Admiration for an Asshole

Two weeks ago, the Hubble Telescope completed 25 years in space. A remarkable feat, considering it was built using 1980’s technology, and has to contend with being hurled across space at 27,000kph, constantly being blasted with solar flares, cosmic rays and space debris. The Hubble is, without a shadow of doubt, the finest piece of engineering and human endeavor of the 21^st century.

It honors Edwin Hubble, a man without a shadow of doubt, was among the greatest scientific minds of the 20^th century. Prior to his discoveries, the prevailing scientific consensus was that the universe consisted of just one galaxy, ours - The Milky Way. He expanded our view of the universe beyond our galaxy; what were once considered nebulae within our galaxy, were in fact distant galaxies themselves.

He also confirmed what is now known as the Hubble Law; the further a galaxy is away, the faster the galaxy is flying away from us. It has become the most cited work in the Big Bang model of the universe. He was also responsible for the Hubble Constant, a cornerstone in estimating the size and age of the universe. The contributions of Edwin Hubble to science have forever changed our view of the universe, and consequently our place in it. His scientific mind was unparalleled, and his contributions eternal.

Edwin Hubble was also a phenomenal racist.

Which made me wonder, why did the people at NASA name the most popular manmade object in orbit - baring the ISS - after such a man? Does not honoring the man condone his beliefs or give the appearance of doing so?

And then Salman Khan happened.

Before I go any further, quick disclaimer: I am in no way a diehard Sallu fan. Nor am I a hater. He is the closest thing India has to a superhero. I don’t watch his movies, but I understand his appeal. I don’t find his movies to be particularly good, but I understand why his movies work. Unlike SRK movies, which are abominations.

Truth be told, the Facebook and media reaction to the trial and everything around it has been absolutely fascinating, and across the spectrum. You have dedicated Sallu fans who swear by his philanthropy to be some sort of Get Out of Jail Free card, ignoring the fact that he did run over poor folk with his car while driving drunk, allegedly intimidated a key witness, and definitely lied in court, trying to shift blame on his driver. There are, as usual, ones who take glee and derive a delightful sense of schadenfreude on the procession of things. Then, there is absolute disdain for him, and elite such as him, for toying with the justice system. On Facebook, this disdain is directed towards people who enjoy Salman Khan movies, regardless if they feel that the man should be punished for his crime or not. But I am not here to talk about the Indian legal system, privilege, inequality or hypocrisy.

I am here to ask you this,

How do you come to terms with admiration for an assholes art?

If Salman Khan movies aren’t to your liking, then let’s try Big Bang Theory. I believe Mayim Bialik is an exceptionally beautiful, talented, funny and intelligent woman. But her support for the IDF makes me feel uneasy whenever I laugh at her jokes.

If not Israeli atrocities against the people of Gaza, then how about Charlie Sheen? The guy is the epitome of asshole. He has a history of assaulting women. But Two and a Half Men was best with him in it, and Ashton Kutcher just sucks.

If not physical assault, how about pedophilia? Roman Polanski is among the finest filmmakers alive. Maybe coz he is European. But he was also arrested for the sexual assault for a 13 year old. Maybe coz he is Eur…..never mind.

Their transgressions or personal beliefs do not take anything away from their art or talent or contributions. They are not any less of an actor, or artist, or director, or scientist, just because they erred or made choices different that yours. But what does it say about a person who happens to enjoy their work? Does enjoying Wagner’s music make one a Nazi sympathizer? Does appreciating Salman Khan as an artist HAVE to mean you are against his incarceration? Does naming your telescope Hubble make you condone racism?

So I ask again, how do you come to terms with admiration for an assholes art?

Often, I feel that the asshole can shove their art up where the sun don't shine. I shall have nothing to do with them. Depriving myself of entertainment or enlightenment in exchange for a clear moral conscience is a small price to pay. But I quickly get off my moral high horse the minute Big Bang Theory starts playing. Another, slightly better way to go about it is something a friend of mine mentioned,

“I don't like her or dislike her. I don't even know Mayim Bialik. I know Amy. I always try and separate the personal lives of these artists, actors, scientists etc., from the work they do. Maybe it is turning a blind eye. Must say, it doesn’t always work.”

I think NASA named the telescope Hubble because scientific inquiry and progress supersedes human flaws. Yes, the man was deeply flawed, as are we all. But let’s come to terms with that, and celebrate his contributions to science. These men and women are midgets compared to the art they produce. The tree maybe ugly, but by their fruits shall they be judged.

A Better Class of "Criminal"........

When the Joker filed in a request for a better class of criminal, I doubt he could have done better than Julian Assange, editor-in-chief of Wikileaks. Well almost. There is that rape and sexual harassment charge he just got arrested for. Then again, it does look like the allegation has been taken out from the pages of a cheap thriller. Come to think of it, Clive Owen sounds less corny saying "..the International Bank of Business and Credit is behind it all", when compared. At the end of it though, one can't really say. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. His side of the story, however, does sound a wee bit believable. He confesses to having a consensual sexual encounter with two women, but insists that the rape charges are completely fabricated. And it isn't all that hard to see why that makes sense.
 
In his quest for making the world aware, he has ticked off quite a lot of people. The Yanks, bankers, oil men, and politicians, all are out to settle a few scores. Which is no surprise, really. I'd be pissed if I found that someone had uploaded a video of me punching the neighborhood kid and laughing while I'm at it. I'd certainly want to dish out some revenge. In my case though, I think I'll have to look for some other way to get back at him. Accusing him of rape would be......weird!!!!

While the world across debates whether he and his foundation are the new form of journalism or terrorism, it’s more important to ask whether Wikileaks works. Simply put, all this hoo haa, but is it worth the effort? From the looks of it, it pretty much is. For instance in Kenya, December 2002. Mwai Kibaki was sworn in as President, taking over from despot Daniel arap Moi. Kibaki's campaign manifesto was based on, among other things, getting rid of corruption in Kenya. In fact, he swore to clean out Moi for his corrupt practices. On becoming President, he stuck to his word and commissioned risk consultants Kroll Associates to investigate the corruption of Moi and his stooges. The report was completed in 2004, and detailed financial accounts and records showing assets of over $ 2 billion in the UK, the US, Australia, and South Africa belonging to Moi. The report though was never officially published, neither by Kibaki, nor by Kroll. Mostly because he himself was now dogged by a corruption scandal of his own, the Anglo Leasing Scandal. It was however leaked by Wikileaks, that too just weeks before the Kenyan 2007 elections. An election in which Kibaki was running for re-election, that too with Moi's endorsement. Outrage, they said. How could Kibaki pal up with the same guy he vowed to clean up? The answer was pretty simple. Moi is a useful man. He is reputed on being a master tactician. He still commands a huge and loyal following among the masses, and his status as an elder statesman gives him experience unrivaled in African politics. One does not bury a man this useful. In exchange for his endorsement, Kibaki offered Moi protection. The Guardian ran this as a front page story, title The Looting of Kenya. African papers started talking about it. And within a span of days. Kibaki started losing ground. What followed was a hotly contested election with Kibaki winning a second term, but only just. In order to continue as President, he had to form a coalition with Raila Odinga, his opponent, who took over as the Prime Minister. It is this story Assange has been bragging about lately, and rightly so. Changing the way politics works, especially in a continent where politics is far more dynamic and complicated, pretty much proves Wikileaks is much much more than just a TMZ episode starring diplomats.
 
But the problem with Wikileaks I believe is just that. At times, it comes dangerously close to being a paparazzi outfit. Sarah Palin's Yahoo! account details for example. Assange agrees that there are certain legitimate secrets and he would not release them. And I'm pretty sure an email password figures somewhere in that legitimate secrets box, along with diplomatic secrets. In any diplomatic process, secrecy is a requirement, not an option. It is vital for each participant to make honest, often brash assessments of their opponents to arrive at any kind of result.

Within the same lines comes another issue. The fact that Wikileaks is more of an editorial. The Apache massacre video was not put up as it was recorded. It was cut short, edited and given a title, for "maximum political impact", as Assange put it. The original video was available only on request. And viewed by only 1 out of 10 people who had watched the edited version. That, in some ways, makes it a distant cousin of Fox News. My sense of a whistle-blow is an unadulterated, straight forward account of the truth. While I might be naive to think so, it certainly does not make me wrong. Because what I am concerned with is this. From the entire set of data that is available to them, how much of it is actually being published. Assange has already made clear he might unload everything he has. So what all is being held back??? Is the world getting a whistle blower's account or a Glenn Beck bulletin?

Cablegate will no doubt change the way governments handle diplomacy. Like the film, gaming and music industry, it was about time diplomacy learnt the cardinal rule of the internet age. One cannot contain digital information. Especially in a world where anything that is digital is on public domain, already or soon enough.

Around the World in 80 Bucks.......

On the night of December 16, 2009, looking down on the twinkling streets of Malaysia from the window of an A340, I spent my last few minutes in Malaysian airspace wondering if I would ever visit this magical land again. It’s been 10 months since, and I miss the place. I miss Malaysia more than I've ever missed the Arab Emirates. This after spending 17 years of schooling and upbringing in the UAE, versus the four years of undergrad in Malayland. Which meant going back on occasion of the uni convo was a no brainer. And luck went my way as Air Asia was in a generous mood. The guys charged me charged me INR 7000 odd for a round trip from Hyderabad to Kuala Lumpur. Let me repeat that, an AIR ticket, from HYDERABAD to KUALA LUMPUR and BACK, for INR 7000 ONLY. In the same period, the cheapest flight to and fro New Delhi, cost about INR 5000. The KL ticket is, without exaggeration, mighty cheap. For just another 2000 bucks, I get to travel another 1700 km. That too to a place as lovely and beautiful as Malaysia. Brilliant, don't you think!!!!! 

But that’s before you get to know the genius (maybe even cheapness) of Air Asia. I had to pay for my check-in luggage. I need to pay if I want to choose my seats. I need to pay if I fancy their in-flight food. I need to pay if I plan to watch their in-flight entertainment. I need to pay if I want to use their pillow and blanket. And then when they land at the low cost terminal, - taxi and waiting fees for aircraft are lower here -, I get only the bare basic facilities. And in all this lies the beauty of no-frills flying. Because these are things you can do without. Think about it. You have never actually "chosen" your seat. The food usually sucks (except on Sri Lankan, Thai and Jet Air). Half of the people spend their entire time on the flight sleeping, so I doubt they'll miss the in-flight entertainment much. The blanket and pillow always generate static electricity which makes sleeping a nightmare, so you could do without them. And unless you are planning to spend the next 25 years of your life as Mehran Karimi Nasseri, airport amenities don't really matter, do they? In exchange for a cheap air ticket, I'm fine with the airline taking away those luxuries, for the simple reason that, at the end of it all, it is a brilliant bargain. Because the next cheapest ticket on the same route was with Malaysian Air for 13k. That’s nearly twice the amount I paid. Another six grand, just so I have shitty food while watching Robert Downey Jr. blitz the Monaco GP on a 5 inch screen. Not likely!!!! I let go all that, and still am pleased as punch.
  

The low cost carrier model does, however, scare me at times. Especially when guys like Michael O’Leary, CEO of Ryanair, think that cheap fares is all we are looking for. And in pursuit of that cheap fare anything and everything works. His plan of getting rid of co-pilots for instance. Instead, he wants air stewardesses to land planes. Which is fine I suppose, as long as he is willing to personally give hand written replies to each letter he receives from his passengers, mostly complaining how dead they are after taking a Ryanair flight. Because you don't become Chesley Sullenberger by simply attending training sessions. You do so after having tens of thousands of flying hours under your belt. 

An aircraft cockpit, until recently, was manned by three people, the pilot; the co-pilot; and the flight engineer. A young pilot fresh out of the academy would first spend few years as the flight engineer, primarily to manage aircraft flight systems. He would also be watching and learning from the pilots on making split-second decisions, delegation of authority, and landing into airports such as Kai Tak and LaGuardia. Only after enough experience was an engineer allowed to move onto the co-pilots seat. And again as a co-pilot he continued the learning, as both, a protégé of the pilot, and a mentor for the flight engineer. Again, only after spending great amounts of time as a co-pilot, did he get promoted to be a pilot. This state of affairs kept all the three members sharp and kept errors to a minimum, as everyone watched over one another. This also meant that in the event that the pilot is incapacitated, the co-pilot would take over. If both pilots were down, the flight engineer would. Nowadays, a flight engineer is only required on third and early fourth generation aircraft that run older flight systems. New aircraft, like the 777 and the A350, come with computers that take care of flight systems, and correct errors by themselves. So why pay a flight engineer when HAL 9000 is competent enough? Technology replaced a human layer of protection with a layer of artificial intelligence. O'Leary's plan, however replaces thousands of flying hours of pilots and co-pilots with a few hours of a stewardess spent on a flight simulator. 12-year olds spend far more time flying planes on simulators, and I don't see any one letting the kid land the plane. So why a less experienced person should be allowed to just to keep fares low?

Maintaining low fares isn't all that simple. You are paying low because the pilot is being paid peanuts.  How else will they keep prices down??? Again to keep prices low, carriers don't maintain an army of pilots. Fewer pilots fly a larger number of routes, and are pushed so as to get the every last possible bit of flying out of them. This usually means flying twelve to thirteen hours a day. So a pilot during the final legs of his shift is most definitely tired. Increased fatigue lowers concentration and the lower the concentration level, the higher the chance that the pilot will make an error. And that’s when you end up with incidents such as the one in Mangalore. What about aircraft maintenance costs?? Carriers overcome this by maintaining a fleet of the same aircraft. Southwest Airlines maintains only 737s. Air Asia flies only A320s. But if their idea to cut costs is a disregard to passenger safety, by making them stand during flights, you can't help and wonder if they are cutting corners in aircraft maintenance. Dear Mr. O'Leary, please do understand, as it’s not much I ask of. I don't care if you charge me for salted peanuts. What I'm really looking for is exiting the aircraft in the same condition I entered it in, in a single piece, and alive. 

Don't get me wrong, I am all for low fares. I support the "Everyone can Fly" motto. Everyone should. At least once in their lifetime. Sure, charge me for visiting the loo. But I draw the line when you plan to put me in SkyRider seats. I'd rather fly Air India. On second thoughts I'll probably walk.

Speedbird

Man once owned a time machine. A time machine that would transport him to another part of the world, and in half of its trips, would arrive before time had a chance to catch up. Ten years ago it met an unfortunate accident. And that event sent mankind flying into the past.....a good 40 years into the past.

I have been a Concorde fan from ever since I can remember. I could stare at it for hours at end and admire its beauty. I could go on for hours telling you how much of an engineering marvel it is. And I definitely intend to do so.

A scientist at NASA claimed that putting man on the moon was easier when compared to making the Concorde work. Sure, we had the technology to reach speeds in excess of Mach 2 back then. But aircraft which did so were only military. This meant a few hours of flying and then weeks in a hanger going through inspections and maintenance. Pilots had ejector seats and wore oxygen masks. The Concorde on the other hand had to load, take-off, fly 7,000 km, land, unload, load, and take-off again to make the round trip. Then there was the issue of the shock wave at Mach 1. During World War 2, whenever pilots took a dive in their fighters, they would reach speeds perilously close to Mach 1 and their controls would jam. No one knew why. Until the guys who made the Concorde figured that out. And then there was the problem of the engine. Hit the engine fans with air traveling at Mach 2 and they'd crumble like a cookie. This meant while the aircraft would fly at Mach 2, the engines needed to be fed with air at speeds much lower than that, more like 600 km/hr. Then there was the heat, expansion of the parts that comes with the heat, the design, cabin pressure, and a hundred other things. Not to forget the Brits and the Frenchies working together. The Concorde proved that given enough time and money, man could do anything.

I dreamt of flying in it one day. Regardless of the fact that I'd firstly have to be filthy rich, and that when you are flying, you cannot tell if you are doing Mach 2 or 200 km/hr, and thus there is sense of speed, no adrenaline rush. For us to feel speed we need reference points. On the road it’s usually a tree, street lamp, pedestrians, and the lot. The faster you see them pass by, the higher the sensation of speed. At 60,000 feet you don't even have clouds to give you that sensation. But what I regret more is not being able to see it. Fact is, the Concorde was never made for the rich. They were only a means to an end, a means for it to survive financially. It was made for the common man. For you and me to stand and point at it in awe.

Before 2003, the Concorde flew flawlessly. It had one job. Fly. Very fast. And it did it. But just because one airline could not make sure that the nuts and bolts on its aircraft were screwed on tight, on 25 July 2000, Air France 4590 crashed claiming 113 lives. And maybe for the first time since the Titanic, did people mourn the loss of the machine along with the loss of lives.

No matter what excuses were given for it being pulled out of service, the true reason is that it did not look good on the company balance sheets. As great as it was an engineering marvel, it was an even greater financial disaster. The British and French governments incurred a loss every time it flew. The last Concorde made was sold to Air France for one pound.  The Concorde died not because it was a flawed design, or it had reliability issues. It died because it looked bad in the account books. And that is the tragedy of capitalism.

Because rarely have we pushed the limits of our capability and curiosity regardless of its financial cost. The closest man has come to another Concorde moment is the Bugatti Veyron. And here too the story line is very similar to that of the White Bird. A story which I might come back to later. In short, even after a $ 1.7 million price tag, Bugatti incurs a loss for every unit it sells. All this because Ferdinand Piech, the chap who started the project, did not care about the shareholders and profit and loss. He dreamt of a 1000 hp car that did 400 km/hr. And he made it possible. 

Sure, there are projects right now that are exploring supersonic civilian travel. Embraer is currently designing a corporate jet, the Japs are at it too. But none will be as wonderful as the Concorde. Because that represents mans battle and victory against politics and more importantly, nature. Right now a group is undertaking restoration work on the White Bird. Their plan : make it air worthy for the 2012 London Olympics. And if this happens, as crazy as I might sound, I actually might book my tickets for London just to see it fly. Because clearly, a museum or a desktop wallpaper is no place for a machine such as that. 

 In remembrance of the victims of Air France Flight 4590.

Early to bed, early to rise might not make you all that wise........

......neither has it made me any more healthier, but I guess that has more to do with my eating habits and not my sleeping patterns. And if a Mullah Nasruddin tale is anything to go by, fat chance it will make you any wealthier.

There are loads of versions of the same story. Early to bed early to rise, early bird gets the worm, and so on. Aristotle and Benjamin Franklin were supporters of the practice. Religion too advocates it. But Satoshi Kanazawa, an evolutionary psychologist at London School of Economics, suggests sleeping and waking up early is the practice of idiots. Well those aren't exactly his words. His theory goes something like this:

     "....the Savanna-IQ Interaction Hypothesis suggests that less intelligent individuals have greater difficulty than more intelligent people with comprehending and dealing with evolutionarily novel entities and situations that did not exist in the ancestral environment.  In contrast, general intelligence does not affect individuals’ ability to comprehend and deal with evolutionarily familiar entities and situations that existed in the ancestral environment."

It is this theory he applies to human sleeping patterns. His whole article is here. My understanding of it is below.

Artificial lighting in general is only a recent discovery. Night time before the invention of artificial light wasn't the best for mankind. The human eye does not see well in limited light, therefore our ancestors refrained from nocturnal activity. They preferred staying groups and away from wildlife. None ventured out at night for the fear of getting mauled by a tiger. Which is why man worked from sunrise to sunset, and did nothing at night. Except the Danes and the Finns. They were usually up practicing a socially accepted tradition called 'premarital sex'. Refraining from nocturnal activity is therefore what Kanazawa refers to as 'ancestral practices'.

And staying up late is what he describes as an 'evolutionary novelty'. Those ancestral conditions do not exist now. Fire, the light bulb and electricity are all now part of our lives. We have killed all the tigers and the ones that survive are caged and have gone mad. This negates the need of not doing anything at night. As Kanazawa puts it, nocturnal humans have adapted to changes in their environment, and therefore predicts intelligent individuals are more likely to stay up late than less intelligent individuals.

I'd love to justify staying up late night and making up the lost sleep during the day. But the truth is brains do work better early in the morning. Plus most of what he bases his theory on doesn't really sound right. What suits you guys better? Early mornings or late nights?????

Link List:

1. Are Night Owls more Intelligent than Morning Larks.

2. The Savanna Principle

Your Soul, Wall Street, Women and Corrupt Kids

More than two weeks since my last update, and a lot has happened. Well, except me getting the time to sit down and put my thoughts together for a new post. I have however put together a list of interesting reads. Should keep you company until the time I'm back with something new......enjoy!!!!

1. Have you sold your soul yet?

2. Wall Street doesn't understand Wall Street.

3. What if Women ran Wall Street?

4. Bribing Kids

5. Why a falling maternal death is bad.....(for some).....

The Mad Daughter of a Wise Mother........

The upbringing my family provided me in Dubai and my experiences in Kuala Lumpur gave me a certain lack of concern over the apparent bad luck derived from walking under ladders or a black cat crossing the road. Nor do I understand the strange correlation between fighting siblings and snipping scissors and all other superstitions. Which made me believe that such folk lore may have long been dead (probably because they didn't look at both sides before crossing the road, one of the deadliest superstitions in the book). But here, in Hyderabad, they are alive, and very much too.


Here, I can't clip my nails at night, neither can I read a book lying on my stomach, nor can I show affection to a new born by touching its nose, among a list of other things I can't do on a full moon night and can do on a sunny afternoon. And this blind belief in pointless drama is not helped by the trust we put in witch doctors. I met one who claims the blood of a sacrificed goat can solve marital trouble. Superstition is to religion what astrology is to astronomy: the mad daughter of a wise mother, or so said Voltaire. So why not synchronize our watches right now and see how many of what follows will be accepted as traditional reactions in the year 2020.


If you see a man picking his nose at a traffic signal : Roll down your window and tap the roof of your car thrice to drive away evil spirits a good dig will release. If a red car overtakes you from your left chant multiplication tables from six to nine. If you see a friend you have been avoiding for years walking towards you, and this is real bad luck, rub your chin and talk gibberish till he or she walks past. If a black cat walks under a ladder touching wood on a moonless night on Friday the 13th : do nothing. If you have had seven years without bad luck, break a mirror. If you see a dog  getting itself acquainted to a lamp post in its uniquely original way, grab hold of the first person you see next and lock your little fingers.  In some cultures it is bad luck to see your wife before the wedding, in others, it bad luck to do so afterwards. In any case throw a pinch of rock salt over your shoulder.