McCain-Palin in their version of reality.

Never underestimate the Republican Leadership. A few weeks ago when Colin Powell too seemed outraged by his party’s new campaign motto of ‘pile on the slander’, I was convinced that McCain-Palin campaign had just hit rock bottom. The $150,000 makeover to make Palin more ‘relatable’ to all the hockey moms of America, is by far more ridiculous. I forget if I’m watching America’s Next Top Model or the Vice-Presidential Nominee for what used to be the most powerful country in the world.
I used to think the Republican campaign of being the ‘common Joe’ president was laughable. Then I saw the pictures of the masses of people who actually bought into it and wanted their next president to be ‘just-like-them.’ The McCains own 13 cars, eight homes and access to a corporate jet. At the convention, Cindy McCain was dressed in over $300,000 in jewelry alone. How out of touch with reality do you have to be, to think that $2,500 Valentino jackets will make you more relatable? More relatable to billionaire Joe Lewis maybe, not ‘Joe the Plumber’! The only thing average about McCain-Palin campaign is the level of intelligence, quality and foresight it has shown.
In this very volatile economy, I for one don’t want a President who thinks $2,500 is spare change. I definitely don’t want an average Joe dictating the economic health of the country for the next four years. I don’t want an average Joe in awe of Putin and Sarkozy, but someone who can match their intelligence and repair the damaged US foreign policy. In my ideal world, an average Joe would never be President. We deserve better than that.

Ref: Maureen Dowd, A Makeover With An Ugly Gloss

Mom knows Best.

My mom and I spent last week discussing the merits and demerits of graduating and getting a real job versus spending years writing a credible thesis. The allure of a real paycheck and spending more time outside the 4, slightly grey walls of my office was just too great a temptation. Imagine, my diet will venture outside caffeine-water, sugary stuff and flavored ethanol! My Mom on the otherhand, favors staying in school on my pittance of a stipend and spending time peering into a computer screen. As fate would have it, the New York Times agrees with her. All the Ex- and Would Be- WallStreeters will be playing safe and slugging it out in grad school for the next few years, waiting for iBanking to re-emerge from the ashes of the virtually dead Financial Market. Meanwhile, Maverick me will be getting my hands dirty in the toppling markets. Next year, my application to gradschool might feature "I always wanted to get a PhD.." .. ;)

2009 Pub Challenge

This looks interesting! I'll update my list of books to read throughout next year.

Liberal Radicalism guised as Liberalism

Now that I am over the initial shock, of liberal radicalism – Let me write about it. The college student demographic (especially is large institutions) has always held a more ‘liberal’ and more progressive outlook. They are generally known to be a little more flexible in their views, a little more receptive to new ideas and communities and respectful of the differences which make college communities extremely diverse. However, recently I have encountered liberal radicalism, which prides itself on being extremely anti-conservative, being floated as liberalism. Liberal radicals nurture the notion that sneering at other opinions and values make for the foundation of progressive thinking."The essence of the Liberal outlook lies not in what opinions are held, but in how they are held: instead of being held dogmatically, they are held tentatively, and with a consciousness that new evidence may at any moment lead to their abandonment." -Bertrand RussellBeing pro-anything doesn’t make you a liberal unless you also acknowledge another persons’ right to be anti it. It doesn’t make you a liberal unless you are willing to listen to the other views and conside the posibility of being persuaded in a different direction. A liberal has opinions but holds them with delicacy, constantly evaluating its merits and acknowledging its faults. Being a radical liberal is not being liberal at all. It is a dangerous kind of illusion to entertain and it breeds a false sense of intellectual superiority and complacency which in turn decreases tolerance and nips learning in the bud. Tolerance and Learning, being the cornerstones of progressive thought.Also, this thing about choosing sides – are you pro-choice or pro-life? Are you tolerant or are you a racist? Are you pro-affirmative action or not? Why is there the need to either love everything about one opinion while completely disregarding the merits or all others. Most decisions are not black and white and assuming that they should be, is a juvenile ideal. Afterall one can be pro-choice and not support female genocide in developing nations. Is it completely unreasonable to think that humans, the most intellectually developed animal, can’t see in greys? Isn’t that what makes us intellectually superior in the first place?The liberal radicalism has often labeled me ( a female non-Caucasian) a racist and a sexist. Something that is prepostrous and as the same time, dangerous. The ‘I have friends who are …” argument is not a reason that enables one to laugh in the face of other opinions and still call oneself a liberal. Maybe, it is the nomenclature and the comfort that comes from labeling oneself as a liberal while acting as a radical. It’s basically dressing a wolf in sheep’s clothing and asking everyone to treat it as a sheep. A concept reminiscent of Hitler’s ‘progressive’ ideals that resulted in the genocide of 6 million people.While we, the constituents of Gen Y, have grown up in an influx of information driven by diversity in every form , it has only made it harder to form opinions without making harsh ill-informed judgements. As people, we are entitled to choose sides in any situation, but we are responsible for recognizing the merits and demerits of both sides while being open to new opinions coming along and shifting our preferences. That is really all one can ask of liberals, and of people.

Science, Engineering, Research... and Money

Many a times during the last year or so, I've felt the pace of science change. Researchers claim they don't have funding to actually pursue research. Instead they seem to be paid only to solve existing problems, on a budget. Non-science folks seemed pretty ambivalent, they think scientists get away with murder. Last week, a friend of mine actually put into words his absolute disgust for the billions spent on 'useless' programs like the space program and the 17-mile particle accelerator when children in Sudan are starving. He seemed to think engineering no longer was about helping societal needs but more about warship making and gimmick production (iPhone after iPhone), and somehow it was siphoning funds from more altruistic humanitarian programs.So, I have tried my hardest to discuss if not completely answer these questions:1. Should research in Science&Engineering (S&E) be governed by measures of utility? Is it a profession governed by an altruistic streak or is that just a side-effect?2. Should scientists be allowed to research whatever and let the tax payers pick up the tab?------First of all, lets clarify the role of engineering and the difference between want and need. Do we need another warship or do we just want one? Do we need to go to Mars or do we just want to? Do we need a motorcycle suit or just want one? The engineering community is based on catering to wants more than the needs. Mostly because we don’t really need anything from engineers, we never have. A new highway would make some of us get to work a little faster, but we don’t need it. A new plane would cut down the commute from JFK to Beijing by a couple of hours, but we don’t need it. The laptop, the Internet, the elevator, dams, roads, electricity, the cell-phone, even the 10-lb monstrous old phones with the rotating dial pad, we didn’t need them. In fact, engineering provides neither food nor shelter – nothing we actually need for survival. It just improves the quality of our lives. Well, some of our lives.Then there are different kinds of want. A car is a car is a car. But, BMW keeps rolling out better, faster, prettier and pricier versions of it. I like my cell-phone. It calls people when I press their numbers. It could also put a sizable dent if thrown at someone. It doesn’t send emails, access the web, play my favorite tunes or teach me calculus. The iPhone probably does all those things and looks pretty doing it. Apple will keep rolling them out till people stop wanting iNething. Is it the engineers’ fault for building the iStuff? Most engineers build commodities because we think it’s so friking Cool and because we can! We love the blue LED lights, and the reduced runtimes and the fast boots. Sometimes other people pay us to make more cool stuff that they want but can’t make. There is no altruistic motive to the new iPhone or iTouch or the MacBook. It was built because someone thought it was cool and someone else was willing to pay for it. Oh and it does do all this awesome stuff, and makes itself absolutely and annoyingly indispensable. I’m sure the person who makes less than $1/ day doesn’t need one, but are you sure given the chance he/she wouldn’t want one?The Space Program is another want. So is the particle accelerator. So is another electron microscope. Only difference is that they are engineering commodities being used in research as enablers for better science. I know most of us wouldn’t care if the electron was composed of small blue pixies, or if the earth was really the center of the universe. It doesn’t help the people living under the poverty lines right now. But science never has been about utility and it shouldn’t be. Innovations don’t happen because a lot of smart people sat down and decided today is the day to solve the world’s food problem. They happen when some poor bloke studying fruit-flies discovers a gene, some astro-biologist comes up with a way to make acid-free clouds and some engineer puts them together to make healthy crops not destroyed by acid rain. The astro-biology division at NASA (considered the most useless of all its space-endeavors) went to parts of Africa to find micro-organisms surviving in extreme weather and found a way to make water from hot springs full of sulphur, drinkable. If NASA didn’t have the space-program funding these scientists, some people in the middle of nowhere would be walking tens of miles for drinking water. Of course, providing safe drinking water wasn’t NASA’s intention. But do you think anyone else would have found a way to use the hot water springs? Innovation and science don’t happen when we want them to.Did you know that the government has cut down on research funding since the 80s? There is no Bell Labs anymore and most of the innovative research is happening out of the United States. This is why outsourcing is such a huge issue. US had a competitive edge because when Japan started using the same technology, US already had the next big thing. Today the only really innovative research is happening in government labs sponsored by things like the space-program. Curbing science by measures of immediate utility is a disastrous idea because science discovers the unexpected and engineering harnesses it. How can you predict the unexpected much less discuss the utility of it?! If a scientist wants a 17-mile new particle accelerator to discover those blue pixies inside electrons, then I think some engineer should build him one rather than use the money to build more warships and F-117s. Why? Because maybe one of those blue pixies could save the ozone from depleting.I know the billions of dollars being thrown around sound like a farce when half the world is starving. But that money will never be given to aid. So the choice really comes down to do we use the money towards new science or do we use it towards ‘engineering’ better warships. The most profitable businesses grow because they invest in themselves rather than spend the profits elsewhere. If the national economy is a business, then research would be places to invest.