Matching donations for Tsunami Relief

In case your employer doesn't match you donations, I've found (via Tiffinbox) that Sulekha will match your donations made to the Association for India's Development. Both are great orginizations. Here's more information:
http://www.sulekha.com/aidtsunami/

Year in Review - Another time

While I was on the plane betwen here and Singapore I typed up some of my thoughts about the past year. Most of those thoughts were quite upbeat. It doesn't seem quite right to post such things now that the images from South and Southeast Asia are flooding my mind.

I have to say that the past year has been very good to myself and my family. I've rarely had anything to frown about. There have been so many things which have made our year memorable and so many things which we'll cherish. But you know, I'm going to leave it for right now. I may post those thoughts in the new year, but for right now, let's leave it at that.

By the way, when you're looking to donate for disaster relief efforts, check to see if your employer will match your contributions. Most big companies will find some way to match. If they don't, ask your HR department if they can do that in this special case. My company not only matches our donations 100%, they exempt donations to Tsunami relief from our annual limit of $1000 matching (per employee)...they did the same after the Gujarat earthquake.

Fair Elections

Before the election, I wrote about some fundamental problems with the American Elections system. The NY Times has a short op-ed today about setting standard for fair elections. I'm happy to see that some people are still concerned about the process of voting. It's also encouraing to know that there is such a thing as the Election Assitance Commission, but I hope this commission doesn't just come up with half-baked suggestions which don't address the fundamental problems.

It's amazing to think that news about fair elections in Ukraine and Iraq hasn't gotten people more riled up about fair elections here. Let's hope the pressure remains and real solutions are brought forward to ensure fair voting during the upcoming mid-term congressional elections.

Tsunamis

There's not much to say about this other than to express shock and horror. I've been working from home today and have constantly watched the news for updates. Some of the footage is really just unbelieveable. It's like watching a summer movie blockbuster, but once you realize that it's all real, you're just left speechless.

Here's a great map of the affected areas.

If you'd like, you can donate to the Red Cross here.

Malls & the Eight Hour Layover

We got back from Singapore a couple of days ago. Happy Christmas!

So I'll refrain from an extended description of every last thing we did in Singapore (All 5 regular readers of this blog will remember, with pain, the posts about Europe and wince). I reserve the right to post about Singapore in the future, but I'll try to keep it associated with interesting photos I took while there.

So I'll just post a couple of thoughts about Singapore right now before moving on to the annual review of the past year. Maybe I'll even have some resolutions!

Two of the things Singapore is known for (at least in my mind) are the shopping and the airport layover. If you've ever travelled to India you may be quite familiar with the 8-hour layover. I never really gave this much thought until this trip.

By coincidence, a couple of our friends stopped in Singapore for 8 hours while we were there. So we picked them up from the airport and took them to a few spots where they could eat some great food and get an idea of the shopping. While taking them around, I realized that this is exactly what the Singapore government wants and this is exactly why the 8-hour layover even exists.

Think about it. Travellers going to other countries don't think anything of this layover. They don't think they're visiting Singapore. In fact, they're really just visiting India or some other country in Asia. But the reality is that in their short stop in the country, most people will spend at least a few bucks that they weren't planning to spend. Whether it's on food or shopping, Singapore still wins. Our friends spent over a hundred Sing dollars in just a few hours. If every transit passenger spends just S$10 while there, it's a huge plus for the country. And the government doesn't even need to convince people to visit the country, they've just had the national carrier schedule their flights to encourage people to spend a few hours looking around.

And as far as the shopping malls go? I'm convinced there are so many malls in Singapore because of the heat and humidity. Seriously, why would anyone wants to spend time in the oppresively thick air when they could stroll around the comfortable confines of one of the thousands to shopping malls? Hong Kong seems to be the same way.

So next time you find yourself stuck in the Changi Airport in Singapore waiting for your next flight, think about what the government wants you to do. Shop and eat.

Redemption, Singaporean Style

When writing about Singapore, I realize I'm not encouraging people to come here. Afterall, I've pretty much said they've got wierd laws, no freedom, and not much diversity. But, I had to say there is definitely a few great things about coming here. Well, for me, there's one more - in-laws - but I doubt many people are married to ex-Singaporeans. So I'll try to redeem myself in the eyes of Singaporeans everywhere.

Anyways, the tops on the list for coming here: FOOD.

I cannot get enough of the food here. There are so many cultures here tat you can find amazing mish-mashes of food that end up tasting great. While you may not find people mixing with each other, nobody has a problem eating food from other cultures. Moreover, various elements from different cuisines have been combined in ways to create great flavors that please the palate. Spicy, Sour, Sweet, Salty, Crunchy, Hot, Cold..you name it, you got it.

Now that Singaporean food is getting more popular in the US, it's easier to find it there, but it's a bit odd eating such food in a nice restaurant. Afterall, in Singapore that same food is served in food courts and hawker centers. Just imagine if Sbarro's and McDonald's were fine dining restaurants and you paid $3.50 for fries, $8.50 for a Big Mac, and you were given cloth napkins upon being seated. If only we could get cheap Singaporean food in the US....I'd swear off all other cuisine including Indian!

BTW, a hawker center is a uniquely Singaporean thing. It's basically a big covered space with many, many stalls with different types of food. Sort of like a food court, but not in the mall and generally a bit grimy. Anyways, they have the best food since it's quite authentic and really cheap.

Another great thing here is the shopping. The prices aren't nearly as good as they used to be. Electronics are no longer cheap here. But there is still some good shopping left here. Mainly for women (as usual), but even guys can do a little shopping for clothes and shoes and come away with good deals. Too bad the dollar is so weak, otherwise the deals would be even better!

And finally, Singapore is the perfect hopping point for travel in the South East Asia. It's kind of like going to London and getting cheap flights to mainland Europe. In Singapore, you can go to any travel agent in any mall and they'll have a catalog of different vacation packages. You can hop over to Bangkok for 6 days with flight, hotel, and breakfast included for less then SG$500 (about US$350). Not bad. Last time we were here we went to a resort town in South Malaysia for a couple of days for something like $90 a person.

Anyways, this should give you an idea of some of the good things about Singapore. I will now ask the government agent to stop pointing a gun at my head :)

Forced diversity

I've only been here in Singapore a few days, but there is one new thing I've noticed since arriving. While there is great ethnic diversity here (Chinese, Malay, Hokkien, Indian, etc), there is very, very little cultural diversity. Not to say that every city in the US is culturally diverse, but I've always figured that when there is high ethnic diversity, cultural diversity follows, especially after a few generations.

But in Singapore? Far from.

The only mixing of races I've seen so far has been American (more correctly Caucasian) ex-pats dating locals. There really isn't much else. Chinese folk stick with Chinese folk. Malays stick with Malays, etc.

And I don't think this phenomenon is linked to new immigrants. Singapore seems to have relatively little permanent immigration. Those that move here tend to fill labor intense jobs, but they are here only on temporary visas. This lack of cultural mixing is amongst people who have been raised here. And that's what puzzles me.

So connected to my previous posts about the Singaporean government's parental attitude, the only place where I see any attempt to learn about other cultures is in the newspaper or connected to governmental programs. I suspect the debates in newspapers are something which the government "encourages", otherwise I doubt we'd even see that in the papers. Regardless of the reason for including it in the op/ed pages, this seems very contrived.

The types of things I've seen in papers are op/ed pieces about Non-Muslims and Muslims getting along better (preventing "extremism" is one of the government's new published goals). I suppose wanting to get along better with people of different backgrounds seems only natural for Americans, but it's really wierd here. Like I said, it seems like only the government wants this. They support ethnic diversity amongst neighborhoods by forcing a mininum diversity in apartment buildings (e.g., if there are too many Chinese living in a specific building, more Chinese can't buy places there). They support various programs to get people together in public ways.

But in everyday life? The most common places for Singaporeans to congregate are the mall and food court. In these places, both young and old only mingle with people of the same ethnicity. One would expect school children to have friends from all backgrounds, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

My point here? Well, there's not much of one. Just that even though the government goes to great lengths to support cultural diversity, the people of Singapore seem to have turned their backs on the slightest notion. Considering the amount of ethnic diversity crammed into a place as small as Singapore, this is very wierd, especially for an American who has lived in relatively diverse places all his life.

Goodbye Democracy, hello....Dictatorship?

It's the holiday season, and what better way to celebrate than to go to a hot and humid country where you can get jailtime and caning for spitting our your gum in an inappropriate place...yes, it's the country we all love...Singapore. My wife is from here so this is really a family visit.

I've written before about the Singapore government here and here. so I won't go on about that, but I will post a few more thoughts about what has caught my eye. I'm only here for a week this time so you won't have to get too bored with my constant writing about the place.

So before anything else, let me just say we had a great start to our trip. We got bumped up to business class for the whole journey here. Yay! After settling into our economy class seats, a flight attendent came by and gave us new boarding passes and asked us to move up to the front of the plane. Now, I've sat in business class twice before. Once was on a very short hop from San Jose to LAX. Pretty useless since the flight's only 40 minutes. The other time was on a New York to London flight. That was more enjoyable, but it's still a relatively short flight. But business class on a 19 hour flight?! Word.

And on our Hong Kong to Singapore leg our seats were upstairs in the hump of the 747 jumbo jet. I've always wondered what's upstairs in the jumbo jet. Now I know. In this case, it was nothing different then downstairs business class, but it was still cool being up there. I've heard rumors about other planes having lounges for the extra rich, but who knows. I'm just happy to have sat up there once.

Man, it's gonna a pain sitting in economy on the way back. And it's gonna be even worse losing my United Premier status after this year is up...I've gotten used to not waiting in line and getting better seats when possible.

You may now leave comments about how spoiled I am.

Anthropomorphizing our Animal friends

I've written previously about being a dog owner. In short, once you own a dog, you start talking about wierd things and start talking about your puppy like it's your child. And in all honestly, taking care of and training a puppy seems very much like having a child, albiet it with less responsibility and complications. These comparisons can go all the way to trying to read into your dog's personality and assigning human traits to what they naturally do. This is obviously a pretty common thing to do. Afterall, we tend to find the human-ness in everything.

And so, reading something like this article about gorillas in a zoo performing a "wake" is all the more interesting. To be honest, I got the chills while reading this. (Note: The chills weren't from the fact that animals were doing this, but the fact that it was about a community death...that always gives me the chills for some reason). In any case, this is just another example of animals doing things that humans do. Many members of the primate family do things like we do. Whether it's performing death rites or everyday cleaning, we're much closer to animals than we think.

This story just adds to the list of reasons to read into what our pets do. They may not have self awareness about what they're doing, but they rituals, activities, reactions, and personalities are tied into some basic traits of being animals. If you've ever owned a pet, this is probably very comforting. If you can't relate, then I ask you to imagine watching a gorilla wake in person and tell me if it would move you or not.

Welcome to the Family

Just a quick note about the start of two more blogs (which I will now follow incessantly)...a couple of my friends have decided to dip their toes in the blogosphere. Let's hope they continue to write:

• Pensieve
• Amalgamation

Again Actually

There are very few topics which I write about in mutliple posts. Most of those topics are ones which I'm passionate (or dispassionate) about - politics, certain multi-level marketing schemes, etc. But movies? Nah, there's usually no point in writing about a movie more than once. Especially when it's been a year since writing about the film. Especially when it's a sappy romantic comedy.

But here I am writing about Love Actually....again. HBO has been showing this movie beginning this week and I can't help but watch it. About a year ago, I wrote about how the music in this film really did it for me. The eclectic mix of artists really fills in the gaps between story lines and adds to the feeling one is supposed to get when watching a romantic comedy (and that's still true about this movie). You know what I'm talking about...it's that sappy feeling you get when you can't help but smile at the situation on screen even though you're sort of ashamed to be enjoying it.

So anyways, as I'm watching this film again, I realize that there are a couple of things about it that draw me to it more than the regular sappy romantic comedy. Primarily, it's the fact that the general Christmas cheer is the backdrop to situations which are very realistic and varied. Most Christmas movies begin with the premise that the season is a time to smile and love and be merry. This movie certainly starts off with a similar premise. In fact, Hugh Grant begins with narration which says as much. But it proceeds to forget about that and present situations where people just like us find the Christmas love and can't help but smile and enjoy. And most of all, it doesn't seem contrived, it feels genuine. Even with all the sub-plots going on, it still comes off as genuine. Tell me the last time you thought any movie was genuine.

So rather than being left with a "Ya right!" feeling, we're left with a "Ya, totally!" feeling. Ok, so I'm even more sappy about this damned movie the second time around than the first. But what can I say? It's the Christmas season and I've realized that it's not just the music, but it's the story that catches me on this one.

So anyways, the second thing that drag me into this nonsense is the Brits. Sure, I grew up trying to catch late night Benny Hill for all its bawdiness, but now that I'm grown up, I've found British sensibilities to be quite enagaging (even if there aren't half naked chicks running around to sillyu music). Not only are the people warm and friendly, the comedy they put together goes beyond what most American comedies can hope for. Bawdy, aloof, ridiculous, silly, charming, genuine...it's all part of what I find interesting and engaging about this movie.

So there it is. I've written twice about something that I actually enjoy and exposes me...yet again...for the hopeless sap that I am. It could be the Gordon Biersch I drank earlier this evening, or it could just be Kiera Knightly and her smile throughout this movie, but let's just say it's the stuff I just mentioned above :)

Now, make sure you watch this movie...or at least go out and rent the new Benny Hill DVD.

A Holistic Approach to the AIDS Epidemic

If you don't know, December 1st is World AIDS Days. I have to admit, I don't think so much about this epidemic throughout the year, but I have been keeping track of some major occurances relative to fighting the disease. With almost 38 million people living with HIV and AIDS, it's difficult sometimes, to imagine how to tackle such a big problem, but there are certainly some significant things which have been accomplished and which will hopefully slow down the progression of this disease.

Here's just one development in Brazil involving drug production. It was big news last year when Indian firms began producing generic AIDS drugs for use in countries like South Africa. The Brazillian news is important because Brazil is actually part of the WTO and is legally breaking patents on these AIDS drugs because it is a national emergency. Right now, Indian firms don't have to deal with that, but Brazil's steps are good news in a world when multi-nationals often have more control over the lives of people than their governments do.

But the fight against AIDS isn't just about producing drugs. Afterall, those drugs need to get into the hands of the right people, at the right time, on a frequent enough basis to really make a difference. Moreover, fighting AIDS isn't just about treating people currently afflicted with HIV/AIDS, the true fight requires a much more holistic approach. In fact, Brazil and Thailand are at the leading edge of fighting the disease. Thailand has used somewhat draconian laws and strict enforcement to fight the disease. Perhaps not the most "free" way of going about things, but lessons can certainly be learned.

You can read about some of the challenges faced in India as the country is just coming to grips with the enormity of the task and the size of the potential problem. India is second only to South Africa in terms of reported cases of infection (5.3 million in India vs. 5.6 million in South Africa), but those numbers are really just the tip of the iceberg. More likely, there are many, many more infected but not reported. Also, with a population as large as India's, this is a disease which can spread very fast and quickly infect more people than malaria.

We always hear about the slow response to fighting AIDS, but some folks interviewed in this article make some great points about fighting AIDS:

• Government may fund and support AIDS treatment, but they usually crimalize the activities which are associated with the spread of AIDS such as prostitution and gay sex. The interviewees don't advocate legalizing prostituion, but they argue that simply tearing down brothels won't make the problem go away. In fact, it may encourage the spread of the disease. So before legislating such things, they state that the entire picture of prevention and treatment needs to be taken into account.
• Various Ministries need to be involved in a concerted effort since AIDS is not just a health problems. As quoted in the article, the World Bank's Shanta Devarajan states

“India was going through a similar phenomenon to southern Africa — of thinking of HIV/AIDS as mainly a health problem, for the Health Ministry to handle,” he says. But, he adds, Africa has shown that an effective fight against the disease requires the will of the whole government. At minimum, the finance minister has to be involved, because of allocation of resources (involved in) mitigating disease and caring for the ill," says Devarajan. "If trucking is how (the disease) is transmitted, you want the Transportation Ministry involved. The Education Ministry (should also be involved) since the schools can be a major opportunity for teaching children.”

So what can we do? Well, obviously there are so many non-profits out there which are doing great work. Just like so many other great causes, you can donate your time or money. At the least, read up. Knowing about this fight can only help.

Sparkling Tower

As can be surmised from the infrequent posting on here, I haven't had much time (or energy) to post much. So here's more filler for ya :)

This shot is obviously of the Eiffel Tower (the real one, not the one in Vegas). We took a short trip there last December and this is one of my favorite shots from our few days in Paris...it pays off to have a pocket tripod even when you're too cold to really setup equipment! The lights are actually strobe lights which flash on the hour during the evenings. I don't know if they're on throughout the year or just during the holidays, but they're quite a sight, near or far. This is a time lapse shot of 1/2 second.

Anyways, enjoy this until I can find time to write something insightful :)

Place in History

For all of us Seinfeld fans, here's a reason to go the Smithsonian.

That is all.

Oh...I know I've been relatively quiet (except for my outburst of earlier this week) since before the election. I've actually been rather consumed with work and an elections analysis which Young India is going to be publishing in the near future. Too late for an elections analysis, you say? Well, safe to say that most of the publication does not focus on the election results themsleves, rather it is focused on where to go from here. This is just a teaser, I'll provide links to the online version of the publication once it's ready for public consumption.

Walk quickly and look away

Ok, so I vowed not to write about Quixtar and multi-level marketing any more, but you know what?

Fuck 'em!

Fuck 'em all!

Before I move on, let me just say that I'm rarely driven to ranting in this space. Also, I never thought I'd see the day where I wish that Indians I walk by would just walk quickly and look away from me. But fuck it. All this desi-pride? Fuck it.

My wife and I were at Wal-mart last night (again). We've found it's just simpler to go later since it's less crowded and generally less insane. So cut to the repeated possibility/fear/annoyance of being accosted by the lame networking of Quixtar wanna-be's.

Since I last wrote about this subject, I've had near-accostings (yes, I can make up words, thank you). I'll be looking at something simple like light bulbs and some random Indian dude will ask me which bulb is good. Huh? Which bulb is good?!? The one that should fucking go off in your head every time you ask dumbfuck questions trying to get a conversation going! Or I'll be looking at shampoo and another Indian dumbass will ask me what type of shampoo I'm looking for. The one I can squeeze in your eyes to make you cry while I yell at you fool! Or I'll just be standing around and somebody walks by, slows down, and says Hi from 20 feet away.

If you haven't surmised yet, we had another encounter last night. This time, my wife had to deal with the pain of shooing these gnats away. Every technique one can use to nicely indicate to someone that you're not interested was used. None of them worked. None. My wife only got away from this woman by giving her email address. Even then, the woman and her husband started following up and "shopping" in the same areas that we were. And now I'm sure she'll have to deal with multiple emails from this woman asking to meet up for coffee, chai, chaat, gup-shup, whatever. But it has to be at our house and only for 15 minutes. Thank God (err Yahoo!) for "Block"

By the way, this is not a comment about Quixtar the company. I personally believe it's all a sham, but this rant isn't about the company or the likelihood of making money. It's about the "networking" that goes on in the attempts to drum up business and downstream sign-ups. I don't know if the Quixtar materials recommend this sort of annoying behavior or if it's just something bred into brown people in the Bay Area...all I know is that it ain't helping the cause. More saddening is that I'm unwilling to even smile at another Indian while shopping.

White? You get a smile. Black? You get a smile. Filipino? You get a smile. Hispanic? You get a smile. Indian which a child a tow? You get a smile and your child gets a silly face.

Mid-to-Late 30's Indian either alone or with your wife looking around for the next gullible desi? As Tupac would say...Fuck you and yo muthfuckin mama!

Call me a racist, if you will, but this is what it's come to! I'm sick and tired of having to deal with this shit every time I need socks or soap!

So here are some tips to all of you Quixtar/BWW folks when stalking the over-crowded paths at Wal-mart. And no, I'm not just mad at the idea of Quixtar and people running their own business. I'm mad at them thinking that every person needs to be saved with the Quixtar method of getting rich and moreover, saved in the most conniving, annoying, foolhardy way possible:

1. If you see a desi walking nearby, the chances are highly likely that he or she is already part of Quixtar, is in the process of becoming a Quixtar-ian, or much more likely, has been propositioned/confronted and has run out of ways to say "not interested" in a nice way. Given these facts...just keep walking.
2. Don't try to break the ice by mentioning how nice my wife's "Hair Lights" look or how I have a British accent. Understand this: They're Highlights and I'm not British. Just keep walking.
3. Just because I answer your dumb question about whatever I'm looking at, doesn't mean I want to talk to you. Yes, I like to be nice and I try to be nice, but here's a hint...anytime you get one word answers, that's an indication that the person doesn't care to talk more. Another hint: Any time someone looks away while giving one word answers, that's an indication that the person is ready to grab the nearest item and bash you on the head with it. Given these actions, just keep walking.
4. If someone you're talking to says "Sorry, I'm not interested" it means just that. I don't care to learn more. I don't care to meet up for coffee. I don't care to talk about a great business opportunity. I don't care! Just keep walking.
5. If I make up some lame story about why I don't have a phone number, just walk away. I'm doing it to try and be nice. I'd really just love to wear a t-shirt that says "Fuck Quixtar-ians", but I'd get thrown out of Wal-mart. Instead, I have to make up lame excuses about why I don't want to meet up with you. Just deal with it and keep walking.

I could go on and on with this, but I think you all get the idea. Please, just move on and let us live in peace. I don't want to save 30% on my toiletries. I don't want to make my money work for me. I don't want to sign up for a business where I need to stalk shoppers at the local discount store just to ring up some business.

I just want socks.

Please, let me buy my socks in peace.

More importantly, please let me feel comfortable smiling at desis I pass in the store. I don't like walking quickly and looking away. I did enough of that in college when I didn't want to associate with the Indians on campus. I'm past that stage in life and am happy to have friends both Indian and non-Indian. It's as simple as that. Can you please help me out?

Please?

Good. Now go fuck off!!

Tempering the arugment

After my flurry of posts leading up the election it's been almost a week since the eventful day and this is my first post since then! Rather than just rant or speculate I wanted to give the results some time to sink in before saying anything. Why? Mainly because I wasn't really sure what to think. But the thing is, I still don't know what to think. But in the past week, I must say that I've been tempering my concerns, mainly because I think the power of democracy, freely available information, and a robust political dialogue will prevent the nation from lurching far to the right like many people fear.

So let's leave the discussion about the nation moving right and evangelicals taking over. For right now, the fundamental hope I have is that parties demostrate to the public why they exist. Specifically for the Democratic Party, the leadership needs to communicate to the nation as whole (not just it's "base") what they stand for and where they will lead the nation. The argument that they must counter the GOP is not good enough to regain or maintain leadership positions.

Half of the argument for voting for Kerry was that he's not Bush. Well, it clearly wasn't enough. And the argument cannot come down to a single candidate. The argument must be focused on the party as a whole. Afterall, if people cannot believe in the fundamental platform, why should thye believe in candidates who come and go? The GOP is setting itself up for long term leadership and the Democratic Party should do the same. True, one should not simply vote by party affiliation, but I think a lot of voting comes down to believing in the overall set of ideas a party brings to the table. The specific candidate must then show what more he or she brings to the table to enhace that platform and policy ideas of the party in general.

Anyways, it's a tough task. Just ask leaders of the Indian National Congress. The Democratic Party is in a similar situation to that which the INC found itself after a resounding loss to the BJP in the 90's. It took the INC a decade to recover from that and communicate its identity in a believable manner. The INC chose to stay ground on its platform (which I believe was the right way to go), but it still took a long time to find the right way to relay that platform message.

I'm interested to see where the Democratic Party goes from here. I believe they should stand firm on overall principles, but in doing so, they must demostrate that those principals are closer to the heart of the American public and the concerns of every person. The GOP has taken to that role and message quite well, and it will be a challenge to take that back.

More soon...

The WHOLE story and nothing but...

The media are many times questioned for intent in publishing certain articles, of being liberal or conservative, of being sensationalistic, and many other things. Rarely does it seem that members of the media publicly keep each other in check.

As you may have guessed by now, I'm an avid reader of Slate.com. [Yes, I know the contributors and staff of Slate is generally quite liberal, but I find the selection of content so varied and the point of view quite interesting (and silly titles to boot).] Anyways, here's an instance where the Slate editor-at-large has helped me to put a hot news item in a bit of perspective and hopefully, helps media outlets maintain (or build up) their reporting credibility.

The disappearance of 380 tons of arms from Al-Qaqaa, Iraq is being hyped up by the Kerry campaign. I completely agree with the Kerry campaign on the questions this should bring up in one's mind about Iraq war planning. But what Jack Shafer has written here is really interesting in that it calls into question not only the Bush admin, but the IAEA for their methods considering they didn't trust Saddam to begin with. A quick example from Mr. Shafer's piece:

The Times explains that HMX and RDX can be disguised as "harmless goods, easily slipped across borders." I'd like to hear the IAEA explain what logic it used in deciding that hundreds of tons of high explosives could be trusted to the custodianship of Saddam Hussein.

It also calls to task the additional work the NY Times should do to put things into perspective by, among other things, telling us about how many other explosives might be there:

Congratulations to the New York Times for breaking this story, but I'd still like to see it placed in context. For instance, Al-Qaqaa was one of the CIA's 500 "medium priority" weapons sites: How many of those sites were searched and secured? Are other dangerous caches missing? Was Al-Qaqaa the only HMX, RDX, and PETN depot in Iraq? Did U.N. inspectors allow the Iraqis to hoard other dangerous munitions?

There are actually a lot of other interesting things brought up in this specific article. In general, I think it's good for all us to consider what the whole story might be for anything we read. Of course, we can't always count on our favorite newspapers to provide the whole story, but I'm sure the blogosphere can do a good job at proving other perspectives on the stories and helping to fill in gaps where they may be. If nothing else, simply keeping this all in mind will help us all put things in perspective and be the skeptics that we all should be. Keep that in mind the next time you read your morning paper.

The Fundamental Problem with the American Elections System

Yesterday, I got quite wordy and noted that I would follow-up with a discussion about the more fundamental problem with our voting system here. Well, I actually decided to make that post on Samvaad, the blog for the non-profit who's board I'm on. You can read the full text of that posting here.

I've condensed that post slightly for this blog:
Whatever one's opinion is on the Supreme Court decision, the fact that such a controversy erupted highlights a much more fundamental problem in the way that federal elections are conducted in the United States. The reality is voting in the United States is that basically the only thing which the federal government guarantees is that every citizen over the age of 18 has the right to vote (except for a few exceptions such as for felons). Other aspects of voting is left up to the individual states and counties. This had not really been a national issue before the 2000 election, but since then, this has become an increasingly worrying situation.

We're not talking about voter intimidation or illegal tactics (although those are a concern, they can be addressed through better enforcement of existing laws). The worrying situation is that in federal elections such as those for President or Congress, the federal government doesn't require any minimum "quality" for polling locations or for the process which states and counties use to run elections and count votes.

What this means is that there are various ways in which people submit their votes - the traditional paper ballots, optical scanning machines where tick marks are read by scanner, and the new touch screen machines are just a few examples. There is certainly controversy around the touch screen machines because, depending on the type of machine, there is no receipt or secondary method to confirm the vote. This is one area of where it would make sense for the Federal Elections Commission to weigh in with standard for the types of voting machines which can be used in federal elections and the ways in which elections officials should maintain these machines to ensure proper functioning. Unfortunately, the FEC only seems to concern itself over campaign financing.

If you've read deep into the NY Times article linkd to above, you'll notice that the actual court case brought before the Supreme Court was regarding the recounting of questionable ballots. The decision made was based partly on the ability of Florida election officials to recount ballots quickly enough with certainty. This highlights another area of grave concern over the American elections process. There is no federal standard for counting or recounting ballots in the case on controversy, mistakes, or questions. Each state has different standards on when a recount should be conducted - many require a recount when the vote is within 1/2%, but it varies.¶So after the controversy around the 2000 election, one would expect the federal government to weigh in on this and publish standards for counting and recounting ballots in federal elections. Again, this would be perfect for the FEC to pick up, but again, they do not oversee this area.

There are certainly other areas of concern with the process of voting in the United States. This piece has only touched upon some procedural areas, but there are many more issues around enforcement of elegibility rules, voter intimidation, and access to polling locations. All of these issues concern us about the quality of the elections process here. One can cynically question the legitimacy of President Bush's term because of problems in Florida, but safe to say that these issues were not in the public's eye then. In the four years since then, Florida has made strides to improve upon their elections process, but why not the federal government?

For the elections coming on November 2nd, it would not be surprising if various lawsuits are brought on the grounds of procedural errors. If the campaigns are ready to pursue these issues in a court of law, why isn't the federal government doing anything to discount the need for such lawsuits. Any time a material change in the results of an election could occur on the basis of these procedural failures and subsequent lawsuits, one has to wonder why there is not a larger uproar. Until there are federal standards for the election of federal officials, the legitimacy of every winner could be questioned.

Equal Protection and the 2004 Presidential Election

Let's go back to November and December 2000. There was a huge controversy over the presidential election results in Florida since some ballots had "hanging chads". As you likely know, this situation was litigated directly to the Supreme Court with a decision coming down on Dec 12, 2000. The summary of this is that recount underway in Florida was stopped since it could not be finished in time for the December 18th meeting of the Electoral College. To refresh your memory, here's a New York Times article from Dec. 13th, 2000. The main reason I chose this article is that it goes into the many attached opinions on the Supreme Court decision. While I'm sure the NY Times editorial board was against the decision at the time, I think it's valuable to understand the internal struggles that the Court went through in making such an important decision. The NY Times provides good insight into that with the details from the separate opinions (which were attached to the majority opinion). If you haven't gotten it yet, I'm sort of a Supreme Court junkie :)

Whether or not you like the results of this, it seems like a good number of people believe the 2004 election will be decided in the courts again. I'll get to the likelihood of that in a bit, but first, let's look at the specific reasons given for stopping the recount in Florida. Bear with me for a bit....Above all, the Court said that Equal Protection in voting was a foundation of the decision. Equal protection in knowing the intent of the voter. At the time, the Court was referring to equal treatment of any recount of questionable ballots. The Court decided that a recount could not be completed with necessary equality and fairness by the December 18th cut-off date. Of course, there's a lot more depth to the decision, so please read the above article for all the nuances. But that's really what it came down to.

Now, the interesting thing about this is that Equal Protection had never before been brought up in the context of an election. But now that it has been brought up, I think it's a big Pandora's Box which will be duly ripped apart in the next week. At the time, the Court said that the deicision was limited ONLY to the Bush v. Gore decision, but realistically, precedent has been set and in the judicial system, precedent is very important for any subsequent cases. Now the other thing is that the Court referred to equal protection in knowing the intent of the voter after the fact. They didn't consider equal protection in the sense of polling places using the same methods for voting and vote counters using the same methods for counting votes.

So here's where I think we'll run into trouble with next week's elections. There are loads of people just ready to jump an any instance of possible unfairness or inequality and then bring the case to court under the equal protection clause. Now, a person might bring a case if they are handicapped and no adequate polling location was available to them. However, I think the bulk of the cases brought up will be with purely political intent and not any intent to uphold any sense of fairness.

Some examples: A voter did not originally register correctly and was still able to vote. This could be perceived as being unfair to the voters who did indeed register correctly. How about a voter who did not bring proper identification to the polling location? That could be unfair.

The idea here is that procedural unfairness will be used as a tool to invalidate votes. Any action which results in some sort of unfairness to other voters or where the intent of the voter may not be clear could potentially be brought to court. We could be dealing with nitpicking, but I believe we will be dealing with people intent on "nitpicking" only portions of the population that tend to vote for the other candidates. Republicans challenging voters at locations which are predominantly Democratic voting. Democrats challenging voters at locations which are predominantly Republican voting. And then we'll deal with countersuits against the challengers. The act of challenging only some voters could be perceived as unfair itself!

In short, I believe this will lead to a quagmire. All of this because the Supreme Court opened up this Pandora's box of Equal Protection.

By the way, I don't know if all of these suits will end up at the Supreme Court. I have a feeling that if there is enough litigation, it would make sense for the Court to step in just to stop the madness. Here are a couple of opposite opinions on that matter:

• Yes, this will end up at the Supreme Court
• No, this will not end up at the Supreme Court (I've referred to scenarios 1 and 2 above)

This had become quite the long post, so I'll leave it as-is right now. I'll shortly post my thoughts on the fundamental problem here.

Horse race

Back in the early summer a friend and I were lamenting how the presidential race was all but decided already. Now, here we are 6 days before the election and it's a horse race. We're tracking close states and what the likelihood of either candidate winning various states. There are a few very interesting spots to get a bead on state by state polls and add it up for electoral college results:

• The LA Times has a pretty straight forward map representing the numbers based on "locked up" states where there is no real challenge. It doesn't make guesses about states where the polls are too close to call. Here, the white states are the ones too close to call.
• Slate has a much more in depth analysis which includes numbers from various polls. This tracker not only adds up "locked up" states, but also includes iffy states where polls are close, but using various methods, can be predicted to go one way or the other. In this one, the white states are "locked up" and the red or blue states are varying certainty.

Of course, it's dangerous to make predictions. Afterall, I still remember going out on election evening in 2000 thinking that Gore had won only to learn it had gone the other way by the end of the night. But these scorecards are interesting alongside reports about campaigning. It's interesting to see campaign strategies changing based on whether a state is locked up or not. In fact, Hawaii, Arkansas, and West Virginia are in play again and the campaigns are taking note.

In any case, I'll soon post my feeling on how this election is going to run. I highly doubt we'll know the winner next Wednesday because of litigation. And even after litigation is settled, I think people will really be in doubt about the winner's legitimacy - mainly because of questions about election day voting locations. Come back soon for the skinny!

Bash 'em!

Nothing enrages me more than bashing the citizens of other countries! Stop the xenophobia! So in that light, I provide you a link to a funny table to help us figure out who's worse: The Saudis or the French?

Ok, it's not laugh-out-loud funny, but it put a smile on my face on a rather dull day. Damn those foreigners! Damn them I say!

In other news, maybe we'll finally stop hearing from Red Sox fans about their lot in life. Err, wait a second, you can't be a Sox fan if you don't have a sense of impending doom. Seriously though, I think most of the country is pulling for the Sox. And with good reason. Boston is truly a baseball town even though their football and basketball teams have had much more success. I'm not a huge baseball fan, but you can't help but pull for them too. So what happens if the Cards win? Umm, let's not talk about that.

Plan to Rebuild: To Be Provided

So this may just be piling it on at this point, but I read a couple of interesting articles this morning about the plan for "winning the peace" in Iraq after the initial defeat of Saddam. Sen. Kerry's been hitting Pres. Bush pretty hard on this for a while now and the Philly Inquirer has a report about one of the final planning meetings before invasion in Spring 2003 (I actually read it originally at Slate Magazine in this Op/Ed which discusses not just this meeting, but also Secy Rumsfeld's plan to transform the military and his progress to date.):

Near the end of his presentation, an Army lieutenant colonel who was giving a briefing showed a slide describing the Pentagon's plans for rebuilding Iraq after the war, known in the planners' parlance as Phase 4-C. He was uncomfortable with his material - and for good reason. The slide said: "To Be Provided." [Emphasis added]

When I first read this, I could do nothing but stare in disbelief. Are you kidding me??

Far be it for me to know what exactly is needed to rebuild Iraq. I claim no expertise. But judging from the Inquirer report, it's pretty clear that most military minds saw a gaping hole in the war planning. This just adds more weight to argument that the administration went into this with full momentum and didn't really want to hear dissenting voices. It's clear that the top level was giving Pres. Bush what he wanted to hear (thus when Bush says that the military said they were comfortable with the Iraq war plans, he's being technically correct), but any meaningful dissent was filtered out to ensure the momentum would not be affected.

Call it blinders, call it willful ignorance, call sheer stupidity, either way, it has put us in a situation that probably could have been prevented (or at least lessened). Of course we can improve the situation, but seriously, how much more of this should we have to take? I'm annoyed enough when such willful disregard happens are work, shouldn't we be fucking sick of it when it comes to the leaders of our country?

One last rant: The argument about whether or not we should have gone to war is a completely separate one. There are wide opinions and reasonings about the worth of going to war in Iraq and I'm happy to discuss them, but I don't think any argument can be made about the prosecution of this war and the incompetence which has lead to the current situation in Iraq.

Nuff Said.

Save the kids, tax the Rich!

Now, I'm one for taxing the more wealthy amongst us to help society overall. The extra tax hit on these folks isn't as big as the hit would be on someone who is just making ends meet. Afterall, the working class person's taxes come straight from wages (assuming they don't save very much). The wealthier person most likely has a nest egg which provides a buffer from any big expenses (like a new convertible).

Okay, so I'm not trying to convince you about taxing the rich here. This post is specifically about NOT taxing the rich just because they are an "evil" target. I should also note that I don't consider my wife and I to be rich, but I do believe we're wealthy in the sense that we have savings and if either one of us lost our jobs we'd still be able to stitch together a life without landing in poverty. Besides, we have the buffer of our families...who would sacrifice life and limb to ensure that we don't end up destitute. Anyways, that's another story for another day.

The real story today is about Proposition 63 which is on the November ballot here in California. If you're a voter in California you really should read the entire link. It's pretty comprehensive and summarizes the facts as well as both sides of the argument. If you're not a Cali voter, then I'll save you the time and give you the one liner:

This proposition establishes a state personal income tax surcharge of 1 percent on taxpayers with annual taxable incomes of more than $1 million. Funds resulting from the surcharge would be used to expand county mental health programs

Seem simple enough? Well, as a one liner...err two sentencer...it seems like a no brainer. Let's help fund county mental health programs with money which comes from people that don't really need it. Ok, so while in many case, I think it's appropriate to be Robin Hood, in this case, I think it's just social services gone wrong. Why? Because there doesn't seem to be any connection here.

Of course mental health programs are needed and it's a great cause. And this tax payer funding would apparently save the state $100 million annually across various areas (according to non-partisan state analysis). Additionally, the tax would be deductible from federal taxes, so the wealthy wouldn't feel the pinch.

While I agree the rich wouldn't really feel the pinch on this, I think the proposition just provides fodder to folks who believe "tax and spend" is just wrong. The supply siders in the house would argue that it's better to keep the money in the hands of the wealthy so they can invest it in businesses, yada yada. Okay, the standard supply side argument is nonsense, but I'm on the same side as them in this case.

The wealthy have targeted here for no other reason than the fact they have money. The authors of the proposition haven't really thought this through to provide a good argument as to why these wealthy people should be made to pay for county mental health services. Generally, state level tax proposals are tied together decently. An example would be to tax drivers to pay for road maintenance and public transport projects. Now, the projects may not be thought through well, but at least you can make the connection between drivers and roads and transportaion.

But the wealthy and mental health?

The other thing about this is that a very specific area of health care has been chosen here. I'm not sure why some other area of state funded health care wasn't chosen. Why not emergency rooms? Why not long term preventative care for heart disease? I wouldn't be surprised if there are new propositions in the next election cycle to fund those programs.

And that's where you start losing the argument about spreading the wealth. I can see why supply siders are tired of "more and more taxes". It's because they aren't convinced about the worth. Now, they may never be totally convinced, but there should not be such huge gaps in logic here.

And finally, this proposition apparently has wide support. Last I heard, people are in favor of it 2-to-1 (66 yes-33 no). Who knows if it'll pass, but I know I'll be voting against it. In county and state elections I've been for funding good public services which are connected tightly to the source of funding, but I've been very much against vague plans to improve "things" with new bonds or taxes. Even Bay Area transportation plans have been filled with holes or filled with tertiary projects and so I've voted against them. So I'll be voting against this one. If you're a voter in Cali, I suggest you read up on this one and think seriously about where this one will lead us.

Let's go to the analysis (take 2)

As expected, there has been a ton said about Presidential Debate #2 since the weekend. Most of it has been partisan, which is okay when it's in Op/Ed form. But impartial analysis of the "end game" of each candidate has been a bit difficult to find. Most of the impartial "analysis" has just been a recounting of what actually occured...sort of a a highlight summary of the 90 minutes. However, Ronald Brownstein of the LA Times has a pretty interesting take which I daresay is truly analysis! Yay!

In short, the analysis seeks to connect the candidates' content and demeanor with the overall goals of the campaigns and the targets of various pieces. This goes beyond saying that Bush got better as the debate went on, but actually provides commentary on why (perhaps) the candidates said certain things.

To be sure, there are useless comments such as this:

Democrats saw nothing in the evening that would slow the momentum Kerry
gained after the first debate. Republicans were generally pleased that Bush delivered a steadier performance likely to remind his base why they support him.

But gladly, that is used more to comment on the general partisan feelings about the debate and is not the focus of the analysis. Holla if ya hear me, Larry!

In addition, Brownstein comments on the quality of the questions asked of the candidates, comparing them to previous town hall forums. Several other editorials comments on this as well. And I think that's important. Going into this debate (as well as the other ones), I feel like the general mood was that the rules around the debate would limit any real engagement and that pre-screened questions would be useless. In fact, the St. Louis audience provided some very direct questions, which the candidates tried to answer...not as directly as possible, but Charlie Gibson tried to pen in the candidates at some points (without too much success).

The most interesting thing I find is that the only places where any of this type of analysis is available is in the blogosphere. The blogs may belong to paid journalists, but it's very interesting to note that the most insightful commentary is being provided through a medium which allows for the most flexibility. I would be interested to see what these paid bloggers would be like if they were reporters being paid by CNN and such. Most likely, they wouldn't even make it through the ranks to get on TV, but that's a whole different story.

Let's go to the analysis

So I've been watching the presidential debates with passion. In fact, I've been watching them sort of like a sporting event - sitting on the edge of my seat and clapping or making "crowd" noises when there's a good or interesting or killer statement. I've mainly been cheering for Kerry, but I'll admit there have been some commetns from Bush where I could help but saying "oooh".

Anyways, the general consensus is that Kerry whooped Bush's ass in the first debate. The second debate seems to be a draw, although I'm sure more opinions will come out over the next few days. Speaking of opinions, I can only laugh at the TV news media when watching their post-debate coverage. Why?

Well, folks at CNN and the like are paid for their analysis and opinions on what has just occurred. But what do we get? Interviews with campaign spokepeople. And what do they give us? Our man won. What do you expect from the campaign? That's what they're paid for. At least they're doing what they're paid for. It may not be connected to reality, but at least they're doing what's expected of them.

I had to change the channel immediately when Larry King laughed at the fact that campaign spokespeople were just giving a one-sided story. HA! I could only laugh that the people who purport to know something about political campaigns simnply rely on interviews with partisan representatives. They don't have the ability to provide any real analysis to give viewers some "professional" insight into the debates. Instead we're left with these idiots laughing with each other.

Now, I can speculate why these folks won't give us a real opinion. It could be that they don't want to express an opinion and then be proven wrong or stupid later on. Perhaps. It could be that the campaigns know how to work these idiots so well that there's not much left to do. I'd like to think it's more about the networks want to give us: Quick soundbites that we can use at the watercooler along with "I heard it on CNN/MSNBC/FOX/etc"

Come Monday morning, I'll be telling my co-workers I heard Larry King laugh like an idiot and had nothing better to say except ask a partisan guest his or her opinion (cue Hillary Clinton, Karen Hughes, yada yada).

Man, I'm glad that I've been watching these debates on CSPAN. I'm just sorry I turned over to CNN afterwards to hear "analysis". You can bet I won't be doing that after the next debate. God forbid election night...I'm not sure where to turn for decent news about election results.

Too clearly, obviously

After my little rant about the campaigns, I was driving to lunch and thought, you know this is all because I watch too much of The Daily Show. I' m just too cynical about all this. But then, lo and behold, I switch on NPR (since Bay Area radio music SUCKS, NPR is about the only bearable thing on the air, even during the lunch hour) and Jon Stewart was being interviewed on Fresh Air. (I actually don't like Terry Gross too much so I'm glad someone was filling in for her and asking Stewart some interesting questions.)

In any case, here's a link to the archived interview. The entire interview is about 30 minutes, but if you don't have time for the entire thing, I think the first 15 minutes are quite worthwhile. Stewart gets into some insightful comments about the media and the role anchorpeople should play when it comes to political representatives and their "talking points". Stewart loves to play the smart-ass and he definitely does that when it asked about politicians, the press, and his show.

So anyways, Stewart's comments about all of this relate directly back to my previous post. Basically, he talks about how politicians take advantage of the loopholes and the weaknesses of the media. That's what they're supposed to be doing, afterall they run campaigns of persuasion. Stewart has problems with media-folk who don't take the opportunity to call these politicians (and their handlers) on their BS by asking questions about fact. Stwerat acknowledges that not everything needs to be a fact, but if people called into be interviewed are purporting to state facts, shouldn't the interviewer verify the veracity of these claims?

Moreover, Stewart makes a great point about the few media-folk who dare call into question the veracity of such statements. It's gotten to the point that when an anchorperson dares ask a 'devil's advocate' (or even-keeled) question to a guest, the guest gets mad and accuses the anchorperson of being an operative for the other side.

So this all comes back to the same thing. The whole circus is a charade where everyone wants to blur what's going on behind the hand-waving and curtain-pulling. Many in the public, I'm sure, can see right through it, but nobody paid to play the game cares to acknowledge that there's anything behind charade. Those who should be trying to pull back curtains and stop the hand-waving are in on the game as well.

Thus those of us who can imagine what's really going on back there can only laugh and become more cynical. Great stuff.

Can you see clearly now?

I've mentioned a few times that I closely follow the presidential campaigns. I'm not exactly sure why I follow them so closely. Perhaps it's the fact that these campaigns will give us insight into who to vote for in the coming election. More probably, it's the fact that both campaigns are so hollow and transparent that it's not even funny.

When there's a car wreck on the side of road I never slow down to gander. For some reason, however, I can't help myself when it comes to these campaigns.

What has been making me wonder lately is whether the bulk of the American public sees right through these campaigns. My friends certainly see through them. From various interviews I hear of random people, they also seem to see right through the hogwash.

So what gives? Are people just so used to the political nonsense that they stop and stare at the car wrecks at the roadside? Are people really engrossed by the statements that people from each campaign make? Are these folks unaware that every statement coming out of the campaigns is filled with more spin than fact?

Does anyone really think that Bush isn't a master debater? Does anyone think today's debate isn't a must-win for Kerry? Does anyone think the debate is more about substance than style? Well, according to the Bush campaign, Kerry has the upper hand in the debate since he's a champion debater. Yeah, right. And according the Kerry campaign, today's debate is important, but not the end-all-be-all for his campaign. Yeah, right. And according to various news outlets, people actually care about what is said during these debates, not how it's said. Yeah, right.

I suppose we're all in on this. We listen to the nonsense coming from all angles and act like we take it very seriously. Thus more similar nonsense comes our way and we can do nothing more than absorb it all in.

Here's to being politically active folks!

Fogging In

Since I live in the Bay Area, there's no way I can continue without showing one of my photos of the Golden Gate bridge. This was taken near Fort Point and has some digital enhancing done to it. I think the enhancing is rather obvious, but it might be more subtle to people not familiar with the shot. In any case, I added contrast to the rocks at the bottom of the frame. Sorry about the pixelation of the shot, it's the only copy I have on me at the moment. The actual shot hangs as an 8x10 in our house so it's clear enough to enlarge. Again, this shot was taken with a little point and shoot, and yes, both the camera and the photograpgher got a little damp during the process.

Subscription Music Services becoming more popular?

I've been enjoying Rhapsody since I first subscribed to it even though it's a pretty bare bones application. I've got a laundry list of complaints about the functionality & non-musical content provided. I had hoped Rhapsody would improve this pretty soon, but I think the may be forced to get moving now that several companies are coming out with their own subscription services. MusicMatch was bought recently by Yahoo for their subscription service, Yahoo is apparently working on integration of such services with their instant messaging client. That would definitely be a very cool thing. In the meantime, even more players are getting involved in the game. According to this NYTimes.com article many companies are gearing up for similar services. Hopefully this competition means that everyone will provide better and more useful functionality. Afterall, the music is a commodity, the differentiator will be the ease of use and the extras which are provided.

The Club

We have officially joined The Club. No, I'm not talking about some insider business scheme or anything so shady. We are now proud owners of a golden retriever puppy. And thus, we are now members of The Club. It's really amazing the conversations one strikes up when talking to other dog owners. People with whom you've never been able to say more than "What's up" now have a reason to chit chat. I've written before about pet ownership so I won't talk to that again. Let me just say that it's great having this little guy running around the house and it's truly amazing how fast they learn.

Fruit Stand

Another random photo from my collection. This one was taken at a fruit stand near Serangoon Road in Singapore. Nothing to special about this, I just like the symmetry and the color.

I'm not sure why (maybe it's just the tropical nature of everything), but all of the pictures I've taken in Singapore seem to really pop. In more correct terms, they're oversaturated. Normally, you look to limit saturation, but nowadays, high saturated photos seems to draw a lot of attention just becuase they're so bright and vibrant. Once again, what is catchy is what get attention :)

Russian "Democracy"

Ok, let's take a moment to talk about something serious (as I occassionally try to do here). I'm keeping close track of the presidential campaigns going on here in the US, but the thing that's really worrying me the most is what's going on Russia right now.

Of course, there's the horrific events in Beslan which occured last week. There really is no excuse to take school children, teachers, or anyone hostage. But the reaction by Moscow was something, sadly, which I was expecting. When I first learned of the kidnapping, I didn't realize that so many people were being held. In some maddening part of my mind, I figured that Moscow would somehow screw this up and get some of the hostages killed. Of course, it turned out much worse: Over 350 people, over 150 of which were children, were killed in a crazy attempt to rescue the hostages.

Anyways, the fallout from all of this is nothing short of outrageous. As per usual, the Chechen rebels who took the hostages have been called international terrorists, by President Putin. This, of course, is simply an attempt at garnering favor with the rest of the world which is so concerned about terrorism. It's pretty clear that Russia's terrorist problem with Chechnya is wholly different from whatever threat Al-Queda and the like pose.

Moreover, Putin's response to this is to further lock down his control over the nation. I dare say he's a president in name only, because everything he does is designed to enhance his dictatorial control over the country. A month or two ago it was his actions with Yukos, Russia's largest oil producer, that stank of dictatorship. Now, it's this crazy plan to limit electoral choices. It proposes that elections should be for parties, rather than candidates and that regional governors would be appointed by Moscow rather than elected by constituents.

Huh?!

This stinks of iron-fisted dictatorship. Or at least Putin's attempts to maintain complete and utter control over the nation. Anti-terrorism? Gawd. From what I've read, Russia's intelligence has absolutely no clue about the activities of various Chechen rebels. None of this fiddling with the pittance of demoracy which Russians "enjoy" is going to help fighting terrorism. Sure, they're throwing some money at security agencies, but until Putin decides to give real democracy a chance, this problem is not going to go away. It will simply get worse.

Apparently, Colin Powell has expressed "concern" over these turn of events, but I'm afraid nobody is going to do anything to stop Putin and his moves to clamp down the country in his fist. Russia is teetering on Failed State status (or perhaps it has already fallen to that level), but the country's place in the UN and the USSR's legacy will ensure that nobody takes effective action against this insanity.

This is truly sad, and unforuntately, I don't think anything can be done (given the realities of the world we live in) to slow this march away from democracy.

That said, I'll calm down. You can go on with your web surfing now :)

Lost in Thought

I don't normally put photos of family and friends on open sites, but this is the one exception I've always had. I took this shot in 2000 on a train headed towards Delhi. Just as a reminder to everyone who looks for the latest and greatest advanced digital camera...this shot was taken with an $80 film camera with no zoom. Yes, I know this shot is far from perfect, but when I look at it, I can't help but wonder what my cousin is thinking...I'm absorbed in the moment, not in the technical perfection. I think that's a sign of a good shot...one that takes your thoughts to a different place, to when and where the shot was taken. Even if you didn't take the picture or don't know the people in the frame, if a shot can do this, then that's a sign of a good shot. At least that my take :)

Sunset at the Taj

In my last post I mentioned that I'm going to post some of my photos. So this is the first. It's actually the first photo which I took that I was proud to display.

So this is the sunset at Agra, just outside of the Taj Mahal, taken in February, 2000. The towers you see aren't the Taj, but towers on the wall surrounding the grounds. I'd have to say that this silhouette is more dumb luck than my photography skill. This shot comes down to metering mode and exposing for the sunset rather than the foreground. At least that's what I read in a photography tips book the day before taking this :) So I gave it a try and look what I got!

<--- By the way, this little logo is for Hello, a photo application from Picasa. Google recently bought Picasa (and thereby Hello) and they've made it possible to post photos to Google's Blogger. Talk about synergies :) In any case, I would highly recommend Picasa for folks who are looking for an easy to use digital photo organizer. It can do some simple photo editing as well as web albums. They've done a good job at making it easy to use and really slick to look at. I feel like I'm using a Mac when I start it up. I'm still trying to figure out if I like Hello. Right now, it's just a way to upload my pics without using my own server space. Other than that, I'm not sure if I find it all that useful. Apparently you can chat and swap photos with other users through Hello, just like an IM client, but I don't have anyone else signed up to swap with :)

Snap Away

So I just realized that I've never mentioned the fact that I'm an avid photographer. I don't make any money at it, but I'm always the guy taking the pictures, but rarely found in them. While I love photography, I don't spend nearly enough time taking pictures. My regular workday allows me to be lazy about it and give me excuses for not practicing. The interesting thing is that all day long, I'm catching things while I walk around which would be great to photograph. While it's generally inappropriate to take photos in the office, I'm sure I could bring a point-and-shoot with me everyday to capture daily moments outside of the office. But I don't. Lazy me.

So anyways, friends and family seem to think I'm a great photographer. Of course, I know better :) My aforementioned lack of practice means that I'm really hit-or-miss on my photography. Generally, however, people are quite impressed with photos of mine where I've simply filled the frame with the subject - a group of friends, the Eiffel Tower, whatever. You'd be surprised at how much more impressive photographs are when the subject is recognizable rather than just a spec in the distance.

This past weekend, I was finally able to parlay my photo habit into practice for an environment that I'm not accustomed to: A large party. My dad's friend recently turned 50 and his family held a surprise birthday party for. They asked me to photograph the event and I happily obliged commenting that my gift to uncle would be a nice scrapbook through which the family can remember the night. I generally don't like to impose at such events since a hired photographer may be on hand, and usually, there are dozens of other cameras on hand anyways. But Sunday night I got to walk around and get in people's way just to get a shot of the most interesting thing I notice.

Overall, I'd say I had fun and I learned a lot. First off, I had a new flash and I was learning its wrinkles as the night progressed. Something which you should never do is buy a brand new camera (or anything else) just before you need it. Since I have a digital camera I was able to quickly learn some things and apply them as the night progressed, but I definitely wished I had some extra time beforehand to get used to the flash. Lesson number one: Get used to your camera and how it works before you leave for that big vacation.

The most fun of the night was capturing the candid moments. Auntie hugging uncle while she cried from her happiness. The birthday "boy" laughing at a joke. It's really those moments which help you to remember these times. Posed shots are nice to throw in an album, but the laughs, the hugs, the quiet moments...those are what bring back the memories. There's actually a genre of wedding photojournalism which aims to capture these moments. If you've ever seen any wedding albums by a photojournalist, you will no doubt be left with memories of being there...or wishing you were there.

That said, if you're in need of a good wedding photojournalist...don't call me :) Here's a link to an acquaintence's website whom you can call on for all your photographic needs. Here's his blog as well.

So now that I've finally talked a bit about my photography habit, I'll try to post some of the images that have capture my mind. I've posted a few linked pics from around the web, but I'll actually post some of my own shots. The only challenge is finding photos that don't include the people that I know. Even though I bank online and shop online, I avoid placing photos of friends and loved ones on open sites like this one. Come back for more pics soon.

So long Athens...

So the Olympics are over. I would say "finally" but I actually enjoyed the games throughout. I'll definitely miss coming home and turning on a really random sport and enjoying the sheer emotion displayed (well, not all of the athletes show emotion, but it's still fun to watch). I was actually quite impressed with these games. Call it low expections, but the games went off much better than I had thought possible.

There was a cynic in me who didn't think Greece could pull things together in time. Afterall, Greece is basically a third world country despite its location in Europe and membership in the EU. If you watched the marathon and all of the sites alongside the road, the runners may as well have been running in India. But whatever Greece's economic standing was and is, they pulled things together, however last minute and people who were there really seemed to enjoy it.
Cynicism aside, there was the fear in me that there would be some horrible terrorist hit. This, of course, didn't happen. And more than happy for that, I'm relieved. I should be happy that the best of the world can congregate in peace and enjoy two weeks of friendly competition. But I'm just relieved that nothing destroyed it. That's pretty sad isn't it? My joy in seeing athletes rejoice in their victory and hard work has been tempered by this ever-present worry that on the world stage, none of is really safe. I don't think about this in my normal everyday life. I don't worry about bombs coming down on San Francisco, but at special events like this? Yes, there's a pit in my stomach just hoping we never have to see the day. But you know what makes me forget about that?

A Brazilian marathoner rejoicing when he enters the Olympic stadium, running with his arms spread like an eagle, even though he had been attacked on the course just 3 miles earlier.

The Iraqi soccer team winning more than anyone could have imagined. And showing more heart than anyone else on the pitch.

An American wrestler crying, while sitting in the middle of the mat after winning the bronze, leaving his shoes in the center symbolizing his retirement from the sport.

A Greek hurdler who surprised the world with her run to gold.

It's these moments that make this all worthwhile. They remind us of our global connections. While we don't agree on many, many things, we can all rejoice when people from every corner of life can revel in what they've accomplished. Despite the immensity of these Games, it's these small moments that we will remember for so long.

I began this posting thinking I would write about "what next" when it comes to the Olympics (Beijing) and "what now" when it comes to Athens (sporting infrastructure). But you know what? Let's just revel in this for a moment. Call it an NBC moment if you will, but it's nice to look back on this short period of time and smile.

Rhapsody - first impressions

Ok, so I've spent a day exploring some music with Rhapsody. I'm even more in love with the ability to listen just about anything I can think of. In the past day I've listened to a lot of stuff I've been meaning to spin, like Dizzee Rascal (Boy in Da Corner), Frou Frou (Details), Black Eyed Peas (Elephunk), and Modest Mouse (Good News For People Who Love Bad News). I've also discovered The Streets (A Grand Don't Come for Free), another UK Garage band. Being able to listen to an entire album rather than just a song or two really helps me appreciate the music.

But enough with the concept of on-demand songs. More about the Rhapsody application itself. To say the least, the application is really lacking. So here's a rundown:

Good:

• Great breakdown of various genres. Here's a small list of some of the Hip Hop genres they list:
  

  Foreign Rap/Hip-Hop
  G-Funk
  Gangsta Rap
  Hardcore Rap/Hip-Hop
  Jazz Rap/Hip-Hop
  Latin Rap/Hip-Hop
  Miami Bass
  

  
  Not that these genres are ground-breaking. The good thing is that they're acknowledging that so many sub-genres of hip-hop exist. It's not just Top40 Hip-hop, Underground, and Gangsta.
• They have samplers for each genre or artist. So if you're not sure if you'll like the genre or artist, you can give a 10 minute listen to a good variety of songs and then listen to more if you like it. Either way, it's a good way to try something out without devoting too much time. Best thing is that the sampler is truly a varied sampling, not just a couple of the more popular songs.
• Really fast start-up. So this may not seem like a big deal, but on-demand really should mean just that. Click on it and start listening! Rhapsody does a good job with this since songs seem to start within a second.

Bad or Lacking:

• No user reviews or ratings. This is the most glaring missed capability. If I've gone through the trouble of writing all this, don't you think I'd want to rate the stuff I've heard? Even if they don't want me write reviews, they should let me give 1-10 ratings, just like every other music app out there (including Real's own RealPlayer).
• More information about the artist, album, genre, and song. As it is, they provide very little info about what you're listening to. That's ok when you just want to give things a try, but if you want more info, you've gotta load up your browser with your favorite page to do research. Normally, for music I'll use Amazon since they have a lot of information including guest appearances. Right now, I've gotta guess who the guess rapper is on a song or go to Amazon to find out the correct info. Again, glaring omission.
• A Robust Recommendation engine. What I can only point to is Amazon. I'm always quite impressed with how well Amazon seems to be able to recommend things to me. Whether it's books or music, I've always got tons of things to try out at Amazon. There are several levels of recommendations at Amazon. They makes specific recommendations based on your previous likes and dislikes. This is perhaps the most robust piece of their engine. THey also recommend other similar artists when you're viewing a specific album or artist. And finally, they list what other people (who have bought the item) have liked. Rhapsody should have all of these, but right now there are only limited recommendations. I don't know if these are automated or not, but they seem of the "hey, here's a few artists from this genre" type rather than really smart recs like Amazon provides. On-demand songs is perhaps the best way to explore new music and Rhapsody should have all of these tools to assist users. It may cost a lot to implement these things in the way that Amazon has so deftly been able to, but it can only help get more word-of-mouth about the service. There's a reason I always go to Amazon to get an idea of how good or bad a movie or album is :) So until Rhapsody adds these sorts of things, I'll still be going to Amazon and entering ratings for all the music I listen to...and hopefully get some great recs.
• "Wish List" - I don't have a better term for this, but basically, in looking around for music, I'd like to queue up stuff to listen to later, but right now, there's no really simple way of doing this. I can save stuff off as a playlist, but then I've gotta manage that whole thing. It would be nice to simply store things in a "pending/need to listen to" folder or list and look through it when I've got time.

Anyways, this is just my first impression. And I've only spent 24 hours with this thing! I can only imagine other companies will begin offering similar services. If Rhapsody doesn't take these suggestions to heart, I'm sure some other company will do so. At least, let's hope so!

Just for Kicks

The Olympic mascot trying out the Trampoline.

Streaming Music

I've been into online streaming music for quite a while now. I began using Shoutcast years ago and have been listening to online streams at work all the time. As I've mentioned before, there are some really good streams out there.

So here's the next generation of streaming: Rhapsody. Now, this service has been around since 2001. I probably heard of it in 2002, but didn't think much of it. Afterall, who would want to pay $10 a month and not even get to "own" the music? Well, after some time, I've come around. I think this is actually a better music solution than buying individual song files on iTunes, Napster, or other similar programs. Don't believe me? Here's another opinion. Of course, I didn't trust this person, I listened to some friends and co-workers who subscribe and are very pleased. I've been loving this so far, but I'll post in a month or so for a recap of my experiences.

Some things to know about this service:

• It's perfect for anyone who likes to explore different music or just check our something which a friend told you about. This is exactly the type of person I am. I tend not to buy CDs, but music is a big topic of conversation with a friend of mine, so I always want to check out what he's talking about. Generally, it's hard to do this if you have to buy the album or the individual song. Yes, I make decent money, but I'd quickly be in the poor house if I went out and bought everything I hear or read about. So, for about $8.50 a month, I can check out all the music I want and save them to my library if I like them.
• Pick your music or listen to radio stations. I love the Shoutcast radio streams, but sometimes I just like to pick out a specific song or artist and groove. I haven't listened to these Rhapsody radio stations, but I think they only have the basic types of stations. In these cases, I think Shoutcast (or even Yahoo's Launch) would be better, but we'll see if they expand their radio stations. As a side note, Launch's music stations have a breakdown by mood as well as genre so that's kind of cool to just pick your mood and go with it.
• Your music libraries can be accessed from any PC (not Mac yet). The potential here is pretty cool if you like to create mix tapes (talk about old school) for friends. This was something I did in high school (albiet not generally Western music). Now, you can create your playlist, and either email it to a friend, or, if you're at their place, just login to Rhapsody and your entire library is immediately available. This could be pretty cool for party planning too since you can add to your party playlist when you're at work and have it ready to go the day of your party by simply logging in and hitting play. Cool stuff.
• You should have access to broadband internet most of the time. Since the music streams, you can't listen to it offline or in the car. When offline, downloaded songs are more useful since you can listen whenever, wherever. But in my life, I'm close to an internet connection most of the time so it's not a big deal. In the car, I generally like to listen to NPR, not music. Also, my work commute is only 10 minutes, so it's not like I need hours of musical pleasure while in the car (except for those occassional drives down to LA)

Anyways, give this service a try. They've got a free service through the end of the month (apparently in honor of the Olympics...which is sort of odd to say the least) so you can check it out for yourself and see if it's something you're willing to pay for.

The Kumars at No. 42

If you've never heard of the BBC show "Kumars at No. 42" then you're in the majority. Apparently this is quite the popular show in England. I can't really comment on this show since I've never seen it. However, thanks to Sepia Mutiny, I've learned that BBC America will begin airing the show here in the States. It's playing on Sundays at 9pm on BBC America. I'll add more as I learn more about the show.

BTW, if you're interested in desi-related goings-on, Sepia Mutiny is a good "team blog" where a handful of people make quite a few posts. So many posts, in fact that it's hard to keep up. Nonetheless, it's a good bookmark.

Oh ya, my visitor numbers are sadly back on planet earth. I guess that's what happens when you stop writing about multi-level marketing. :)

Blog interrupted

In case any of you were planning to write about every one of your colleagues, exactly what you do at work, or your multiple sexual partners, keep this in mind. I'm not saying you shouldn't do it. Just be prepared to pose in Playboy, get a book deal, and be the talk of the town.

Ancient Olympia and a chilled out scene

So NBC showed quite a bit of the shotput competition last night. Interesting because I had seen the prelims the night before on late night MSNBC and could now watch the medal round during a normal hour. Again, I'm a junkie and will watch prelims to these random sports just for the heck of it even if it's 2am.

Anyways, the coolest thing about the shotput was that the competition was being held in Olympia at the site of the ancient games. I'm sure this is the only reason NBC showed it during primetime because I can imagine Dick Ebersol or Bob Costas thinking it's an interesting sport.

The environment at this ancient stadium was more like an intramural football game, not a professionally planned, extra-slick production. And that's a refreshing change from the usual things which occur in huge stadiums where the fans are so far away from the actual athletes. This relaxed atmosphere is interesting since the audience is really only ones chillin out. The athletes are obviously intensely focused.

I recall watching the Winter Olympics on CBS and the feel of the games is so different than the Summer games. Of course there are fewer sports and athletes, but it's much more of a small town feel which is enjoyable. The only time we get that sort of feel at the Summer games is when the sports are small and have a small audience. Having a small venue helps even more.

Apparently, there's talk of bringing the Summer games to more small-ish cities like Athens and that would certainly cool if it helps to bring a closer-knit, more chilled out feel to the games. If that's the case, then San Francisco would be perfect!

Olympics Coverage - incremental progress

Not surprisingly, the Olympics are NOT the hot topic of conversation around the office. During the Sydney games there always seemed to be a bit of a buzz about it. All in all, I think I'm the only Olympics junkie left. Yes, I admit it, I'm an olympi-holic.

These games will be the end of me. Every night I'm up till 3am watching the most random competitions. I don't care who wins. It's just the spectacle of it all. Some people like to slow down and stare at car crashes on the side of the road. I like to watch fencing, weight-lifting, kayaking, etc, etc.

So considering I'm addicted to this stuff, I think I can comment on the coverage a bit.

As usual, the coverage on NBC primetime sucks. It's all swimming and gymnastics all the time. Oh, I forgot about Bob Costas and his evil smirk. Can someone please hop on a plane and kick his ass? One of these days I'm just going to throw my dinner plate at the TV and ruin a perfectly good TV and dinner.

The better coverage is on the cable networks. That's not to say that the announcers or hosts are any better. The sports covered on those networks are more interesting and generally, get more complete coverage than on NBC.

Prime example is sabre (which is different than fencing). It's funny because Slate.com calls NBC to task for the same thing I was intending to write about. So assuming you're not the junkie that I am, let me take you through the whole deal.

Bravo (a cable channel owned by NBC) has Olympic coverage during what can easily be referred to as happy hour. It's not live coverage, but it's fairly complete and it's on right after you leave work. You actually get to watch entire matches rather than cut and pasted coverage. So sabre was on and I was watching intently as some American woman won the bronze medal. I thought it interesting since this woman is the world champion, but she had stumbled a bit during the Olympics so she was stuck competing for the bronze medal. The announcers mentioned that another American would be competing for gold later that night. This woman was only 19 and barely made it to Athens because Nigeria decided not to send a female fencer.

So even though this woman wasn't that great, she had put together some great swordplay in the last few days so that she could compete for gold. What better storyline to cover? NBC loves to play up these under-dog type stories, especially if it's a young athlete making an Olympic debut and showing up the elder, more experienced teammate.

So lo and behold, NBC shows the women's sabre gold medal match later that night, but I almost missed it. Why? Because they only showed it for 30 seconds! They just skipped through the entire match showing only 4 or 5 points. It was faster than most highlights during the nightly news. And this for a match in which an American won gold for the time in 100 years! Not only an American, but an underdog American who barely made it to Athens. Now, if you've got this great storyline, why not play it up even more? We all know that NBC is a storyline-whore so what happened here?

Even better, later in the evening they spent a good 10 minutes on some story about the road between Athens and Olympia. Really, did we need that crap? Isn't that was video streaming of the web is for? And of course, they spent the rest of the night showing swimming and gymnastics. Of course those sports bring in the ratings, but seriously, would it have been difficult to find 10 minutes of air time to show the sabre?

I'm sure I sound like another complainer who can never be satisfied. Well, I'm definitely not satisfied. What annoys me the most is that NBC didn't even have to make shit up about the uniqueness of the sabre final. It was all right there for them! They're so used to playing shit up they couldn't see the need to just show this without fucking with it.

Anyways, there are a bunch of other annoyances I have with the coverage of these games, but overall, I definitely enjoy having the ability to watch hour after hour of wierdo sports. Too bad NBC has to actually cover it. Their cable partners have much better coverage and they should stick to showing the good stuff. NBC may as well just show highlights in 30 minutes increments especially since they take the viewing public as ADD afflicted losers who can't understand anything beyond the pool and the gymnastics arena (both of which are devoid of crowds).