Schrödinger's Shekhar's cat

I bring very good news,

The above mentioned cat, which so far evaded all the wise men (and foolish men and short men and girly men) since the Schrödinger published his accursed equation has been found. She is in a parallel universe, this incidentally also proves the theory of multiple universes.

As evidence I present this editorial by uber courageous journalist Mr Shekhar Gupta.

I propose, to make any sense of this one has to assume that Mr Gupta is living in a different universe. Excerpt from the article

"Boss, we did nothing to be in power. Now we have it, so let's keep it for as long as we can. But what if the lady (Sonia) decided to tell the Left enough was enough? She might believe in renunciation , but, Boss, what about the rest of us?"

Ahemm, it is difficult to understand the basis behind Mr Gupta's hope that Sonia Gandhi will tackle left and follow agenda for welfare of India and not of dynasty, Oh it is not this universe Mr Gupta is dwelling in.

"The typical Congressman sees his party, and, more specifically, the Gandhi family, as an open ticket to perpetual power. Their faith and loyalty are directly proportional to what that ticket can buy. And when somebody, even a Gandhi-Nehru, tries to change the rules, they panic, and break out in subversion sabotage and revolt.
Sonia would remember the history of Rajiv Gandhi's five years. There was widespread unease within the party the moment it looked like he was willing to make a departure from old-style Congress politics. His speech at the Mumbai AICC session in 1985, where he charged his partymen with being powerbrokers and worse, only confirmed their fears.
They wanted a Gandhi-Nehru merely to fetch them the votes and power. But if one showed the audacity to redefine how they exercised (or rather exploited) this power, he was going to be made to pay for it. The second half of Rajiv's term saw a spectacular decline in his, and his party's, fortunes as the same internal noise, suspicions and doubts robbed his government of its freshness and focus. "

Ofcourse Rajiv being a member of dynasty is above accusations of political expediency.

"They can't stand a Prime Minister who is not only competent and clean but is also widely respected. Their insecurities are compounded by the fact that the inner core of his Cabinet, obviously chosen in full agreement with Sonia, is one with him on most significant issues. In some ways, this "apolitical" prime minister, his core group, and Sonia personify some of the ideas that Rajiv Gandhi spoke about so passionately at his peak. Also, much like Rajiv in the first half of his tenure, they are building a critical mass of good news that will give their party a chance in the next election."

This paragraph is so dripping of sycophancy that there is no need to emphasize. I am sure judging by actions of last two years no one can accuse Manmohan Singh of being competent. And the way he is hanging on to power, despite all the acts of omissions and commisions of his government, I am not sure clean is the correct adjective unless by clean one means stinking filthy, which may well be the case because remember it is a different universe altogether.

The way respected Gupta uses "Manmohan's core group of competent minsters" , irony has jumped off the edge.

" They are so confused because they are still fighting the election of May, 2004. In 2004, the BJP made the mistake of going to the polls with eight months of eight per cent growth. By 2009, if this government keeps its focus, it might go back to the voter with a six-year average of eight per cent plus growth, raising national incomes by 60 per cent. Add to this another 5,000 km of four-laned highways (even at the slowed down pace now), four new world-class airports, several new ports and metros. And if you think all this is purely for the executive-class voter, consider how sustained high growth will help poverty reduction—according to the Eleventh Plan approach paper, going by data of last five years, an estimated 32 million will be lifted above the poverty line by 2009. Add to this the 1 lakh km of rural roads and, not to forget, a Rs 40,000-crore per year rural employment guarantee scheme, and you might have a feel-good mood that the BJP only wishfully presumed in 2004

If the growth happens it will be inspite of UPA government which is busy cooking more and more asinine policies. Even if assumed that all the ambitious projects will be completed by 2009 considering how communist and a considerable section of Congress are acting, feel good as a election platform will remain a non starter.

It will be interesting to see how this incompetent regime will achieve the ambitious expectations of Mr Gupta. Ofcourse it is entiely possible that in a different universe building castles in air is a sensible exercise.

Other people may argue that the article doesn't prove existence of cat. They may, instead argue that the article is a proof that Mr. Shekhar Gupta is on retainer of Gandhi family. To these others I can only say that they are beyond contempt for casting aspersion on high priest of secularism, the only punishment fit for those heretics is to rename them as Narendra Modi.

Now excuse this blogger, I am migrating to parallel universe. I have heard that there even complete losers like me get to date Milla Jovovich

Category : India, Politics, Media, Secularism

Patriotism, abode of courageous

Robert Heinlein, again

Today, in the United States, it is popular among self-styled “intellectuals” to sneer at patriotism. They seem to think that it is axiomatic that any civilized man is a pacifist, and they treat the military profession with contempt. “Warmongers”—“Imperialists”—“Hired killers in uniform”—you have all heard such sneers and you will hear them again. One of their favorite quotations is: “Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.”

What they never mention is that the man who made that sneering remark was a fat, gluttonous slob who was pursued all his life by a pathological fear of death.
I propose to prove that that baboon on watch is morally superior to that fat poltroon who made that wisecrack.

Patriotism is the most practical of all human characteristics.
But in the present decadent atmosphere patriots are often too shy to talk about it—as if it were something shameful or an irrational weakness.

But patriotism is NOT sentimental nonsense. Nor something dreamed up by demagogues. Patriotism is as necessary a part of man’s evolutionary equipment as are his eyes, as useful to the race as eyes are to the individual.

A man who is NOT patriotic is an evolutionary dead end. This is not sentiment but the hardest of logic.

Patriotism, a moral virtue

Robert Heinlein,

Since survival is the sine qua non, I now define “moral behavior” as “behavior that tends toward survival.” I won’t argue with philosophers or theologians who choose to use the word “moral” to mean something else, but I do not think anyone can define “behavior that tends toward extinction” as being “moral” without stretching the word “moral” all out of shape.

[snip ... first 2 levels of morality]

The next higher level is to work, fight, and sometimes die for a group larger that the unit family—an extended family, a herd, a tribe—and take another look at that baboon on watch; he’s at that moral level. I don’t think baboon language is complex enough to permit them to discuss such abstract notions as “morality” or “duty” or “loyalty”—but it is evident that baboons DO operate morally and DO exhibit the traits of duty and loyalty; we see them in action. Call it “instinct” if you like—but remember that assigning a name to a phenomenon does not explain it.

But that baboon behavior can be explained in evolutionary terms. Evolution is a process that never stops. Baboons who fail to exhibit moral behavior do not survive; they wind up as meat for leopards. Every baboon generation has to pass this examination in moral behavior; those who bilge it don’t have progeny. Perhaps the old bull of the tribe gives lessons. . .but the leopard decides who graduates—and there is no appeal from his decision. We don’t have to understand the details to observe the outcome; Baboons behave morally—for baboons.

The next level in moral behavior higher than that exhibited by the baboon is that in which duty and loyalty are shown toward a group of your kind too large for an individual to know all of them. We have a name for that. It is called “patriotism.”

The Wrong Wood

Previous Post

If inequality meme has limited utility despite its flaws, "Redistribution of wealth" has none.
Theproblem is the perspective itself. The very term redistribution is based on the faulty, if implicit premises that

1) Inequality removal should be the primary focus of state intervention in social sector.
2) Such task can be accomplished by the reallocation of available wealth through state intervention.

One can argue that redistribution need not imply state intervention and instead it may just refer to flattening of distribution curve due to increased opportunities and skills to leverage, in effect making redistribution an effect of reform.

Even then this is incorrect, because by promoting the effect (redistribution) to cause or primary objective in policy making, the terms of reference get highly skewed. When priorities are misplaced, the resulting policies will be in wrong direction.
This means that in all probability policy decisions centred around redistribution will end up placing restrictions on economic freedom, and effecting free enterprise.


PS This and previous post were prompted by this post of confused

The Wrong Tree

"Inequal distribution of wealth is the problem", so goes the popular wisdom nowadays.
Not surprisingly like all popular theories this is also misleading and mostly useless.

To realize how absurd the proposition is consider a sample of entry level software professionals, now the income here will be for most part evenly distributed. Now add few CEO's (Bill Gates, Premji etc. etc.) in the sample, the inequality will increase, ofcourse. Does this mean that government should intervene, No way !

I concede that the example I gave was not very realistic, but the intention behind the exercise was not to perform analogical acrobatics, but to illustrate a simple point.

If (and this is a big If) state intervenes in the economic sphere to achieve some social objective, then that objective should only be poverty elimination.
Further more often than not policies framed towards inequal distribution of wealth will be at best ineffective and create more problems than solve.

The reason for this is to do with the level of intervention.
To simplify, people are poor when
1) There are not enough opportunities.
2) People do not have required skills to leverage the available oppotunities.

Assuming there is a potential for free market ,1) in general arises, when there are hurdles either in forms of exsessive restriction imposed by government and in some social customs.
The solutions to this is reform, of government and of society.
The 2) may require government intervention in crucial social sectors like education. The intervention may range from incentives to poor to admit their kids in school, incentives to educational institutions and if required even direct investment.

I favour this level of intervention because it helps in wealth creation.

On the other hand one can be reasonably sure that framework arising out of "Inequal distribution" meme will result in regressive policies like reservations or taxation, aiming to redistribute available wealth which not only will not contribute anything towards wealth creation but also disincentivize creation of wealth.

This is not to say that study of inequality is useless. But only if taken as secondary attribute (primary being poverty).

An index of inequality (for example Gini) can be a useful indicator taken in context with other data. For example a equitable distribution of wealth in a poor country may indicate 1) case (refer above), whereas inequitable distribution of wealth in a poor country may indicate 2) case.
Ofcourse the equitable and inequitable are relative terms and best left to economists.

The ideal that a society should espouse is freedom and encouragement to its members to pursue enterprise.

Related :Indian Economy.

Europe and Anti-Semitism

[Wiki]

When the controversy over publication of cartoons of Prophet erupted the main argument forwarded by a considerable section of west in support of the act (i.e the cartoons) was as much offensive the cartoons may be to muslims, the newspaper (or anyone else) was well within its right of free speech,freedom of speech being the bedrock principle of western civilization and hence can not be negotiated.

One of the valid criticism of this stance was that for all posturing about freedom, almost all European counteries had penalties for anti-semitism or in some case even Holocaust denial.
The contradiction in European responses in the two cases can be explained if the European motives are understood.
Simply said, the restriction placed by Europe over anti-semitism is due to guilt.

Earlier the decision to locate jewish nation in Israel, even accounting for historical reasons seemed to me absurd. Surely Europe or America was a much better place to establish a sanctuary for Judaism, as compared to being surrounded by hostile Arabs.

This absurdity can only be grasped by the context. It is a popular misconception that Anti- semitism was limited only to Nazis. There is a long history of discrimination and suppression of jews in Europe.

While in medieval Europe it (the discrimination) was due to religious reasons, in 19th century the ground of discrimination shifted to race. During that period emerging intellectual discourse & social theories (or to be more precise those which were opposed to egalitarianism) were heavily influenced by latest discoveries in genetics. It was proposed (by Nietzche and others) that racial superiority was the basis for civilization and hence vigorous approach to philosophy should have genetic preservation and improvement as its fundamental principle.

This school was very critical of christian influence, however due to historical prejudices it was judaism which was blamed for the corruption and decay.
Therefore the prejudices against jews existed in Europe even at the turn of of 20th century.
To make matters worse Jews, by dint of hard work, constituted a considerable percentage of middle class and leadership of communist and socialist movements and therefore were even more disliked by both common public and intellectuals opposed to communism.

It is a mistake to believe that Nazi came out of nowhere. Hitler was a demagogue who took advantage of widespread disaffectation against commuism to gain power. Europe and to a large extent even USA went along with Nazi oppression of jews. A considerable section of western class saw Nazism as the last hope against communism and for that was ready to overlook other agendas of Hitler.Even when Germany embarked on final solution of the Jewish problem, by and large occupied Europe cooperated with Nazis.

It was only ofter the defeat of the Nazis that the horrible extent of Holocaust was revealed.

It had two effects.

1) In a way what Nazi did, was culmination of Europe long standing hatred for jews.
Europe was horrified by the result of her prejudice. And it is this guilt and shame at indifference (and sometimes support) which resulted in genocide, due to which European counteries are so sensitive about anti-semitism.

2) Before the ascent of Nazis , a considerable section of Jews believed that irrespective of Historical injustices, they had a future in liberal Europe. This was also one of the reasons that Jews participated in liberal movements. However 2nd worlds war changed this. Their delusion was destroyed and they realised that for their survival they can never trust anyone else for survival of Jewish race.

Related articles

The Huntingtonian Fallacy

Samuel Huntington's clash of civilization is one of the most popular works of later 20th century. The assertion that start of the 21st century will see conflict based on civilizational identity rather than national identity was completely at variance with prevailing theories which broadly predicted espousal of western values after the demise of communism.

Huntington argued against taking such a course for granted, instead he contention was that absence hegemonic control of communism, coming years would see a revival of hostilities between traditional rivals.

And that is how it turned out. After the fall of communist USSR while danger of WWIII has subsided, the world has witnessed the number of conflicts steadily increasing.
This tendency has a direct correlation with the tension between members of different civilzations.

What is much more crucial role on Islam (or to be precise Pan-Islamism) has been important in many (again to be precise majority) of the conflicts (Russia - Chechenya, Kashmir,Palestine, Indonesia,Thailand to name just a few).In his book, Huntington referred to this phenomenan as "bloody borders of Islam".

This theory (clash of civilization) has gained currency since september 9-11 and many pundits have started to believe that what we are witnessing is a precursor to full blown "war of civilization" as was predicted by Huntington.

Yet, I think this is inaccurate, i.e there is no war of civilizations, further taken as civilization west doesn't face any outside danger.

The reason for this is following

1) The opposition to western civilization as exemplified by Al Qaeda and rag tag of terrorist organizations, in no way constitutes a civilization. This doesn't refer to the number of active participants in terrorism or the strike capability. The idea behind resurgency (where "idea" is used very loosely) belongs right to the medieval age. Irrespective of how many surgeons or engineers may join them, enlightenment has not passed from anywhere near them.

2) Even if discounting the above, Islamic civilization has never been united for long.
The reason is not very hard to find. Expansion of Islam in a large part can be attributed to determined military compaigns by Prophet and his followers. These compaigns were successful only because of strong belief in Islam. This was the main bedrock of Islamic expansion and as long as it was able to dominate over disruptive tendencies caliphate survived.
However one of the main characterstics of Islam is a strong affinity for tribe, and resulting tribal rivalary (this was pointed by Huntigton himself). As a result it is not long before unity forged on religious camaraderie is overcome by more temporal considerations.


The conclusion is unless what goes for Islamic civilization doesn't develop new ideas, unless it doesn't undergo enlightenment, it can not hope to be equal to west. It is ironical that almost all the instruments/weapons employed against west are themselves product of western science, which itself was result of Renaissance.

Note: This is not an arguement against "war on terror", it is utmost duty of a nation to protect her citizen and neutralize any threat to them.
 

Category : Civilization, Society, Culture, International, Politics