The US Elections

Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton have together made America look like a dysfunctional democracy. Given both their records of questionable integrity, sadly a 2-party 2-candidate election highlights and magnifies everything about the candidates a little too much. In India you can get away with it by just talking about parties till everything's over and the winning party can choose any Prime Ministerial candidate out of the elected lot, and even non-elected ones who seem qualified enough, the winning bit can be arranged later. Clearly we have different versions of the democratic framework with India focusing more on parties and the parliament, and the US more on the person and the Presidential position.

When politicians in India speak, there is nothing clear and concrete in terms of policy or stands on various things. They dwell more on patriotic and nationalistic hyperbole, poetry and emotional appeal. And then we have commonalities with America with all the weaker sections in society, minorities and divisions like religion and caste - with issues of much greater scale and magnitude in India than in any other nation. But the younger generation in India is smart and filters what matters to them, which is generally nothing of what's talked about. In that madness, Modi offered 'growth', with some demonstrable experience, and he's the PM now.

In the US they pretend to be getting more into depth on policy, but I realized there's hardly any content behind all the blabber. Things are said at a very high level. For example this is what Trump stands for - cut taxes, build a wall, no immigration, ban Muslims, repeal and replace Obamacare with a cheaper alternative, protect right to keep guns, restrict abortion, respect women more than anybody and send Hillary to jail. And there are hours and hours of speeches with just this much info and with lots of crap thrown all over. Hillary stands for the following - no tax cuts, state got no business in abortion decisions, immigration - may be, fix Obamacare, guns - not saying no, and Trump is xenophobic, misogynist, sex-maniac, sexual offender, tax-evader, cheap and idiot. Not sure this is a fair summary, but I don't care - I am sure this post is not going to change the minds of those 'undecided' voters. I am no James Comey, and this is no new info. Blogs have become a part of the media... and media can say anything, including create a fake poll and express biased opinions. (It's unfortunate but the only American news channel we get on Tata Sky is CNN.)

Speaking of 'undecided' voters, while looking at this from a distance - at least 13 hours if it is a direct flight, I find it extremely funny that you pick a bunch of idiots, tag them 'undecided' coz they say so, get polls out of them before and after showing them scary videos of an orange-faced rich molester and a smart/stupid lady, hurling abuses at each other - the former more than the latter, and discuss the results for hours like it really means something. I would hope Americans were less stupid than that... not the undecided voters, of course - they are smart, they know how to come on TV.

I feel guilty and embarrassed at going on and on about the US elections while I have little clue about the current political dynamics in India, in spite of the fact that I am neither in the US nor am I an American, although it's possible I could be affected to slight or significant degree by the outcome of these elections. I fear becoming like those angrez Indians in India who know more about America than they do about India. But then I realize that most of my tastes, likes, preferences and curiosity is strictly Indian and about India, and also that I don't know the names of a lot of States in the US and have not seen many Hollywood movies - and I feel better. I still follow the American elections these days as it entertains me like a reality show, similar to how crap like Big Boss are entertaining. But being part of an increasingly globalized and interconnected world, it also makes sense that we do follow these elections, as America and its policies affect our lives in very direct ways - in our jobs, stock markets, trade, etc. And one of these 2 jokers in competition will be powerful enough to affect a lot of shit going on in the world. Whoever wins, the world is definitely going to be funnier.

Happy Diwali

Diwali 2016, which was yesterday, is still going on, and it's been great fun. My wife made the occasion a lot more special than what it would have otherwise been if I had driven things, and I am thankful to her for her leadership. We even burst crackers - no bombs, just the rockets, anaars, chakrees and phool-jhhadees. Half of our rockets went into random unintended dangerous trajectories - one even went inside the kitchen of a 2BHK in a building under construction. So we decided not to launch the other half. I wish ISRO made these rockets, which then would have followed the path we wanted them to after leaving the beer bottle. I strongly urge government to introduce ISRO certification for rockets from next year.

I often wonder how foreigners, especially the white ones, must feel if they visit any Indian city during Diwali, particularly in the evenings when so many bombs start exploding together. It must sound like a war-zone to them. There is obviously a lot of risk in playing with fire to this extent, but we Indians do it very well. It's similar to our traffic with all the SUVs, sedans, range rowers, bikes, cycles and pedestrians moving ahead like they are playing some road-race video game, and yet making it safely to their destinations - most of them. I could never play such a video game without crashing all over many times, and the overall degree of safeness of our traffic, in spite of the mess it is, amazes me. That's how Diwali is. It works.

The more beautiful aspect of Diwali is all the lights. The jhhalars hanging from nails - whichever you could find, leverage and move on - pretending you made some logical sine or cos waves, are an essential part of Diwali ever since electricity was discovered. When I was a kid there used to be small filament-wala bulbs in jhhalars which were covered with small plastic covers of different colors. Those covers would melt if the bulb inside got too hot. And if any one bulb in the chain was gone (fused) it was just to be taken out and the wire joined there to continue the circuit. It's as if the bulb didn't exist there. So rude, isn't it? It's like life.

But I always used to wonder how many bulbs could you really take out and have the jhhalar still functioning with the remaining bulbs - as certainly very few bulbs can't take that much electricity. I guess I was sure of that coz I once plugged in a single bulb and it burst. And a few thought experiments followed which led me to believe there must be a minimum number of bulbs in a jhhalar. Anyhow, now we have little LEDs, which are more durable, don't heat up and don't complain. They work for years. They must have some minimum number too per chain, but I don't care about such things any more.

As a kid I used to love firing pistols. Before I started using one, we had a strange looking thing made of iron, a contraption from 2-3 generations back, at home to burst dot capes because of which we got into the habit of always buying the dot variety and not the rolled ones. My friend Hitesh bought the rolls, loaded them into his pistol and shot at everything one after the other until the roll got exhausted. It made me very jealous. Not sure exactly when but as I grew up I expressed that I wanted a pistol too, and I got one. But probably coz I had already got one demand fulfilled, I didn't ask for roll capes too to go along. I was like that. I was stupid. We bought dot capes again, because of which I had to load the gun after every shot. I later did switch to roll capes and had my fun. I guess that's life - some people get and do things sooner than others. Some are late. They say you've got to ask and work for what you want. That's correct, but we are not all equal in our capabilities to ask and work. It's an unequal world. But I won't complain.

Another amazing aspect of Diwali, when I was a kid, used to be distributing sweets and namkeen in the mohalla. It was not optional. If someone gave you a plate of meetha-namkeen, you could not not give anything in return. So everyone had to be ready with their version and stock of meetha-namkeen. Could add some fruits like apple and banana here and there too. And since everyone was distributing to everybody else, one was bound take out stuff from what X gave and put some of that in what they're giving to Y and Z. That was just an optimization everyone silently did, but made sure she was not caught for having passed someone else's stuff. Items like bananas and apples obviously qualified as candidates for the crime. Too generic-looking mixtures and sweets could also be picked up. It was all a big pain and an unnecessary formality, of course. But it was symbolic of sharing happiness. And it was painful.

Kids had the job of going around with plates covered with male-handkerchiefs and delivering the stuff. People who didn't have kids either themselves went around reluctantly, or refilled the plate of whichever kid came to deliver and asked him/her to carry it back home. I once tried to add spice to the delivering activity by entering others' homes with the plate and shouting 'Happy Diwali' in Shah Rukh's voice. I remember doing it in Shiva's home, but don't think anyone noticed. But I do remember.

Nowadays Diwali is also a lot about taking pictures - of happy people, decorations, lights, food - and sharing all over. It's like the meetha-namkeen, except that it is optional. But for most, it is not, in their minds. Anyhow, it's good as long as it is fun.

Happy Diwali to everybody.

Leaders

The walk, the talk, the conduct, the air - by dexterously copying the established stereotypes is how most people fit into their professional roles which are of leadership and managerial nature. To play the part, you should first look the part - it is suggested. And that's where quite a few leadership aspirants start their makeover. Many others selectively copy traits of leaders. Resting on your chair with your feet on the table in front of a prospective investor, for example. Steve Jobs may or may not have really done that, but he's certainly inspired a few to want to do so nonetheless. But when it comes to human interactions, every situation is different. One can copy the behavioral content, but the context is totally outside one's control and it can never ever be same as anything else that has happened before or after - assuming past, present and future are all determined.

The redundant yet powerful leaders in organizations today dominate a lot of corporate effort and suck a lot of the generated value. Their redundancy is because of absence of any tangible inputs from them in the organizational functioning towards its stated goals. At best they indulge in hit-and-trial games, which is largely a mess-manufacturing exercise, until there's the next cleanup cycle called 'restructuring' which is a reset button for all practical purposes, so that the games at the top can continue with players having clean pitches to bat on and spoil. However they do sit on top - and continue to rise further for the rest of their professional lives - to claim the biggest share of the generated value, as being at the top of the organizational pyramid entitles them to it by default. The position is still supposedly full of stress, as there are local pyramids and hierarchies - extremely concentrated and heated up - many participants willing to kill to make a killing. The guy at the ultimate top - the owner of the whole organizational ATM machine - is the creator of all stress, that flows top-down, and in different ways at different levels. Somehow, in all this organizational stress, there is thrill alongside heart disease and excitement alongside hypertension. In the end, it's all about making more money, which is strangely seen as a vicious motive even in the most capitalist of cultures, even the US, perhaps coz they're not doing very well. Probably when people turn poor, the rich do induce jealousy. If everyone is having a decent standard of living, not being rich can often be a pretended choice.

My boss in a job a few years back once told me - as you rise higher, you are responsible for fewer things (read tasks / activities), and you are accountable for more and more (read outcomes). And the positions with the highest accountability are also the most powerful, yet most stressful and risky because of the pressure to deliver. Like Spiderman said, or rather his uncle did - with great power comes great responsibility. Responsibility here means the importance of acting responsibly, wisely and in the best interests. It is therefore important for leaders at all levels to understand and appreciate the importance of their positions and to not assume redundant states until the next restructuring or a new job, but act responsibly, wisely, and in the best interests coz they are accountable for something of value, and the well-being of many depends on their delivering that value collectively with those many. And to match the risk they take by holding the accountability, they are indeed rewarded, often disproportionately. And as for the walk, the talk, the conduct, the air - when the moon is right, who can stop the waves?

Dumb and Dumber

The most ironic thing about social media is that people are reading a lot, and yet are becoming dumber day by day. I feel that about myself too. Enormous and ever increasing volumes of crap is generated every day and fed to us through a bunch of channels. We pick and pass crap, and keep doing that until the crap is thoroughly consumed by everyone. And then we move on to other crap, and keep doing that all the time on our mobile devices. Even if we try to take a break from all this madness, we get extremely restless with the feeling of getting left behind. We can't stay away for long and are internally pushed back towards it. It has deeply screwed our minds and our ability to control them. While the creators of crap do that to get more visits and somehow get more ad revenue or plain attention, the readers are going on reading and getting entertained. It's like a whole new medium of entertainment has emerged for all idle times and when on the go - all situations with no brain usage required and when reflexes are enough to manage the physical activity. If TV was once seen as killer of all productive time, mobile and data now are together the modern-day weapons of mass destruction. (Warren Buffett needs to revise his quote in the changing times, but this one's taken now!) And yet, TV has not been displaced. In fact TV has transformed to become a tool in this whole data game.

There are indeed positive aspects in all this. For example, without doubt, the awareness of people has reached a whole new and advanced level. Information travels fast and wide within no time. And when it matters, it's really useful and exciting to have everybody on the same page. But of late I've started seeing this feature getting abused abundantly. Things on social media have a repetitive nature, and the same detail or info or news gets reinforced in our minds as it keeps appearing in front of our eyes as we scroll screens. It has 2 effects. One - agents who want to spread something - a message, some news, or a perception - even totally false - are smartly manipulating people's minds to achieve targeted outcomes. Two - as most of the stuff is on topics of minor intellectual value, we feed ourselves continuously on shit that neither helps us nor adds to our knowledge of the world. Our brain probably dynamically allocates resources for new shit by freeing up some old shit which is sent to some long-term area of the brain that keeps piling up shit but offers very minimal ability to retrieve or recall. And this long-term shitty area is getting loaded with more and more shit - at the fastest pace ever in the history of human species. So much ever increasing load chokes the brain, slows us down and makes us dumb. All this technology was supposed to make us smart, but it's only turning us into idiot boxes which can't think. And that's the irony.

Trump vs Hillary - Presidential debate in a few hours

In a few hours we have the presidential debate between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. While I am a fan of neither of them, and why would I give a shit about American elections anyway - I watch only for entertainment, I find these direct debates live on camera between candidates competing in elections a very great practice. It needs lot of courage, meticulous preparation and mental strength for a candidate to be able to take that. One can of course blow it up, but it's unlikely after reaching that level after winning many such debates with other competitors in the primaries. Like a good boxing match, there is lot of punching, offence and defense. And it's fun to watch. A lot of questions are quite direct and as the whole world is watching, you can't bullshit your way into the white house, i.e., in a relative sense only. I say relative coz there could be situations where neither of the candidates has really worked out clear stands on issues and policies, and both are just farting random shit. And in that situation, the one that sounds less insane would win - the debate, at least.

While I was writing the last line, I realized how futile these dabates can be from the point of view of deciding the electability of the candidates. One way to look at these is as reality-shows telecast on TV at prime time meant only for TRPs, entertainment and the linked revenue for engaged parties. But then, they do affect viewers' opinions about the candidates and it wouldn't be totally untrue to say a lot of voters may be influenced by the outcome of a presidential debate. Its very nature is quite unique as it brings the candidates side-by-side on the same stage and the viewers see them taking each other head on.

In the last elections if was fun watching the Obama vs Mit Romney debate. Romney never seemed very clear in his economic policy, and like a good consultant - having had a strong BCG foundation - he kept talking stuff that had more volume - both in space and vibration terms - and less sense. I am not sure Obama made much sense either... but that didn't matter coz he spoke so well!

Now we have Trump and Hillary - neither of them good orators, neither has a clean image and neither has the charisma to evoke respect that's irrespective of what they talk. Will Trump call his opponent 'Crooked Hillary' on her face? Will there be some clear talk or random gyaanbaazi? Let's see.

Wish we had these things in India. There was a time a few years back when Arvind Kejriwal invited, rather challenged, even Modi ji for a public debate. And many others too during the IAC fights for Lokpal bill. But nobody ever accepted those challenges. We know some readers may be getting furious at the mention of Kejriwal in a bit of a positive light and Modi in somewhat negative, and many would retort saying Modi has better things to do than to take a challenge from an idiot (his image at the moment, apparently) like Kejriwal who isn't qualified for a debate... bla bla... But that was not the point here... To give another example, just to dilute the hormones of Kejriwal haters and Modi lovers, our Mr. Smartass Arnab Goswami also called for debates between prime ministerial candidates during elections - with he as the moderator of course, asking all the tough questions. But nobody gave a shit. Perhaps, our leaders just don't want to set a precedent that they might later regret having to do these debates in every election thereafter. Besides, our elections are technically between parties, not people. And party stand is published or formally issued when required.

Anyway, it's already 1 am... I've to get up early to watch the debate... It's at 6.30 AM IST today i.e., 27th September 2016. Good night! Sweet Dreams!

Update - 30th Sept 2016:

The debate was one of the worst I've ever seen. Neither candidates had much to say, except some basic stuff like economy and jobs throwing numbers loosely, and a lot of mud-slinging on each other. Neither of the candidates had much concrete to say about what they were offering. Trump said tax cuts will fix everything and Hillary said tax increases will fix everything - this was perhaps the only clear statement either made on their economic policy and points of view. And neither had much of a basis apparently. One can of course argue with sufficient evidence that most economic policies based on gut feel work as good as those worked out scientifically. Perhaps even better at times. The world is fooled by randomness indeed.

So, this debate was an hour and a half of crap talk. And yet one of the candidates was declared a winner - Hillary Clinton to be specific - while it is noteworthy that the basis for her victory was not her eligibility for being the President, but was the fact that she outsmarted and out-spoke Trump quite well and very clearly. Trump, on the other hand was struggling to attack Hillary and kept failing in the absence of strong prepared and rehearsed content.

But one thing is quite clear to me after following the Obama-Romney and Trump-Hillary debates - these are no great debates, and are mostly full of finger pointing and nonsense arguments - much like the Newshour Debates of Arnab Goswami. And the quality of issues which become election game changers are as cheap in the US as they are in India. In many ways we have less pretence and more indulgent bull-shitting in India, and so we don't even bother about things like fact-checking and policy stands. The entertainment bit is handled better in the US in my view. In all this, democracy shows up as a neat hoax, but everyone wants to believe it's all by the people, for the people and of the people. Good if that makes people happy in whatever form it is.

Growth and Inequality

The world is based on an economic model which drives everything that goes on here, including what we do and how we act, and not just from the work standpoint. And it obviously determines the share of the world's resources that each one of us has the right to claim. There is of course the all-powerful thing called "money", and to earn it within the economic boundaries is all there is to life for almost the entire human race of the day. And the model is designed to grow all the time - prices have to rise, people have to keep earning more than before, entities have to increase in size or volume - basically everything is made to behave like a living creature - a human, to be more specific. Even the denial of death is not uncharacteristic. Why should growth be a given in a world which is fixed in size and the resources it has to offer?

Before I go further, I must declare: I've started reading the book - "Throwing Rocks at the Google Bus: How Growth Became the Enemy of Prosperity" by Douglas Rushkoff, and the thoughts above are influenced by the first 70 pages of the book that I've read so far. I couldn't wait till I completed it before expressing my thoughts, so here I am.

There is also a fundamental reason, in my view, behind aspiring growth which is not entirely just about crazy pursuit - it is the gradual uncovering of the mysteries of the universe by us, and which has continuously led to new possibilities for better life for us. And in principle the entire machinery of the world economy is after enabling that better life using whatever resources and knowledge we have, while also constraining its distribution with a parameter called affordability. While it can still be argued that the standard of living has increased even for the lowest of the affordability layers, the benefits increasingly get concentrated at the top. In other words, people grow at different rates.

The dominant economic thought promotes boundary-less pursuit of self-interest by individuals as a way of achieving overall prosperity, and thereby recognizes the fact that there will be unequal achievement by individuals, leading to different classes of human beings, although it claims that every class would experience net improvement in its living standard (or perish?). As even if everyone was brought to an equal level and made to run, there will always be someone winning the race and someone far behind struggling to catch up - as abilities differ, and we're born with pre-decided levels of most of them. There may be more cozy tracks to run now than in the past or better shoes to help the feet - and that's the overall upliftment achieved. But our unfair models still allow the strong to get more food than the weak because of their corresponding inherent ability to compete for food, resulting in the strong getting stronger and the weak getting weaker. We whisper of equality, but we cannot have it in the current economic model. We talk instead of equal opportunity, which is also not really a fair offer as unequal individuals do not have an equal ability to convert an opportunity. In a way we have extended God's 'natural selection' into the way the world is run, so that we can discard individuals competing poorly. If God could do this with every life form, why can't we do it with ourselves? But whoever is playing God in this model we have made for ourselves is one of us, and is also the highest beneficiary of this economic natural selection. And that's the conflict of interest which screws with the world order.

Musical Sunday morning... Gulaabi aankhein...