more reasonable person will be prepared the same work for less, and that person is eventually employed. This would be a fair system for both the company and the workers. However, considers a variation where many people are out of jobs- and this can happen for any number of reasons, and so several more (say 10N) are applying for the limited number of openings available.If then the wages were to be still determined by the market, then the company can easily exploit the people's desperation and make them work for a lot less than what is fair. This situation calls for some kind of minimum wage because otherwise these market-equilibrium low wages can easily become standardized and the exploitation will continue. So we have to evaluate the conditions of the economy before we can arrive at a decision. In other words, taking an a priori position on it, without reference to empirical facts of the situations would be wrong-headed.

A third example would be regulations on businesses. Do we require them ? Like in the previous two examples, we can think of the first case where the government imposes several rules on running the business. For definiteness consider the business here is to be a restaurant. The constraint can include entry into the market, quality control of the food, commercial building laws, complicated liquor licenses, heavy taxes, various consumer protection laws, labor laws to protect employees, employment mandates and holding the business liable for a number of different scenarios. If that happens, there is strong disincentive to even start such a business, not least because of the paperwork, government interference and the possible bureaucracy and corruption accompanying it. This would raise the price of the food served, decrease competition, create inefficiency and generally slow down the economy. So it would be in the best interest of everyone to minimize the restrictions and even provide additional incentives for such businesses to thrive. In the second case, instead of a small family owned restaurant imagine you have a giant corporation that uses assembly line methods to produce cheap, unhealthy - possibly dangerous -fast food while polluting the environment, exploiting cheap labor, using predatory pricing to drive out competition, using economy of scale for the same purpose and effectively transforms entire eating patterns of the region -possibly entire nation and beyond- to create obesity and cholesterol problems, which increases treatment costs of the people (possibly government). What needs to be done here is obvious. But, oh wait! The smart ass free-marketer will step in, and tell me there is simple solution :you always have the obvious option of eating better food. This 'simple solution' ignores several things – possibility of said corporation outlets driving out other high-quality businesses serving better food, its cheap products obscuring quality of ingredients without full disclosure of the health risks involved, misleading promotions and advertisements and consumer's unwillingness to be worried about environmental costs or labor issues. Nothing can rein in such cancerous growth other than some control by the state. Again here, we see that we cannot employ a one-size fits all policy to regulate the economy. Empirical evaluation is key.

The same is true when it comes to globalizationas well. People are usually split between two reactionary camps: (1)globalization is an utopia that can reach the remotest parts of the world and expose them to a plethora of new possibilities or (2) globalization destroys economies, people's livelihoods, promotes neo-imperialism/colonialism. First of all, much like capitalism or communism or even a giant energy conglomerate, globalization in theory– as an idea, in and of itself – is not predisposed towards (1) or (2). It is merely a description of an global economic framework where economies of nations are integrated with each other. Just like everything else, this integration can be mutually beneficial or it can be asymmetrical or it is just more bureaucracy or – as it mostly the case in practice – it benefits the financial elite in each of these nations at the expense of the majority. To those taking position (1), we need to point out the tremendous risks that arise from economic arrangements between small, poor underdeveloped nations and large industrialized counterparts. Large international corporations can easily bribe corrupt government officials in the third world and take complete control of a certain field where oil reserves are discovered and make immense profit out of it, without giving a penny back to the people on whose land it was extracted from (this happens regularly, by the way). On the other hand, shunning the global marketplace can be equally dangerous as globalization can enable export driven sectors to expand and can also provide a measure of economic stability by increasing valuable foreign exchange reserves.
It can also create the right environment for growth in certain sectors, which can in turn stimulate the economy and sustain it. Yet again, everything depends from case to case and holding to some rigid ideology would prove counterproductive.

The same simplified binary thinking accompanies debates on such abstractions as: privatization vs nationalization, regulation vs deregulation, supply side economics vs demand side economics,
market economy vs command economy, welfare vs no welfare, monetary vs fiscal policy etc. This way of framing questions is deeply flawed because it does not address the primary principles of fairness, justice and liberty that I have talked about. Choosing a command economy or a market economy should not be an ideological battleground and the debate should focus on reforms that can make the system more fair while curbing waste and inefficiency. Of course, there are no clear mathematical theorems that can maximize some fairness-based utility in all situations but one thing is certain. Empirical evidence is infinitely more important than mere ideology. Macroeconomics is very complex for no reason other than the fact that there are so many factors involved, and on top of that, we have human irrationality – that makes people eat in those cheap, shitty, dirty fast food chains -that makes it all the more difficult to be prescribe correct policy. Still, if we stick to an empirical methodology and then constantly make changes to existing policy based on periodic evaluations we'll do much better than sticking to some misguided abstract thinking.

End Notes:
a. I have conflated economic system with political philosophy and that is not correct, but the context should make it clear.

b. It would be more accurate to discuss this as “capitalism vs socialism” but I just wanted to point out how ridiculously battle lines are drawn in politics and the general associations that are made.

c.China of course combines market economy with a single-party authoritarian regime and it has achieved a lot. No wonder many people who indulge in such ideological posturing don't refer to it.

d. Not everyone thinks this way but it is really pervasive.Couple of economists who I consider as being above this are Amartya Sen and Joseph Stiglitz.

Why Animal Rights

2010-05-18T23:55:00.008-04:00

Since I have made the decision to eliminate from my diet dairy components that I have enjoyed thus far into my life, it is only natural that I describe my reasons for this rather difficult choice. Stated differently, I feel the need to explicate in some detail my stand on the issue of vegetarianism/veganism as it relates to animal rights. What is it and why is it so important? Is it a reasonable position that has logical/rational basis or is it just a matter of personal morality? I had stated a long while ago in my column that I will write about this topic and now I think is an appropriate time to lay out my views on this subject.

FOCUS AND SCOPE:

I should make it clear at the outset that neither the arguments I shall construct here are novel nor the analogies I draw original. There are plenty of websites (that will show up in a quick search)where one can find detailed information on just about every point that appears here. Moreover, there have been some very important books published on this topic in the last four decades and some of these have had considerable impact in changing peoples' opinions on the matter. And yet, I am writing this because I want to be very clear and definite about why I choose to believe in it. After all, the subject is hardly short of any controversy and this fact can be quickly inferred by an equal number of websites and books that challenge the basis of the entire animal rights movement. The quality of the discussion can vary- many are truly awful and infantile but few others offer a more serious critique that have made me think more carefully. I have thus heard and analyzed the views from many sides, and all the subtle shades contained therein before I arrived at my own opinion on the matter. It is partly due to this that I shall frame some of my arguments as a virtual debate where my statements are countered by another rhetorical opponent whose arguments are based on the objections I have heard from several people.

It is also important that I describe the scope of this discussion. First, the case I am making here is that meat-eating in contemporary society is unacceptable because it is cruel to the animals. There are many other valid reasons for avoiding meat - improved health, less harm to the environment and eco-system, protest against horrible labor conditions in the meat industry, decrease in overall starvation in poorer countries etc. While each of these has a solid empirical and philosophical basis to it, I am not going to be discussing any of them here. Second, although I say 'meat-eating', I use the term as a general reference to how animals are abused by humans for food which includes eggs and dairy products. There are also other, equally unacceptable, ways in which animals are used in entertainments and pet industry but that shall not be the focus here in this article. Third, I use the term "animal-rights" loosely and what I mean will become clearer as we go further but nonetheless it can become a point of some confusion because those involved in the movement take the notion to different degrees. It would be useful to remember this fact.

INVALID REASONS:

Before I launch into the actual arguments, I believe it would be very useful to first state what my views on vegetarianism/veganism are NOT about:
(a) Religious/Cultural: This is obvious because religions or cultural norms don't have consistency. Muslims avoid pork, Hindus avoid beef, and Jews have a specific dietary constraints encoded in kosher laws. While all these religions have paid some attention to animal rights (most notably Jainism, Buddhism and Hinduism) the question of acceptability can and should be addressed independent of any religious ideology.
(b)You should be an animal lover: There is a very common notion- popular amongst advocates and critics- that you need to adore animals and admire them for their uniqueness in order to sympathize with the cause of animal rights. This view is dangerous because it assumes that the concern for animal welfare is based upon OUR feelings for them. That it is our patronizing mercy based upon how we relate to them that makes a case for valuing their life. Many advocates of animal rights somehow subtly imply this themselves thereby undermining the more universal idea that inflicting pain on animals is unacceptable independent of whether these are endearing pets or wild, hideous and repellent creatures.
(c) Humans are designed to eat only plants and eating meat is basically unhealthy: As it stands, this statement is not scientifically accurate. While it is true that there is a strong correlation between vegan diet and good health this does NOT imply that eating moderate quantities of meat is necessarily going to clog arteries, lead to overweight, or cause other disorders. [1] Likewise, it is true that meat has a greater chance of being contaminated with infectious germs or chemicals that undermine the immunity defence of our body, but majority of meat available in supermarkets and such is likely to be safe.
(d)Inherent value in life OR it is unethical to kill a life form: This is very problematic because it is quite an arbitrary principle that is not based on any clear foundations. More importantly, from a biological standpoint, plants have life and so do algae, bacteria, yeast and,- depending on which biologist you speak to- even viruses. If the property of being alive, that is demonstrating the characteristics of life -growth, repair, reproduction, nutrition etc -, were given a special value one would have to extend this to all the biological life forms and clearly that is not necessary. Thus terminating life -in and of itself- is not a significant issue.
(e) Animals and humans are the same OR animals deserve the same rights as man: Few facts can be more obvious than broad areas of differences between humans and non-human mammals, let alone other categories of species that inhabit our planet. It would be silly to argue that animals must be given the opportunity to participate in our dysfunctional democracies or be given the promise of progressive taxation. Or provide them exact status and identification in society as the rest of us. Clearly neither is this practical nor would the animals desire it, even if they had a choice of some sort. So when I say use the term "rights" I mean in a more restrictive sense.

THE CENTRAL PRINCIPLE

This naturally leads us to the question of what is the basis of animal rights? The strongest -and arguably the only -concern that underlies this case is the question of whether our actions inflict physical pain on sentient organisms. That forms the basis for all the arguments in favor of animal rights. Having stated it this way, the debate then reduces to an argument over the morality of such actions - those that result in suffering of living beings endowed with pain perception.

THE OBJECTIONS

1) Nature is blind to right and wrong.:

An immediate question that may pop in your mind at this point would be my tacit assumption of some pre-ordained moral code in a "mechanical" universe that behaves according to value-neutral natural laws. You may wonder, while pain is clearly an avoidable feeling, there is no basic principle which states that we should not be responsible for causing more of it. This line of reasoning is perfectly rational -albeit quite perverse - and yes, there is nothing in nature that informs us that this is an unethical behavior. However, at the same time, there is nothing in nature that forbids torturing innocent human beings either. Or anything that argues in favor of human rights or promotes individual liberty. And yet, these are the foundational aspects of modern civilization that most reasonable people are willing to agree upon. Despite this, you may be persistent -and more cynically perverse - and claim that these human-related "values" were created in order to advance the human race and it is a rational choice rather than a moral one in that it helps to strengthen the community end ensures safety and security of the majority. To respond, I first claim that this interpretation is evidently false because the primary reaction of people to murders or mutilation of human beings is not based on cold reasoning and assessment that such actions are damaging to the society but rather as "immoral" in a more basic sense. Naturally, this begs the question of what is meant by "basic sense" especially when I have discarded any nature-derived rules and dismissed religious arguments. I'll admit that it is fairly difficult to pin down this 'basic moral sense' in any unambiguous and objective way but instead, I will provide some counter-examples to this line of argument.[2] If protecting one's own community/society is the most important goal, then there would no objection to exploiting other societies and benefiting from it. Retail goods being available cheaply in the US cannot be valid reason to promote sweatshops in developing countries even if- as is unfortunately the case sometimes - such practices are unregulated in those countries. Slavery benefited the slave-owners and the ruling elite but that is not a reason for insisting on its continuance. Autocracy and authoritarian regimes always favor the wealthy and the powerful at the expense of the masses but would you regard the actions of dictator and his cohorts as "moral" because it is done to promote the self-interest of their class?   No, it is fairly clear that the basic principles of civil liberties and human rights are based upon a sense of morality - however hard it may be to define that - and not on a rational consideration of the impact of such decisions on variables as the GDP.

2) Animals are distinct from humans:

If we accept that respect for basic human rights is a fundamental ethical principle that must be universally enforced, then what are the reasons for eliminating other sentient organisms from such considerations? Is it because humans can talk? Is it because we are more intelligent? Is it because we are capable of showing moral consideration that a lion in a jungle would not? What is the special property of humans that animals lack which gives us authority to abuse them as much as we do? As can be noted, my central thesis here is not so much about changing value system of society but demanding consistency in the application of the most basic ones we cherish.

Let me take up each distinction that is noted between humans and animals and dismiss them as valid justifications for our abusive behavior by providing appropriate counter-examples.

(i) Humans are a higher level species with abilities that are unique to them: This is unquestionably true as we can see that no other species is known to communicate as we do or have complex reasoning faculties that has led humans to discover science and develop technology that we enjoy today. It is also true that we have a very sophisticated social setup that is uncommon amongst other species. However, it is far from obvious that such progress gives us special privilege to treat animals in a way that would be unthinkable if the victims were fellow human beings. If we regard intelligence as the primary trait that sets us apart from our lower species, what about those humans whose intellectual prowess are so abysmally low that they cannot carry out simple tasks. Does it become acceptable, given their severe retardation, that we treat them violently, confine them in narrow spaces, deprive them of basic care and turn them into slave laborers for benefit of other, more advanced people? Quite obviously, this conclusion is ridiculous. I can use a similar argument when it comes to our capacity to talk by pointing to deaf and dumb people. Do we then turn them over to a laboratory and perform the most dastardly experiments on their bodies in order to improve the rest of human race? Worse, there are individuals in an extremely vegetative state while remaining conscious and the extent of incapacitation makes them less able, broadly speaking, than the more advanced non-human mammals. Should we permit mutilating parts of their bodies for reasons of convenience as we do to pigs and chicken? Again, these rhetorical questions have an unequivocal answer.

(ii) Humans are moral but animals are not: Detractors point to the fact that the moral code we have in society is something mutual, or contractual. If I am armed but I choose not to kill someone, it is generally true that my restraint would be reciprocated by others in society. However, if I were to spare the life of a tiger in the woods while carrying a rifle, it is unlikely that this generous consideration would be reciprocated were I the one to be defenceless. The argument goes on to state that the moral framework is closed within the human society. To address this, first observe that majority of livestock animals are not predatory. Pigs or cows are unlikely to attack humans let alone the possibility of chicken and turkey hunting us down. So, even if one were going to justify eating meat of based on this reasoning, one would have to brace oneself for more dangerous hunting trips. Second - as I stated earlier -it is not so much the killing itself as the conditions in which animals are kept that is most objectionable as far as modern day livestock industry is concerned. Thus the more apt comparison is not a tiger mauling a person but keeping one in captivity for several years while tearing muscle by muscle and limb by limb, dismembering slowly, all done while the person is conscious. Third,at any rate, this point is fundamentally disingenuous. We have the capacity for moral reflection and so we can take a broader view of things. Animals are simply incapable of doing that and in that way they are like children. It is not uncommon for toddlers to inadvertently act in a way that acutely affects someone, but those are not regarded as a violation in the same manner as that of deliberate action by a normal adult. Animals have an instinct to protect themselves from threats and carnivores have an instinct to hunt and feed. They have little choice over such instincts.

3) The naturalness fallacy
If our superior average intellect or our special talents as social beings does not give us the right to treat non-human animals in an abusive way, what else does? Well, our ancestors have all eaten meat. It is likely to have been the primary source of food for a long period of time in our evolution. Meat-eating is still the norm in most cultures in the world. So, even though we may cause undue trauma to animals in captivity, it is only reasonable that we do what we have been doing for ages.   To address this point, it may be first useful to make an important distinction in the nature of assertions, something that is usually identified in most philosophical discussions. Any claim concerning the world falls into one of two broad categories, descriptive and normative.

(a) A descriptive statement is an empirical claim about the world. It can verified by observation, examination or simple experimentation. Canada lies to the north of the US is a trivial example of such a statement. Stating that euthanasia is a contentious issue is most societies is a descriptive fact -it can be verified. Noting that possession and sale of marijuana is outlawed in some developed countries is a third example. Recognizing that financial recessions are known to occur from time to time in all economies is an observation about the world.

(b) Normative statement is one that claims what should be or ought to be in the world. It expresses a certain value. For example, saying that government should promote scientific literacy and eliminate superstition is a normative statement. Euthanasia should be tolerated in society is another example. Arguing that marijuana, and most drugs, must be legalized also falls within this category. We should try to prevent or at least minimize recessions by developing policy framework that keeps the economy more stable (and not be swept away by the illusion of market self-correction) is a normative claim.

As you can see, in many of these instances, the normative stand on an issue is not identical to the descriptive details. While some of the examples I have provided may be more controversial, consider the relatively uncomplicated case of global poverty. Starvation has been a scourge of mankind throughout its history (a descriptive fact). However, despite this strong evidence, we have a collective responsibility to minimize it by trying to reform the production, distribution and pricing of food and other basic resources (normative statement). In a similar manner, there are several other issues where we choose to act against or prevent something that has known to occur in nature or societies over long periods of time (natural disasters, wars, infant mortality, pandemic and even extinction of species) . It would then be a poor excuse - and very hypocritical one - to defend a specific practice on the sole basis of the observation that it has been this way all along, i.e it is "natural". It follows then, that merely stating that homo sapien have eaten meat for most part of their history cannot be regarded as a valid justification for continuing to do so.

4) Yet another appeal to nature :
If our "natural" behavior does not constitute sufficient justification for our actions, what else can there be? How about the observation that non-human carnivores would anyway continue to hunt and kill other animals? Even if we all stop eating meat, what happens to the millions of other animals that are attacked and have their flesh ripped apart in the wild? How does our position square against fact? In response, in the first place, recall that the worst aspects of the meat industry are the appalling conditions of housing, transportation and feeding of animals rather than the slaughter itself. Carnivores pouncing on lower level organisms in the food chain and killing them is, on an average, a lot quicker than the near endless amount of intense trauma we cause to chicken and pigs kept in tiny cages covered in bruises, filth and noxious gases. If our meat-eating involved just slaughtering alone (after the animals live a life in a normal environment) , it would be an immensely more acceptable practice. Second, and I don't have exact data here, consider the number of birds and mammals that are killed every year in the livestock industry with the total number of their deaths in the wild. The former is a staggering 40 billion - for each year! - and it is so massive that the UN estimates that 30% of land area is devoted in one form or the other to the industry. On the other hand, the total number of wild birds on the planet is estimated to be about 100-200 million and I imagine the number of mammals to be about the same. Of these the numbers that are attacked and killed during the lifetime would be about a quarter or less. Put together, one can be fairly certain that less than 1 billion mammals/birds are falling prey to carnivores/omnivores in the wild. (What about insects...?) Third, it is unreasonable to point to other instances of suffering in Nature to justify us torturing and causing more of the same (the descriptive-normative distinction again). It is like saying that yes, there is extreme malnutrition and hunger all over the world - it is only "natural" - and so I won't do anything to help someone I see starving. Finally, it is absurd to compare ourselves with animals in this context. We don't take all our hints for a good life from animals do we? Despite the contrivance of evolutionary psychologists, and to a lesser degree, anthropologists, in explaining our behavior based on our more bestial ancestors, or the glib and wholly unscientific talk of "unnatural" suppression of animal instincts that appears in popular culture and the grotesquely misinterpreted catchphrase "survival of the fittest" - or its sophomoric variant "greed is good" or other ludicrous Randian-esque doctrines - we obviously don't follow rules of the jungle.

5) Challenging the pain hypothesis :

Critics often wonder how animal rights activists are so dogmatic in their insistence that pigs feel pain while wheat crops don't. Certainly plants are living organisms, and consequently the state of being alive and dead applies equally well to them, but how do we know they don't feel pain? The most accurate answer to this is yes, there is ABSOLUTELY NO WAY of PROVING that cows and turkeys are undergoing enormous physical stress if you shear off their legs whereas pulling a twig from a tree does not affect it in any way. But, at the same time, there is NO WAY of PROVING that prisoners held under indefinite detention in American military bases overseas are capable of feeling pain. Equivalently, there is no way to prove that Muslims feel pain in much the same way that Jews do. I am being completely serious here. The sensation of pain - as opposed to the origin, symptoms and effects of pain - is a mental state and mental states cannot be detected in any way. If you were to be bleeding, I can only INFER that you are experiencing pain -the bleeding itself or the cut vessels or the damaged tissue and other observable features does NOT represent pain- and this inference comes from imagining my own reaction in a similar situation. In other words, knowledge of pain to anyone other than oneself is a purely inferential thing and it cannot be rigorously proved. And I recognize that you have a similar nervous system as I do - the brain, spinal chord, nerve endings, nociceptors etc - and I put things together and conclude that you ought to feel pain. In much the same way, mammals and birds not only exhibit similar external behavioral symptoms when trapped in adverse conditions, but also have anatomically similar structure which enables us to infer - with as much (or as little) accuracy as I did when you bled - that they feel pain. On the other hand, plants don't have a nervous system and hence incapable of sensory perception whatsoever. Is it possible there are other mechanisms by which they feel pain, mechanisms that have different system? Highly unlikely. We have a tremendous level of understanding about the structure, functioning, survival and development of plants -photosynthesis, transportation of nutrients, reproduction, evolution - and had there been an additional component which enabled plants to experience pain, we would almost certainly have discovered it by now. Another reason to assume plants don't feel pain comes from observing that plants are stationary. Pain developed, along the evolutionary road in advanced organisms, as a survival tactic -to instinctively run away from adverse conditions. However since plants are immobilized, pain as such would not confer any such evolutionary advantage and so it is unlikely to have taken root in them. Still, even if we accept that we cannot determine whether plants can or cant feel pain, that does not give us reason to be cruel to organisms that we know for sure feel pain.   Also even if rice and corn crops were to experience pain, it would still be more humane to eat them directly because of the inefficiency associated with feeding that to livestock and eating the animals. [3]

6) More Perversion
A meaningful question that may arise at this juncture is the nature of classification of living organisms in terms of their ability to experience pain. This is a very pertinent point because the entire thesis here rests on the premise that animals are sentient and hence ought to be treated in a more humane way. The common refrain from opponents is the rhetorical barrage of mock-questions: Is mosquito sentient? Can bacteria and amoeba feel pain? How about E coli? These questions are intended, quite obviously, to challenge the entire presumption(s) on which the animal welfare claims rest. It is essential to emphasize that the case for animal welfare of those organisms whose sentience is substantiated with solid evidence -mammals and birds, for example- is independent of the precise boundary -if there is one at all - between the sentience and lack of it in the spectrum of animals ranked accordingly. The justification for this, yet again, is that the the possibility that certain mid-level organisms - insects -may feel pain and our corresponding inability to adequately prevent harm done to them gives us no reason to brutalize creatures that certainly feel pain. Addressing the question more directly though, the current scientific consensus holds that fish feel pain and lobsters and shrimps most likely do too. Insects are believed to be insensitive primarily because of the nature of their nervous system and the behavioral responses to negative stimulus. Protozoans, amoeba and fungi are as likely to be as sentient as pine trees.

MISCELLANEA
I have thus far stated, and eventually discarded, most of the direct objections raised against the cause of animal welfare with respect to meat-eating. While I am sure there a few I have not considered, there are other, somewhat unrelated issues, misconceptions chiefly, concerning vegetarianism. Almost invariably, any discussion on this is going to elicit a refrain "But our body needs protein" or "Vegetarian diet cannot provide all the required nutrition" or with more certainty "I was a vegan for a few years but that made me tired and sick during most of time. My doctor seriously advised me to go back to eating meat". These and other such observations - and flawed inferences- will not be dealt with here. There is an enormous volume of scientific evidence to back up the sufficiency and healthfulness of a vegan/vegetarian diet (no need to remind me of Vitamin B12 and Vitamin D). I don't need to mention celebrity athletes to prove my point, but those inclined to believe in such "evidences" can look it up elsewhere. Of course, other compelling arguments like "Hitler was a vegetarian and so what does that say about vegetarians?!!!" are beyond me to comprehend and straighten out.

GRAPHIC EXPOSE
It may not be out of the line here to post some videos exposing the cruelty to animals in factory farms. After all, aside from all the arguments I have mentioned, the visceral experience of watching such horrendous acts has its own power. Many have seen this at some point or the other but it does not hurt to remind what precisely happens to animals in feedlots, crates, during transportation and slaughter.

On the disconnect between kosher laws and reality:

The situation in pig farms:

Look for more here.

[1] Here is an interesting essay on this issue where the author argues that humans are more similar to herbivores anatomically and physiologically than to omnivores, i.e we are behavioral rather than structural omnivores.
[2]This is a basic assumption, and if one is unwilling to accept it, then, consistent with the rejection of such a foundational premise,one must not object to child molestation, torture and other abuses.
[3] http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/Aug97/livestock.hrs.html

Scientific Method

2009-10-03T11:03:00.008-04:00

I
In my last year in college, I took a course on Scientific Method in the Philosophy department. It was to be the fourth and final of my philosophy courses - all my earlier ones were on basic problems in contemporary Analytic Philosophy like philosophy of mind, nature of reality, free will and determinism, and theory of knowledge. Judging from the title of the course, I imagined that it would have a lot of resonance with my understanding and perspectives on the development of theories in physics and standard methods and procedures of performing experiments and drawing conclusions from them. I expected the field to define and explain, in a more rigorous, detailed and general way the foundational premises of the science - from the importance of reproducibility of experiments to limitations of physical theories. However, the class turned out to be quite different from what I had anticipated. Yes, the question of what constitutes a valid method of investigation in sciences was discussed but the entire course was focused more on the Philosophy of Science and the evolution of scientific theories. I was made aware of the existence of such a branch of inquiry within the domain of philosophy only after I took this course. As the early morning lectures(8 AM) moved from one topic to another, I did recognize that some of the issues dealt with were not only important for understanding the foundations of science properly but also provided some insight into the nature of progress in science and emergence of radically different viewpoints. Nonetheless I was disappointed.

Maybe I was bored because I have limited patience and attention to things that I do not find any immediate excitement in. But in part, it could also be due to the fact that I was not able to relate most of what I gathered from these lectures to whatever I had come to understand as the basic philosophical framework for constructing theories and expressing physical laws within. During this entire period when I learnt about the formal theory of scientific method, I was scarcely ever able to make any connection to a real advancement in the field of physics. The entire language was so general, and in some cases quite simplifying, that it was unable to describe say, the insight that led to a specific approach in attacking some topic (BCS theory of superconductivity), or an ingenious way to design an experiment (Michelson interferometer) , or to create extensions of existing laws to account for unexplained phenomena (maxwell's displacement current). Science, at the stage where there is no clear explanation for some problem, is messy and it can be so in rather unpredictable ways: many candidate theories of varying merits (Extensions of Standard Model) , insufficient experimental data to draw any solid conclusions or support any specific theory(Dark Matter) , some intractable mathematical monster that needs to be cracked (energy conditions in General Relativity) , or a whole bunch of different ad-hod ideas that need to be tied together to form a coherent theory (development of Quantum Mechanics as well as Quantum Electrodynamics). Progress in these cases can come in completely unexpected ways, and I don't think there is any unambiguous way in which we can classify the different possible attempts at resolving open questions. No philosophical school describing the methodology of science can account for all the bizarre and crazy ways in which physics evolves at any given stage. For example, it is not always true that experiments precede theoretical developments. The top quark was predicted based on the observed pattern of arrangement of quark families and this inference was vindicated by experiments later on. Our near certainty about the existence of Higgs particle and its properties comes from the enormous success of the Standard model in explaining most of the interactions of elementary particles. Ideas sometimes pop out of nowhere and can lead to creation of a new branch of science. Chaos was first discovered by Poincare when he was investigating the three body problem and the this opened up the study of a whole of class of similar problems under dynamical systems. Explanations provided can be outlandish and they often appear to be completely contrived. De Broglie's explanation for the relation between energy and wavelength sounds pretty bizarre and vague when one encounters it for the first time. Indeed, the postulate that the speed of light is a constant in all inertial frames, the axiom at the foundation of Special Relativity, is unconvincing when you make a sharp transition from classical Newtonian mechanics to this revolutionary new framework. And how on earth did Faraday strike upon the notion of fields? Does any of the scientific method theories advanced by Popper or Kuhn explain the ridiculous brilliance of this 19th century English experimenter who, despite no formal training in physics, was able to put forth a description of electrodynamics in terms of these invisible oscillating lines of flux? I honestly doubt it. The idea that one can systematically describe development in physics according to some general outline is either impossible or the outline is so broad as to render its useless. The history of science is very complex (at least it is so for physics) and there is reason to doubt if anyone working in the Philosophy of Science is aware of all the subtleties involved. Below I shall consider some of the important problems in scientific methodology tackled by philosophers and the various theories advanced to characterize it.

II

The problem of induction is something that comes up often while discussing this subject. Without getting into finer details, let me state that the problem addresses the fact that no empirical law in nature can be completely correct because we have not tested, or it is impossible to do so, for all the possible cases in the universe. Newton's second law (ignore relativistic/quantum mechanical effects) is not exact because it has not been verified in every situation and in every location where it is expected to be valid. A lot of discussion has gone into this and it is a question that has preoccupied philosophers from the period of Hume but there is no satisfactory resolution of this. That it is an important philosophical question is beyond any reasonable doubt but whether a working physicist gains anything from it is something worth considering in more detail. Even before I learnt about this formal paradoxical problem, I intuitively understood the relevance of this question in the context of empirical relations in physics. We know in mathematics that a single counterexample was all that is required to disprove a general assertion. Extrapolating, it is reasonable to expect the same must be true with physical laws as well - if one can demonstrate some experiment anywhere in the universe where the principles do not apply, then it ceases to be a real principle. (Of course, all this must be taken with a grain of salt since even Newton's third law is not valid in quantum field theory but few would dispute that it is a valid empirical relation for a wide class of phenomena). In fact, today we are considering far-reaching possibilities that admit precisely such limitations in the applicability of our theories. We know that quantum field descriptions are constructed only up to a certain scale (expressed in energy or length), and these are independent of the structure of the underlying "fundamental" formulations. In the same way, we expect classical general relativity to break down at energies comparable to the Planck scale since effects of quantum mechanical fluctuations in gravitational fields would make significant contributions to the calculations. There is ongoing speculation regarding the mutability of fine structure constant with the evolution of the universe. Ever since Heisenberg firmly disregarded any speculations on basic theory and confined himself to merely describing the observations, physics has moved in a direction where it acknowledges that the main thrust is to explain empirical observations and not be too distracted by our preconceptions and prejudices regarding underlying theories. In fact, such a stance was taken by none less than Newton himself. He vowed never to make abstract speculations and discarded any metaphysical notions of space, time and physical laws. This was a bold decision at the time, and it required an extraordinary genius like Newton to proclaim such a radical outlook towards understanding nature. The one occasion where he did not put this philosophy into practice was in his description of time, being the ephemeral concept to be pinned down accurately, he resorted a metaphysical position that absolute time exists and it flows evenly, as can be corroborated by observers in any reference frame. Therefore careful understanding and formal analysis of the induction problem is something that is unlikely to provide new insights for physicists as far as research in physics is concerned.

III

While studying the theories of Karl Popper, one encounters the concept of verisimilitude. This is a term that is used to index the "turthlikness" of a specific scientific theory and to compare it with other competing theories. Popper assigned verisimilitude in a quantitative manner based on the number of truth and false propositions of a theory. A theory X is considered better than Y, if the true propositions of Y are included in X and the false propositions of X are included in Y. This is a prime example of how simplistic much of the studies in the philosophy of science is. Anyone with some background in undergraduate physics would immediately realize that this is not how theories are compared and we don't count the truth propositions (or the false ones). In fact, we don't think of it and judge it using such a formal system and doing so would lead to all kinds of odd conclusions. And how does it accommodate for the fact that much of what we consider as theories today, are in fact, approximations that are valid only in a specific regime. By this criterion, all statements in Newtonian physics are false, and the same goes for thermodynamics and even classical statistical physics.

Another criterion for judging scientific theories that was put forward by Popper was falsifiability. A theory was to be considered as scientific only if it provided a hypothetical event or phenomena that would prove the theory as false. For example, the SU(5)theory of grand unification predicted proton decay but since none has been observed in nature this model was quickly abandoned. The absence of a certain event provided a method of inferring the falsity of the hypothesis. That was a nice example which works well to explain Popperian notion of falsifiability but that is definitely not how all physical theories are rejected. In fact, I doubt if a single experimental result has ever been used to immediately decide that a theory is useless and must be discarded thoroughly. It always happens that physicists would try modifying the assumptions in the theory or alter the basic laws in such a way that it accommodates the new observations. The fact that the ether hypothesis was around for such a long time despite several paradoxes would illuminate this point quite well. The ether hypothesis could not explain the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment which attempted to measure the speed of earth relative to the stationary ether, but since the concept of a medium through which light moved had been used to understand electromagnetic propagation for so long, there was a strong tendency to retain such a picture. To account for the unexpected results, various new models were proposed for interaction of ether with objects in the universe, most specifically with Earth. One way of approaching this was to assume that the ether was dragged along by massive objects like our planet and this could account for a null result. This was the first patch applied to a hypothesis that was, from Popperian classification, falsified. This method of rescuing the ether hypothesis opened a new set of complications. In a different attempt, Fresnel proposed that ether is partially dragged by a medium which resulted in a lower velocity for light traveling through this medium. The Michelson-Morley experiment in fact could not rule out this possibility. Meanwhile, Lorentz had considered contraction of all objects traveling through the ether and this included the arms of the interferometer used in the experiment. With a specific contraction law (which not surprisingly is the same as the one that can be derived from special relativity) one can still successfully defend ether's omnipresence. Note that in all these cases explanations and laws were worked out such that it would fit the experimental results. It was not until Einstein's formulation of special relativity and his unambiguous rejection of the ether concept that the idea was dropped. There were plenty of reasons to do so before but history shows that such a cherished belief would not be thrown away by a single, or for that matter a few experiments. A slightly different example would be the role of renormalization in modern quantum field theories. When cross-section calculations in QED using standard correlation functions that involved contributions from loop diagrams were carried out, it appeared as if the number obtained from theory was approaching infinity. Since that is an absurd result, going by strict Popperian criterion, the theory should have been dumped right away for its unfeasible implications. Indeed, many physicists believed that this conclusion sounded the death knell for the framework. Yet there were others who sought to modify it in a manner such that the divergences can be eliminated by some new ad-hoc rules, rules that was certainly unconvincing to many physicists and almost all mathematicians interested. While skeptics of this approach ( renormalization) were critical of the way quick-fix method that was devised by "sweeping the real problem under the rug", it eventually turned out that the formalism of quantum field theory required such a treatment of the quantities that appear in it. As time progressed and many of the predictions arising from working with such renormalization techniques gave correct results, the approach won over many skeptics and ultimately it became universally accepted as a legitimate theory. Such a unique development depended so crucially on the details of the specific theory to be interpreted accurately by the general criterion laid out by Popper.

IV

A person of towering influence in this area of study is the American philosopher Thomas Kuhn. Kuhn's work in the 1950's and 60's can be rightly considered as representing a departure from the basic modes by which the subject had been analyzed by all his predecessors. His view of the history of science immediately strikes one as being altogether independent of the traditional and orthodox ways of understanding progress in scientific endeavor. Particularly, he strongly disagreed with the notion that scientific progress was a cumulative process, something that had been assumed in all the standard picture of the history of science. However, Kuhn argued that scientific activity can be broadly divided between two distinct phases, one "normal science" and the other characterized as scientific revolution. Normal science is the period when there is an existing framework within which all the discoveries and solutions to conventional problems were carried out. In his conception, this was a puzzle-solving time-frame where the scientist applies the rules, techniques and the underlying theoretical axioms to determine a solution to these relatively minor puzzles. This sort of activity is even compared to 'mopping the floor' and 'clearing the mess '-referring to the unresolved issues of the particular framework. In contrast, a scientific revolution basically involved a complete overthrow of the existing framework and replacing it with a paradigm that may be completely different from the earlier one. The revolution is a dramatic shift in the development of science because it involves a drastically different understanding of the basic concepts and ideas along with new tools and techniques for investigation, a different outlook of natural phenomena, and a shift in priorities between different aspects of the theory and the experimentation. As one would imagine immediately, the most striking examples of this comes from the revolution that took place in the early part of the last century, namely the development of quantum mechanics and relativity. There is absolutely no question that there is hardly a single field in modern physics that has remained untouched by these new frameworks, and in many areas, both these theories are incorporated compatibly. In addition to this, Kuhn also uses as examples the paradigms set and shifts that occurred around the works of Aristotle (on analyzing motion), Ptolemy (planetary positions),Maxwell ( expressing the electromagnetic equations in their mathematical form).

Yes, all these may be some good examples but how seriously do we take the claim that there is a reasonably clear division between a revolution and normal phase in progress of science. Let us focus on the period since those groundbreaking ideas of quantum mechanics and relativity came to be accepted as valid scientific theories by the physics community. It would be very hard to argue that there has been any other development(s) that can be considered as revolutionary since then. The most fundamental theoretical milestones during these periods would certainly include establishment of Quantum Electrodynamics, the Salam-Weinberg electroweak unification and the eventual setting up and success of the so-called Standard Model of particle physics.
Of course, none of this can be regarded as a paradigm shift in any way because they still retain the same underlying structure of quantum field theory -indeed that structure was just extended to all the basic interactions. However,let us consider all the important developments that have taken place during this period within this framework and ask ourselves whether these are something to just be casually treated in the somewhat demeaning manner of "puzzle-solving". Looking at the wikipedia page on physics time-line, one notices a whole of exciting new discoveries that took place in the last 90 years or so. The ascendancy of the Big Bang Cosmology, BCS theory of superconductivity, development of transistor, solution of 2D Ising Model, Fractional Quantum Hall Effect and Bose Einstein Condensation are some of the most striking examples . None of this and the associated research it spawned can be looked upon as a revolution because neither did it undermine the validity of relativity and quantum mechanics nor did it completely alter the progress of all fields in physics. Yet, taken together one can say that our view of the entirety of physics has been highly influenced by most of these "puzzle-solutions" and "floor-mopping". In fact, no one in the 1930's could have conceived the current status of physics, its achievements over the years, the formulation of ingenious principles and all the various new areas of research it has opened up. In other words, one can consider all the developments in physics together cumulatively as a 'revolution' without having any of the characteristics of scientific revolution as postulated by Kuhn.

If this argument is not convincing, let us look into the future and ponder how some of the unsolved problems of our era are going to be tackled. Certainly, one of the greatest unresolved questions in physics is that of unification of the fundamental interactions and all the associated problems and loopholes in the Standard Model -ranging from the lightness of Higgs mass, to origin of neutrino mass, to QCD vacuua. If ultimately we find a way to unify these interactions together successfully it would truly be one of the greatest breakthroughs in modern science. It may even represent the pinnacle of our achievements in understanding the most fundamental aspects of natural phenomena. However, would that be a scientific revolution in the sense described by Kuhn? How many areas of physics would such a development have any perceptible impact on, let alone completely turning it upside down. The answer is a few, if any at all. The unification is expected to occur at the Planck Scale and that energy is almost unattainable even in any accelerator that may be constructed in the foreseeable future. That being the case, there is no reason to expect that it will have any consequence for almost all of physics except in cosmology. At least until the time that we can explore such energy scales inside the condensed matter laboratory! Hence studies in atomic and molecular physics, theoretical nuclear physics, surface and material sciences, high Tc superconductivity and non-equilibrium statistical mechanics will continue as if nothing ever happened. And when it comes to understanding the origin of the universe and addressing some of the unresolved questions in that field such as the constituents of dark matter or the cosmological constant problem, although we may find solutions to these with the construction of 'theory of everything' it would not invalidate the progress we have made so far. Thus, cosmologists will not have disputes amongst themselves and will universally adapt their work to this paradigm once it is established. So, there is no room for such things as incommensurability(methodological or epistemological) or Kuhn-loss or new vocabulary as was laid down by this very influential philosopher. Hence, it is safe to conclude that however great an accomplishment the unification may be, it certainly will not be a scientific revolution.

V

Although I have been disappointed with most of philosophy of science, there is one special exception amongst the various doctrines of the discipline that I find very pertinent and useful: Logical Positivism. The exact positions and principles of this school have been debated upon extensively and some of the more radical positions have now been abandoned. I shall however not concern myself with these issues in this discussion(such as the analytic/synthetic distinction , the controversial rejection of synthetic a priori statements or regarding mathematics as a tautology). Instead, I am going to focus on that one important aspect of the doctrine that is key to distinguishing science from metaphysics and this revolves around the principle of verifiability. It is held that a statement has "meaningful content" only if it makes a claim that can be supported by empirical justification. Or more broadly, the only statements that express factual knowledge are those that have the potential to being empirically verified sometime in the future. Hence, a statement like "God exists in ways unknown to man" is devoid of any meaningful content because there can be no observations or events that can establish its truth or falsity. Extending this principle the founders and adherents of the Vienna Circle in the 1930's made devastating critiques of areas in philosophy, metaphysics and theology. They argued that many of the propositions contained in these disciplines do not express any cognitively sensible fact about the world. I find myself agreement with this viewpoint and think there really is no meaning in asking questions like "Are there parallel universes out that is outside our space-time continuum?"*

It would be improper for me to conclude this discussion without putting philosophy of science in some fair perspective. I have raised several objections to the basic postulates put forward by some of the most important practitioners of this school of inquiry. I will always have a skeptical outlook towards how successful any theory describing the evolution of science can be and will suspect the accuracy of any characterization of the history of science based on certain simplistic rules. Applying Kuhn's own standard, I would say that philosophy of science is still in a pre-paradigm state! Yet, I strongly believe that every field of scholarship is of value and contributes to human knowledge. While the ultimate scope of philosophy of science may be too ambitious for its own good, there is no denying that the various theories shed some light on certain essential elements that characterize the practice of science. It may be incorrect to declare universal rules that govern all innovations in science but more modest statements about the development and progress of sciences would certainly prove to be useful to anyone-expert or not - curious about the evolution of what is unarguably the greatest collective human accomplishment.

*I have to admit that part of my inclination towards this philosophical position is my annoyance at the invariable propensity of individuals to make statements that have no empirical content whatsoever while imagining them to be something really profound! I have had the misfortune of having to sit with such loud-mouthed, gibberish-spewing "revolutionary thinkers" in the philosophy classes I have taken.

Book Review : Homage to Catalonia

2009-06-08T06:41:00.015-04:00

Homage to Catalonia
by George Orwell

George Orwell went to Spain as a journalist to cover the ongoing revolution in 1936. Once he was in the midst of dramatic events, he decided it made more sense to join the fight against the Fascist forces which had been under the command of Franco, and aided by Hitler and Mussolini. This book, written in 1937 after he returned to England following a bullet injury in his neck that prevented further participation, deals with his personal experiences fighting alongside anti-Fascist groups. It also provides a description of significant political developments that he was aware of. Today, it represents a very important document on the war, and although it is one man's account of his involvement in a large-scale war, it manages to paint a pretty clear picture of the different positions taken by various groups and the constant internal strife, the severe betrayal, the egregious lies and false propaganda and the insidious international engagement. Even though several years have passed since the tumultuous events, the details and description are very interesting but more importantly, it brings out aspects of war and the machinery surrounding it that are usually not to be found in more standard treatments.

Reading this book after Nineteen Eighty Four, I was constantly trying to make connections with that great novel and not surprisingly, a lot of what Orwell witnessed in Spain provided the basis for the creation of the harrowing world of Airstrip One. Nonetheless, his experiences in this battleground were far more diverse than just the use of misinformation and pure fabrication to control the course of war. There are as many examples of generosity, loyalty, sacrifice,forthright honesty and goodness of spirit as there are of tragic betrayal and lies that makes this a much more pleasing narrative when compared to the bleak and hopeless environment in which Winston Smith is trapped. The book succeeds amazingly well in being able to describe how the war was perceived by the ordinary conscripts and volunteers and their valiant efforts, their ideals and their hope of a better and just future. The nature of the confrontation is itself such that in many of the instances, it is not the bullets and the explosions that everyone is most scared of, but the terrible winter and the crippling shortage of essential supplies. There are situations where people, even enemies behave in ways contrary to general expectation, and most often it is a turn to the more positive of human tendencies. Thus the book is made a lot bearable even though in the end the gaols of the idealistic revolutionary groups are sabotaged by the more cunning and powerful Communist forces.

Orwell is initially unaware of the various political factions that exist in the country and their different agendas. Not interested in political divisions or understanding their subtle variations in principles, he decides to join the P.O.U.M, a leftist revolutionary party that is one of the many organizations that have come together to fight Fascist takeover of Spain. The events leading up to the start of the war can summarized as follows: the Spanish Republican government is being besieged by the military that is led by General Franco who attempts a coup d' etat with the help of Fascist regimes in Germany and Italy. The Government is weak and unable to defend itself. In an effort to resist the spread of the Fascism in Spain, political parties of varying shades, militia groups, workers and peasants decide to launch a concerted effort to defend the government. The Communists (UGT) receive support from Communist Parties all over Europe especially USSR, under its leader Josef Stalin. The co-operation and alignment of foreign players in this struggle to fend off Fascist takeover is not decided based on any grand principles but more by constitution of military alliances and particularly the strength of relationship with Soviet Union. The agenda of the Communists here, unlike what one would imagine, can only be described as the right-wing with focus on retaining control in the hands of a few and allowing the country to kowtow the Soviet leadership. Hence, Communists are in favor of a centralized government and are not opposed to adoption of a capitalistic system. That may seem very surprising at first but as it would be become clear in just a while, the primary intention of the Communists was for the country to be a useful military and political alliance of the USSR, irrespective of what the nature of the economic or political structure that exists. In particular they are strongly opposed to the Anarchists -who represent the radical anti-Stalinist Left - and other revolutionary organizations like P.O.U.M that aim to make Spain a completely decentralized country where land, property and production is controlled by local councils and peasants and farmers exert direct control over decisions concerning their lives. The reason the Communists bitterly oppose this setup can be understood by studying the alliances, say, for example,between France and USSR. This relationship would benefit the Russians, only if France, a capitalist-imperialist country, is strong and stable, and hence the Communist Party in France would tow the line of the Russian Communists, which is essentially anti-revolutionary. We are told about how French Communists initially voiced their unwillingness to fight their German comrades, but later on made a volte-face and marched behind the tri-color , sang the national anthem and bid goodbye to their earlier protests for decolonization. The Spanish UGT was influenced by their French counterparts, and hence opposed any form of revolution by the militias. Since Britain was still quite isolated from Russian influence, the English Communist party remained somewhat ambiguous in its policies towards the Spanish situation or European Imperialism. But as it becomes amply clear later on, the Communists in England fell behind the UGT and demonized the revolutionary groups. It should also be mentioned here that Mexico supported the Republicans (i.e the united anti-fascist groups) and provided arms and ammunition to fight the Spanish Army. In fact, Mexican cartridges were regarded as a premium in comparison to their local counterparts and were reserved for use with machine guns.

At any rate, as Orwell clarifies, the Communists would still be better than the Fascists. They would undertake some development and construction - build roads, provide education, erect hospitals and reduce the exploitation by the land-lords. On the other hand, Franco, being supported by the landlords, the rich bourgeois and the Church clergy, would return power to the same groups that impoverished the nation and marginalized the poor and caused the disillusionment with capitalism.
But, as noted above, Orwell is unfamiliar with the political intricacy that existed when he joined the fight and even when he does learn about the main groups, he seems to treat the matter with little importance. He repeatedly insists that he finds these divisions and associations quite perplexing and is quite cynical about the necessity to know anything more than the bare essentials on the topic. And yes, politics cannot be ignored in such a novel and it figures quite prominently in many places, especially towards the end of the book.

The first part of the book is devoted to the experience of fighting in the cold, wintry P.O.U.M camps at the frontline. While one would imagine the mood to be very intense considering how bloody the conflict had been in retrospect, the nature of the war and the different aspects surrounding it paints a slightly different picture. At times, it can get as removed from such intensity that some incidents begin to actually sound quite funny. To start with, the various rebel groups, and even most of the pro-Fascist troops, have a remarkably poor supply of arms and ammunition. To worsen the combat potential, much of the weapons -the rifles and machine guns for the most part- are of lamentable quality and perform unreliably. The minor accessories were also in short supply - telescopes, periscopes, wire-cutters, field glasses or even cleaning materials. Next, the preparedness level of the army was ludicrous. Most of these fighters -both volunteers and conscripts- were rooted in left-libertarian ideology who took the concept of equality and abolishment of hierarchy to extremity and insisted in treating everyone in the same manner. However, it does not take much expertise to know and understand that an army functions effectively and successfully executes complex operations only if there is some sort of structural hierarchy in the system which demands rigid discipline and obedience to authority. When this central tenet is missing, the combat force simply descends into a disorganized, amateurish, blundering mass that bungles up every plot. But naive idealism would make the P.O.U.M fighters -and to a greater extent the Anarchists - blind to such reality as it would, later on, to the cunning and devious betrayal by the Communists.

Many of the people fighting were kids - several under 15. Few received any training and at any rate, even those that did were given one that lacked the basic standards of professionalism that in the end, it possibly made no difference to their capacity to participate in a war. Practically no one was taught how to use an automatic and the familiarity and skill with the gun was so pathetic that it led to repeated incidents where people came close - and in some cases, actually did- to accidentally shooting their own men. Ironically, an equal number of deaths were averted because of the spectacularly poor Spanish marksmanship. Orwell himself would have been wounded earlier on, were it not for the woefully inaccurate firing skill of the Spanish militiamen. This must be seen in the broader context of Orwell's experience with the Spanish people in general, irrespective of their political affiliations. While not complete strangers to brutality, the fighting spirit displayed by the Spanish was comparably less aggressive, their hostility mitigated by an element of sympathy and consideration, their determination to achieve victory naturally undermined by the absence of killer instinct, and their ideology rarely overwhelmed their collective humanity. Orwell greatly admires the decency of the ordinary Spanish people. To Orwell, their easy friendliness, loyalty and ingenuity comes as a great surprise and we often encounter stark comparisons drawn between this and the attitude of the English people.
It may be cliche but there is something authentic when Orwell remarks, while observing the Spanish graciously acknowledge the French for their superior war tactics, that the English would rather have their hands chopped off rather than making such an admission. In addition, the Spanish warmly greet foreigners and strive to make their visitors feel comfortable; class-divisions are less visible and rigid in Spain as compared to their deeply entrenched presence in English society. Another curious feature is the apparent lack of religious feelings amongst the Spanish working-class and peasants. No religious customs seem to be observed and people do not invoke religious ideas and beliefs in the face of unpleasant events. There is little sanctity for the dead people as can be inferred from a graveyard that is littered with bones. The gravestones hardly ever bear religious inscriptions on them, something that strongly suggests a complete absence of faith in people. The Church was widely acknowledged a swindle by the elite and no one believed it representing anything useful. And this feature also explains why the revolutionary groups wanted to completely destroy the institutions associated with the Church as soon as they had an opportunity. (I have read elsewhere that they raped and tortured the nuns and the clergy but all of that could very well be remnants of Communist propaganda.)
Sadly though, as Orwell notes, it is this same magnanimity that made infantile groups like P.O.U.M and Anarchists hapless idealists waiting to be cruelly betrayed even before anyone of them saw it coming. In a foreboding sense, he writes,

There is a sense in which it would be true to say that one was experiencing a foretaste of socialism. Many of the normal motives of civilized life - snobbishness, money-grubbing, fear of the boss, etc -had simply ceased to exist. The ordinary class-division of society had disappeared to an extent that is almost unthinkable in the money-tinted air of England; there was no one there except the peasants and ourselves,and no one owed anyone else as his master.Of course such a state of affairs could not last.

Orwell lists five essential items while he was at the front - which was basically a hilltop "position" in Zaragosa, amongst other such positions in the mountain ranges. Those are, in the following order, firewood, food, candle, tobacco and enemy. This should give a quick idea that the enemy was not the main concern amongst the militiamen at the front. During most of the day, the Fascists did not matter at all and during the night, except for the possible fear of a random bullet striking someone, the primary preoccupation was to keep warm in the extremely cold weather. The same was true about the Fascist troops across the valley at their position. The typical situation at the frontlines was radically different from the standard imagination of a fierce battle between troops during the war. There were no airplanes dropping bombs and the rifles were so obsolete and poorly designed that in most cases the shots fired from them would fail to make their way across to the enemy trenches and instead drop in the valley between them. That being the case, it would not be hard to understand that the risk posed by occasional shots fired by those who received little or no professional training is minimal and less of a bother than the freezing weather that everyone had to struggle against on all nights. The weather became almost intolerable when there was rain and many men did not have the necessary clothing to protect themselves from the biting cold. Firewood was of utmost importance and a considerable part of the time and effort was spent on gathering and storing it. The soldiers ventured into the valley and pull out the shrubs and bring it back escaping being accidentally hit by the bullets buzzing overhead. The living conditions at the frontline was abominable -there was not enough water to clean up, the men defecated in the trenches itself, there was dirt and grime everywhere around, and people slept with their clothes on lest an attack caught them floundering. Yet, Orwell was happy to receive his quota of one pack of cigarettes everyday. The matches and candles were plenty initially but their supply was severely reduced later on and they had to overcome the shortage of this all-important commodity.

While all these brave young men -many of them volunteers from various countries -were fighting for a revolution that would lead to the establishment of a classless Socialist/Anarchist society,treacherous plots were devised by the Communists, primarily the U.G.T and P.S.U.C, who in fact were assumed to be on their side and provide necessary military and political support. The Communists bitterly opposed the revolution and claimed that it was important to first have a democratic setup in the country. They argued that the revolutionary groups were hurting the cause of creating a democratic Spain by not uniting together and forming a strong alliance. However, in reality, their motives were quite different. As briefly explained earlier, the Communists followed the Russian line and wanted Spain to remain a stable capitalistic country that could be useful as a military ally to USSR. Indeed, the military aid provided by Soviet Union was contingent on such an arrangement. Britain and France indirectly backed this movement too in the hope of protecting their significant financial investments in the country. If the revolution were to take place the way the Socialists envisaged, it would result in the collectivization of production and complete dominance by trade-unions without any guarantee of repayment to foreign investors. Furthermore, the Communist Parties in both these countries adopted a stand that merely reflected the interests and ideology of the Russians. Orwell however does make it quite clear that the ordinary soldier working for the Communists was just as well-meaning as anyone in C.N.T or P.O.U.M, and was primarily involved in the war effort to defeat Franco. It was the Communist leaders and their powerful associates in Europe that were masterminding these counter-revolutionary tactics. The foreign Communist press was particularly deceitful. In the early days, they simply portrayed the revolution as misguided ideology that would lead to fracturing of the anti-Fascist forces and create unnecessary chaos. However, later on the Communist propaganda becomes a lot more insidious. They contend that the P.O.U.M's revolutionary philosophy weakening the combined battle against Fascism was not simply a result of some misguided idealism, but rather, a deliberate design. They portrayed P.O.U.M army as consisting of traitors who were secretly working with the Fascists to sabotage the Government forces. The P.O.U.M militia and everyone who worked with organizations with similar ideology were labeled as cowards, murderers, spies and Trotskyists.

It is not a nice thing to see a Spanish boy of fifteen carried down the line on a stretcher, with a dazed white face looking out from among the blankets, and to think of all the sleek persons in London and Paris who are writing pamphlets to prove that this boy is a Fascist in disguise. One of the horrible features of a war is that all the war-propaganda, all the screaming and lies and hatred, comes invariably from people not fighting.

A lot of this negative and divisive Communist propaganda was being disseminated when the P.O.U.M militia was in the frontline naively assuming full ideological support from their Communist "allies", whatever the differences might be amongst them in terms of initiating a revolution. Supply of arms and ammunition to the Anarchists was curtailed lest they use them later for revolutionary goals. In a civil war such as this and at the time when the Fascist powers in Europe were gaining strength by the day and expanding their sphere of influence in the continent, one would have been expected that the great democracies of the world, namely Britain, United States and France would have had the foresight to come to the rescue of the Spanish Government and suppress Franco's Army. That can only be considered bad judgment even if self-interest was the primary motivation for extending military aid to foreign wars. But more unfortunately,as Orwell observes no country, aside from Mexico had the decency to back the Government in what was clearly a just cause against tyranny. All these powerhouses were eager to declare neutrality in the conflict and it was upto some of their brave citizens to join the war effort and lay their lives to contain the reach of Fascism. The external role in this civil war was largely provided by Communists all over Europe who were devotedly playing to the Soviet tune.

Back at the front in Aragon, the troops occupying the P.O.U.M position alongside Orwell launch a surprise attack on the Fascist redoubt. Crawling through the sodden ground, striving to remain noiseless, and maintaining proper communication with their fellow fighters, the group manages to take control of the Fascist parapet and kill or drive away the fascist conscripts occupying the dug-outs there. A powerful telescope is discovered at the enemy camp that would be of crucial importance in the battle but the fighters settle on a ammunition box to bring back with them alongside Fascist rifles. Despite leaving behind the telescope the ambush is considered a success in the sense that Fascists were forced to divert their troops for counter-attack from another position where they were fighting the Anarchists. Following this event, the batch of troops are substituted by a different set and they make their way back to Barcelona.

The Barcelona that Orwell returns to after being at the front for about three and a half months has had a makeover in appearance. The revolutionary spirit that once dominated the atmosphere of Spain and the surrounding philosophical principles of an equal, classless society without hierarchy or one-upmanship that had attracted so many ordinary working class people, was now gone, and in its place was the quiet, unremarkable world of established class-structure, one that separated the rich from the poor, with the privileged flaunting its wealth while the shopkeepers and workers were cringing. There was a brief period when everyone treated others as equals, irrespective of their social position or profession. Thus, waiters and flower-women refused to take tips and looked at people in the eye, revolutionary language was commonly adopted, workers addressed each other as "comrade" and there was almost no begging. But that atmosphere was to be temporary, something created by idealistic people who briefly flirted with the idea that such a thing as perfect equality is a viable scenario in society. It was at best an illusion - a suspension of disbelief - but a tempting possibility to entertain and hope for in the face of long and damning injustice and inequity.

A fat man eating quails while the children are begging for food is a disgusting sight, but you are less likely to see it when you are within sound of guns

The Popular Army had been formed by the government and all the militia factions were officially a part of it. The revolutionary sentiment was almost non-existent and it was replaced by an unspoken resignation to the reality that there was never going to be a revolution that would lead to workers' control of production, land and revenue. With little fighting going on, pessimism returned to the populace as the town slid back to normalcy. The Anarchist-Communist split was very much alive and this division seemed to predominate the thoughts and fears of the people more than threat of a battle with fascists.

On 3rd MAy 1937, the Civil Guards launched a surprised assault on the Telephone Exchange in Barcelona that had been controlled by the CNT. The Civil Guards were nothing more than a peacetime police force that acted as a strongarm bodyguard protecting the ruling elite. Taking over the Telephone Exchange was part of the strategic manoeuvre to weaken the militia forces and arrogate power by winning control of all industries and organizations that were under the supervision of Anarchists. As the news of this event broke throughout the town, it caused panic and confusion as both sides - Government/Civil Guards on one side and Anarchists/POUM on the other- were entering into an armed confrontation on the streets and buildings in the town. Shots rang out, bullets flew in all directions, troops ran to occupy positions on rooftops, wielding guns and guarding buildings, each of which were predominantly occupied by members of a single political party.

The rival groups were randomly firing at every other suspected individual on the street leading to complete chaos as people were holed up in buildings for protection. Orwell finds himself running between different hotels and cafes in this tumultuous setting, sometimes being dragged along by fellow militiamen and at other times to find out if his wife was safe (she was staying in a different place). The chaotic street fighting is a real tragedy and renders so much of the effort, the spirit and the sacrifices of people futile. It is truly disillusioning and depressing ;instead of facing a battle with the real enemies (Fascists), here there were troops firing - and killing some and wounding others -at each other barely aware of the reasons for targeting the "opponents". These events seem to quieten down the next day as Civil Guards are asked by the government to be more cautionary in using weapons and firing at Anarchists but nonetheless the fear and mutual suspicion was still quite strong and the troops were still camped on rooftops prepared for any offensive fire.

Throughout the fighting I never made the "correct" analysis of the situation that was so glibly made by journalists sitting thousands of miles away.What I was chiefly thinking about was not the rights and wrongs of this miserable internecine scrap, but the discomfort and boredom of sitting day and night on that intolerable roof, and the hunger which was growing worse and worse- for none of us had a proper meal since Monday (this was Thursday)

Things were returning to normal even when the CNT members were completely overpowered as the Telephone Exchange was wrested out of their control by Civil Guards. Even at other important strategic Anarchist holdings, the government forces had moved in and had taken charge. Simply put, the city came under the mercy of the government and its armed guards and troops. In addition to such assaults, many of the remaining Anarchists retreated from their barricades because of food shortage. Adding insult to the injury, the government passed a law requiring all organizations to surrender their arms as the civil guards go around ensuring that the law is duly enforced. Debilitating the militia even further, the Anarchist press was censored while the Communist publications continued to run wildly fabricated stories of CNT/POUM treachery. The Anarchists desire to hold on to their arms was "interpreted" by the Communists and the foreign press as a disloyal and selfish action. They claimed that the weapons were badly needed at the Aragon front although it was clear that both Communists and revolutionaries had stashed weapons that they would use for reasons other than fighting the main fascist enemies.

At this point, the feeling and mood in Barcelona was one of deep distrust- distrust for everyone around be that friends, fellow soldiers, associates, comrades, it made no difference. Nobody could foresee who would turn out to be a spy - there can be people working for any of the groups including fascists, communists, foreign governments - and denounce them to their ideological enemy. Meanwhile the CNT feared that there would be a foreign intervention if the internal strife went too far -indeed there were two British warships that had moved into the harbor as the fighting intensified with the proclaimed aim of "protecting British interests" but there was little doubt that it was to crush any massive uprising by the working class.

The POUM was decried as "Franco's fifth column" and as Trotskyists who were loyal to the Fascists. The outbreak of the conflict at the Telephone Exchange was described as an insurrection by the Anarchists. The gross misrepresentations of the events by the Communist press was systematic, ubiquitous and invariable - spinning facts to the degree that the roles of the various parties involved were reversed : the Telephone Exchange, the Daily Worker stated for example, was being held by the Government workers until being seized by the CNT forces in a surprise uprising. Never mind the fact that the same story was turned around a couple of days later without any mention of retraction or correction of the previous account. Also forget about the blatant contradictions in the descriptions and statements: inflammatory leaflets were the cause of the Anarchist uprising according to one release, but in another report, it was argued that these same leaflets were issued following the attack - it was a consequence. The newspapers did not care to maintain basic consistency in even stating the day the actual attack took place. In fact, the propaganda program was so obsessive that the Communists, either out of poor judgment or indifference, were giving away vital military secrets that could compromise their war effort while benefiting the Fascists. These included details about the strategy, the preparedness and the number of troops at the front and other tactical information that could be crucial to outcome of the war. (Orwell mentions in a footnote about the relative accuracy and neutrality of coverage in the Manchester Guardian,a newspaper known today simply as The Guardian. Incidentally, amongst all the regular newspapers I have come across in the English language, I find The Guardian most balanced and objective in coverage and detail.)

The betrayal reached its zenith in June 1937 when the POUM was declared as a full-fledged illegal organization by the government and all suspected members of the party were rounded up and flung into jail without the slightest concern for any due process. The Communists concocted a dramatic tale of how the entire group as a Fascist Plot designed to undermine and subvert the government forces.The charges leveled against POUM were ludicrous, such as claims that militiamen were in radio contact with Franco or in communication with the Nazi regime. Anyone rejecting the Communist policy from a left-wing perspective was conveniently condemned as Trotskyist -the implied meaning being treachery and a possible link with Fascist regimes in Germany and Italy. That this was full blown lies is apparent from the mere observation that these troops were still in jail for long after they were arrested, something that was impossible had they found any evidence of such subversive collaboration with the Fascists. In fact when an independent international delegation was went to Spain later on to investigate the role of the POUM in the conflict, the diplomats did not uncover any evidence to support any of these outlandish allegations. This admission of the innocence of POUM was in fact was made by the some of Spanish Government leaders, including the Minister of National Defence and Minister of Justice.

As appalling as the Communist backstabbing may sound, it is nothing particularly unexpected for this uniquely disgusting political ideology to denounce its detractors as traitors. Orwell point out for example that while today opponents are attacked as "trotskyist-fascist", a few years ago "Social-fascists" would have been the derogatory term of choice. But these critics and skeptics are not permanent nor does the official Communist line have any qualms about consistency (much like it does not have any principles). So such treacherous "social-fascists" like members of the British Labour Party were claimed to be behind a planned military invasion of USSR but this same Labour Party has now automatically morphed into a natural ally that English Communist Party members are trying to get into.

After the POUM is outlawed, Orwell again volunteers to go to the front in Huesca although his affiliation is not very clear. He mentions that he has been moved into a more structured pay commission that the militiamen were forced to accept abandoning their earlier stance of complete equality for all soldiers.
It is here though in the trenches of the battlefield that Orwell gets shot by a sniper that puts an end to his volunteering effort to fight Fascism in Spain. His recollection of the experience of getting shot straight through the neck is quite unusual in that he explains everything in a clear and objective manner. More amazingly, true to his style, even a dramatic personal incident like this one does not alter his perspective on his role in the war as merely a soldier fighting for a greater cause and coming close to death not unlike so many other brave individuals. In life, it so often happens that we are preoccupied with our self-importance. We like to think that our world view is unique and accurate, that our feelings deserve respect,that our concerns are serious and genuine and our opinions and ideas, important and insightful. In all of our thoughts and involvements, we feel the need to project our intellectual abilities. We obsess over what we like and what we don't and we make a big deal about the little ups and downs in life. What a stirring contrast it is when someone who is now considered as one of the most important authors in the 20th century, describes a bullet making a clean pass through his throat in the most ordinary way one can imagine -without ever drawing unnecessary attention to himself. I have never regarded myself as a fan of modesty of any kind -not at the conscious level at least- but his experiences in Spain- particularly this incident- evokes immense admiration. In his engaging introduction to the copy I hold, Lionel Trilling writes:

Orwell takes his place with these men as a figure. In one degree or another they are geniuses, and he is not - if we ask what it is that he stands for, what he is a figure of, the answer is: the virtue if not being a genius, of fronting the world with nothing more than one's simple, direct, undeceived intelligence and a respect for the powers one does have, and the work one undertakes to do.

Returning to the actual incident, Orwell explains that being shot felt like an explosion around him, something akin to a lightning strike with no awareness of pain but a sense of numbness and a dazed feeling. It had to pointed out to him that he was actually shot and it was only a brief while later that the horrible sense of pain came to overwhelm him and oddly enough, it was felt first in his arms. Despite this ghastly injury, he notes, almost glibly, that he has no resentment for the sniper who got him and would in fact congratulate the soldier on his shot while recognizing that he[Orwell] would have done the same thing had he been in the sniper's place.

He is carried in a stretcher to an ambulance that takes him to a temporary medical facility from where he is transported to Barbasto in an incredibly bumpy journey. About another half dozen trips to various hospitals and medical centers, where he silently witnessed all varieties of dreadful wounds on fellow inmates like smashed rib cages and collar bones, and followed by an additional 2 months of rest, Orwell recovers to reasonable health and miraculously he has his voice back -something that most doctors had ruled impossible. Unfit to continue fighting, he returns to Barcelona in the hope of finally leaving the country and going home.

The situation in Barcelona is a depressing one, with armed men roaming the streets, ubiquitous occurrence of arbitrary arrests, and a perpetual sound of machine gun fires heard all around. A this stage, the Communists have full control over the city and CNT/POUM militiamen - even those who had former ties with these groups -were being jailed without any charges or consideration of a fair trial. In order to leave the POUM without being considered a deserter, Orwell needs to be declared unfit first and then obtain the discharge papers from POUM headquarters. While this may sound like a straightforward affair, Orwell had to stop by a dozen hospitals to get his documents in order to be free to leave. No sooner does he return to Barcelona than his wife hurriedly warns him that he was now in real danger of being arrested - since he had served in the POUM militia before. The news of this inexplicable situation in Barcelona was something that Orwell cannot bring himself to accept - he had done nothing to hurt the cause of the anti-fascist resistance. Now, it was necessary to remain on close alert and protect himself from being discovered. Lying low was not an easy choice- any hotel or inn in Barcelona required its staff to report about new visitors to the place ; several waiters in restaurants were also familiar with militiamen faces and they could easily give away the identity inadvertently in the presence of Civil Guards or other Government troops.

Elsewhere POUM leader Andreas Nin was arrested and thrown to jail where he was believed to have been later killed by the secret police - this incident was concealed from the public by the Communists who provided vague and sometimes conflicting information on Nin's condition.[He was actually tortured and murdered by the Soviet Secret police] In another event Bob Smilie, one of the young men that Orwell knew from fighting in the front, was now known to have died in prison from medical complication. Orwell recalls Smilie as being a "tough lad" who was able to withstand the rigors of winter better than most of the other militiamen and his prison death is suggestive of the terrible conditions in which the Spanish jails were maintained. A student who left Glasgow University to join the revolutionary forces, Smilie's death was truly symbolic of the genuine tragedy of the conflict - the Communist betrayal.

But what angers one about a death like this is its utter pointlessness. To be killed in the battle- yes, that is what one expects; but to be flung into jail. not even for any imaginary offence, but simply owing to dull blind spite, and then left to die in solitude- that is a different matter.

Despite the horrible events which has left Orwell with evil memories of Spain, he belabors to point out that he has few bad memories of Spaniards. It would appear, according to him, that even if Franco were to ascend to power, the military dictatorship would not be the as brutal and repressive as in other countries[something that was partly borne out to be true]. Spaniards hardly possessed the efficiency or the ruthlessness to impose the kind of totalitarian nightmare that was possible in Nazi Germany or Stalinist USSR. The Communist secret police, while displaying some of the spirit of the Gestapo had little of the same competency or aggression.

In his last few days in Spain, Orwell tries unsuccessfully to free George Kopp, the Belgian volunteer who was Orwell's superior officer while fighting on the Aragon front. Kopp was arrested while carrying a letter to a government official and as usual, no charges were filed for the incarceration. Orwell explains the situation to the assistant of the colonel (the government official in question) and manages to get the letter back - which should have served as a proof that Kopp was serving the government- but it turns out that this new evidence was insufficient to secure his release[Kopp survives somehow despite interrogation and torture by Soviet Secret Police after which he settles in England].

On that defeated note, Orwell, along with his wife and two other British militiamen, leave Spain and after a short stop in France return to London.

(Fascists had full control of the country by 1939 when General Franco came to power).

A momentous oppurtunity for change

2008-12-30T14:08:00.002-05:00

Here, right now, as I type these words, is an incredibly opportune moment for us to witness the change that we have been hearing from Barack Obama. For someone who came to power on the promise that he is going to bring change to Washington politics and reverse the damages and disastrous policies followed by the Bush Administration, he could not have bargained for a better time to show the world what he was sincere. As Israeli shells pound the Gaza strip is what is unquestionably an obscene display of excessive force against a decidedly weak opponent, we have a situation that calls for unreserved and strong condemnation.

Most importantly, everyone is waiting for the signal from America. Indeed, there are commentators arguing that this whole episode was a demonstration to the incoming President about how Israel is going to deal with this longstanding dispute. And we are still waiting for a comment..... No, Mr. Obama, dodging questions by saying that there is only one President at a time is not good enough, and that is certainly not what people in the world expected to hear. You can say more, even if you cannot do much, like the strong words you chose when responding to the congratulations from Mr. Ahmadinejad. Evidently there is only one person running the White House and we all know that the President in waiting cannot order an intervention, but a less ambiguous reaction would have gone a long way in changing the face of geo-politics in the Middle East in months to come.

And yet, nothing is coming from the man who stood for change. I understand how entangled American interests are in the special US-Israel relationship and I am not naive enough to have believed that the new President would supply tanks and ammunition to Palestine on arrival, but there was definitely a hope for a relatively more even-handed approach to the resolution of conflict. And nothing, not even the financial mess, could have presented a golden opportunity such as this to ascertain Mr. Obama's real intention of bringing change and improving the image and global standing of America.

And, we are still waiting....

Society and human behavior

2008-12-28T17:30:00.007-05:00

I am a vegetarian. I also happen to be raised a vegetarian. Up until now, I have maintained a certain distaste and even disgust for the sight and smell of meat. But I have also come to realize that vegetarianism is significant from an ethical point of view too. My primary concern here is animal welfare since there is ample evidence to believe that sentient beings are put through some of the most horrifying conditions one can imagine before being slaughtered.

I am often shocked by how people don't seem to care too much about this at all. How is it possible they don't realize the inhuman treatment that animals are subjected to for the trivial benefit of satisfying their palate? I find their flippant attitude inexplicable, especially so when is many cultures, cruelty to dogs would be condemned in the sharpest way possible (and can even be punishable). However, I am not going to be discussing the ethics of vegetarianism here, even though I have several opinions on the issue. Maybe, I can post it sometime later. Besides, there other sites that discuss this including Wikipedia. No, here I am going to use this fact as a starting point to launch into a more general argument that, when a certain behavior is acceptable in society, however despicable it may be, there will be many people who would not refrain from indulging in the same.

I was completely shocked when I learned about how the Red Army marched into Germany when the tide of the war swung in the favor of the Allies, and then raped and molested all the women they could find. They ravaged and destroyed the towns and did not even spare some of the 'liberated' death camp prisoners. I was equally taken aback when I heard about the anti-Sikh riots in northern India by Hindu extremists in the aftermath of the assassination of Indira Gandhi. That rioters just picked on innocent Sikh men, dragged them out of their homes, and brutally attacked and murdered them was something I could not believe. Maybe it was my sheltered childhood, but the fact that normal people were capable of such barbarism went beyond my comprehension of humanity.

Of course, I have grown up now and am aware that these incidents are far from being isolated cases of violent atrocities. War crimes follow virtually instance of a warfare or regional strife, and this has been the situation throughout recorded history. However appalling Abu Graib or Guantanamo Bay may be, it is not particularly unique, even for the US Army (though this is no justification for their continued existence). It is not just horrendous acts perpetrated by armies and other combat groups that are guaranteed presence in all of human history, but so are other forms of injustices and cruelty entrenched in wider society during better times of peace and prosperity.. Slavery, colonialism and imperialism, racism, oppression of women, casteism, trafficking are all examples of human behavior, that viewed from the perspective of modern "civilized" world, appears as wholly deplorable. And yet, they were acceptable at one point. Widespread, almost unopposed acceptability has existed/still exists with regard to the practice of just these same human indignities in societies. Today, in most parts of the Western world, slavery would be perceived as completely abhorrent, but less than 300 years ago, there were several educated, intelligent and otherwise decent human beings who participated in the practice and held various flawed beliefs to justify it. Some of the leading philosophers and thinkers in the generations past have lent their credence to the idea that Africans are fundamentally inferior and hence deserve the treatment they get.

A similar justification was made, based on the ideology of "White Man's burden", for conquering and ruling other nations while impoverishing and depriving them of their resources. Not many in the oppressive community/country back then expressed a tenth of disgust that the majority would now do,looking at the past. How is this possible? Obviously, there is no inherent change in human beings over a few hundred years. There is also no reason to believe that each generation is born with certain unique inherent traits. In other words, if the same child were to be hypothetically transported across time to a different era, the whole outlook that he/she develops would be spectacularly divergent from what it is now. But, if such is the case, would it not be reasonable to argue that this is nothing more than a generalized version of "cultural relativism". Clearly, that is not how people understand it today, otherwise we would be hearing a lot more along the lines of "Who are we to judge what someone did in a different period when public morality was so different?".Much like when we hear a lady is being stoned to death for alleged adultery in Iran, few would take the stand that it is all fair and reasonable from their(Iran's) cultural standpoint. No, we believe, correctly or incorrectly, that these are wrongs and must never happen anywhere or anytime. Once we claim such absolutes in ethical judgments, we need to go back and revise our opinions on why so many participated in and encouraged what was so obviously WRONG. The answer, according to me, is simply that it was acceptable in society then whereas it isn't so anymore now.That is the sad truth of the world we live in:we are capable of doing just about anything so long as it is acceptable in society. So much for peoples' righteous moral outrage! Alter this argument a little and replace society by a group or institution, and we can explain everything from the Holocaust to human-rights violations in North Korea. The group is the one that has authority and power - the men in charge of implementing official policy of torture and abuse.

A microcosm of the same phenomena can be witnessed in the whole ragging issue in colleges across India. Students, barely past their teens, mostly growing up in regular middle-class families and seemingly introverted, somehow get transformed to something quite vicious and sadistic. The abuses inflicted on the freshmen in certain colleges, can take many forms, including repeated beatings and sexual humiliation. It is interesting though that in these cases, those in the vicinity witnessing the initiation ritual, see nothing odd about two people simulating sodomy. This is particularly striking when contrasted with the overall attitude of the broader Indian society when it comes to similar issues. How come those nurtured in a closed environment like this, in less than a year, turned to doing something that is not only in poor taste, but is also outright illegal?
It is equally interesting to note that the same people who were in the thicket of organizing the ragging drill would not have much of courage to do anything even a little daring in an environment where such behavior would not be acceptable. In other words, timid individuals who seem incapable of standing up and being bold can turn into monsters when they know that their actions would be regarded as normal, however disgusting these actions may be in a more standard setting.

My hypothesis was strengthened when I learned about some famous experiments that were carried out to test similar potential possibilities in normal people. Yale University psychologist Stanley Milgram devised a famous test where participants were supposed to administer electric shocks to a "victim" whenever he/she answered a question wrong. The order to do so was to be provided by a a stern authority figure who sat in the same room as the participant. And with every wrong answer, the voltage was incremented. The results were astonishing -many of the participants triggered shocks greater than 200V and only one participant refused to do so beyond the 300V threshold. 65% of the participants were willing to go up to 450V although many of them expressed reservations and were uncomfortable to do so. Interestingly, this was three months before the trial of Adolf Eichmann, the Nazi operative considered to be the architect of the Holocaust. Basically, the experimenters wanted to determine if ordinary Americans were capable of doing what the Nazis had done. (By the way, the analysis of Eichmann's personality is also noteworthy.)

Ten years later, an even more disturbing psychological experiment was carried out. The Stanford Prison Experiment involved selecting a bunch of undergraduate students, randomly assigning them "prisoner" and "guard" roles that they are supposed to enact for a period of 14 days in a real prison. The whole arrangement was setup in a manner that would simulate a real prison environment as accurately as possible: from the baton that the "guards" carried around to the chains tied to the ankles of "prisoners". The lead experimenter Professor Philip Zimbardo was himself playing the prison superintendent. The experiment had to be shut down in 6 days because the whole situation got out of hand very soon. Guards began to beat the prisoners, denied them food, and routinely humiliated them. Some of the prisoners were thrown into solitary confinement. The prisoners are said to have been psychologically traumatized at the end, having undergone serious stress during the progress of the experiment. To be fair, the experiment was criticized by many (though not criticisms are convincing) and the BBC conducted its own Prison Study in 2002 and the results this time were definitely less dramatic than SPE. The difference seems to lie in the fact that in the conditions were less harsh and hostile in the BBC commissioned study than in the SPE. That is not to say it did not have any incident involving tyranny and abuse of power. My own interpretation is that the inferences that can be drawn from all these psychological experiments are in line with my overall opinion of human nature and behavior.

When we go by this hypothesis, we are able to better understand various barbaric events in history and also societal attitudes to and (in some case )participation in various horrors, from mild injustices like denying equal rights to women to applauding brutal Gladiator fights. So long as everyone around feels the same way, it reinforces the idea of normalcy in such behavior and people will engage in them without any compunction. Or, they are unlikely to realize what their actions would be judged harshly in the future or by a society with different norms. Thus every time I hear about some horrible violence somewhere in the world, I am inclined to believe that the perpetrators are living in a place and time where such activities are deemed acceptable . It is a truly disturbing thought indeed.

Endnotes:
(i) It is important to remember that most of the experiments that I have described here were not designed to study anything directly related to what I am interested in. Instead, they mostly concerned the willingness of normal people to simply follow instruction in the presence of an authority figure, however much it went against their perception of what is right and what isn't. In their own right, they are quite surprising. The results from the BBC Prison Study are particularly well reasoned out and analyzed. I also do not claim that my conclusions based on these experiments have been obtained in some perfectly-justified purely rational arguments. I just see a strong connection between them and my own hypothesis of human behavior. Also,in no way am I desperate to find evidence-weak or strong- to prove my point. Far from it, I actually wish I could be proved wrong.

(ii)Same goes for various incidents I have highlighted. It is certainly possible that the underlying motivation to commit violent crimes may been have vastly different in these cases.
(iii) Irrespective of the idea you may get away with on reading this, it was by no means written to drive home the imperative for converting to vegetarianism.
I cannot however deny that I feel the same logic applies to the whole issue of vegetarianism though.

Some facts

2008-12-12T00:42:00.005-05:00

The events that have been unfolding in the aftermath of the horrible attacks in Bombay are quite unprecedented. Public discontent over perceived lack of adequate security provided by the government has lead to widespread protests , condemnation of those in power, and a great sense of betrayal and disillusionment. As we speak the uproar is raging in several places, through different mediums and channels and at various levels. Both the volume and extent of involvement by the public surpasses any response we have seen so far in earlier tragedies.

No doubt, it was indeed a ghastly series of events and there can be nothing said or done that would make those who have lost a loved one feel better. I will not pretend to understand what they must be going through.

However, not being so close to the disaster should help others look at the attacks in a more objective manner and take note of a few relevant facts and statistics that may be missed during the heat of the debate. Before I go on to list them, I must make it very clear that this is not meant to make the horror of this tragedy, or any of the related developments in international politics since, less significant. The idea here is to put things in their right perspective.
Here we go:
(I) The number of casualties from accidents every year in India is about 100,000. That is close to 300 deaths per day
(II) The number of Indian casualties in the deadly 2004 Tsunami is close to 12,000. I'd be interested to know the status of the rehabilitation efforts.
(III) The number of people of who die every year in Bombay Suburban Railway accidents is more than 3000.
(IV)Since these attacks, there has been a bus explosion in India that has resulted in 63 deaths.
(V) 5 people have been killed so far in terrorist attacks since then. These were associated with the Naxalite movement.
(VI) If you would like to have an idea of the frequency of terrorist attacks worldwide, here is the list for 2008.

Aside from this, it is important to consider the death toll arising from malnutrition in India. Preventable Diseases?

Should we also not care about those innocent citizens who are being arrested and inhumanly assaulted in prisons to elicit a confession?

Amidst the media obsession and sickeningly excess coverage, it is important that we never forget the basic facts involved and lose sense of balance that is so crucial in a precarious situation like this.

Note:Edits made to original post.

Dislike for the mainstream

2008-12-06T22:01:00.004-05:00

What is common to the following: McDonalds, Coca Cola, Amheuser Busch, Hollywood blockbusters, MTV music, Windows, Walmart? Compare and contrast this with with their corresponding opposites : craft breweries , independent films, underground music, local farmers produce, Linux. There is a certain general statement that can be made about the former category and the adjectives used to describe them would include poor taste, culture of the masses, dumb, lowest common denominator, shallow, absence of complexity and sophistication. And the latter would be characterized as catering to niche audience, high quality and artistic merit, high culture, greater freedom and independence to experiment. Yes products and culture today fall into distinct classes and two broad ones that can be defined in this respect would be mainstream and well (for lack of a better word) non-mainstream. Ignoring whatever postmodernists have to say about recognizing such a division, we can all confidently say that such a distinction exists, rightly or wrongly, and it has been in our consciousness independent of how much we accept it.
The reason I started this article is because, while searching for the perfect beer to savor, I came across this interesting product from Stone Breweries that immediately drew my attention. It comes in a dark 22-ounce bottle, and has a monster picture in front and goes by the name of "Arrogant Bastard Ale" . Well, with such an aggressive, upfront title, it is naturally bound to make anyone curious. On looking at the details on the bottle closely, you see this warning :

"This is an aggressive beer. You probably won’t like it. It is quite doubtful that you have the taste or sophistication to be able to appreciate an ale of this quality and depth. We would suggest that you stick to safer and more familiar territory — maybe something with a multi-million dollar ad campaign aimed at convincing you it’s made in a little brewery, or one that implies that their tasteless fizzy yellow beer will give you more sex appeal. Perhaps you think multi-million dollar ad campaigns make a beer taste better. Perhaps you’re mouthing your words as you read this."

I couldn't care too much for my taste to be vindicated, but nonetheless I did add this one to my haul that evening.

Anyway, it has got me thinking ever since. And it is not the first time I have come across such elitism for the rare, the strange, the under-appreciated and even the unpopular. Heavy Metal Music is one department where you are likely to encounter some of the most haughty, smug bastards. An ardent fan of the art form, I know the feeling when people say that most music distributed widely has no intensity , no soul and no honest artistic expression. And it is equally true that we are being perpetually bombarded with silly, bloated, Hollywood excesses that we crave for something real and gritty. This particular case becomes an overkill if I introduce those awesomely innovative film industries in India.
A similar statement can be made on any of the other issues I mentioned at the beginning. What all this does to the 'superior',' better-informed, sophisticated' individual is to create a sense of contempt for everything commonplace and enjoyed by the majority in society. This is part reality, part cynicism, part a simple need to nourish the ego but whatever the cause may be it is sort of impossible not to feel that way when you turn on the TV and watch some mind-numbing sitcom that has millions of fans and has raked in profits several times that figure.

Here, I wish to argue that such a generalization about the worthiness of masses is totally wrong. In fact, the more I have broadened my horizons and learned about society, people, politics, history, culture and revolution , the more I have come to the conclusion that the masses are powerful, capable, perceptive and productive. I fact, I wish to completely abolish describing people with derogatory expressions like "masses". Yes, I say this after 47% of people in the most dominant nation-state on earth voted for an imbecile who understood foreign policy to mean geographical proximity.
It is a question of what aspect of civilization we are looking at and and its overall significance on people and society. What I have expressed my dislike for are things of a particular nature, ones whose impact is limited and those whose quality is really not a real life-and-death concern for people. On the other hand, consider the following: science, academia, literature, sports, jurisprudence. On any of these fields, what is regarded as mainstream and popular, and individuals held in high-esteem by the public is nearly coincident with opinions of better-informed people. For instance, Olympics are the biggest and grandest sporting extravaganza in the world but no one will argue that the best of talent is not represented there. In science the areas of research that follow mainstream scientific practices and procedures are always more likely to be accurate and be accepted in the future. In fact, there is a high probability that people not publishing in peer-reviewed journals are likely to be crackpots who make outlandish claims. Isn't it amazing that the mainstream scientific community that gets funded by taxpayer money is so structured that it weeds out fools and idiots and advances only those who observe the scientific method. I know there are several specific counter-examples to this but we need to take a broader look at the history of science and evolution to appreciate how the mainstream is always either (a) correct (b) eventually concedes to holding the wrong idea and corrects itself. In other words, it is far from obvious that the entire discipline was not sabotaged at some stage by crackpots (or creationists) to the point that the public understanding of science and budgetary allocations by government was based on their work. To a lesser degree the same applies to people who are working at NASA or inventing new weapons technology. These are multi-billion dollar projects but they involve the best and the brightest minds.
What about literature? Isn't Shakespeare considered the greatest playwright of all time? And who else but him occupies popular imagination of a literary genius. Majority of literature well-regarded by the critical establishment is also quite well-know to the public. In fact, even when it comes to something like music, no one is going to regard Britney Spears as a precocious wonder. Nor is a Rajnikath film going to win the Palm D'Or anytime soon. Or dethrone Satyajit Ray as a pioneer of creating a real movement in creative film-making in India.
Jurisprudence is another area where the best in the field come together to reach a consensus on contentious issues, resolving ambiguities, establishing precedents and protecting the highest ideals of the system. World history, anthropology, evolutionary biology, linguistics or any other academic research is an attempt to discover the facts of the world and it is usually free of any "mainstream biases" or influenced by political leanings.
But beyond all this, the most important example of the strength and importance of mainstream views and ideas is in the world of politics. Yes, the world inhabited by Bush and Palin.To understand why, stop for a moment and think of all the extremist political ideologies of radical organizations that exist everywhere on the planet. Political groups disguising their Fascist intents in more benign and acceptable expressions of nationalism that always receive support from certain circles that regard mainstream society as a bunch of misguided idiots. National Alliance, a White supremest organization in the United States, was headed by a theoretical physicist. Its members are usually people from of upper-levels of American society -scientists, lawyers, doctors, businessmen. And closer to home, aren't there Hindu intellectuals who have sympathy for RSS assertions of India being a Hindu nation? And this feeling is no less strong amongst plenty of Indian diaspora living in United States. (Why the fuck are they here?). What about the sober Bengali and Keralite communist intellectuals who, if given power, would not just put India out of the international stage but unleash vast destruction and carnage eventually adding another name to the doctrine's stellar gallery of exponents from Stalin to Kim-Jong-il. Imagine what would happen if the larger society had no voice in a system where "intellectuals" and privileged members had more political leverage. Dictatorship, totalitarianism, communism and all such ruthless regimes will take root. However brilliant and level-headed the individuals may be,inordinate power will ultimately result in authoritarian rule that clings on to this power by whatever means it can.Despite its many flaws and contradictions, democracy and equality are the greatest ideals in modern politics and for that to function mainstream opinions has to be given the maximum importance.

Apart from all this rationalizing, I must all also mention that from a standpoint of pure humanity, it is quite dogmatic to regard intelligence,appreciation of art, philosophy or any other attribute as being something so prized that it endows those people with special rights and privileges. Does being a decent human being not count as something admirable if it not accompanied by erudition or cultural sophistication? Besides, I am sure a run-of-the-mill Shah-Rukh-Khan film buff is more likely to be useful in practical situations than stiff, pretentious art-collectors. Or beer connoisseurs!

That brings me back full circle to the Arrogant Bastard Ale. Did I appreciate its depth? Was I worth it? Unfortunately, no. I thought I enjoyed bitter ales but this was so overwhelmingly hopped that it pretty much destroyed every other flavor in the beer. It got a little better towards the end but I had some difficulty in finishing it. Verdict: I am not sophisticated enough.

Movie Review: Battle of Algiers

2008-12-06T00:19:00.011-05:00

Successful independence movements invariably involve great turmoil, desperation, individual courage and sacrifice , carnage and even ruthlessness. The Algerian War of Independence which lasted over a period of about 8 years was one of the more violent and bloody efforts that resulted in collapse of the French rule in the country. Occurring nearly a decade after the Second World War, the battle was raged when public attitudes and the political landscape made it difficult for open repression and dominance by colonial powers. Nonetheless, as clearly shown in this incredibly powerful film The Battle of Algiers , the war was savage and brutal. It also manages to capture the spirit of the struggle, the opposing viewpoints,an element of reasonableness amongst key players on both sides involved in the conflict and a collective human drama that unfolds as naturally as it is disturbing.

Released in 1965, only 3 years after freedom was declared for Algeria, this movie does a splendid job of recreating the atmosphere of discontent, violence and a growing sense of nationalism. An Italian production featuring one of the members of the FLN (National Liberation Front) playing a similar role, the film was banned in France for portraying the French policy and tactics in a less than noble way. This fact should not surprise anyone after watching the film. Remarkably even-handed as it is, it does not flinch one bit from chronicling the atrocities committed by both sides.

Shot in black-and-white in a way resembling a documentary, Battle of Algiers is a hyper-realistic, stark and unforgettable experience. The images of the ramshackle buildings,the narrow alleys, the rampant poverty and the street urchins that populate the screen are stunningly real. So is the determination on the faces of women as they plant deadly bombs in areas not far from small children.

The opening scene sets the tone for what it to come. An intensely frail, emaciated man with sunken cheekbones, is sitting on a chair baring his scarred chest in a room, as a few uniformed men surrounding him express regret that he had not "talked" earlier. He is helped to his feet, after the commanding officer enters the room, and as he struggles to maintain his ground, he is asked to put on the military uniform so that he is not easily identified. As he is about to be taken with the troops, he makes one last desperate but utterly hopeless effort to run away screaming "Nooooooo" but it takes only a few beatings and some threatening words to convince him to co-operate- in informing the French about the hideout of Ali-La-Ponte one of the leaders of FLN.
The FLN, as Lt. Colonel Matthieu explains to his soldiers, is like a tapeworm. Unless you destroy the head, it is always going to be regenerating its body and creating further problems. Col. Mathieu is given charge of combating the rising insurgency in Algeria and maintaining the French rule in the country. He understands that FLN is the greatest threat to French control, and wants his men to get rid of the organization altogether. He describes the protocol observed by outlaws when recruiting new members, and the complications that it entails for the French forces. While not explicitly stating it, he does indicate what is required of an "interrogation" to extract information from prisoners. The torture scenes are painful to watch but no one would question its honest inclusion in the film. Yes, the hideous establishments of Guantanamo Bay and Abu Grahib come to mind just as so many events in this war uncannily resonates with contemporary political scenarios. It raises questions about the justification of terrorism by the weaker side. Is killing of innocent civilians acceptable if that happens to be the only mode of effective attack available for people fighting against oppression? However one has to be careful about interpreting Battle Of Algiers too- it was war to end colonial rule and as such drawing close parallels to other conflict zones may be improper.

Battle Of Algiers does not follow all the events in the war and focuses on the uprising in Algiers. While it depicts the violent activities of the FLN and French attempt to implement counter-insurgency methods to thwart them, there are some lead characters through whom some of the story is developed to provide a personal element to the narration. Many of these are either real individuals taking part in the struggle or are based on other real characters. Ali-La-Ponte is one of them, a disgruntled, illiterate , juvenile offender, he develops a violent dislike for French authority in Algeria and joins the ranks of FLN. Young and impulsive, he does not hesitate in slaying cops or Algerians he considers as traitors. His fiery personality takes takes him higher-up in the organization and he leads the way in staging public protests and carrying out lethal attacks.
The head of the FLN is El-Hadi Jafar, a character that is based on Saadi Yacef and played by himself. Jafar appears more controlled and thoughtful but he is just as radical not only in retaliation and destabilizing the French control, but also in his intolerance for his people who are victims of common weaknesses -alcohol, drugs, prostitution. While we sympathize with the Algerians for their battle against an external presence we cannot ignore the draconian impositions they enforce on society.

Ali-La-Ponte and others initially assault cops and others directly involved in nation's administration and law-enforcement, but after a bomb attack by an extremist French reporter that leaves several people dead, including children (I cannot over-emphasize how some of those images are disturbingly real), they increasingly target civilian French population.
The FLN runs a nationalistic propaganda to convince more people to enter the organization and support their goals. Their efforts to create discontent amongst Algerians is as important as their involvement in destabilizing French control through attacks. Another brilliant stroke of Battle Of Algiers is portrayal of the striking contrast between the poor living conditions of the Algerians, their slovenly attire and the swanky coffee-houses and bars frequented by the French. There is area in the city referred to as "European Quarters" where native Muslims are not permitted to move freely and I assume this was a common fixture in all European colonies. And yet that place is infiltrated by dangerous Muslim women - an entry facilitated by their change in attire more resembling the French . These women had resolved to carry out horrifying attacks and follow through they do with definite anxiety but little or no guilt (if only Hollywood was bold or honest enough to show simple truths like this, we would not be so shocked).

When random attacks increase and create considerable problem for the authorities, the French decide to bring in a military battalion to suppress the revolt. Leading the way is Mathieu, another character based on several French officers,- a suave, charismatic leader who draws enormous admiration and respect for his sense of balance and understanding, even though he does not countenance Algerian uprising and authorizes torture to capture the leaders of FLN. His charm, wit ,elegance and control can never be missed even when as he tackles tough questions from left-wing French media. Far removed from a monster caricature, he is simply a faithful soldier who does what is necessary to impose rule of law and protect French citizens. That does not stop him from publicly expressing admiration for some of the captured extremists, their courage and their principles. Some of his remarks, along with those of Ben M'hidi (the ideological voice of FLN) represent the simple but extremely profound truths about the nature of the confrontation and its ultimate objectives. These truths are simply laid out bare in the film, without any pontification or melodrama. Musical score is rare, but it is used to great effect in some of the dramatic moments like troops storming buildings or while depicting large-scale protests.

In the end, the military cracks down on most of FLN operatives but a few, including its leaders, are still at bay. One by one, they are brought down but not before the face-off results in maximum carnage. On their part, the French rank-and-file display racial and cultural arrogance in their sheer contempt for Algerian natives, often denigrating them as "Dirty Arabs". The Algerian fighters, on the other hand, are so disenchanted with the French that they relentlessly inflict as much damage as possible without any sign of remorse. The FLN is finally destroyed, when the remaining leader Ali-La-Ponte along three others hiding behind a wall are blown to bits after they refuse to surrender for a fair trial.

The FLN in Algiers may have been successfully suppressed and things seemed to be under control for a while but disquietude was most certainly going to grow one way or the other. In the last ten minutes or so, we are taken through a quick roundup of what happened in the following years. The limited random insurgency eventually gives way to massive widespread demonstrations, a collective desire for freedom and a national awakening to the possibility of complete independence. With only a small force battling against a large population, the situation becomes untenable for the French and they eventually concede.

(Algeria gained its independence in 1962 after a plebiscite organized by DeGaulle resulted in an overwhelming support for independence)

Elections

2008-10-26T21:04:00.010-04:00

It is simply astonishing how long the US Presidential elections run. Campaigning for the major candidates in this year's election are said to have begun more than 20 months ago. They gathered momentum towards the end of last year and received copious coverage on the national and international media. The primaries and the Caucuses kicked off sometime in February after a series of long, aggressive rallies in different states and some very decisive debates that were widely publicized. The nomination process dragged along painfully from state to state for well over 3 months. It went all the way down the wire even after a flurry of results are declared following Super Tuesday for the Democatic nomination amidst great drama and excitement. Each of these primaries made headlines on every media outlet in the country, and there are thousands of them if you include the radio stations and local broadcasters. It is not just the final outcome that is reported, but the events leading up to the vote, the impassioned speeches, the sentiments of people, opinion polls, pre and post analysis , statistics and a slew of other things aimed at expanding the viewership. Remember this is nearly one full year before the incumbent bigot would leave the White House.

In this intervening period, Russia, Italy, Pakistan,Canada and Austria have all gone to the polls and elected their leaders. Those countries are from the top of my head and I bet there are dozens more that went ahead without creating more than a ripple in the international media . I also bet that the majority of people, including myself, who were aware of US primaries knew little or nothing at all regarding the results of the general elections in any of these countries. What can possibly explain this drastic difference in awareness? Media is the culprit surely. It seems that the more apropos question would be to ask why ? Why is there such a staggering excess of focus on electing someone to the Oval Office when others are almost ignored. Is it because journalists believe in the overwhelming importance of the elections? It is beyond question that the Chief Executive of United States has unparalleled power and privilege, but the sheer volume of campaign news makes most of it utterly devoid of new content. Or is it because the American media is the largest and also the most advanced? Could all this simply be the direct consequence of news reporting being a for-profit enterprise that just turns the race into a thrill ride for those following it closely, not unlike football games. Perhaps, but it certainly cannot explain why these elections are followed in other countries and by foreign networks. I can clearly recall watching a news report on BBC in 2006 about a small rally held by Hillary Clinton. Yes, that was 2006, less than 2 years after Bush was sworn in again. Remember how well Barack Obama was received when he traveled to Europe and gave a speech in Berlin? Most in Europe, both governments and people alike, seem quite definite in their choice of Obama for President. In India, The Hindu which usually does not concern itself with foreign affairs and internal politics has been carrying articles on the various candidates right from the start of the campaign. The only conceivable reason for this disproportionate interest is do with the unfortunate reality that what is important is decided by the extent of coverage given to it by the major media networks. While undeniably high quality and content is often rigorously maintained in newspapers like New York Times, it appears that there is always the pressure to feed reader's obsession with information surrounding events such as elections. Take a look at Washington Post or Slate during the last few weeks and you will find countless opinions on the campaign. And these are some of the best news sources in the world. It strikes me as an utter waste of journalistic talent especially when that talent can be put to use in dozens of other crucial issues around the world that desperately cry out for some media attention. Such issues exist in this nation itself and there are several more in other parts of the world, particularly in areas of constant conflict and instability.
To be fair, for many of these media organizations, the ultimate source of money comes from circulation/viewership and being completely oblivious of their audiences' expectations cannot make their business very successful. They are forced to maintain a balance between high standard and satisfying their patrons. I could have made a good case defending this unproductive excesses were it not for the extraordinary amount of space devoted to Sarah Palin. It did not take me more than a few hours following the announcement of her candidacy to conclude that she was the most incompetent ignoramus to be on the verge of sitting in the White House. Lampooning her is inevitable and it is hard to resist the temptation. But despite all that, it is quite unfortunate that such a huge chunk of all articles and opinions in major newspapers have been devoted to flaying her tirelessly. Even the financial crisis did not receive as much attention. I suspect it is because it is so much easier to bash Palin than even reckless corporate executives.
As I write, there is a very serious crisis in Congo where the lives of thousands of people are under imminent threat. Most people in the developed world have little awareness of it since it is unlikely to make the headlines anywhere. And even if it did, not for too long. There is plenty of more exciting things to be covered.

Finally, I cannot help but imagine the magnitude of travesty, if after 20 months of campaigning, worldwide following, several panels of experts , hundreds of statistics , thousands of smart, capable journalists and millions of dollars spent, John McCain becomes President and Sarah Palin a breath away from the Office.

Is the most powerful man in the world just like any average guy?

2008-08-29T21:15:00.014-04:00

As the race for the White House heats up, I cannot help but notice the complete contradictions in the nature of the ambitions involved and the stated personal attributes of the candidates. This point sunk in deep as I was listening to the speeches delivered at Democratic National Convention. Throughout the campaign, Barack Obama has been repeatedly insisting that he is a common man who can relate to the problems and grievances of regular middle-class, blue-collar Americans. In his attempt to woo the voters, he has often appealed to the common dreams and goals he shares with millions of fellow citizens. He often talks of his family and the way in which the little experiences of a modest background have shaped his perspectives. He professes his love for his children at every opportunity as a way of connecting with parents across the nation. And then there is the whole faith issue - about how his personal religious beliefs have helped him through life's upheavals and been a constant source of guidance and inspiration. No doubt all this appeals to common people because of their simple nobility and honest-to-goodness. At the Convention, it was his wife Michelle who was doing most of this appeal to the "common thread" that supposedly runs through the lives of all Americans. That was a damn good speech of hers I should say. That is, if you does not carefully consider the real content of her speech. Because if you did, you would realize quite instantly that there really isn't much of one to speak of. Aside from what is merely a regurgitation of the above points her hubby makes every time on stage, there were just enough descriptions of her own past thrown in to show how parallel their aspirations in life are.
Consider this - Barack Obama is running for the most powerful office on this planet, one so excessive that it can basically change the global military, economic and political situation irrevocably in less time than it takes to prepare that Convention speech. And we have witnessed nothing less than that from the nightmarish two terms of George Bush. Occupying a seat of such enormous power, importance and influence is no meagre task even if you are guaranteed certain immunity from removal or accountability -another aspect we have watched in abundance during the last 7 years. Given the importance, the person is always under national and international spotlight, every single decision, statement, gesture and action studied in great detail and interpreted and commented upon extensively. Such an individual is perpetually besieged by an endless array of press conferences,meetings with advisers and Cabinet, committee hearings, diplomatic missions ,appearance at formal gatherings, speeches and a whole lot of other nagging businesses. While all this is generally true of any national leader, given that the Constitution of the United States entrusts Executive power solely in the hands of a one man (atleast for now I don't have to be PC about gender unless grandpa McCain gets elected and pops off), it is all the more a relentless stream of activity. And like it or not, the President has to put up a pleasant, smiling face through all that. With so much involved, do you want me to believe even a normal politician, let alone a common man, would seek such an office. No fucking way. The need for absolute power can come only with excessive greed, boundless ambition, self-aggrandization, a sense of supreme confidence bordering on narcissism and a complete disregard for the few people you may have just trampled over along the way. Anything less than that and some minimal stability would convince anyone to steer clear of the hot seat. This is true about anyone running for Presidency, however well-meaning you may believe he is. And even if he a billion times better than his opponent, as is glaringly obvious in the case of Barack Obama.
Yet, we will have to endure Obama - and all other power-zany politicians across the globe - talk about how they are a typical representative of their countrymen.
Despite it being such an outright lie, it goes down well with the people and always has been and always will be. In fact, anything that strays ever so slightly from such an angle is deemed elitist and a certain vote-loss. No matter how accurate and honest that position may be.
This hypocrisy has to go away. Clearly someone worthy has to occupy such a powerful position. Once we accept that, we also need to also understand and tolerate all the egomania that comes with it - something that is as essential to the position as anything else. When we acknowledge this simple truth, then there would be no need for power-addicted politicians to pretend that they are like average people. They could just go on to more substantive issues that concern the nation instead of talking about how much their family means to them.

1984

2008-07-26T16:45:00.011-04:00

A bit of my minimal reading background is in order here. It has been many years now since I put down a finished novel with a sense of satisfaction that comes with having done something worthwhile. It is partly this sense of not doing something useful that has kept we away from fiction for along time. I do not get very excited about the plots, development , twists or even the denouement in the novel. My response is less positive after I have labored through several hundred pages. Compound this to the fact that I am a really slow reader and my lack of any enthusiasm for novels can be immediately understood. However, it is also possible that the few books that I did read recently were probably not the the best suited to my current tastes. In any case, since the total number of fiction works that I have completed reading in the last 10 years or so is less than 15, it is pretty clear that I could not have explored all the different genres that could potentially be of interest to me. Anyway, one thing is certain - thrillers, action novels, and whodunit plots are some of the styles that don't appeal to me any longer. And since the last adventure that I finished was Da Vinci Code, I pretty much gave up on the idea of reading long novels for entertainment.

But after watching the incredible Brazil , I discovered that a lot of people were comparing it to George Orwell's Nineteen-Eighty -Four. On learning further about the basic themes explored in the book, I was convinced that I needed to give this a try. I ordered it from Amazon but didn't bring myself to begin reading it for a long time. When I did finally start, I read intermittently not being all that impressed with the world that was depicted. I found it far removed from reality to draw my admiration. However, when I went beyond the first 80 pages or so, it became increasingly clear that I could not have made a better choice for rekindling my interest in books. This was exactly what I wanted to read, learn from, ponder over and relish. It must certainly be one of the most terrifying and yet real visions of the future. Its universe is horribly bleak, one where escape is virtually impossible and seeking change is dangerous even if only contemplating it . The conditions that people are forced to live in is truly disturbing, the mechanism by which the Government exerts complete control is revolting as is the very meaning of life and happiness that people are made to believe. Most importantly though, the reason it evokes such a strong reaction where many other darker pictures may not, is because the author builds a convincing case for such a situation that it is hard to deny the possibility of such a dystopian future in the real world.

The outline of the novel can be summed up shortly : Oceania (basically Britain and North America) , one of the three super-states in existence sometime around 1984 (the book was written in 1948), is ruled by an omnipotent oligarchy (The Party) that imposes absolute control over its citizens. It takes the totalitarianism and despotism we know from dictatorships, ruthless Communist regimes, and Fascists to the next level. Freedom is non-existent in a very literal sense. That includes the freedom to write a diary, speak to oneself , display eccentricities or even show inadvertently a mild deviance from expected behavior, or to even think a forbidden thought . In fact, the English language is being continually updated to eliminate such words that could be associated with notions of liberty, independence, objective reality and freedom. How well can you develop opinions on such concepts when you have no way to frame them in language? The members of the Party, even the most loyal and dedicated ones, are under perpetual surveillance, achieved through various means not the least of which is the presence of giant telescreens at all places. Telescreens that can watch you all the time and can catch you red-handed while committing unofficial infringements like sulking. The idea of absolute control is combined with the the need to create a situation where everyone loves and admires Big-Brother ( the symbolic figurehead of the Party in whose name all actions are sworn by ) on their own accord. It is a system where the Party manages to convince the vast majority of its members to fall in line on their own will, and those who don't , disappear, uh..em ,don't exist anymore. Which brings us to the most frightening aspect of this creation, that the past is alterable. How? Simply because the past is what exists in records -newspapers, pamphlets, photographs, sound clips, video , testimonies, painting, or any other documentation, and when these records are systematically destroyed or altered what concrete evidence is there is to support the claim that a particular event had taken place? The memory retains the event of course, but it is highly unreliable and subjective. Besides, when all hard evidence has disappeared, it is not impossible to imagine that memories also become distorted and inconclusive.
Here in such a world, inhabits one Winston Smith, a member of the Records department in the Ministry of Truth who is involved in the process of record-falsification. While he does not openly rebel against the Party (he would end up dead even before he begins) there is a growing awareness in him about how the Party manages to stay in absolute control by spreading lies, destroying records, brainwashing people, restricting freedom of thought, enforcing a blind collectivist mindset and even altering the nature of human relationships. He teams up with one of his co-workers, Julia, with whom he has a secret affair (sex is strictly forbidden amongst party members except in the context of procreation, where it is practised in a dehumanized ritual-like manner) . She too hates the Party and resents lack of freedom, but her rebellion is limited to issues that are concerned with her life directly. However, while they enjoy their brief time together and toy with the immature idea of subverting the Party's control, they are eventually captured before they can even bring out the tiniest of change. The most horrifying part is not that they fail miserably, or that they have to undergo barbaric torture but what ultimately happens to Winston. That is the story in a nutshell.

While it may be argued that such a future, as perfectly regimented as this one could rarely exist, most of the ideological basis for implementing the schemes and methods by which the Party maintains power and unites its members in its support are incredibly accurate.
For instance, not only is there no freedom but that people are made to believe that such a state of existence is better for their lives and moreover, the ultimate aim of the Party is to create an environment where such a vision as freedom does not exist at all. This is first done by convincing the people that Party is always right and beyond reproach. Then it generates an elaborate propaganda to create an impression that it is providing the best for the people and it has never fallen short of achieving the goals it has set for itself. Then it sets out, using all the power and resources it has at its disposal, to annihilate every shred of information that might imply the contrary. It makes the people feel strong and triumphant and even invincible when they align with the Party and its doctrines. Alone, they are powerless and defeated. When they give up their identity and merge with the Party, they stand together as a single force to be reckoned with. As the book explains, the Party slogan "Freedom is Slavery " is far from some contradiction or wordplay. It is a terrifying truth about life. Furthermore, with each new update of the NEWSPAEAK (the official language of the Party), the words that express free spritedness, deep feelings and independent thought cease to exist. The language is progressively deformed to a structure which can either express approval of the Party doctrines or its exact opposite. In that way, everyone's postiton with respect to the party becomes clear: either they stand by it or oppose it in which case they get easily spotted. That leaves no room for some complex criticism or any ambiguous thought which may be detrimental to the Party.

Much like this, we learn a lot about political power and how it should be obtained and then maintained. Society, says Goldstein, the supposed leader of the rebel organization, has always been divided into three groups: the ruling elite who always want to retain power, the middle class who have want to wrest the power from the ruling class but preach liberty and equality to gather the support of the proletarians, who are last in this hierarchy. The proles have no way of partaking this power and their conditions barely depend on who is ruling them . However, for this to happen, the proles have to be deliberately stupefied by drudgery and impoverishment. They should be made to endure hardships all the time so that they don't get any leisure or security which would allow them to grow awareness and become intelligent, something that is dangerous to those who are in power. The proles should always remain occupied with their daily lives to even consider such a heretic thought as displacing those in power. In order to do just that, there are wars which creates a necessity for increased production. The war is intended for the sole purpose of keeping proles in all super-states busy . It did little to affect the structure of the society and there was no other advantage for any of the countries involved to be fighting the war other than keeping the proles out of political process.

What is the point of all this? The answer is simple - power is not a means to an end but the end itself. Power for power's sake, power to torture and humiliate, and power to maintain status quo. This is the point in the novel that is utterly devastating. It is the sort of nihilistic, meaningless world which cannot be comprehended in a standard rational sense. For me though, I believe there is tremendous truth in this seemingly absurd objective. Power is something that is desirable for its own good. To many this is unsatisfactory because of the feeling that there has to be a grand rationale behind all this even if it is an evil one. Not me. I do not reason beyond this point and so the book to me is philosophically sound and consistent.

Finally, I have to add how much I appreciated the writing style. The author uses a simple, direct and extremely clear language to express everything. This is a very easy and natural narration that always makes one focus on the grimness, isolation and irredeemable nature of the world.

Assignments and deadlines

2008-04-24T20:56:00.005-04:00

When was the last time that I uniformly distributed a lengthy assignment over the entire duration that was available before submission. Seems like an occasion so long ago that I am unable to recall it. Or more likely, the answer is a simple no, never. For every time I knew in advance that I had to turn in an homework or write up a summary of an article before a deadline, I have never worked on it at a uniform pace. In fact, I have never even come close. It would be more accurate to describe a typical scenario of this sort as work that begins with fits and starts, hardly makes any progress at the half-way point in time, drifts around without any definite direction or clarity for a while, then enters a phase where the magnitude of the task ahead looms large and some of the early parts to it (roughly 25% ) is done with some seriousness and a sense of purpose, then strangely enough slows down again after which, the the leftover fraction appears like a mammoth challenge of race against time. This final stage is the most frenzied period that is characterized by a desperate sense of urgency that leads to desperate means to achieve the goal. Sleepless nights (as if insomnia does not screw me over sufficiently), lots of caffeine (mostly a distraction and less of real benefit), rapidly flipping through notes and texts for hints, exchanging status-of-progress-information with others stuck with the same problems, handwriting getting more illegible with every word, lots of vague guesses thrown in, writing out solutions that are either incomplete or so strange that I have no clear idea of what it all means are some of the several complex responses that are generated by an infallible defence mechanism. Ultimately, I'd be barely satisfied with my effort and even on the best days I probably would have glossed over a dozen doubts that would be propped-up in my head while working it. I have to confess that this activity has more in common with last-dash to meet deadline in corporate world than in an academic setting where one professes seeking objective truth and knowledge. What a shame! Despite all promises to myself that the situation would be dramatically different every time, the events unfold in an eerily identical manner. It reinforces my belief certain aspects of life always remains the same. Always.

Problem with units

2008-04-18T20:36:00.003-04:00

After spending nearly three-quarters of a year in US, I am still finding it difficult to place quantities expressed in pounds, inches, miles, ounces, pints, quarts, fahrenheit, etc. Every time I encounter them in a grocery store or a liquor shop, I have to do the arithmetic. It is simple but I hate the fact that I have to do the conversion to get a sense of the magnitude.
I have never quite understood the reluctance of the Anglo-Saxons to accept metric system. Especially so in the States, where there is a lot of emphasis given to practical convenience in everyday life. That being the case, it is quite strange that people prefer units are related by unwieldy constants as compared to the simple ratios in powers of 10, that characterizes the metric system. When you can revamp the language and make modifications to both the spelling and pronunciation of words on the grounds that it is more natural, why the hell would you not change this inconvenient and confusing units to something simple and direct? It is true that people have become used to it but should you not make the switch when it is a better option.
Most parts of the world have adopted the metric standard . And what's more, even in Britain, there is a law that requires all products to carry the metric units as well. Now, that makes the continued insistence on using "English Units" another example of American Exceptionalism.

A Bias for Success

2008-03-28T21:20:00.010-04:00

Ever since I was young, I have come across several fascinating accounts of great individuals and their remarkable achievements. These come in various forms (biography, quotations,anecdotes, aphorisms, a short segment of life) and from different sources (newspaper articles, television, textbooks). Great leaders,wise men and philosophers, brilliant scientists, spiritually enlightened souls that guide humanity, selfless social workers, intrepid soldiers and physically disabled people who showed great strength at times of adversity. In my case, given the academic background, it is no surprise that most of them that made a mark on me were either physicists or mathematicians. Newton, Hawking, Einstein, Archimedes, Feynman, Leibnitz and Godel were all legendary and storied about. Anyone doing physics would point to one or several of these were icons as sources for inspiration, particularly during their early years.

Often it happens, especially when directed at a broad audience, that the portrayal of these giants of humanity is so constructed that it conveys an idea to the reader that such a level of greatness can be attained without requiring any superhuman efforts. It is understandable that most people would not consider following the footsteps of great men if doing so is shown to be arduous, painful and drearily long. In order to make these immortal lives more accessible to the average Joe, the magnitude of accomplishments and the unusual qualities that made them possible are all carefully masked by some generic, oversimplifying statements.The achievements are presented in an incomplete and narrow way without proper context or historical background and that way that makes appear quite attainable. This strikes me as being a sham that manages to create an inaccurate picture of the reality involved and leads the young impressionable-mind to form opinions and make assumptions that are entirely misguided.
My principal criticism has to do with the fact that, people are falsely lead to believe that absolutely fantastic feats in life can be performed by just following some simple guidelines and this is made convincing and appealing by using a renowned person as an epitomizing example. So, when importance of determination and will-to-succeed is stressed we hear stories about Tenzig Norgay just as we do Edison when it comes to dogging persistence, and Newton for having childlike curiosity to understand the world. What we are never told are the innumerable cases where such virtues have not resulted in the commensurate success but rather left people much worse-off. We never hear about the lives of the bold men who died trying to conquer the highest peak, the thousands who tried hard and failed at inventions, and dozens of exceptionally gifted minds for whom childlike curiosity did not lead to anything very noteworthy. I certainly do not deem such instances to be failures in life but isn't it only fair to expect that one gets to know about these less-than-great people who appear (on the surface atleast ) to possess those same attributes that are extolled as the basis for extraordinary feats. Instead, we are repeatedly informed about the select few who did accomplish. It is important that one stops and asks what this "few" really implies. In other words, what is the fraction of those who attained the rare and celebrated distinction to the hundreds or even thousands who had attempted but failed. I would bet that his ratio would be a disappointingly tiny number. If developing certain positive traits is all it takes to elevate normal people to the plane of greatness, then I am sure many of those less-than-accomplished, unheard-of people who happened to fall short of grand success would possess some of the same qualities to a great degree and in specific cases even more.And yet they never made it. If such cases received greater exposure one would possibly be able to truly appreciate what distinguishes the great from the excellent, the good and the commonplace. Not just that, it would also ring a cautionary bell in people who are trying to emulate the success of remarkable individuals. They ought to know beforehand of the several instances where people have attempted that with earnest commitment and yet , never achieved anything quite comparable.
All this may seem like I am advocating a very negative approach. It is certainly true that if cases of failure or even limited and unspectacular attainments becomes more widely known, many would be discouraged at the outset and never aim for anything so big. It can also be argued that even those who are likely to go through with the challenge would be intimidated right at the start and never try. This is certainly possible but considering how one-sided the current trends are, I still feel that it is important to give a more balanced picture of what the reality is like. The positive effects of such an honest examination can be plenty. It would lead many to ask searching questions about whether they are prepared to embark on a notoriously difficult quest that several have quit or failed in the past. One has to have the courage to accept the challenges ahead. After all, it would be required in great measure once the arduous path begins. Besides, it is better to have a more balanced view at the beginning than be disillusioned later on. The idea is not to discourage but to inform, not to intimidate but to warn, not to dampen spirits but question how far the motivation can an individual.

Top 10 lists

2008-01-14T22:20:00.005-05:00

It seems to me that everyone loves ranking lists. Top 10s, Top 20s, Top 100s and why, even Top 1000s. Almost everyone uses them at one point or the other to determine their choice in regards to various things, be it movies, colleges, books, holiday getaways, digital cameras or gift shops.. This seems like natural thing to do when you are looking for some guidance and there is a sea of options in front of you. I do agree that when it comes to products and consumer goods, it may be good idea to use these rankings but however, I believe it is incorrect to apply it to judge something like art, individual careers, relative accomplishments and other more subtle aspects in life.

Take the example of rankings of music artists or records. While drawing up comparisons and distinctions between two musical works can be an interesting, instructive and meaningful exercise , the need to always rigidly rate one above the other occurs to me as being quite unnatural. Why assume that two separate creations, each to be viewed in its own context, possessing different merits, dealing with disparate subject matter, can be placed one below the other on some linear scale? The experience one derives from two sources can vary greatly and stimulate different responses. After all it is not like our brain functions though a single neuron with different intensities. Why then are so many obsessed with finding out what is the best when no such thing is well-defined? The idea that this is always possible has an effect both on the individual who compiles the list and those that depend on them. For the former, the motivation to make a list will lead him/her to forcibly make value judgements based on a ill-defined and arbitrary criteria. And for the latter, especially the one who seeks such Top 10's , the mere fact that there are ranks rigidly setting two things apart can give rise to false assumption on their relative worth. For example, consider a ranking of Top 100 movies of all time. It is very likely that the precise rankings would significantly depend on the time and mood of the individual(s) involved in deciding those ratings, and for someone going through the list, the movie listed at the top would be assumed to be much better than the last entry when in fact, the distinction may be far less considering how selective a list of 100 movies in history of cinema is.

Another problem I have with Top 10s is about the constancy of the total number in all editions. I mean, why should it always be Top 10 and not Top 13 or a Top 7 ? . What is the index of deciding whether some contender should be included in the list (besides the space constraints)? Is it the consistency in the total number of slots or consistency in quality of the choices made? The moment you see such a Top 10 list , a certain quality is always assumed right at the outset and that can be a terrible mistake. When a newspaper lists the important events in the previous year, why not include whatever the editor deems significant (again, due considerations given to available space) irrespective of whether it 11 or 9? The Time magazine has come up with best of 2007 under different categories and each of them of course is one of either Top 10, 50 or 100. When you first see such a set, you are likely to think that the 10th place in the television shows is just as good (or mediocre) as the counterpart in theater productions. Of course, that need not ever be the case. In their defence, it can be argued that these lists cater to audiences with different preferences and so cross comparisons are not taken into account. But I still believe it is necessary for a magazine with the reputation and global reach of Time to give readers the editorial choice of what is significant and worthwhile rather than trying to fill up some fixed column numbers. It is very much possible that entries in one category was far superior than the other in a given year and in those instances it would be more intelligent to provide it greater coverage than to insist on some ill-conceived 'democratic' idea of satisfying the lowest common denominator with equal representation.

That said, as I have stated earlier, there are several occasions when such lists come very handy. Staying on the same topics as books, if you have recently begun to read novels, looking up some Top 100 list will give you an idea of the supposed classics and can guide initial selections. Also, I believe it is important to draw distinctions between two works which are of unequal standards. How else can one assess quality if one is not allowed to make any judgement. What I find artificial is the necessity for absolute rankings. It is also fine if you are making assorted recommendations but the obsessive need to put them in order is unwise.

When the AFI made the list of Top 100 movies (which included all the usual suspects of course), one critic made a very pertinent point that it would have been so much more rewarding for the fans and the industry to have come up with a suggestion of 100 great films that were forgotten or went unnoticed and made an analysis of them and argued why they deserve a second viewing. Instead, the AFI not only made everyone complacent by placing their favorite choices but also made several secondary lists on silly categories like 100 villains, 100 thrills, 100 laughs and so on ... Neither AFI nor Time are exceptions in not realizing that what is important is to introduce people to things to significant things they don't know instead of creating a unnatural competition of things they do know. This seems to be a ingrained in everyone's consciousness and reinforced by the media-culture.

A pretty good live-show

2007-12-17T16:55:00.000-05:00

Blender Theater, Manhattan :

12/16/07

I was actually a little unsure if I should be attending this event because I still had some work to finish for the semester and didn't want to botch it up with last-minute frenzy like in the past. However, just like so many other conclusions that unfailingly repeats itself, things are headed in the exact same direction yet again. However, being locked in the apartment for over 3 days, partly due to the unfavorable weather, I realized I needed a break if I was to stay sane and ventured to go despite warnings of bad weather a few hours before. New Brunswick is a convenient place to be if you have no personal vehicle and your destination is New York. Just head to the train station that is easily accessible, catch the NJ Transit rail that is scheduled once every 20 minutes, travel for less than an hour in a relatively empty compartment, and after you cross the underground tunnel across Hudson river, you've reached Penn Station at W 33rd Street. As simple as that.The weather was surprisingly moderate when I got there. Blenders Theater was a fair walk from Penn Station and when I reached there, it was 7.10 , 40 minutes past the start of the show. Unfortunately , as I was realize a few minutes after, it was not late enough to avoid the tasteless opening act, Shat ( an outfit led by the former bass player of Dilinger). The lyrical content and imagery of the band is exactly what you can imagine from the their name. It is an all-out dick/fart jokes porngrind band who came on with the most outrageously homoerotic costume anyone can imagine. Let me just say it was 90% male nudity with the remaining part mostly covered with dildos. And they ended their insipid set list with a song daring chicks to show their tits (that must have been their index to rate their success). Unfortunately, not even the biggest sluts in the audience would have considered amusing them for this pathetic show! Needless to mention, I didn't see any tits that night. And the less I say about the music the better. How the fuck these guys got to tour along with the other bands is beyond me.

Next, there was Genghis Tron from Philadelphia. Ok, these guys seem very unique. I say seem because they incorporate electronic music in their songs and that is not something I would listen to if I had a choice. But these guys were good. Basically, they are a 3 piece band, the guitarist, a vocalist who along with the third guy takes care of the programmed music and keyboards. The music itself shifts from regular pop beats to full-throttle blast-beats in no time. And there are times when all this blends really well with a fast keyboard piece, metal riffs and maybe an additional programmed layer to create something, which at times sounds rather odd and unplacable at others produces something undeniably arresting. It was momentarily brilliant, intense and very captivating .

Following that was the mediocre A Life Once Lost. They are one of the umpteen MetalCore bands in the US and since I don't care much for those grating half-riffs,the annoying screams and most other deviations from Classic Metal, this band just got on my nerves for the most part. However, I did hear some sections that was definitely sounded like Metal and just as I was beginning to get into it, it was completely destroyed with a reintroduction of "Core" elements.

After they cleared the stage, it was time for the headlining act to take over and by then the crowd had expanded to twice its initial size and the standing area was packed ,with anticipation growing during the sound check as most of them had been there just to watch Dilinger During this time, I squeezed my way across to the bar and got a beer. Shortly afterwards, the band kicked off and from then on, there was not single moment that was disappointing. To start matters, it is worth mentioning that they have a hyper-kinetic stage presence. All band members go berserk while playing and particularly one of the guitarists whom I often caught sight of in the middle of some acrobatic leap across the stage. Of course, had the music sucked, none of this would help redeem it in any way but in this case, it certainly enhanced the overall experience. And the music was good. This is a technical band that is very tight, discharging a burst of energy in each song but loading them with some incredible work on the instruments. The drumming is the standout. It is quick, sharp, very precise and has several tempo changes. The drumming somewhat tended to drown the guitars, as it usually happens when you see a band play songs you haven't heard before. Nonetheless, it was distinct enough to note the jazz-influenced magic that was being weaved out in that sector. Overall a great performance and I'd be inclined to attend their next show when they come around.

When I got out of the theater, it was a few minutes past eleven. Grabbing something to eat at Penn Station I got back to New Brunswick only to be left shivering in the terrible weather I had been duly warned of earlier that. That was for about 30 minutes before the campus bus came along.

The Big Debate -Part 1

2007-12-14T21:06:00.000-05:00

For a beginning graduate student in Physics, it is not particularly easy decision to choose a certain area of research and a suitable advisor. Even if you have narrowed down your interests to a certain field , say for instance, Condensed Matter or Astrophysics, it can be hard from there on to zero in on what you are likely to enjoy the most (or, put differently, get the least frustrated by) . Ideally, you would like to try your hands in everything and develop some expertise and a feel for the nature of research activity involved. However, that is too much to ask in a normal circumstance given the limited duration to explore the options. Not to mention the courses and other things that keep you occupied for a substantial part of the time.
If High Energy Theory happens to be your inclination, then aside from the above predicaments, there is a whole new troublesome issue to deal with. That is if you are considering String Theory, a field whose ambitious goals are only matched by the controversy surrounding it. Over the past few years, this topic has become an issue that majority of people who are aware of it fall into distinct categories: those who passionately advocate it's mertis and those who severely condemn it as a grand failure. The middle ground in this case is virtually empty. And it is all the more bizarre that many (by no means all) of these very-opinionated individuals seem to have little or no understanding of the actual content, though somehow that fact does little to refrain them from foming premature opinions.
There is so much being said about it, strong reactions coming from everywhere, and when the subject is as advanced and mathematically sophisticated to the point that introducing it in more quick, direct manner would involve great oversimplification to render it quite useless for serious consideration, it is difficult to form a meaningful opinion yourself. And when the whole hoopla has reached crazy proportions, with some proponents going so far as to issue death threats against critics, it makes you all the more uncertain. Go over to any popular Physics blog or speak to any academic about it and you cannot escape the heat of this controversy. I am not an expert on the history of Physics, let alone science, but I can't think of anytime when something has been argued on for so long and with such energy but with no resolution in sight. Sure, the first quarter of the previous century can ring a bell as one reads this but the big difference in that glorious era was that opinions were ultimately tilting one way or the other. However, here it has been static for more than half a decade ( counting from the sharp rise in criticism, not the origin of the approach itself ) and what's most frustrating is that (and ironically the only thing in this issue that is definite), there is every reason to believe this is how it is going to be in the foreseeable future.
Some of the physicists working on it are even practical enough to advise students not to get into it in view of the poor job situation. But that is not a convincing reason to deter the curious and motivated. Or is it?

Dilinger Escape Plan

2007-12-12T23:53:00.001-05:00

So, these guys and headlining a US tour accompanied by a bunch of opening acts that play an equally unusual, experimental, genre-defying Metal/Metalcore. I haven't heard any of these other relatively-unknown bands but this is what Internet sources had to say about them. In fact, until I got to hear about this upcoming event in New York, I didnt bother to find out about Dilinger themselves.
What then was the reason for me to suddenly give their music a try? The explanantion for this goes a few weeks back to that unforgettable Sunday when I experienced the first live show in New York (also the first in this country)and what a way it was to begin with that ungodly, devastating, skull-pounding trio at the forefront of the NYDM scene, the veterans Suffocation and Immolation opened by a growing outfit Skinless. Now, I did enjoy that evening in some weird way but not being a big fan of any of these bands (and American Death Metal in general) the combined intensity of these monster bands was a tad too overwhelming for my unsuspecting self (what the hell did i expect with NYDM in an indoor arena ?). Nonetheless, Suffocation ruled in their own right!

Somewhat disappointed, I now want to go in for something that I want to really appreciate an enjoy. Yes, I booked tickets for Iron Maiden concert a couple of hours after they were available. But that surreal night is about 4 months from now and before that there really arent many bands that I can get too excited about. Too bad, Celtic Frost concluded their US tour a month before I arrived and I somehow managed to miss a Rush concert amidst the initial confusion and chaos of my stay. And so when I was informed about this Sunday's event, it got me interested because DEP has been mentioned to me in different contexts and when I heard that they were into math rock kind of stuff, I grew all the more curious. I am always interested in listening to new bands especially those that are unique and innovative. Unfortunately, despite all that, there are only a handful of bands that I really enjoy while there happens to be plenty I love to hate.

Anyway, to make a long story short, today being the last day of my semester and no pressing deadlines ahead, I decided to download Calculating Infinity off the very resourceful, convenient and legal Ruckus . How did it turn out? First impression is good. Very good. First, these guys are clearly Metal and there cannot be two opinions on that. It is something like Strapping Young Lad meets Cephalic Carnage. Not quite as heavy as SYL but they score highly on the virtuosity department. Everything about this is loaded with technical prowess - the tempo changes, the stop/start dynamics, the incredibly creative drumwork . There are plently time changes and quite dramatic in their occurence and execution. The variations are pronounced and unpredicatble but never do the songs reduce to a directionless jam session. And don't forget the balls-out sections where one is subjected to solid,powerful slabs of riffs. I can hear some Meshuggah influence as well but this is certainly not some overlong repetitive snorefest. There is so much going on in each song that it takes several listens to fully follow the musical direction.
If my opinions stay this way , it basically means that I would definitely like to watch these guys blast away this Sunday. I should start checking out the other bands lined up for the night . If they hapen to be half as talented as these guys are, there is every chance I'll have a great time this weekend. Besides, it is tempting that the admission fee is just 15 bucks. Seems like BB Kings is the most expensive venue in New York.

Why Blog?

2007-12-12T23:45:00.000-05:00

Well, this is something I need to address right at the outset. Why did I suddenly choose to direct my opinions, ideas, thoughts and various other expressions through this medium?Why now when the blogosphere has existed for so long?
I dont have a good answer now but will come back to this when I think of something meaningful.
Edit:
In the course of one's life, there is a seemingly perpetual and inevitable generation of thoughts, ideas, opinions and imaginations in the mind. In a way, it is quite natural and there is nothing remarkable about it. Usually, they are not particularly creative , stimulating, intelligent, insightful or wise or for that matter useful. In fact, more often than not, it is largely a preoccupation of your mind that comes in the way of other more productive work. So, we are resigned to accept its omnipresence. When it occupies a significant fraction of one's wakeful, semi-wakeful , semi-asleep time and everything in-between (classification becomes important if you are have insomnia like I do) , it makes some sense to collect it together and give it a semblance of progression and structure. I plan to blog about such perfunctory thoughts and ideas and I believe that would automatically give it the structure it requires. So, that's part of the reason. Only part because I am not restricting myself to just that. Actually, I am going to post about anything and everything that I fancy. It can be about cooking idlis as it can about exact solutions to Einstein's Equations or annoying Hollywood movies. Of course, since they all originate from the same source, it is only natural that some pattern would evolve eventually. More so because I tend to have distinct tastes and strong opinions. But that is only incidental, and is not related to any of my purposes (not listed too many, have I?) to blog.