War on Terror

Terror is not a person. Terror is not a government or a group. Terror is not an army. Terror is not a weapon. Terror is an emotion, a mindset. So how do you fight terror in a battlefield? How do you wage war against terror with guns, tanks, aircraft, ships and missiles? Terror doesn't reside in caves, deserts or villages. Terror resides in our minds. Terror resides in our thoughts, in our actions.

In the wake of the recent attacks in India someone close to me is now fearful of traveling to that country. Every time I cancel a travel plan out of fear, it's terror in action. Every time I worry about my safety despite having taken all precautions, it's fear in action. Isn't that what the terrorists want? To keep me in fear? How can you fight that fear in my mind by waging war half way across the world? Sure you can kill the terrorists, but will it end the terror? Or would I still be afraid? As long as I live in fear, all the armies of the world cannot win the "war on terror". The war on terror has to be fought in our minds. Fear exists in my mind and that's where I will kill it. I will not change my travel plans; I will not change my life. I will go where I need to go and do what I need to do. The war on terror is over. Terror has lost and I have won.

Why I participate in the political discussion

Some of my friends, mostly those from abroad, wonder why I bother to enter the US political debate amongst citizens. I am a legal resident of the United States and although I share every other right, I lack a very important one: I can't vote. So why bother? I am sure many of my friends and contacts here wonder about that as well, except that they are probably too polite to mention it to me, lest I feel being called an outsider. 

Well, I have a few reasons. First, I happen to be married to an enthusiastic politically active American, who takes elections, politics and policy-making very seriously. That enthusiasm is infectious. Second, living here subjects me to the laws of this land. I pay the same taxes and abide by the same rules and regulations as does everybody else. So why shouldn't I be interested in the process that determines those rules and those taxes? It would be just a different form of "taxation without representation". I can't vote, but I can certainly persuade a citizen to vote. Especially since the law permits me to both make campaign contributions and volunteer at a campaign, it only makes sense for me to get involved.  After all, who the citizens elect, I will "inherit".

But apart from those two reasons, yet based on them, the third and most compelling reason for me to be engaged in this process is the fact that I have the the unique experience of living in Arizona, home of John McCain, during an extremely negative and divisive campaign run by him. 

I have a Obama08 bumper sticker on my car. On multiple occasions McCain supporters, with their own derogatory, negative and hateful bumper stickers of course, have recklessly cut in front of me on the highway, putting both me and them in danger. On multiple occasions these supporters have showed me the finger. On multiple occasions these supporters have swerved their cars in an attempt to make me lose control of mine. And on one occasion, while I was waiting at a drive-through window, one McCain supporter behind me rolled down his window to throw racial and other derogatory epithets aimed at Barack Obama and several random insults aimed towards me. And only yesterday a friend of mine had his Obama yard sign stolen just a few hours after he put it up! So what happened to Free Speech?

Some of my friends that are on or that are leaning towards the Republican side are concerned that a Democratic administration will reinstate the Fairness Doctrine that will "muzzle the right". To them I have to say that the "right" looks very wrong at the moment, and if a dog becomes rabid, muzzling it may not be a bad idea. It's also easier to put lipstick on a dog once it has been muzzled.

This is why I have decided to participate in the political discussion here in the United States.

Trickle Down Economics

There is a misconception that there is a magic answer to turning a flailing economy around. There isn't. All economies go through cycles. Some crests are higher than others, some troughs are lower than others.

Now since in the mind of many a Republican spending seems such a big issue, it certainly needs some attention. Do Republicans oppose spending? Or just government spending? Don't answer that. We all know the answer. At the heart of the Republican idea of "spending" or the lack of it, is the notion of "trickle down" economics. It says if you give tax cuts to businesses or rich individuals they will spend the money in the economy by either investing in the business and creating more jobs or by consuming more thus feeding the demand cycle and hence by extension the economy.

Now, first, that's putting a lot of faith in the corporations and rich individuals that they will do the right thing if they are given this money. It's no different than the faith some people may have in the government. And second, the Republican strategy is not a qualitatively different, enlightened one. Democrats think the government is the better agent to do that spending, Republicans think corporations and individuals are the better agents.

There are a few problems with the Republican approach however:

1.  Businesses, like individuals and families and even more so, don't spend more money just because they have it. The cash flow statement of a business includes items like operating activities, financing activities and investing activities. A business spends money carefully, according to a set plan. Any and all operations/expansions are strictly dictated by that plan. Having extra money from tax breaks is good but it does not change that plan. That extra money usually goes into the investing activities. It goes into buying hedges. It goes into buying futures, options, stocks of other companies, other investments... And in this day and age of global financial markets, more often than not the investment may not be made in local markets at all. It could be used in foreign exchange arbitrage or in buying soybean futures in China or steel futures in India &etc. Extra cash is generally invested away from the business to keep it safe and growing. Microsoft, Google has billions of dollars in cash reserve. But they are not necessarily spending.
   
2. A similar argument can be made for rich individuals. A person can only consume so much. Even if you have certain fixed expenses that may increase as you get richer (8 houses instead of 1), the real factor of variable expenses remains quite limited. The extra money a rich person has is not spent in consumption or in business expansion. Just like the businesses, any expansion is planned independent of the cash inflow. So what happens to the money? Just like a corporation, the individuals invest the extra money: in stocks, options, futures, mutual funds, gold.. what not.
   

And those two points bring us to the issue of primary and secondary markets.

The primary market is where the average citizen buys food, pays mortgage, goes to the movies, and makes a living. The well being of the vast majority of the people depends on the primary market. This is the market where goods are produced, sold and consumed.

The secondary market is on Wall Street or it's equivalent. The money stuck in investments in the secondary market is seldom if ever available to the primary markets. There isn't any trickling down. The two markets are water tight. And investments in the secondary market can be whisked away in a matter of minutes to a new bank in China, a new mine in Africa, a new corn field in Brazil etc. 

The money given as tax breaks to the corporations and rich individuals may never come back to the national primary market again. It gets locked up in the secondary market and may be invested somewhere else. When businesses or rich individuals get a tax break, contrary to what some people believe, it does not necessarily help the economy.

On the other hand, if the government retained that money by not giving the tax break, then the money would have gone into the treasury. Now when the government "spends" money, what does it spend on, and where? It spends on infrastructure, health-care, education, &etc. That money is now spent inside the national economy: in the primary market. And if the government spends the money, it must be going somewhere! The money goes back to the people who worked on that infrastructure project, or as a teacher or as a doctor or nurse. This cycle keeps the money in flow inside the primary market. It creates jobs and helps grow the economy.

Democracy is built on mistrust of the government. But where is the similar mistrust of business? Why is it that you must mistrust your government and yet completely trust your corporations? At least the government is elected. In business there are no checks and we have seen corporate greed run amok before. It is one thing to promote entrepreneurship and an entirely different issue to promote corporate despotism. Proponents of capitalism always praise their system ignoring the fact that capitalism is also run by men (and women) who are susceptible to the same vices that politicians are. At least you can change your President, Senators, Representatives and other leaders quite frequently. You have no choice but to buy gas from a handful of oil producers. You have no choice but to buy cars from the handful of auto makers; no choice but to buy computers from a handful of computer manufacturers, and so on. Government you can change, the businesses that you deal with exist for a long time and you are stuck with them.

Make no mistake, Republicans love spending: spending on new cars, new shoes, new yachts, new houses. They just don't like spending on health care. They don't like spending on education. They don't like spending to help the unfortunate members of the society.

It is interesting to note that the word entrepreneur is a French word. The idea of free trade or free market came from laissez-faire, a French phrase. One of the first corporations, and perhaps the first corporation of the world, Saint Gobain is a French company that came into being in the same time the term laissez-faire was coined, in the latter half of 1600s. The country that gave birth to these concepts have moved on to create a different kind of society for its citizens but it seems the US is stuck in seventeenth century France.

At the heart of all these questions lies a far important question: what is the purpose of the State and what is the purpose of society? What is the purpose of being in a community if one will not look after another? Republicans seem to believe in individual excellence. We don't need a society for that. Animals in the wild practise that already. Our Social Contract was made in order to survive together, and excel together.

The Clinton Redemption

If Hillary was not gracious enough the first night she spoke and left doubt in people's minds that she wasn't supportive enough of Obama, she blew that doubt away, far far away, when she asked the delegates to put the rules aside and unanimously nominate Barack Obama as the Democratic nominee. And she did it with grace and with a big smile on her face, a genuine one, unlike the social smile that she wore while she spoke the previous night.

Later, when Bill Clinton stood on the podium and asked all the supporters of Hillary to stand behind Obama, just like the Clinton family itself was standing, he made up for, many times over, the lack of enthusiasm that was so evident in his wife's speech. And he did it in his own characteristic mesmerizing, eloquent and rousing style. Sure there have been rumors and undertones about his slights and slurs, but when a man of his stature speaks in a public forum, the public speech mutes all of the private controversies that surround him.

Actions speak louder than words, and Hillary's action on the convention floor has spoken. And now, the Clintons just need to keep that action going.

The speech Hillary didn't give

"I am Hillary Clinton. And you, my supporters have carried me this far by being behind me, with me, around me... every step of the way. And I thank you for your support. But today as I stand here, I ask you, no, I urge you, I beg you to support me once again. Support me once again to elect Barack Obama as President of the United States. I know you love me and I am asking you to do it for my sake. Do it for my sake, do it for the party's sake, do it for the country's sake. Help me elect Senator Obama to the Whitehouse.

A few months ago we were divided, but that was then and this is now. Now, we must stand united, we must stand together. Although we have differences in the details, we still believe in the same policies, we still share the same values, and we still cherish the same goals. So just like you helped me a few months ago, help me again now to elect Barack Obama and help me defeat John McCain....."

Unfortunately, that wasn't what she said. Her speech looked and sounded like a campaign speech, a stump speech. She thanked and thanked her supporters, and recalled experiences on the campaign trail, and told everyone why she ran for president and mentioned how she would have changed America. She talked about herself a lot of the time and cursorily mentioned Obama a few times. She said "I" a lot more times, than she said "you" or "we" or "Barack" or "Obama".

Yes many columnists are saying it was "red meat", "clarion call", "spell binder", "finest hour", David Gergen, Bill Schneider... they would all have us believe that it was awesome. Of course! But we were not all born yesterday. If you want an honest criticism of yourself, ask your enemy. And in this case, the "enemy" are the Republicans. Alex Castellanos, a Republican strategist paints a more honest picture.

Anyone who has applied to grad schools and has had to collect recommendations from professors, bosses and coworkers can tell you something. There are recommendations that work, and there are recommendations that don't. I have a couple personal favorites:
1. "X is a great candidate; he is intelligent, thoughtful and hardworking.... ; I enjoyed his company and I (highly) recommend him..."
2. "X was in my class (or X worked for me). Grab him!"

During her campaign she went far beyond than it was necessary to divide the people, she didn't do nearly as much to unite them back. She forgot that public office is not about your personal ambition and about what you want to do for the people but all about what the people need you to do for them.

Hillary, as Castellanos says, went down a check list and signed at the bottom, but she did so without passion and without fervor. And she kept her campaign alive for a second shot. She doesn't realize that if Barack Obama loses in this election and even if there is the slightest suspicion in the air, as there seems to be already, that Hillary Clinton was responsible then she can kiss her own ambitions goodbye.

Olympics Rules and Sour Grapes

I see a lot of resentment in the air about the medals and who is winning them. Not unexpected. I am also confused why Yahoo! Sports shows USA being in first place when China actually has more golds. I know that the number of golds is more important than the total number of medals when ranking the nations. But I suppose Yahoo! chose to change the rules. That would be an interesting debate to have with someone, since Yahoo! is an American company co-founded by a Chinese American (now the CEO of Yahoo!) who was born in Taiwan and moved to America with his parents when he was ten. However, it would be ridiculous to think that the CEO gets involved in decisions like medal counts and nation ranking!

But that's a boring thing to discuss. The age of the Chinese gymnasts is a juicier topic. Do they look very young? To my untrained eye, yes they do. But am I certified to judge age by appearance. No, I am not. However, I do think that puberty does a few things to the human body, especially noticeable in the female human body. It fills it out and gives it curves. Those curves are most definitely conspicuous by their absence on the figures of the female Chinese gymnasts. I don't know what the rules are of determining age of participating athletes but to be a fair sport, you have to follow rules. Without rules it ceases to be a sport. All is fair only in love and war. All is not fair in sports. The Olympic Committee should and must do something to determine the ages of the gymnasts. And I also think Mr Karolyi should stop complaining on national television. Yes, you made your point and we got it. Now, stop being so damn petty.

Judging is another juicy topic. How do you break a tie in gymnastics? From what I understand it is the athlete with a lower average of deductions who wins. It's an Olympic rule. And I think when we go into a competition we should understand all the rules and accept them. So did the American gymnastics team not know that this was a possibility? Why complain now? The team should have read the rules and understood them. I personally think Nastia Liukin is the finest gymnast of them all and I think two golds or two silvers should be the way to go, but I am not on the Olympic Committee. Rules are rules and once you agree to compete under those rules you shouldn't complain about them after you've lost.

Alicia Sacramone's vault is also perhaps a juicy topic. I read blogs everywhere how she was robbed by the judges. The Chinese gymnast fell on her knees and yet got a bronze, but Sacramone landed on her feet and finished fourth. Well, is anyone thinking about the fact that the vault may have separate segments, approach, form, tumbles, landing &etc. and that each segment may have difficulty levels and point values? I understand that if landing is the make or break segment of the entire routine then botching the landing should nullify all the accomplishments in the other segments. But if it is not the deciding segment then it is entirely possible for someone to fall during their landing and yet get more points by outperforming their opponents in the rest of the routine. Once again, the Olympic gymnastics team should have read the rules.

Talking of rules and judging, I don't hear any complaints about Michael Phelps winning the 100 metre butterfly. Certainly it was a close race, but everyone seems to rely on the judges' decision on this event. We all saw the photo-finish the next day and I am certainly not convinced that Čavić had not touched the wall as well. In that last frame they both seem to have touched the wall. Oh, but surely the judges know best. And if they say Phelps was first, then Phelps certainly was first. However, it was good to see that Čavić, the Serbian swimmer, gladly accepted silver without complaining after he was told the judges' final decision.

The Dark Knight

So I have seen the new Batman movie twice now. Once on a regular screen, and the second time on the IMAX screen. Quality wise, of course the IMAX experience blows you away. The pictures are larger and sharper, the sound is louder and clearer and the right mix of sounds can rock the theatre as if you are in the middle of the action. Only gripe, wish it were in 3D too.

Okay, now that the techincal details are out of the way, I can focus on the substance of the movie. Action movies generally don't have a lot to offer in terms of substance, thought, philosophy and so on. You go in, you get entertained, you come out, you forget every bit of it. But I guess every now and then there comes along a movie which doesn't let go of you even after you are out of the theatre. The Matrix was such a movie. It haunted you. There were parts you didn't understand, parts you did and parts you thought you did. It made you question a few fundamental things. I mean okay it was not a lecture class with Plato and wouldn't endure two millenia but it sure stayed with me for more than two months. The Dark Knight has a similar, if not more, enthralling charm. But it's not the pleasant butterflies in your stomach kind. It is a rather dark kind of charm. Beware of the powers of the dark side!

Batman is fine. He wears a mask, doesn't show a lot of emotion, chases criminals, gets hurt, wins some, loses some &etc. We know Batman. Although I personally wish they had chosen a bigger guy to play the role. The animated series had Bruce Wayne a much taller than the others and bigger male, who in his batsuit could be very menacing. Christian Bale isn't taller or bigger than the criminals he fights. Just perhaps more agile and strong. Strength and speed helps but the menacing presence of the animated series just isn't there.

Harvey Dent, Commissioner Gordon, the mafia, the small time criminals all are there. They play their parts well. Aaron Eckhart, as Harvey Dent, plays a major role, and as I read somewhere, is the backbone of the movie. He is Gotham's White Knight. Eckhart is better than other Dents in previous movies. But he sometimes overdoes his role, especially in a fundraiser scene or in an alley where he confronts a criminal.

And then there is The Joker.

I have seen Jack Nicholson as The Joker and I have heard it being said that Heath Ledger had to fill very large shoes. Well. first of all, I have no clue what the buzz about Jack Nicholson is. He plays the same role in every movie. He merely plays himself under a different name. Eccentric person with weird facial expressions just about sums Nicholson. And it doesn't matter what movie it is, what character it is, that's the role he plays over and over. And that 1989 Batman movie was no different. Jack Nicholson played himself in a purple suit and face paint. A mobster with a funny face, a ruffian dressed as a theatrical clown. I don't even remember what his complain against the world was. Was it the fact that someone did a bad job of plastic surgery on his burnt face? Did he even have a complaint?

Not so for the new Joker. We have no idea where this Joker comes from. He has no name and no past. And he doesn't care for money. To The Joker, money is no object. He is a philosopher. He blows up things and kills people to make a point. Batman is smart; The Joker is smarter. What he lacks in gadgets and physical strength he makes up for with his intelligence. He wants to show that people follow rules not because they are ethical law abiding good citizens but because they are afraid to break the law and face the consequences. And if he takes away those consequences people would do anything. He shows that people don't think, but they like structure, even when the structure is terrible. He shows that the thing people are most afraid of is uncertainty. And therefore it is easy to control large crowds by inserting a little hysteria. He wants to show that people are depraved, evil, malicious and spiteful and the only thing that holds civilization together is, ironically, a thin thread of selfishness. And with a little push, the same principles that make a person noble can make that person a monster. The Joker is the personified antithesis of the Social Contract of Locke and Rousseau.

The Joker is dark, his jokes are lethal, but the clarity of his thought is mesmerizing. The best villains are those who even in their villainy, are able to elicit your sympathy or admiration for them. You want to hate The Joker , but as you hate him, you also admire him. Because, although he takes away Gotham's White Knight, he gives them The Dark Knight.

The Daily News

Today is June 3, 2008. It's a Thursday. And yesterday, June 2, 2008 Ingrid Betancourt, three American contractors and 11 other hostages were freed "in a daring mission" from Colombian rebels who had held them for over five years. Great news! The only problem is I didn't even know who Ingrid Betancourt was till yesterday. I know now, because that's the only thing on the news all the time.

Honestly, how many people, American or Canadian or Briton or anybody, knew who Betancourt was, what she stood for, under what conditions she was captured and why she was held prisoner? Even more importantly, how many people does this news impact? And how many people will even remember this after one week? So why is it on the news all the time?

Daring rescue of hostages.
Betancourt hugs her children.
Hostages home after five years.
...
...

Is there nothing else that could be of importance to the American people, or people in general, American or otherwise? What about the things that actually impact people's lives? Laws enacted by the government, policies undertaken by government agencies, wars, treaties, inflation, poverty, education, climate change... why are those things not reported by the news channels?

I remember the extensive coverage of Anna Nicole Smith's death and whatever followed after. It's sad she died at a young age. But she was a Playboy playmate and a model! Really, was she that important? Or take Britney Spears for instance. Her first wedding, its annulment, her second wedding, her kids, her absolutely uncivilized behavior in public, her divorce... and the news coverage of it all.

Who the hell cares??

You have to be wondering, is this some kind of opium the media constantly feeds the public to keep them from thinking or asking serious questions? If so, why? And if not, then how did the journalists and the broadcasters become so dumb and what can be done about it? There is plenty of news out there that is actually important and affects people's lives. Well, to be fair, it seems people don't care about important stuff anymore anyway. They have grown accustomed to live from one useless news flash to another useless news flash. They talk about it for the next three to four days. By the end of the week they have forgotten about it. And by the time next week rolls around, there is another flashy, jazzy irrelevant breaking news item all over again.

Free press.

Karma–The law of action

The word karma, (Sanskrit: कर्म, pronounced cur-muh) is a highly misused term in the occidental world. It is commonly (mis)understood as a universal system of reward and retribution depending on what you do. While that approximates part of what the principle of karma states, it is not the whole story. The popular usages of karma (mispronounced as car-maa) seemingly propagates the notion of an invisible judge, personal or impersonal according to individual taste, who or which, rewards us for good deeds and punishes us for bad ones. If you ding someone's car and leave, you acquire bad karma; if you help a blind man across a street you acquire good karma. If someone cuts you off on the road, you swear that karma will get them.

It is not too difficult to see that this westernized karma is similar to the Abrahamic idea of a divine law-giver. Only more immediate: instead of waiting for the afterlife this deity rewards or punishes right here, right now. And also quite petty: instead of judging you for the bigger deeds or misdeeds, this deity looks at every little thing you do. One peculiarity of this idea is that people, when confronted with someone else's adverse actions, usually tend to invoke karma either to intimidate the other party that retribution is coming, or to feel a vengeful consolation that the offender will get his or her own. For example, if you are driving a compact and a huge SUV cuts you off, you can't do anything directly: so you might say to yourself that karma will get back at the SUV driver. Another is that people tend to think that good and bad deeds cancel each other out and you can become "karma neutral".

Fortunately, karma isn't a mean deity hiding behind the clouds and keeping a tab on all that you do. First of all, karma simply means action, for lack of a better word in English. However, the original meaning of the word action is physical action, as opposed to, thinking or speaking. For instance, we say "man of action" vis-à-vis someone who talks a lot but does little. The sense of action as implied by karma, though, is not limited to physical action only but also encompasses thoughts and words. So the act of thinking is an action, the act of speaking is an action, and of course the act of doing something is an action as well. Karma is action in thought, word and deed. Second, the principle of karma is two fold: (a) every action must bear its fruit and (b) every action leaves a mark on our character, determining who we are and who we become. The first half is external, the second, internal. Philosophically, if we drop the distinction between external and internal then the first half is indeed the whole principle and it encompasses the second, because the mark our actions leave on our character is also part of the result of our actions. But it's easier to break it into two halves and consider them separately.

The first part of this principle is what got translated into the western idea of karma. Unlike the western idea, the original principle doesn't talk of a personal account for each one of us where all good and bad deeds are tallied and maintained. There is no divine arbiter to reward or punish us according to our karma balance nor do good and bad deeds cancel each other out. Karma is indifferent to good or bad: there is neither reward nor punishment. Every karma (action) simply bears its fruit. Good and bad, reward and punishment are subjective attributes ascribed by the recipient of the results. The same result may be good to one person but bad to another or to the same person in a different situation. Some of the results are immediately manifested and easily traced back to their causative action. Some may take a while or some may not be as easily traced back and so on. So if you rob someone today and then donate money to charity tomorrow, unlike what some people expect, the two actions do not cancel each other out. The action of robbing will bear its fruit, as will the donation to charity.However, that is not all that karma does.

The second part of the principle may sound easier, since it's internal, but it is perhaps much graver than the first. Karma is like the blows from a sculptor's chisel and hammer on a block of stone, only the block is our own character. Every action, in thought, word or deed, leaves a mark on our character. It molds us into who we become. And that in turn dictates how we will act and react. One lie may lead to the next, one dishonesty to another, violent thoughts, words and deeds reinforce our violent nature but in the same way kind actions lead to kinder natures, one good deed may lead to another and so on. We sculpt our own lives with our own actions.

And thus forms an infinite chain of action. On one hand our actions determine the situations we find ourselves in, since after all, those situations are results of our own previous actions and thus inevitable. On the other hand, our actions also determine our character, and how we will behave in those situations. Through our actions we set our own stage and determine our own role. And since action is unavoidable we find ourselves bound to act out that role which in turn leads to another stage and another role. And as we toss around in this inescapable sea from one wave to the next, we perceive fleeting joy and fleeting sorrow.

Radical innovation and Entrepreneurial Darwinism

To start, I should say there are two kinds of innovation: radical and incremental. Almost everyone knows and understands the difference between these two concepts. Many people also understand the hows and the whys of the two and the benefits and pitfalls. Some like to characterize that radical innovation is the way of life for the ambitious entrepreneur and incremental innovation (if any at all) is at the heart of a big company. I think that stereotyping is inaccurate inasmuch as it puts the effect before the cause.

Radical innovation is not always the bread and butter of entrepreneurs. I think the entrepreneurs we hear about are the successful ones and they used radical innovation as a strategy against their incumbent, bigger competitors. For every succesful entrepreneur there are probably ten or a hundred unsuccessful ones. Those probably failed because they did not employ a radical innovation strategy! After all if you enter the playing field and try to play by the existing rules then you are at a disadvantage. Those rules were written by players who are currently playing. They are stronger, they are bigger and they wrote the rules to help them. If you abide by those rules, you help them. Usually ending in your failure. The only way to defeat them is by changing the rules. Make your own rules that favor you and not them. That is radical innovation. It also answers the question why incumbents don't use that technique: because they are comfortable where they are! Why rock the boat? If it isn't broken, why try to fix it? If they really want to improve their business they can do it slowly, incrementally, so that they don't disturb an already existing equilibrium.

It's like a Darwinian principle. Characterization of entrepreneurs as radical change agents is akin to asking why do fish have scales. Well the answer to that is there were probably many different kinds of fish, the only ones we see now are the ones that had scales to start with. May be there were others without scales. But they didn't make it. Scales are the reason why these fish exist. In other words, scales are not the effect of the cause which is the fish. It's the other way around. Scales are the cause of which these fish are the effects. No scales, no fish!

The entrepreneurs we talk about and hear about are the not the causes of radical innovation. They are the effects of radical innovation. If their idea was not as radical we probably wouldn't know their names today. But that view also makes it sound like random choice. If you happen to have a business idea that is very original (and plausible) you succeed, if your idea is too common you don't (at least not in an explosive, fantastic way.) It sure sounds like a ruthless, merciless, Darwinistic world. May be that's the "luck" that businessmen talk about. Even Bill Gates says he was lucky. Lucky to have the right idea at the right time in the right place.

But is it really so fatalistic? I would hope not. And I think the answer is in volume: to churn up as many ideas as possible; to explore as many avenues as possible. If I wait for that perfect opportunity to knock on my door, I may get very old. With so many doors and so many people waiting, opportunity has a low probability of knocking on my door. It may be more useful for me to knock on as many doors as possible and see if Opportunity is hiding behind one of them. Now that's radical innovation.

Self Correcting Climate Change

I personally have no doubt about global warming. I read about it in my science class when I was a kid in middle school. I understood green house gases and how they worked and how it could cause mountain ice and polar ice to melt. I got that when I was 12 years old. It's been 21 years since and even now I see people who go around saying "Oh it's just a hypothesis. There's no definitive answer to that question." If you push them harder, they might give in a bit, but then they'll come back with their strongest defense: Earth is too big and it's not possible for humans to damage a planet. And even if they did the planet will correct itself.

I actually totally agree with that last part, Earth will indeed correct itself. And that is the whole problem!! The foundation of the entire global warming and climate change awareness is the idea that we should correct ourselves before the planet starts the correction process. We should NOT let Earth correct itself. Because no matter how we much we call our planet "mother" Earth, after all it is a vicious mother and has no mercy.

With rising temperatures, ice caps will melt, sea levels will rise, many cities will go under water, millions of lives will be lost, there will be more and more irregular patterns in storms, floods, droughts. And this will continue for a while taking a toll on nations and economies. The end result will of course be a lull in human civilization. Humans will be busy trying to fight natural disasters instead of making progress. If your house is burning down (or flooding) you can't sit down to invent new microprocessors. All of this will eventually effect in reduced human activity. Either the planet will find equilibrium in a redistribution of land and water: more water, less land. Or temperatures will start dropping as human activity dwindles, and the planet will enter another ice age. Either way Earth will have corrected itself. Mercilessly.

Sir Isaac Newton and the Intelligent Designer

“Nature and nature's laws lay hid in night;
God said "Let Newton be" and all was light.”

-Alexander Pope

A lot of the supporters of Intelligent Design take offence at Darwin's hypotheses and evolution. I think they are fighting on the wrong battleground. Darwin's theory/hypothesis of survival of the fittest is an approximate and empirical theory. Adaptation is too. We see the effects of both of these hypotheses but we cannot measure them. There are no equations to convert these discoveries into solid mathematical truths. At least not yet. And hence it is easy to pick on them.

There are people who say "I don't believe I evolved from a monkey." That's right, they haven't evolved from a monkey. But give it time.

These people say dinosaurs never existed. And that we are not descended from one-cell bacteria. They don't believe in Darwin's theories. They also believe that the world is approximately 6000 years old. And so on. But just like I said, they chose the battleground that's easy. No hard science. No equations. It's easy to fight words with words.

The battleground should be changed. We need to shift the argument from Darwin to Newton (and Einstein, Penrose, Feynman, Hawking, Schrödinger...) The essence of science is in measurements, and its ability to predict. And what are equations? Equations capture the essence of a natural event (or in other words the natural law governing that event) and puts in a form that is concise yet elaborately accurate. And since it captures only the essence of the event, not the event itself, therefore you can use the equation over and over again to predict similar events in the future.

But who made the law in the first place? The laws of this country or any another are made by its the citizens. The laws of nature aren't made by man. The laws existed long before man could read, write, talk, measure or form equations. The laws existed long before the first human existed. Long before the the first bacterium was created. And long before any life existed anywhere. It is possible these natural laws are the cause for the creation of life!! Whose laws are these? Newton's? Hawking's? The Intelligent Designer's?

I may actually agree on the last answer!

Scientists don't make natural laws. Human's don't make science. We merely discover truths that exist in the world around us. And the study of science is the study of the mind of God. God's truths are not in the Bible, the Koran, the Geeta, the Torah or the Talmud. It is in the equation that says that matter and energy are indestructible and interchangeable. It is in the force that binds all matter (and energy) together. Now that is a very intelligent design. It is so intelligent that it is perfect. It is so perfect that everything in this universe is in perfect balance. It is the perfect clockwork. So perfect that it runs itself without the need for intervention by its designer! I mean if the Intelligent Designer had to step in time to time to fix things then that would mean, His (or Her) design was not perfect, was not flawless. An Imperfect God? I don't know what you believers think of an Imperfect God, but to me, as a man of science, that is blasphemy!

But no, there is hope. God is not imperfect. Sir Isaac Newton and his worthy successors, have opened our eyes and we see that the universe is indeed quite perfect. Everything is in perfect balance and harmony. So perfect that it does not even need a God.

The designer has designed himself out of the design.

Should you talk about politics at work?

I just read this piece on the CNN.com website:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/worklife/06/04/politicking.at.work/index.html

Should you be talking politics at work? Yes? No? May be?

As one the persons quoted in the article says, free speech is an urban myth. The moment you walk in the door of that office you leave the free world behind. You are no longer in America. You enter some medieval kingdom or fiefdom where you can't talk freely, you can't speak up and you certainly can't hold your superiors accountable. I italicized superior. Superior automatically relates to inferior, subordinate, lower, etc. If all men were created equal why should some be superior? Yes, I know some of you will say it's just a word. But words are everything. We think in words; we communicate in words; we express our emotions in words; we arouse masses of people with words. What would we be if we didn't have words? And of course there are symbols. Equally important.

Coming back to the original point: the choice of words is not a random act. Words are deeply connected to thoughts, emotions and ultimately physical reactions. So why choose superior instead of a more class-less (no pun intended) word? There are no such words in the political sphere. The names there are flatter with no hint of inherent hierarchy. Congressman, Congresswoman, Representative, Senator: all powerful positions but without the inherent implication of one being higher than the other. But in the corporate office, words are chosen differently. There is a superior and there is a subordinate. There is no free speech. There is no choice. There are no elections. Your leader is not someone you chose. Well some would say they didn't really choose George W Bush either. But you at least had a choice. Not once, but twice. At work, you don't have a choice. You are given a "leader" by the people above.

In England, in 1215, the barons revolted against the king and forced him to be bound by the Magna Carta. Even in England. Even in 1215. Can you imagine some people in a modern corporation revolting against their boss and forcing upon him/her a set of rules?

So why can't you talk politics at work? Yeah you can't put work aside and talk politics, that's not productive. Apart from that why can't you talk politics otherwise? Why can't you campaign for an issue? Why can't you send political email? Why can't you make political statements? If you spend 8 to 10 hours a day at work you spend approximately one third of your active adult life in a place without free speech!

It probably doesn't sound so surprising when you think of the purpose of the existence of corporations. But that's for another day.

Priora!

What's the plural for Mustang? Mustangs!
What's the plural for Hummer? Hummers!
What's the plural for Corolla? Corollas!
But what's the plural for Prius? Prius.

At least that's what Toyota says. But they don't mind if customers use whatever their hearts desire. What does Prius mean? It is a Latin term that means before, ahead, prior. So put in context Prius is that which goes before. Wikipedia says the true plural of Prius is Priora. Here is the section. If you know Latin, I suppose it's really easy to understand.

I once walked into a Lexus dealership. They were holding a raffle (or some kind of draw) to give away a brand new Lexus sedan. As we walked up, the receptionist called in a sales person to take care of us. We told him we weren't looking to buy a Lexus, but we wanted to participate in the raffle nevertheless. In our conversation we had mentioned the Prius. And surprisingly the salesman went into a rant about how the Prius causes more damage to the environment than it saves. His argument, and I had seen this before, was that the mining of nickel for the battery, shipping it to Japan, making the battery, shipping the car back to the USA and then in time disposing the battery causes more harm to the environment than a Hummer does. A CNW Marketing analysis named "Dust to Dust" made these same claims. I wonder if that's where he got his talking points from. Of course he didn't mention the tests conducted at MIT, Carnegie Mellon and Argonne National Laboratories that completely shredded the "Dust to Dust" report. Again, here is the section from Wikipedia.

Another time, when we rented a Prius for a road trip, the Hertz mechanic who was around when we picked out the car, said that hybrids are no good at all. They are weak and inefficient and what the world needs is a better gas engine. He also said global warming was sham, scam and nonsense. According to this rental car company mechanic, the Prius is just a political show-off. I was extremely polite when I reminded him that he was neither an engineer, nor a physicist, nor a climatologist and that his opinion, as entitled to it as he may be, is best stored in a dark damp place only he is familiar with.

I called Toyota once to ask them about these claims. They actually took the time to explain the fallacy of the naysayers' arguments.

Priora: the ones that go before. And truly they do. They herald a new era. They blaze a trail for other cars to follow. And indeed, following the rest are.

Prius Pride!

People who own Harley-Davidson motorcycles are loyal. Very loyal. It is said that a pre-owned HD motorbike is more expensive than a new one. Why? Because you have to persuade the owner to sell it. And that often takes quite a bit more cash than the price of a new one. Well, all that is fairly well known and I contributed nothing new to the world... yet.

Consider now, the Prius. This is not a Harley. In fact if anything it is the polar opposite of a Harley. Well, actually a Prius is the polar opposite of a Hummer, but you know, people who drive Hummers could just as well own Harleys or vice-versa: so it's not that different. The Prius commands quite some loyalty from their owners. I have not seen a single owner of a Prius who does not say, "I love my Prius!"

Think about it. How often do you hear that? How often do you hear a Chevy Blazer driver brag about their SUV saying, "I love my Blazer!" My friend who has a Blazer doesn't brag too often. Or even people who own their M3 or M5 (yeah, BMW) don't have such a strong rapport with their cars. They probably like driving their vehicles, but they don't think of it as an extension of themselves. It's almost as if the Prius was a pet. Like a dog, or horse. You love your dog. You love your Prius. You love to drive your Porsche (if you have one). But you love your Prius. I think that's pretty amazing. And of course your Prius loves you back as well. It saves you from spending your hard earned money to buy overpriced liquefied dinosaurs. And it keeps the air you breathe clean.

May be soon there will be a proverb: Love me, love my Prius.

The distortion of leadership

How many times have you seen managers, directors, VPs and CEOs referred to as leaders? The business school I went to had a slightly different idea of a leader, but once I was out of b-school and inside the bowels of a big corporation, I saw the other meaning of the word.

Corporate leaders are more akin to feudal lords than they are to real leaders. They are no more worthy of the word than a baron or knight or fief is. Feudalism in the 17th century created an elaborate heirarchy. At the top was the king and the bottom was the peasants and serfs. Somewhere in between were the barons, the knights and so on. These decorated positions owed allegiance to the king and the king promised to give them land and protection. The poor people at the bottom worked for the profit of the nobility and did not own any land. The people above them were not chosen by them but thrust upon them by layers of "nobility" above. Of course this begs the question, how did they obtain this "nobility" in the first place? But I'll side step that question for now.
The whole point I am trying to make is, the poor serfs and peasants worked away their lives to make profits for their "lords". And these poor people had no say about who their lords were. It all depended on the king and how he chose his men and how that process trickled down.

I see a great parallel between this and the modern American coporations. The CEO and his entourage of VPs and Directors and Managers are like the "nobility". The individual contributor at the bottom is like the serf or peasant, who has no say whatsoever in the choice of their "lord". You can absolutely not speak up against your vassal, your fief. If you do, you run the risk to suffer the equivalent punishment of beheading: firing! Well not all companies are like that. But most are.

How are these people leaders? How can you be a leader if no one is willing to follow you? Sure people will follow if you threaten them with dismissal, after all most people have families to feed. But if you remove all incumbrances and allow people to make free choices would those people still claim that their bosses are leaders? Or would they rather call them oppressors? I have not seen one person in corporate America that can or will address this issue.

I do not mean to carry on. This is a relatively new idea but there are others that have done a great job explaining the whole issue. I highly recommend Dhruve. He has already done a fabulous job in explaining this line of thought. Read his manifesto when you have time. I have a copy, email me if you want it.

Writer's block

I have a serious case of writer's block. There was once a time when I could pick up a pen and a notepad and scribble away whatever came to my mind. Of late, (ever since I went to business school) that faculty of my mind seems to have waned away. I did have to write about five essays for each school I applied to. And once I was admitted, I had to write a lot. Business school, unlike engineering school, is not cut and dry and there are no brief, short answers. Every answer or rather every question is very vague and can be interpreted in various different ways and therefore no answer is considered wrong. You can be as verbose as you want to be and drift off-topic as much as you like but your answer can still count. Instead of a 10-on-10 score you may only score a 6-on-10. I made sure to not lose such ample opportunity to ramble when I didn't know how to answer a question. The habit perhaps took out all the words and their meaningful juxtapositions from my brain and hence I cannot write anymore. Nothing of substance at least. This is perhaps the longest paragraph I have written in a while, but rest assured, I will be back in form sooner than I suspect.

There's a lot I have to write about. Too many topics, too little time.