Irony

Salon has an obsession with David Foster Wallace. So on April 13, they wrote DFW was right in saying that irony was ruining our culture. Quoting from his seminal essay “E Unibus Pluram,” "lazy cynicism has replaced thoughtful convictions as the mark of an educated worldview". And then two weeks later was an article titled, "What DFW got wrong about irony: Our culture doesn't have enough of it". Which was fair enough. Because the article was a response to the previous article and had an "irony" "expert" talk about what he read in DFW's article and if he agreed with him. After a bit of back and forth, it was concluded that DFW was calling out a special kind of  Institutionalised Irony, and that may be bad but irony can be sincere and we need this earnest irony.

If that was the end of it, one would have had an interesting if not illuminating take on irony both from its supporters and its naysayers. But no! Salon had another article this time about how Hannah Arendt understood irony and DFW didn't. And another one today about irony and Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, David Foster Wallace. 

It would be immensely satisfying if something he wrote over twenty years ago has some insight to offer us. But it is frustrating to see DFW's name get dragged on Salon every 2 weeks as entertainment or as some in the industry are calling it "click bait". I don't know if that would be an ironic usage of a dead writer's words. What would David Foster Wallace say?

Update: My version of a comment from Salon. Three things in life are certain; death, taxes and Salon name-dropping DFW every 2 weeks.

Character assassination, Times style

Are you the kind of person who wonders what would a "hit-piece" on someone a.k.a "hatchet-job" look like? Well! wonder no more. I present to you the best of the best - the equivalent of a Gayle century and Mishra hat-trick and Dhoni captaincy (gratuitous cricket reference) rolled in to a single 1084 word article. Really read it and savour the subtle flavours of the Merlot and the scents of peach and plum with its earthy texture and hint of vanilla.

First some background. Glenn Greenwald is a Guardian columnist who broke the story on massive NSA surveillance of electronic communications of American citizens. The surveillance is more or less completely illegal, except that the government has its interpretations of some laws (like Patriot act and FISA amendments act) that allow it to circumvent pesky limits on its powers. The Obama administration claims a. That it is legal, limited and has sufficient congressional oversight and b. It is necessary to keep Americans safe. Because 9/11. There is also c. This program is classified and how did you find out about it and I am going to put you in prison, but that part is classified.

Senators Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkley have been warning for some time that there has not been significant congressional oversight and that the program is not a targeted-surveillance (and the head of NSA testified in front of the Intelligence subcommittee that they have not wittingly collected data on millions of American citizens, as if one could slip on a banana and end up with a database of all phone and electronic communications of millions).  Notwithstanding that and the fact that President Bush got into a lot of trouble for a similar warrantless wiretapping program way back when that was evil and even assuming that this program is necessary and the only thing standing between terrorists and Americans, one would suppose that it is still not out of line for journalists to shed some light on government policies that impacts the lives of so many citizens. How can democracy be democracy without an informed citizenry?

This, in summary is the playground in which the match will be played. Greenwald is a lawyer and writer on civil liberty issues. He is an author of several books including 'How would a Patriot act?'. He has been a columnist for The Guardian for almost a year and before that, he was a columnist with Salon.com. He is involved with the Electronic Frontier Foundation and has been a supporter of both Wikileaks and Bradley Manning. Like him or not, there was a national conversation about the power of government agencies to data-mine the shit out of everything after he broke the news on NSA surveillance. Also about how maybe, just maybe it was a bad thing to live in an Orwellian dystopia (Yes, the usage of 'Orwellian' went over the roof and search for 'Big brother' hit the biggest comeback since the infamous nipslip in Season 3).

And enter, NewYork Times. Noam Cohen and Leslie Kaufman wrote the brilliantest blatantest hit-piece since Pete Clemenza took care of Paulie. First, the Hors d'oeuvre. The title of the article is "Blogger, With Focus on Surveillance, Is at Center of a Debate" which appears to be an edit since the link to the article is the more spicy, "anti-surveillance-activist-is-at-center-of-new-leak". Remember it is not "Guardian columnist blows the lid on surveillance". No sire. That would make it a legitimate act of you-know scare quotes journalism. Activist sounds bad but it seems to be the flavour of the season. Better to call him "blogger". Doesn't the term immediately conjure the image of a Cheetos-eating slacker who lives in his mother's basement? You can almost visualise it, can't you? That is how good writing works. So, Thomas Friedman who can charitably be described a clown is a NYTimes columnist but Greenwald is a blogger. His work with The Guardian is for the fine-print, an afterthought. And that ladies and gentlemen, is how one discredits a person. As if painting GG as an un-serious blogger wasn't enough, the writers would like to help you with a ladle of  'He obsesses over government surveillance' in the very first line. Now, GG is a Cheetos-eating basement dwelling nutcase with a tinfoil hat.

Don't fill yourself on the appetizers. There is more. The main course include, 'He is gay', 'He lives in Brazil', 'He is a diva - didn't have an editor', 'He supports Manning' and finally for dessert 'He is an apologist for anti-Americanism', 'He is naive and couldn't run the country'. Muuuuah! That is some serious Crème brûlée of anti-Americanism. And because this is the liberal rag (allegedly), throw in 'worked for corporate clients' in the list of Greenwald's yuckiness. Call it the salad siding for that one vegan person who crashed your party.

To anyone who claims that the article was balanced, contrast this. The person quoted as calling him an apologist for anti-Americanism is Gabriel Schoenfeld. We are assured that this guy knows what it is all about. He is a national security expert and senior fellow at the Hudson Institute. The person speaking for Greenwald is Ms. Jennifer Bailey. She shared a tiny apartment with him when they were students. Who are you going to believe - national security expert or Will and Grace.

The only thing missing from the article is that that he is a leper with AIDS and a plague-ridden rat for a pet and he smells funny and did you see the shoes he was wearing. NewYork Times, you have done it again. Plumbed depths deeper than James Cameron's submersible. 

Unselfish v Selfish

We humans are not selfish and all rules and laws made with the assumption that we are basically selfish should be done away with. This was the argument put forward by an article in the Harvard Business Review called 'The Unselfish Gene'. I am not adequately qualified nor did I pay sufficient notice to this article to competently critique it. But I always thought that 'Selfish gene' by Dawkins (and the title is a play on that) was very clear on one thing: He was not calling humans selfish. I mean, the whole idea of the book was that genes were selfish and they would do just about anything to promote their best interests even if said interests were not favourable to the human who possesses them. Human selfishness in so much as they are caused by the genes are eminently alterable. Altruism and generosity are cultivable traits.

Why then would some noted intellectual heavyweight declare that Dawkins was wrong and that we are unselfish?

Because context matters.

In Harvard Business Review, the unselfishness of humans as proven by study X, survey Y and thought experiment Z is irrefutable evidence that it is time to de-regulate the markets. Banks are good; Businesses are kind. We don't need the government telling us to curtail predatory lending or not increase charges on credit cards. We are UNSELFISH. Global financial crisis was caused by a few bad apples. We are all intrinsically good people and we can police ourselves. Don't burden us with rules and regulations.

Say it with me, "Financial regulations are so 80s"

My email to an SBS producer who wanted to talk about the ADFA scandal

I am happy for you to mail me. However, I am not sure if I can be of any assistance. You see, I do not belong to Defence. I am a civilian and was an international postgraduate student. And research students like me are quite cut off from the undergraduate students. Our interactions were limited (if any) to lab demonstrations and teaching assistance. We do not live on campus (unless pulling all-nighters in the lab counts).

If I may be so forward as to opine - while what happened to the girl was criminally wrong and that the situation could have been handled better by her superiors I'd say that the situation at ADFA is not unique compared to other tertiary institutions in Australia. Freshmen at all universities go pub-crawling and the barely-out of-teens do stupid things with their new-found freedom, including inappropriate sex. Not all stupid things are equally stupid though. I almost got married when I was 20; the guys in this particular case thought it would be cool to film a girl without her knowledge. Obviously they went completely overboard and were deplorable in their stupidity. They should be punished for it. Perhaps discharged from military if not serve actual jail time. It would remind them that actions have consequences. It would serve as a deterrent to future pranksters who forget where the line is.

However, I do not see it as a systemic failure of any institution even if that is the most prevalent and juiciest narrative. I hope you will not take it badly if I say that the media has milked this scandal for all it is worth (and more) and maybe it is time to do a special on something more relevant like Will and Kate's wedding.

Update: I have since writing this reconsidered my opinion. I think there has been a systemic failure of the Defence force to properly deal with problems of sexual harassment. And SBS is not so much feeding media frenzy (some of the other media outlets did do that) as being a commendable watchdog on this issue. 

Wah! Taj!

I know this post has been a little late in the coming... but who cares!

It's been a week since Taj Mahal found its place in the New Seven Wonders of the World and the euphoria has just about worn out. I think it is about time that we took a moment and saw the madness of it.

The mainstream media in India went gung ho with the news of the "voting" for the new seven wonders. CNN-IBN, NDTV, why even SS Music went gaga over the Taj and urged its viewers to vote in favour of Taj. They even opened dedicated lines to sms your vote. A.R. Rahman came up with a song for the Taj and the day the results were declared, saw celebrations in every nook and corner of India.

Perhaps we forgot to ask some important questions. For instance, who is making up this list? Not many know that this was a private initiative by a Swiss concern, who as far as I can see, have no ruddy business or authority to mess up with an established list. UNESCO, which has the official mandate for preserving world heritage, has distanced itself from the campaign. So why do we even bother?

Next, how could a decision on the greatest wonders of the world involve voting from the general public? What are the parameters of selection? Do we have to accept "Might makes right"? With a billion odd population, can anyone even compete with us?

NDTV says, every patriotic Indian is proudly voting for the Taj with a very clear subtext that any one found not voting for the Taj is unpatriotic. And India voted.

One could even ask, why seven? Why not eight or nine or a hundred? Let's accept the "It's a tradition" answer for the moment.

Now that we have the Taj on the list, what next? I suppose it would become a tourist destination and find a place in the 'India Tourism' brochures. Wait a sec; it already is a tourist destination and is the most iconic building in India. So....

I am not an architect and I haven't the faintest clue as to what makes a building a wonder. Mind you, that ShahJahan constructed it for his beloved wife as a symbol of his undying love is no reason for it to be a wonder.

I remember watching a documentary on the 'Thanjavur Periya Kovil' and the filmmaker believed that the reason that the British historians/archaeologists liked the TajMahal better was that it was more closer to their concept of a spectacular building. He pointed out that the prudish Brit could not stand the extravagantly carved Hindu temples with their bare bodied Gods and Godesses. I am not sure how much of that it true. But the least that the Indian media could have done is showcase other architectural wonders of India. My apologies if I had missed such a programme but all I could hear on the tely was what a great wonder Taj is.

I am not against the Taj and please do not colour my views here. All I wanted to point was that we are being brainwashed by the media into believing whatever they dish out. Wake up!