The amazing geology & ecology of Tasmania

~ Venki ~ 1 Comment

I visited Tasmania in the September of 2017 along with my family.  This was our first vacation in months, so we were very excited. I didn’t do much research on Tasmanian geology and ecology until I stumbled upon some amazing sights. The fossils of some early animals in the Bruny island, the organ pipes of Mount Wellington and the biodiversity in the botanical garden kindled the child in me to learn more about them. I want to summarise my learnings and amazement in this blog.

The earliest record of geological history in the Tasmanian rocks dates back to 1.27 billion years. As amazing as that stat is, I want to put it to perspective. This rock was formed when the earth looked like below. This predates any of the known supercontinents that we now understand existed.

Earth 1270 Million years ago
Courtesy: Youtube video on Continental Drift

These rocks actually predate plants as we know them and even sexual reproduction. Just think of the timeline of life.

Life Timeline.pngCourtesy: Wikipedia

Fossils @ Bruny Islands

As I was getting amazed by these facts, we made a trip to the Bruny Islands. It is a small island almost half the size of Singapore with a population of 600 people. I witnessed something truly amazing there. I saw some rocks with fossilised animals from ancient times. These pictures were taken from the rocks and the exhibits at the Inala Jurassic Garden. I have a very little clue of the animals these fossils belong. The one in the bottom right does look like a fossil of a brachiopod but I am by no means sure.  However, these fossils did give me an impression of a journey to the lost worlds of the past.
Fossil Records.jpg

The story of the rocks

Ancient rocks tell stories which amaze me more than any fiction or any myths can ever achieve. It is hard to not get astonished by rock formations in Tasmania. From the organ pipes in the Mount Wellington and the Bruny islands to the amazing cliffs which drop to one of the three oceans (the Southern Ocean to the south, the Indian Ocean to the west and the Pacific ocean to the east), Tasmania is a geological wonderland. As I mentioned, I had no clue of the reasons behind the wonders until I looked at them and got curious. Now, I want to share the pleasure I had when I learnt about these marvels. I have also provided the reference below.

Story of the rocks.jpg

In order to understand the origin of these organ pipes, we have to understand what is beneath these. The foothills of Mount Wellington has layers of sedimentary rocks. The bottom layer is mudstone formed during the Permian period (230-280 million years ago). The mudstones are creamy white to grey in colour. On top of the mudstone, one can see a layer of quartz-rich sandstone formed during the Triassic period(180-230 million years ago). These sandstones were formed from the various rivers and rivulets of the times.

What followed next was one of the five mass extinction events in the history of the earth, the End-Triassic extinction. This happened about 200 million years ago. This was followed by a volcanic activity. The molten magma flowed, solidified and with time cooled to form shrinkage cracks. This resulted of the large vertical columns with polygonal cross-sections. This can be seen in the thick sheet of dolerite in the region.

This event also coincided with the breaking of the supercontinent Pangea. The continental drift as a result of the plate tectonic movements resulted in the creation of the two supercontinents, Laurasia and Gondwana from the single supercontinent of Pangea. The tilted block faulting caused by these tectonic plates stretching was responsible for the creation of the landscape. The rocks have since been eroded to expose the formation we call organ pipes. The exposure to the erosion has resulted in the dolerite sheets getting the colour of rust. Unexposed to these natural forces, dolerite has a bluish grey colour.

plate_history_lge.jpg
Courtesy: www.britannica.com

Tasmanian Geological Timeline.png

Courtesy: Wikipedia

The ecological diversity

The formation of Gondwana (as seen above) after the great mass extinction of the Triassic period, ignited a new ecology of flora and fauna in Tasmania. Tasmania is a home to some of the most unique vegetation from the largest marsupial carnivore in the Tasmanian Tiger to the tall eucalypt trees. I saw some amazing flora in the Bruny islands which evolved during the Gondwana period (picture below). These plant species have since survived major continental drifts and another mass extinction 64 million years ago.

Flora of Gondwana.jpg

The botanical garden in Hobart is another magnificent site of nature. The variation of the flowers in the ecology not bruised by human intervention for long was an awesome sight.

Bot garden.jpg

Charles Darwin visited Hobart in the  February of 1836 during his famous voyage in the Beagle. He wrote about what he saw in Hobart in the journal. Here is an excerpt from the same.

“.. In many parts the Eucalypti grew to a great size, and composed a noble forest. In some of the dampest ravines, tree-ferns flourished in an extraordinary manner; I saw one which must have been at least twenty feet high to the base of the fronds, and was in girth exactly six feet. The fronds forming the most elegant parasols, produced a gloomy shade, like that of the first hour of the night. The summit of the mountain is broad and flat, and is composed of huge angular masses of naked greenstone. Its elevation is 3,100 feet [940 m] above the level of the sea. The day was splendidly clear, and we enjoyed a most extensive view; to the north, the country appeared a mass of wooded mountains, of about the same height with that on which we were standing, and with an equally tame outline: to the south the broken land and water, forming many intricate bays, was mapped with clearness before us. …”

I don’t think I can summarise my feeling more eloquently than the great man himself. I want to use the lines from the famous poem by William Wordsworth to showcase my feelings.

“…
For oft, when on my couch I lie
In vacant or in pensive mood,
They flash upon that inward eye
Which is the bliss of solitude; ..”

References

  1. https://www.wellingtonpark.org.au/assets/wellingtonpark_geology.pdf
  2. http://www.parks.tas.gov.au/?base=1484
  3. https://www.britannica.com/science/plate-tectonics/Development-of-tectonic-theory
  4. https://www.britannica.com/science/extinction-biology#ref281253
  5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Wellington_(Tasmania)

Family separation or detention: Ugly side of partisan politics

~ Venki ~ Leave a comment
As an immigrant, I want to be very clear that I am in favour of controlled legal immigration. At the same time, it is hard to look at detention centres and separation of families and not feel the ugly side of the debate. I have so far not seen a single person across the board in any country who has said, we need open borders but somehow that accusation remains. I want to write about immigration in two parts, one on the exploitation of misery of the family separation saga in the US and second on immigration itself. I will write about the former on this blog.
Sometime last week my daughter watched a supposed comedy movie clip which ended with a teenage daughter and her father being arrested and jailed. In the middle of the night, she came to my bed crying. She said that the father and daughter being jailed is bad and she is unable to sleep thinking of them. If my daughter is unable to sleep in the comfort of her bed, having watched the plight of someone being jailed in a movie, I can only imagine the impact of young kids being separated from their parents or guardians.
There is no point blaming Donald Trump alone for this. He did promise a lot of atrocious policies and he is implementing the same. This is also a result of years of propaganda. As bad as the move was, the resulting exploitation was awkward to see. There were four types of reactions, I want to highlight.
  1. Frenzy Media
  2. Partisan supporters
  3. Opportunists
  4. Partisan opponents

Frenzy Media

As depressing as the news is, it is important for the media to report on facts rather than make it into a reality show. To show crying babies is one but for the media personnel to behave like babies doesn’t inspire confidence in the news. Some of the adequately documented reports are ones where the reports understood the emotions but reported on facts. Opinions are good but that cannot reflect adrenalin rush. Further, when the reporters are trying to make a point, they need to check what they are doing. This below video tweeted by NYT is a perfect example. You don’t show late teen boys if you are trying to make a point on the unaccompanied migrant issue.

Partisan Supporters

I did not expect anything factual or reasonable or remotely nice from a person like Ann Coulter, especially on the subject of immigration. However, what was really appalling to see was the comparison of the immigrants to child rapists and gangsters. This is exactly the kind of rhetoric that intends to instil fear in the minds of people. Also to say we have to treat people seeking refuge humanely has nothing to do with not treating your own people badly. Treating everyone humanely cannot be considered as a ill-treatment of a few. Also, when one generalises immigrants from certain countries as criminals and rapists and criminals from other countries as individuals, it lacks any credibility. Further, no one I saw in the media actually wants open borders and uncontrolled immigration. To keep harping on that point and giving it credibility in the media is the very embodiment of fakery. It is also quite hypocritical when Tucker Carlson does this and complaints about the lack of decency in the left.

 

Opportunists

As bad as they are, the above two responses are in the expected lines. To me personally, the lines of decency are crossed when one starts to utilise such a situation for their personal agenda. For example, Dave Rubin tweeted the below. It not only delegitimised the opposition for this order, it also the wrong problem to highlight your libertarian agenda.
Firstly, he calls out Senator Chuck Schumer for not wanting to discuss this in the Senate and handle it through the executive branch. He highlights this as some kind of laziness on part of the senator. He also is hinting at this driving some kind of authoritarian streak. This argument doesn’t stand for two reasons.
  1. This situation was caused by an executive decision. So, it makes sense for the executive decision to reverse it. A bill through house and senate takes more time. It is not easy at the time of an emergency. 2000+ kids are already affected and one can’t wait for bills to be passed.
  2. The existing immigration bills in the House are bait instruments more than bills. It combines DACA renewal with building Trump’s border wall. It is not a bill that will ever get passed.
Secondly, he sarcastically points out at Trump repealing the separation order by making fun of people who compare Donald Trump with Adolf Hitler. I do not agree with the comparison of President Donald Trump with Adolf Hitler. We are pattern seeking mammals and want to compare one thing we don’t like to the other thing we don’t. That said, Donald Trump should not get credit for reversing an order that will stop the damage which he triggered in the first place. This is called fishing for credit where credit is not due.

Partisan opponents

This piece will not be complete without talking about Maxine Waters. Maxine is a democratic congresswoman from the state of California. Dignity and civility should not be optional traits in a civilised world. It is not an excuse to be uncivilised if you believe your opponent is wrong or even undignified. Maxine called for supporters to confront people in the Trump administration. This is a blatant call for harassment and will incite violence. You cannot become the monster you hate. If you oppose Trump’s lack of civility, you cannot retaliate with uncivil behaviour. Maxine’s behaviour definitely was uncalled for and diluted the entire opposition to this policy. The unruly opposition, in general, will only result in de-legitimising valid, civil opposition. No amount of blame transfer from Maxine can defend her call to confront and harass Trump administration officials who show up in public places.

Remembering 26-June-2015

~ Venki ~ Leave a comment

It is hard to look at the calendar on 26th of June and not feel bad for the events of 26-June-2015. It is worse when the day happens to be your birthday. I still remember waking up on that day to hear the deadly news and continue to hear more during the day. Over 400 died across North Africa and Europe and an equal number injured. The Wikipedia page on this attack provides some details.

I do not want to make this about me but it is hard to wake up to wishes and not remember this event every year. The selfish human trait does come to the forte irrespective of my will.

My daughter was 3 years old then. It continues to be gut-wrenching to think, how many of those victims had kids like me? How many were kids? How many had dependant families who are still in shock? How many of them were setup to take our civilisation forward?

I do not want to drone on or traffic on the abject misery of the victims. As life moves on, I want to pause a minute to hope well for the victims of not just this attack but attacks all over the world. I promise to continue the fight in my simple way to emancipate the world from the horrors of religions. Some part of me also hopes people who read this do the same. Empathy is hard in general but humanity can definitely come together to eliminate the evil cause that results in such horrors. It is a lot easier to be empathetic to this cause or at least I hope.

The curious case of Tommy Robinson

~ Venki ~ Leave a comment

“A far-right thug … ”
“A martyr for English values …”
“A freedom of speech crusader …”
“A racist, bigot & Islamaphobe …”

These are common phrases one would see when reading an article about Tommy Robinson. As the world started reading more about him, I case see people jumping on to the extreme camps which reinforced their messaging rather than what has happened. I want to add to that mayhem by providing my viewpoint based on the facts I received.

Tommy Robinson’s original name is Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon. His personal life and history are clearly articulated in his Wikipedia page. Douglas Murray wrote one of the more balanced pieces on this story in the National Review.  I want to break the entire history down into a few headings. I have deliberately ordered it in a way where I cover all the opposition to Tommy first before discussing points in his favour.

  • The latest arrest is within legal limits
  • Tommy has committed offences which deserve investigation and prosecution
  • Tommy is not a racist but his movement attracted the wrong people
  • His concerns are real and need attention
  • People who should have supported him deserted him

Point #1: Tommy’s arrest is within legal boundaries

Many people across the globe are treating this arrest as some big deep state conspiracy against free speech. It definitely is not. The UK has some clear rules against reporting on ongoing court cases. Last year, Tommy Robinson was arrested and later convicted on contempt of court for the same reason. He attempted to take videos of defendants in a case held in Canterbury Crown Court. The judge pronounced him guilty and gave him a suspended sentence. He was clearly told that this is a breach and has nothing to do with freedom of speech or press. This year he did the same outside Leeds Crown Court. He was arrested, charged and taken to court. In the court, Tommy pleaded guilty and was subsequently sentenced to 13 months imprisonment. It is easy for people to do not understand the laws, to cry foul. Is it worth debating about the law? Yes, I would definitely say so. Was the law flouted to arrest Tommy? I do not think so.

Point #2: Tommy has committed offences which deserve prosecution

This is a point which Tommy Robinson himself has acknowledged. He has committed some offences which make him liable for prosecution. For example, he travelled to the US with a fake passport under the name Andrew McMaster. He was detained in New York for a drug offence and subsequently came back under another fake name Paul Harris. Early on in his life, Tommy was also convicted for assaulting an off-duty police officer. In 2014, Tommy was convicted of fraudulently misrepresenting information for a mortgage application, which he pleaded guilty. So, has Tommy committed offences? Yes, he has and he has admitted it publicly. Is there state out to get him anytime he commits an offence? It is possible.

Point #3: Tommy is not a racist but his movement attracted the wrong people

As many people want to make it, I haven’t seen any evidence of Tommy Robinson being a racist, bigot or an antisemite. I do not want to use the word Islamaphobe as I find the word useless with absolutely no intellectual value. The evidence I have seen of Tommy being those are below.

  1. Tommy Robinson has continuously claimed how the fellow Muslims in his community have supported his movement. He has also credited people the Quilliam foundation as some of the best people he has met. The people he praises are not white.
  2. Tommy has voiced concerns for the well being of the blacks, the non-muslim Asians in his community. I haven’t seen him ignore or belittle their problem.
  3. Tommy felt sad for the jews from Luton who moved to Isreal fearing their safety. He wanted them to stay back and live their life here.
  4. Tommy along with his English Defence League members burnt a NAZI flag to denounce white racial supremacy. This was followed by some NAZI sympathisers burning the EDL flag.

I can provide more evidence on the above but the point is not moot. However, it is also true that his movement attracted the wrong crowd. This is again a point which Tommy himself agrees. The English Defence League attracted genuine racists as they finally found an avenue to legitimise their claim and status. It also attracted people who were generally disillusioned with the government and wanted a means to revolt. It also attracted hooligans. This continues to this very date. Some of the protestors for Tommy Robinson’s release have a very different view from Tommy Robinson himself on what they want and what they believe. Some people as seen in their chants have no idea of Tommy’s beliefs and have joined the movement as it feels in line with their idea of truth.

Point #4: Tommy’s concerns are real and need attention

The concerns which Tommy Robinson raised are actually real. It not only affects the non-muslims in the area but also the Muslims. The same points which Tommy Robinson raised were also raised by Douglas Murray and Maajid Nawaz. Irrespective of one’s opinion of Tommy Robinson the two underlying problems are actually real and needs attention.

  1. The Grooming Gangs which exploit young, underage girls
  2. The radicalisation of young desolate Muslim men

The former continues to be a big problem. The group has a disproportionate percentage of men who identify themselves as Pakistani Muslims. Again, it is important to see that the same has been acknowledged by people like Maajid Nawaz. The Rotherham child abuse scandal is a detailed account of the atrocities committed by the grooming gangs in the UK. Tommy Robinson brought that to everyone’s attention. Any decent individual who looks into the facts will feel the pain.

The  Luton division of al-Muhajiroun, which was formed by Anjem Choudary was responsible for the radicalisation of young Muslims in the late 1990s and early 2000s. Anjem is behind bars for inviting people to join ISIS. His organisational-Muhajiroun has been responsible for a lot of attacks in the British soil. Tommy raised voice against this in the early 2000s. The United Kingdom is one of the top breeding grounds amongst developed nations for the banned organisation ISIS/ISIL.

Point #5: People who should have supported him deserted him & Britain

Nothing exemplifies the stupidity in the system than this particular set of questions and answer session held at the Oxford Union. The videos are available in public domain and I request anyone opposing Tommy to listen to the Q&A at the end. This event happened in 2015. I want to highlight some of the questions asked.

  1. Why did you think six years ago, you did not think it is a good idea to sit and debate with the Muslims or lobby the foreign policy of the government?
  2. There are tensions on both sides, far right and the Muslim extremism. Why don’t you talk about the focus on the far right which attacks of the Muslims?
  3. The EDL protest would have created even further division in our borough. You said it is a Muslim problem and non-muslims can’t solve it. Your involvement with the EDL made the divisions between moderate Muslims and the extremists larger. That is what the extremists want. Do you admit that your involvement with the EDL, in the long run, helped these extremists?
  4. I am Muslim-Pakistani. Throughout your speech, you were talking about Pakistani Muslim gangs, Muslim men raping girls. Do you see a problem in identifying any sort of criminal as Pakistani and Muslims before identifying them as terrorist or rapist?

I remember an incident during an event when a participant asked a bad question to Christopher Hitchens and he responded by starting with, “What a stupid question!!”. These questions from the students of the Oxford University are extremely similar. They are blaming a victim or a person fighting for the victims. Their contention is why he didn’t use the right language, why he wasn’t patient, why he did not use the right caveats and above all why he got involved at all.

This attitude or mostly negligence has created this hostile environment in the first place and not Tommy Robinson or the perceived generalisation. It is easy to dismiss concerns of communities under the name of bickering or worse of all bigotry. Such dismissals, in the long run, will result in antagonism, disillusion and revolts.

In summary, Tommy Robinson has committed mistakes but none of his mistakes is as grave as the ones committed by people he was opposing. I would go to the extent of saying that had the people in power acted lawfully and morally against the grooming gangs and radicalisation, Tommy Robinson would not have been the cult figure he is now. It is the failure of the complete system to provide justice to the innocents which have resulted in this chaos.  The government will only ignore it at its own peril.

 

Who represents the left and the right on free speech & news?

~ Venki ~ Leave a comment

I am a news addict, both mainstream and online outlets. I try to balance my views by reading news from all outlets and mostly from outlets I disagree. However, after years of letting my mind get corroded, I realised a moment of realisation on the present state of craziness in the media. I have got down to three key points. I feel it is important as I have to use these filters to understand if I have to separate facts from opinions.

  1. Free speech is a big issue for everyone. However, each person/outlet has defined groups based on a set of individuals who will fit their message.
  2. Honesty is no more a common trait in individuals. It has a become a percentage game. There are some outlets/people who are almost always dishonest. There are outlets who are only honest when it favours them. Then, there are some outlets who try to be honest only when it doesn’t affect their message.
  3. Social Media is an experiment for which civilisation wasn’t prepared well. We went from professional reporters giving us news to every person with a twitter/facebook account becoming a reporter in less than 5 years. People do not have time to manage their digital self effectively. They don’t have time to fit in all their digital emotions in a day and that effect has spread back to the mainstream outlets. Now, the mainstream reporting is based on social media craziness.

I want to expand on the first two points alone as the third point is quite self-explanatory.

Free Speech – Left vs Right

Calling oneself a Free Speech Crusader has become a fashion statement. However, everyone seems to be attacking other in this area. There is definitely an element on ingenuity on all parts. I have listed all the key people in media who talk about this. Everyone in this list is for free speech. However, they do not equally condemn the social justice warriors, who play victim cards, who indulge in identity politics and treat any non-white straight male as a delicate individual needing protection. The key media personalities I can identify in this discussion are given below.

  • Ayaan Hirsi Ali
  • Bill Maher
  • Brendan O’Neill
  • Cenk Uygur
  • Dave Rubin
  • Douglas Murray
  • Glenn Greenwald
  • Jordon Peterson
  • Maajid Nawaz
  • Sam Harris

There is a lot of personal animosity between people but all these people are for free speech. I want to break each of the group down into individual segments.

Left/Progressive Media (Cenk Uygur, Glenn Greenwald etc)
I want to list some examples of the left media and left leaders defending free speech. These get safely ignored by the voices who want to accuse the left or the progressives.

TYT on Charlie Hebdo Video 1
TYT on Charlie Hebdo Video 2
TYT defending Ben Shapiro
CNN defending Ann Coulter on free speech
Bernie Sanders for Ann Coulter
Bernie Sanders against UC Berkeley
Bernie Sanders for free speech on campus
Bernie Sanders on suppressing free speech

However, there are a few points where they miss out on some specifics.

  1. They err on the side of the minority and sometimes to the extent of falling prey to the gimmicks like victim mentality and identity politics.
  2. They are quick to brand someone as a neo-con if they do not agree with their agenda. Cenk once called Ayaan Hirsi Ali as a neo-con in foreign policy. It is laughable to call her one. People are complex and branding someone like this is extremely dangerous. Also, one has to put Ayaan view in context. She escaped child marriage, underwent female genital mutilation before taking refuge in Denmark. Her friend Theo van Gogh was murdered for making a film and the murderers wrote Ayaan’s name as the next using his blood. She is constantly under threat. Her words have to be heard in this context. They also do not support the progressive/liberal voices in the minority communities. For example, Maajid Nawaz in spite of all his political views is a liberal. I have hardly seen the progressive media support him. He is always portrayed as a sellout.
  3. They tend to focus on geopolitics more than the influence of religion on the global violence and terrorism.

New Atheists (Bill Maher, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Sam Harris)

There is definitely no question about these people being on the side of free speech. They are also pro-democracy and in most instances look for the welfare of most instead of the few. They are for minority rights across the board. However, they have a fall for friends syndrome. For Bill Maher, Isreal is right irrespective of what they do. I haven’t seen him complain about anything they have done. I would appreciate if he takes a cue from Christopher Hitchens on this front. Ayaan has to understand the impact of the US foreign policy on places which are not Islamic. You cannot defend the blunders of the CIA in South America. Sam Harris has to see that he cannot be liked by all or respected the same way by everyone. All three of them generalise Islam and can learn a bit from the way Maajid Nawaz talks about this topic.

Rest (Douglas Murray, Dave Rubin, Maajid Nawaz, Brendan O’Neill, Jordon Peterson)

The rest team wants to look at individuals from just their vantage point. Donald Trump is a good man if he is good to me is a non-sequitur. I find all of them fall into that trap. Dave Rubin changed his stance of Bernie Sanders without disagreeing on any policy just after he partnered with Learn Liberty. Brendon O’Neill doesn’t like people talking ill of religion or chauvinism by taking the example of his family. Maajid Nawaz has an issue with the  Southern Poverty Law Center, so he coined the word Regressive Left. Douglas Murray doesn’t appreciate the word white privilege, hence goes on a reverse rampage against communities which didn’t have anyone who said that. Jordon Peterson has an issue with the university he taught but fails to understand that people come to his show from different universities.

Honesty

As I mentioned at the start of this blog, I do not find honest a uniform trait in journalism or media anymore. Depending on the situation, I even find Fox News more honest than some of the progressive channels. Someone like Alex Jones is full of outright lies and dishonesty. There is no way Alex Jones can be classified as a reporter or InfoWars a news channel. I have a suspicion Alex Jones doesn’t consider himself a reporter. Hilariously,  Alex Jones’s company is Free Speech Systems LLC. The rest of the media seems to be a smear show of people they dislike. For example, Sam Harris who doesn’t like when he is quoted out of context and wants to call out the dishonesty of left doesn’t understand that Ben Shapiro who worked in Breitbart did the same with Chuck Hagel. Same is the case with Dave Rubin. Dave Rubin, who says he is for universal health care, prison reforms then wants to reduce government role in it. In the US, both prisons and health care are in the hands of the private players. Cenk, who doesn’t like when he is called regressive left, ends up calling most people who don’t fall into his bucket as neocons. Fox News is the only outlet which spoke about the grooming gangs in the UK, totally ignores any police brutality in the US.

  • I have almost always stopped listening to the Rubin Report as it ceases to be about the big ideas. I look at people who come, what they stand for from their speeches. Dave Rubin says the right things about tolerance & free speech, till it reaches crossroads with his Learn Liberty buddies
  • I listen to Sam Harris’s views on individual topics until he starts accusing or defending anyone.
  • Jordon Peterson is good on psychology. His views on truth, politics and lot of social behaviours feel deluded.
  • Bernie Sanders is good till he starts to defend Isreal in a very weird way.
  • Bill Maher is still good, except when he defends his buddies in the democratic party.
  • Cenk Uygur is good till he has to put everything in the bucket of foreign policy.
  • Maajid Nawaz is good till he starts smearing Jeremy Corbyn based on partisan principles.
  • Brendan O’Neill is good for views he concurs and is abject when he has to disagree or gets a personal example.

In conclusion, the media irrespective of the channel is biased and partisan. Even the best of them have, agreement with people I like, bickering about things I don’t and smearing on people I hate. It is increasingly important to look at facts and who is partnering the reporter. My strategy professor in my B-School once said it is important to know who is sleeping with whom in your organisation. I think it is just as important to know it in the news outlets.

 

Why shouldn’t Donald Trump get Peace Prize?

~ Venki ~ Leave a comment

Ever since there was a mention of President Donald Trump getting a Nobel Peace Prize, the meme creators have been in overdrive. What is more disheartening to see is that people have started hurling personal abuses at each other on this. Donald Trump has personally taken it for granted that he will get it soon. I personally find this a bit funny and also find it hypocritical of people to question why President Trump shouldn’t get it.

Here is why I feel Donald Trump getting a Nobel Peace Prize is not a big deal.

  1. Nobel Peace Prize has nothing to do with the beliefs, actions and impact of the winner on the Global Peace. It is a very subjective process. It should not be an epitome of achievement, especially in the field of peacekeeping. The process can be found on their website. (https://www.nobelprize.org/nomination/peace/)
  2. As I look at the history of people who have won Nobel Peace Prize, few names stand out for their notoriety.
    • Barack Obama – for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.
    • Aung San Suu Kyi – for her non-violent struggle for democracy and human rights
    • Mikhail Gorbachev – for his leading role in the peace process which today characterizes important parts of the international community
    • Yasser Arafat, Shimon Peres, and Yitzhak Rabin – for their efforts to create peace in the Middle East
    • Mother Teresa – Founder of Missionaries of Charity
    • Henry Kissinger – For the 1973 Paris agreement intended to bring about a cease-fire in the Vietnam war and a withdrawal of the American forces
  3. When Barack Obama won the peace prize, the US troops were intervening in 6 sovereign nations. I didn’t see many liberals/liberal media cry out against his award. Any meme on Obama winning the peace prize would have been considered racist.

In conclusion, my support for the Nobel Peace Prize for Donald Trump doesn’t come from the position of him achieving something but from a position of irreverence towards the award itself. It is a meaningless award given to boost the ego of different people or in some instances boost the image of the award itself. While Trump doesn’t need either an ego boost and the award will not get an image boost by honouring him, it certainly will help the world by designating the right place for this frivolous award.

Hero worship: A primitive, submissive, anti-enlightenment trait

~ Venki ~ Leave a comment

Actor Rajni’s new movie Kaala released on 6-Jun-2018. His fans created their usual furore by blocking traffic, having giant banners erected on the streets and worshipping him by pouring milk on the banners. This frenzy of their primitive urges consumes his fans for a few days before they think of anything else. I do sometimes understand that government should not intervene in people’s lives but such behaviours are borderline sociopathic. Pouring huge quantity of milk on banners to mark celebration when you have babies dying of hunger and malnutrition is a venomous habit. While I do realise the actors might not condone it but they do not oppose it either. In one way, they depend on the fanatic following to keep them in business. This behaviour once again brings the entire topic of hero worship to the forefront of public debate.

Oxford Dictionary defines hero worship as an excessive admiration for someone. There are two key words here which make the trait extremely uncomfortable, first one is the adjective ‘excessive’ and the second one is the object ‘someone’. Any form of excessive admiration is going to be dangerous and if people start to admire individuals rather than behaviours, then you are surrendering your critical faculties to the whim of the admired.

Collage-Heroworship.jpgCollage of different hero worships in India

There is definitely a psychological and as an extension of the evolutionary reason for hero worship. I am definitely not an expert in the field but there are some good articles written in this area. The need for a hero figure who can solve all the worldly issues has resulted in allegories, the creation of Gods and prophets. As much as the archetype of longing for such heroic figures can have a primitive and evolutionary background, it doesn’t make the acting on this belief intellectually credible. We have a primitive urge to procreate as much as we can but most of us don’t do it as it is not needed and mostly counterproductive. The development of our large brain and its ability to process provides homo sapiens with the advantage of thinking beyond these legacies. I do see the point where some philosophers believe in a pragmatic nature of truth, whereby making actions like hero worship credible as a result of the net comfort it brings to the individuals who believe in it. However, I do not buy into that theory. It diminishes the expectation in people to think and act responsibly. Further, it also disregards the entire collective human knowledge we have gained from our history. Hero worship had no positive impact on the society and it is of no use in the present era.

On a more practical level, I find the behaviour of worshipping individuals as an enslavement of the human mind. It is a very submissive trait where one surrenders their critical faculties to the whim of individual being worshipped as the hero. This leads them to exhibit eccentric behaviours in favour of the hero. It also prevents people from seeing the flaws of the hero. I am fine with people looking at a trait and admiring a trait in other individuals but worshipping individuals come will be a slippery slope considering people exhibit complex and often contradictory behaviours. The idea of enlightenment in the modern philosophical context is one of reason, progress, liberty, emancipation and fraternity. I do not think hero workship, however defensible it may be from an evolutionary perspective can be squared into that category.

Dinesh D’Souza: His pardon and the reactions aftermath

~ Venki ~ Leave a comment

Dinesh D’Souza a mainstream conspiracy theorist was pardoned by President Donald Trump this week. The interesting part of this pardon was Dinesh was not serving a prison term, he was under probation till September 2019. That said, I can understand the President pardoning Dinesh. Dinesh is the Trump in filmmaking. He creates facts based on his belief system much like Michael Moore. However, it was great to see the reaction of his supporters and other Republicans after this.

President Donald Trump started the chaos by saying, “Will be giving a Full Pardon to Dinesh D’Souza today. He was treated very unfairly by our government!”. Ted Cruz followed soon with the tweet, “Dinesh was the subject of a political prosecution, brazenly targeted by the Obama administration bc of his political views. And he’s a powerful voice for freedom, systematically dismantling the lies of the Left—which is why they hate him. This is Justice.”. Finally, Dinesh himself joined in by saying, “Obama & his stooges tried to extinguish my American dream & destroy my faith in America,” he tweeted. “Thank you @realDonaldTrump for fully restoring both.”

I am not bothered by the pardon as Dinesh wasn’t necessarily suffering any prison time. There are three key dangerous precedences with the above statements.

  1. One of the dangers of executive power is the frivolous use of pardons for political purposes
  2. Continuing to blame and attack past administration, especially Obama’s with venom never seen prior
  3. Unable to acknowledge the independence of the judiciary

Before I go into the above concerns, I want to state the facts here.

  1. The US Federal Election Commission caps donations to individual candidates to a maximum of $2,700 per election
  2. Dinesh D’Souza pleaded guilty to using straw donors to make $20,000 in illegal contributions to Republican Senate candidate Wendy Long in 2012. This is a case of felony.
  3. Richard Berman was the judge at the U.S. District Court in Manhattan where the case was heard. Such felony cases carry a maximum prison sentence of two years.
  4. Sen. Ted Cruz back then said “Dinesh D’Souza, who did a very big movie criticizing the president, is now being prosecuted by this Administration”
  5. Judge Berman sentenced Dinesh to five years of probation, including eight months living under supervision in a “community confinement centre” in San Diego and a $30,000 fine.
  6. While pronouncing Dinesh with the least possible sentence, Judge called Dinesh’s claim of his being a political persecution (in spite of admitting guilt) as “nonsense”.
    Dinesh after the judgement said “I’m just happy I can pay my debt to society and get on with my work”

Using the above facts, I am unable to see the political vendetta here. Now, let me elaborate on my concerns.

The Executive powers are vested in the executive branch to enable the president handle emergencies and exceptional situations. Donald Trump has taken a cue from his predecessors on using this power and stepped it up to a new level. This is borderline authoritarian.

I am not a fan of Barack Obama’s policies. However, Republicans’ have smeared him with accusations that a baseless and loathsome. One must remember all the things Donald Trump has said about Obama, including asking for this birth certificate. The hatred towards Obama is unprecedented and I frankly can’t see a reason to support Trump just for that one reason. Further, continuing to badger him at every step is despicable. It also sets precedence for shaming opponents and is uncivil. Obama’s lack of influence on this case can be seen from the facts above.

Lastly, an elected official should respect or at least acknowledge the independence of the judiciary. The Judges could have been selected by an administration but they act independently. The government cannot influence a judgement. Such statements are either a gross misunderstanding of the judicial setup or a call for more executive authority to influence the judiciary. This is a risk to one of the key principles of the democratic republic system, checks and balances.

I also want to touch upon the accusation on Rosie O’Donnell’s offence. Rosie apparently donated more to democratic campaign than the legal limit. There is one crucial difference here. She did it herself and didn’t use straw donors. She didn’t hide it which gives her an excuse. I still suggest you can try her in court as she has already admitted doing it. That doesn’t exonerate Dinesh, a conspiracy theorist and a liar.

References

https://www.politico.com/story/2014/05/dinesh-dsouza-pleads-guilty-illegal-campaign-contribution-106882

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/jun/06/ted-cruz/dinesh-dsouza-and-rosie-odonnell-fec-violations-di/

Ukraine couldn’t have staged a better PR for Russia

~ Venki ~ Leave a comment
Arkady Babchenko is a Russian journalist and war correspondent. He is known to be a critic of President Vladimir Putin’s foreign policy, especially with Ukraine. He lives in Ukraine with his wife a 6kids. Two days back, the news of his death broke out. The 41-year-old was supposedly shot dead. The Prime Minister of Ukraine, Volodymyr Groysman blamed Russians and more specifically Russian government for that. The foreign minister of Ukraine, Pavlo Klimkin said he sees a ‘Russian pattern’ in the death of Arkady Babchenko. I don’t think there was a news outlet in the mainstream media, especially in the NATO countries who doubted Russian’s involvement in this. The only country rejecting the claim was Russia.

The events which followed could only be staged in a badly written Bollywood movie. Within a day, Arkady Babchenko walks into a police press conference with the Ukrainian security service. The reporters were told that the agency had faked Babchenko’s death to catch people who were trying to kill him. Apparently ever Babchenko’s wife didn’t know about it.

I am pretty sure most people bought into the explanation given by the Ukrainian security service. Here is my problem with it. They are asking everyone to believe the second point because they have accepted the first point is a lie. Here is the fallacy in simple terms.

I said A.
I admit A is false. (Therefore, I speak the truth.)
Now, I say B .
B is true. (Because I speak only the truth).

I don’t want to fall into the trap of ‘once a liar, always a liar’. However, it is also not prudent to not doubt the second message, once I come to know that the first one was a lie. Further, Ukraine could have saved face had its Prime Minister and Foreign Minister not accused Russia of the murder. What it does is help Russia use this excuse in the future. It reminds me of the ‘Boy who cried Wolf’ kid’s story. One can’t make this mistake at such a high level. It degrades diplomacy to a new low. So, all Ukraine has managed here is to give Russia a PR boost.

References

A perfect example of hysteria and lack of intellectualism in the public sphere

~ Venki ~ Leave a comment
I recently watched a video of Dave Rubin giving a speech to a bunch of students from the University of New Hampshire. The event exemplified everything wrong with public discourse today.  Any meaningful discourse should result in people learning something new for them to reflect. This can only happen if both parties are willing to let fact change their opinions. Unfortunately, neither parties seem to be keen on doing that. Before I critique the event, I want to admit that I might sound slightly more critical of Dave than the college students. This is because of the relatively elevated standard I have for him as he is a public speaker. Also, I want to reiterate that though I do not agree with many of Dave’s beliefs and ideas, I haven’t found any evidence to think he is a dishonest player. He is not a racist or a bigot as some fringe elements have portrayed him. I have given the youtube link to the video below.
I want to capture my thoughts on this through the below eight points.

Let the speaker speak
University campuses should foster equality, opportunity, learning, diverse thought, rationalisation and promote civil discourse. It should be the centre of free speech. Physical violence, intolerance to speech, sexism, racism and discrimination should have no space in a university. Also, people should be able to listen to anyone speak and ask questions civilly. As students, you can protest but that should not be at the expense of listening to ideas. Lawrence Krauss’s lecture of physics has nothing to do with him sexual harassment complaints. Art, speech, debate, poetry or any form of communication can be offensive but students should be able to listen to them and critique the material and not the person. When students are not able to do it, then adults have to intervene and fix it. Protests should stay outside the halls where the speeches are given. Once the speaker starts, the students have to listen. Adults working in the university and the administrators should ensure this happens. Christopher Hitchens gave his speech on ‘God is not great’ book at the Google Talks. One of the response moved him but more importantly, no religious person threw a stone at him.

Know your audience, condescension doesn’t help
Dave Rubin started the speech by talking about the situation we are in being better than our grandparents. He already had a bunch of protestors shouting. It is easy to say one needs to understand the audience but that was a clear example of someone who is not a public speaker doing this. Dave Rubin was unable to capture the audience to start and had an expression of condescension when they started shouting. An alternate way to handle this is to acknowledge the issues facing people today. Even after the emancipation of slaves almost 15 decades back, there are issues of discrimination though not systemic. The law enforcement agencies sometimes end up not protecting people at the same level. Not all people can handle personal attacks and hatred at the same level. There is an explosion of information more than ever in the human history. We haven’t evolved to understand and constructively process this. If you want a healthy debate where people should listen to you, you have to pick the right words which will get through to everyone. A person was abused the day before is not going feel pleasant when you tell them your life is better than your grandfather.

Identity Politics hypocrisy 
Dave immediately moved on to talking about the perils of identity politics. I agree with the pugnacity of identity politics but share the idea of Sam Harris that the impact is relative. Also, I do not think labelling people, especially students is a prudent idea. However, the entire section highlighted the hypocrisy of Dave Rubin. Immediately after bashing identity politics, he asked the audience how many of them identify themselves as classical liberal or conservative etc. I felt like it wasn’t that Dave didn’t like identity politics. He just didn’t like the current segregation. He was fine with the segregation of classical liberal or conservative or socialist etc. This is either intellectual dishonesty or intellectual laziness. I can’t make my mind on which but it is bad either way.

Propagating stereotypes
Stereotypes are dangerous, especially if you are propagating something which has been used as a tool to run a class warfare for years. Dave Rubin told the students who were calling themselves conservatives, that they will study well, work hard, overcome obstacles, have fancy cars and property. Then he told the libertarians that they will smoke a lot of pot and argue about driver licence. He then went on to explain classical liberalism through the lens of the federal government. There is an underlying problem here. This argument that conservatives work hard, implying the others don’t is the very basis of most of the horrible conservative policies. He went on to also say that Political Right is the centre of free speech now. This is interesting considering the right has one of its thinnest-skinned presidents ever. The political right wants the power to abuse but not receive. This stereotype by Dave is a dangerous one and again I want to give him the benefit of doubt. He probably was doing this in a lighter vein.

Free speech without but
I like to believe I am a free speech absolutist. It can’t be limited even if you consider a speech hateful. Government or Individual cannot prosecute other for speech or thought. I also believe there is a way to communicate that to the audience. While I agree with Dave on the importance of free speech, I definitely feel he did a poor job in explaining it. The way I would start the conversation is by acknowledging how free speech is important for the dissenting voices. I would like to give Dave a lot of credit here. It is definitely hard to express your points properly when people are yelling at you in the public. At one point, a student actually asked a question which answered why Dave doesn’t want Government policing speech. I just wish Dave provided a justification instead of talking about the beauty of it. It is also important for Dave to talk about how free speech solves the problem for the people.

Working back from the solution
This is arguably the biggest problem I have with public discourse today. Everyone, from Dave Rubin to Brendan O’Neill, from Bill Maher to Glenn Greenwald from Cenk Uygur to Jordan Peterson, I see a pattern of confirmation bias and logical fallacies. As an observer, I find the below problem when they articulate. However, the biggest issue I see is working backwards from my preferred answer. Dave thinks conservative economics and individualism is the best possible solution, so he framed the questions in a way that it leads to that answer. Anything in the periphery can change his opinion but the core. I don’t want to ridicule anyone who does this as I see this as a pattern. The best speakers seem to be the ones who can induce the confirmation bias in the listeners to make them ignore fallacies. An example of the same was the below points.

Imagine, every single one of you has a better life than your grandparents. This is the best system possible that is why no one leaves. If you work hard, then you reap the rewards in the system.

Implicitly, Dave is telling the students that they should not disrupt this system. That aside, if you believe that this system is the best there possibly can be then the rest of the points look coherent. Now imagine you were on the wrong side of the financial crisis and now you are stuck with debt and a poorly paid job, what are the chances of the first statement being true. Even if the first statement is true, the next two cannot be either deduced or induced from the first.


Victim complex versus Victim bashing
This is a problem I see with many people now irrespective of their political beliefs. While I support the need to get rid of the victim complex, I increasingly see that as a tool to bash genuine victims. Also, do not judge cases based on your view of the organisation supporting the victims of those cases. Let me give you an example. Slavery has been abolished in the US for over 100 years now. Black Americans have the same rights as the white Americans or brown Americans. For the purposes of law, the colour of one’s skin is irrelevant. To talk about systemic racism doesn’t make sense anymore. However, that doesn’t mean there are acts of racism or bias in the society or individuals. If I get attacked because of my race, then it is an act of racism. If I get attacked because of my religion, it is an act of religious intolerance. In some instances, people can see patterns. I acknowledge the pattern can be misleading but that doesn’t discredit their existence. In a college where multiple people have been abused for the race or ethnicity, it is not a question of the students playing victims. They are victims. To say that your great grandfathers were slaves, so thank for your current situation is not an answer. If your starting position is government should not legislate against this, then suggest an alternative to these students. Otherwise, you are not part of the solution, you are the new problem. Hatred is not easy to deal. It is funny when the same people asking students to deal with the hatred are the ones defending Trump voters from the hatred of the liberals. I am not for reducing free speech to handle hatred but we also need a way to make people deal with it.

Offence over history and speech
What I found particularly annoying with students was their unwillingness to listen to anything bad. Dave Rubin is not going to physically assault anyone or call names. He has a particular opinion which you might not agree but universities are places to listen to multiple voices. The supporters and opposers of Vietnam war studied in the same university in the 1960s. You might have a person from Israel and a person from Palestine in your office. What’s more, the Israeli person could have lost a family member in the Holocaust and the Palestine person could have lost her/his in the Israeli bombing. Shelly, Keats and Shakespeare might have said or written about something you don’t like. Einstein or Newton could have done something you find reprehensible. The University is a place where you learn history, have a civil discourse, understand history and respect other’s rights like they respect yours. Everyone has the right to exist, morality changes with time, speech is the only civil way to share ideas and one cannot be prosecuted for thought crime. It is important to learn to live decently and above all dissent decently.