Mrs. A lives in Unnao along with her husband. Her brother is a judge in the Supreme Court of India. He rang up to say that he wished to visit her. Mrs. A asked him not to because the drain right in front of her house in Unnao was overflowing making it difficult to get into and out of the house. The judge would have none of it of course and made a few phone calls to the administration in Unnao. Sometime later the District Magistrate of Unnao was at Mrs. A's doorstep supervising the cleaning of the overflowing drain. He even offered to send a few men to clean the inside of the house. It does need cleaning you see.
So now you know how to get a drain cleaned. Simple isn't it? All you need is to have a close relative in a senior government position. Don't have one? Now that is a shame because although you do pay your taxes you do not have the right to a hygienic life. Some would even question your right to live.
Monday, January 18, 2010
Friday, January 15, 2010
Indian news again, Satish Shetty
A guy named Satish Shetty was killed yesterday in Pune, India. He was attacked with swords as he was coming back from his morning walk. Just a few days ago he had requested police protection.
What he was doing is real bravery and it is a shame that those whose job it is to do what he was doing left those things undone. Basically, he resorted to the right to information act (RTI) to expose dodgy land deals in and around Pune.
Let us look for the villains again. There are those officials (Development Authority, Municipal Corporation and so on) whose job it is to ensure that property transactions are fair and proper. Obviously they are not doing their jobs otherwise Satish Shetty would not have needed to do what he used to. Then there is the police. It is always there. They failed to protect a citizen whose life was in very obvious danger.
What Satish was doing is a very brave thing and his death is certainly tragic. I have doubts if anyone else will be in a hurry to take up his role. The biggest tribute to Satish would be that the rest of us do our jobs properly and with due diligence. We can ensure that brave men like him do not have to resort to bravery to ensure fairness in the life of those around. Remember him, and just do our jobs well.
What he was doing is real bravery and it is a shame that those whose job it is to do what he was doing left those things undone. Basically, he resorted to the right to information act (RTI) to expose dodgy land deals in and around Pune.
Let us look for the villains again. There are those officials (Development Authority, Municipal Corporation and so on) whose job it is to ensure that property transactions are fair and proper. Obviously they are not doing their jobs otherwise Satish Shetty would not have needed to do what he used to. Then there is the police. It is always there. They failed to protect a citizen whose life was in very obvious danger.
What Satish was doing is a very brave thing and his death is certainly tragic. I have doubts if anyone else will be in a hurry to take up his role. The biggest tribute to Satish would be that the rest of us do our jobs properly and with due diligence. We can ensure that brave men like him do not have to resort to bravery to ensure fairness in the life of those around. Remember him, and just do our jobs well.
Saturday, January 09, 2010
Heros and Heroism
There was a news item on an Indian TV channel today telling that in Tamil Nadu a policeman was attacked by some crooks, beaten up brutally, had his leg hacked off and, left bleeding on the road. A convoy of some minister (I think it was two ministerial convoys) passed by and did very little to help him. The Deputy Collector of the region was with the convoy and he phoned for an ambulance. However this policeman died because of loss of blood by the time the ambulance arrived. People in the convoy did not make any efforts to take this policeman to the hospital. Very sad. What is more sad is that the TV channel is asking its viewers to communicate to them their views about the incident. The saddest part is that people are actually sending messages to the TV channel saying that these ministers do not deserve to be ministers or that the ministers should be charged under section 302 (murder) and so on.
In my opinion
What exactly is the TV channels moral responsibility? First of all they should not mislead the people into thinking that their opinion is important when it is obviously not. In this case it is not important what people think. When (and if) the case goes to court the judge will not ask what the people think. She will want to know what laws have been broken. Public opinion is important during an election. Public opinion is important with regards to laws but not when it comes to enforcement of the existing laws. The public should know that they can, by the power of their votes, change the people who make the laws but they cannot change the enforcement of existing laws.
Some video footage was shown of this policeman lying bleeding on the road. It was taken not by the TV channel but by an onlooker who just happened to be there. Why did he not call for an ambulance? Is there a number we can call if there is an emergency and hope to get some action? Like there is 911 in the US and 999 in the UK and such like in other countries? Why not?
Why does the public not demand that there be such a phone number along with the proper setting up of emergency services? Let us say it is not practical for a poor country like India. Why do the policemen not demand it as part of their service contract? Why do they not demand that there be a phone number, well known to the public and police alike, which can be called if a policeman is injured or in serious trouble? There are no such demands because our TV and other media do not let the public think like this. They want the public to feel good by blaming and accusing others for being bad. They do not want the public itself to take the blame that it rightfully deserves. The public is to be blamed for not being demanding of its leaders and officers. The public is content to accuse and berate those who do wrong but it will not demand that its leaders and officers do the right things to begin with.
I am not a lawyer but I do not think that in this case the ministers can be charged with anything. Morally, they should have done their best to get this policeman to a hospital which they did not. But that is no crime. Surely what happened or did not happen must be somebody's responsibility. I think it is the responsibility of the senior officers of the the dead policeman. What needs to be investigated is whether they knew of the danger to this policeman's life. If they did then why was he left alone, vulnerable to attack? If they did not know about the danger to his life why not? It is their job to know. Why are they so far from the realities of day to day policing? Why don't they demand that policemen have access to fast emergency help if needed? Why was this particular policeman without a radio?
Surely the angry public must do something about the neglectful ministers. The best thing to do would be to not forget woeful behaviour of these ministers in this incident till the next election. Voting is a matter of opinion and the public should respect its own opinion and not vote for these minister in the next election. This is what the media should be telling the public instead of providing the placebo of making it the judge, jury and executioner in its own imaginary world.
Is the dead policeman a hero? And the two ministers villains? As far as I know the dead policeman is a dead policeman. He may have died because of being true towards his duty or he may have died because of getting mixed up with the wrong kind of people for all the wrong reasons. Whatever the reason of his being killed, his superiors have some responsibility for it. If he died because of being faithful to his duty then his superiors are to be blamed for not looking after an upright subordinate. If he died because of wrong dealings with the wrong people then the superiors are to be blamed for ignoring what was going on or not knowing about it at all. What about the ministers? I do not know what their legal duties were when all this was happening but I do know what their moral duties were. Ignoring ones legal duties is a crime, ignoring ones moral duties is not a crime, it is just plain immoral. The public has a right to expect the conduct of its leaders to be both legally and morally exemplary. If the ministers broke a law it is the responsibility of the police to bring them to justice. But the public can punish the ministers for substandard moral behaviour (although not illegal) by not voting for them in the next election.
So in this whole episode there are no heros. People writing in to the TV channel their opinions about the ministers are certainly not. Who are the villains? I agree that the two ministers displayed far from heroic behaviour but it does not make them villains. The real villains are those who let such incidents happen. The police officers who failed to protect a fellow policeman. The police officers who have indicated, by their regular negligence of duty, to the criminals that they can get away with such act.
Negligence of duty is a far bigger moral crime than most of us think. Often, it is also a legal crime. So, everybody who ignored their duties leading to this incident is a villain. The ministers for not having an emergency service in place for such situations. The police officers for failing to protect a fellow policeman.
Most of us think of heroic deeds as exceptional. Sometimes they are, but only rarely. Most of the time heroism is simply a matter of being faithful toward ones designated responsibilities and duties. Yes, that is what real heroism is. It goes unnoticed when things are fine but as soon as people start neglecting their duties things start to go wrong. Sometimes a heroic deed might save a bad situation. Whenever this happens one should, apart from rewarding the hero, look for those whose actions or inactions led to the bad situation in the first place.
A shop owner fights off a burglar and saves his shop. Brave? Yes. Hero? Umm. But why are we not looking for the villains who are responsible for the burglary to happen in the first place? You think burglary is simple? Think again. It is not simply a burglar who is involved. Before the burglary there are those whose (in)action or collusion leads the burglar to think he can get away with it. After the burglary there is someone who deals with the stolen goods. Finally there is someone who buys the stolen goods for personal use. It is a whole bloody industry! If the police are not aware of this then they are not doing their jobs properly. If they are aware of it and are not doing anything about it, again they are not doing their jobs properly. Anybody not doing their job properly is a villain. Simple. In the worst case, the police are on the take and look the other way when stolen goods are bought and sold.
Am I calling the police villains? Yes, and I am also calling everybody else who are not faithful towards their duties villains. Doctors not showing up in rural health centres. Programmers selling unreliable software to poorly informed clients and companies. Senior executives taking exorbitant bonuses while their companies fall to pieces.
People think a country is built by heros. Yes it is. But it is not built by just a few heros who happen to be in the police or armed forced. It is built by lots of heros doing their duties to the best of their capabilities and expecting others to do theirs with the same diligence and care.
Let us all be heros. It will not only ensure that bravery will be rarely needed but also build a nation where everybody is happier.
In my opinion
- What happened to the policeman is tragic.
- What the TV channel is doing is disgusting.
- And the people who are sending messages to the TV channel are thoughtless.
- A crime has been committed. A law (several laws) has / have been broken.
- Some ministers and officers have neglected their duty of care towards a fellow citizen.
- And finally a TV channel is trying to cash in on the incident to gain popularity.
What exactly is the TV channels moral responsibility? First of all they should not mislead the people into thinking that their opinion is important when it is obviously not. In this case it is not important what people think. When (and if) the case goes to court the judge will not ask what the people think. She will want to know what laws have been broken. Public opinion is important during an election. Public opinion is important with regards to laws but not when it comes to enforcement of the existing laws. The public should know that they can, by the power of their votes, change the people who make the laws but they cannot change the enforcement of existing laws.
Some video footage was shown of this policeman lying bleeding on the road. It was taken not by the TV channel but by an onlooker who just happened to be there. Why did he not call for an ambulance? Is there a number we can call if there is an emergency and hope to get some action? Like there is 911 in the US and 999 in the UK and such like in other countries? Why not?
Why does the public not demand that there be such a phone number along with the proper setting up of emergency services? Let us say it is not practical for a poor country like India. Why do the policemen not demand it as part of their service contract? Why do they not demand that there be a phone number, well known to the public and police alike, which can be called if a policeman is injured or in serious trouble? There are no such demands because our TV and other media do not let the public think like this. They want the public to feel good by blaming and accusing others for being bad. They do not want the public itself to take the blame that it rightfully deserves. The public is to be blamed for not being demanding of its leaders and officers. The public is content to accuse and berate those who do wrong but it will not demand that its leaders and officers do the right things to begin with.
I am not a lawyer but I do not think that in this case the ministers can be charged with anything. Morally, they should have done their best to get this policeman to a hospital which they did not. But that is no crime. Surely what happened or did not happen must be somebody's responsibility. I think it is the responsibility of the senior officers of the the dead policeman. What needs to be investigated is whether they knew of the danger to this policeman's life. If they did then why was he left alone, vulnerable to attack? If they did not know about the danger to his life why not? It is their job to know. Why are they so far from the realities of day to day policing? Why don't they demand that policemen have access to fast emergency help if needed? Why was this particular policeman without a radio?
Surely the angry public must do something about the neglectful ministers. The best thing to do would be to not forget woeful behaviour of these ministers in this incident till the next election. Voting is a matter of opinion and the public should respect its own opinion and not vote for these minister in the next election. This is what the media should be telling the public instead of providing the placebo of making it the judge, jury and executioner in its own imaginary world.
Is the dead policeman a hero? And the two ministers villains? As far as I know the dead policeman is a dead policeman. He may have died because of being true towards his duty or he may have died because of getting mixed up with the wrong kind of people for all the wrong reasons. Whatever the reason of his being killed, his superiors have some responsibility for it. If he died because of being faithful to his duty then his superiors are to be blamed for not looking after an upright subordinate. If he died because of wrong dealings with the wrong people then the superiors are to be blamed for ignoring what was going on or not knowing about it at all. What about the ministers? I do not know what their legal duties were when all this was happening but I do know what their moral duties were. Ignoring ones legal duties is a crime, ignoring ones moral duties is not a crime, it is just plain immoral. The public has a right to expect the conduct of its leaders to be both legally and morally exemplary. If the ministers broke a law it is the responsibility of the police to bring them to justice. But the public can punish the ministers for substandard moral behaviour (although not illegal) by not voting for them in the next election.
So in this whole episode there are no heros. People writing in to the TV channel their opinions about the ministers are certainly not. Who are the villains? I agree that the two ministers displayed far from heroic behaviour but it does not make them villains. The real villains are those who let such incidents happen. The police officers who failed to protect a fellow policeman. The police officers who have indicated, by their regular negligence of duty, to the criminals that they can get away with such act.
Negligence of duty is a far bigger moral crime than most of us think. Often, it is also a legal crime. So, everybody who ignored their duties leading to this incident is a villain. The ministers for not having an emergency service in place for such situations. The police officers for failing to protect a fellow policeman.
Most of us think of heroic deeds as exceptional. Sometimes they are, but only rarely. Most of the time heroism is simply a matter of being faithful toward ones designated responsibilities and duties. Yes, that is what real heroism is. It goes unnoticed when things are fine but as soon as people start neglecting their duties things start to go wrong. Sometimes a heroic deed might save a bad situation. Whenever this happens one should, apart from rewarding the hero, look for those whose actions or inactions led to the bad situation in the first place.
A shop owner fights off a burglar and saves his shop. Brave? Yes. Hero? Umm. But why are we not looking for the villains who are responsible for the burglary to happen in the first place? You think burglary is simple? Think again. It is not simply a burglar who is involved. Before the burglary there are those whose (in)action or collusion leads the burglar to think he can get away with it. After the burglary there is someone who deals with the stolen goods. Finally there is someone who buys the stolen goods for personal use. It is a whole bloody industry! If the police are not aware of this then they are not doing their jobs properly. If they are aware of it and are not doing anything about it, again they are not doing their jobs properly. Anybody not doing their job properly is a villain. Simple. In the worst case, the police are on the take and look the other way when stolen goods are bought and sold.
Am I calling the police villains? Yes, and I am also calling everybody else who are not faithful towards their duties villains. Doctors not showing up in rural health centres. Programmers selling unreliable software to poorly informed clients and companies. Senior executives taking exorbitant bonuses while their companies fall to pieces.
People think a country is built by heros. Yes it is. But it is not built by just a few heros who happen to be in the police or armed forced. It is built by lots of heros doing their duties to the best of their capabilities and expecting others to do theirs with the same diligence and care.
Let us all be heros. It will not only ensure that bravery will be rarely needed but also build a nation where everybody is happier.
Sunday, January 03, 2010
Spending leisure time
I think a lot of us are very poor at making the best out of our leisure time. Most people are quite good at planning the use of their work time although something can be said about that as well. But when it comes to leisure time most of us do not plan at all. By leisure time I mean the time when we are not working or doing routine things everyday. I am excluding holidays from this because then you are not working at all. The best use of leisure time is do something which is mentally and physically stimulating. Exercise is purely physical although one does think of other things while exercising so it is not strictly so. Reading is purely mental. Writing is also purely mental but it is a very different kind of stimulation compared to reading.
Unplanned watching of TV is the worst way of spending leisure time. I do not feel relaxed at all after doing so.
Exercise is important. Very important. Do some regularly. Even if you think it is important you still don't know how important. It is very, very, very important. And that is all I will say about it.
Back to mental activities during leisure time.
What about TV? Unplanned TV watching is the worst way of spending leisure time. TV watching is not stimulating at all. While you are watching TV you don't think at all. If you don't think, there is no mental stimulation.
There is one physical exercise which I cannot help but mention here, that is walking. I mention it because it is not purely physical. It is also a brilliant opportunity to think without any distractions.
Unplanned watching of TV is the worst way of spending leisure time. I do not feel relaxed at all after doing so.
Exercise is important. Very important. Do some regularly. Even if you think it is important you still don't know how important. It is very, very, very important. And that is all I will say about it.
Back to mental activities during leisure time.
- Day dreaming
- Reading
- Writing
- Video games
- Board games (backgammon, card games)
What about TV? Unplanned TV watching is the worst way of spending leisure time. TV watching is not stimulating at all. While you are watching TV you don't think at all. If you don't think, there is no mental stimulation.
There is one physical exercise which I cannot help but mention here, that is walking. I mention it because it is not purely physical. It is also a brilliant opportunity to think without any distractions.
Saturday, January 02, 2010
Why astrology is a pile of stupidity.
There is something in science known as controlled experiment. To know whether something has an effect or not scientists take two sets persons (or bacteria or plants or animals) and subject them to the factor being studied. Suppose the effect of heat is being studied then we have to take two sets of persons and bring a hot iron close to their palms (say 3 cms). For each set we bring the palms close to the iron but for one set (set A) the iron is hot (switched on) while for the other (set B) it is not. Let us say that there are 10 persons in each of our sets. People in set A will want to take their palms away from the iron within a few seconds. People in set B will also want to take their palms away from the iron (because it is boring to hold it there) but they will take longer to want to do so. We measure these times and then compare the times between set A and set B. After applying some statistical procedures to come to the conclusion that the times are different between the two sets. Which then leads us to the conclusion that heat does have an effect on how long a person will want to keep their palm within 3 cms of an iron. Crudely, we have demonstrated that heat does affect human beings.
In the above experiment, set A is referred to as the treatment set while set B is referred to as the control set. Supposing you are not allowed to use a control set. In other words you are not allowed to used an unheated iron on one set. What conclusion can you reach about the effect of heat on human beings. You will still get a response, people will remove their hands from near the iron. But can you be sure that it is because of the heat? No.
My problem with astrology is that their is no control in this racket. Someone wins the lottery and an astrologer claims that it is because they were born under a particular condition of the constellations, implying that they would not have won the lottery had they been born in a different condition of constellations. We can never test this, can we? We cannot go back in time and make this person be born under a different condition of constellations and then travel back to the present to see whether they buy a lottery ticket and win. So you see, there is no control. So anybody can make any claim of astrological influence and the claim cannot be verified by any means.
The other things which astrologers do is predict the future. This one is relatively easy to test but astrologers make predictions in ways which make it difficult to test their correctness. Mostly they do not make any concrete predictions. Fuzzy predictions are difficult to test for correctness.
So how can we test how correct the predictions made by an astrologer are? Let us say we can find an astrologer willing to make testable predictions. This is not really possible because none of them really do. But for the sake of convenience let us say we can find one. Now let us go to a T junction on the road and ask this astrologer to make predictions whether cars approaching it will turn left or right while the cars are still at least 200 yards away from the junction. The astrologer should not be familiar with the junction. Now we count how many times the prediction is correct and how many times wrong. What will we find.
Whether you are an astrologer or not, there are ways of improving your percentage of correct predictions. It is by having what statisticians call a model. Supposing you have opportunity to study this T junction beforehand. You could count what percentage of cars turn left. Let us say it is 70%, while 30% turn right. Now when you are making predictions you could always say that the car will turn left. And you will be right 70% of the time. Better still, you could mix 7 left turns with 3 right turns for every 10 predictions you make. Given a large enough number of predictions you will be right more than 70% of the time. See anybody can make predictions if less than 100% certainty is acceptable! So prior observations can lead to a model which can lead to better predictions. Models vary. Some are better than others. In general, better models will give predictions of higher accuracy. Coming back to the T junction. Supposing that we do not make any prior observations on the T junction but we know that the left turns leads to a major road while the right turn leads only to a small village. Now without making any prior observations we can still arrive at a model with just this bit of information. Most cars will turn left to take the main road. We could guess any thing, 60%, 70%, 90% to use in our model. As long as we estimate that more than 50% cars will turn left our model will have improved predictability.
At least some astrologers use prior information to make predictions although they deny doing so. They claim to rely on astrological calculations only. There is a lot one can guess from body language, expression, speech etc., and all these can be used to draw general conclusions even about someone you are meeting for the first time. If someone has come to you for astrological consultation then they are already predisposed to believing you. So all the astrologer has to do is to make some intelligent guesses and some generalized predictions based on those guesses. Incidentally, this is exactly what con men do. They make some intelligent guesses about you, predict your behaviour based on those guesses and, then manipulate the circumstances to make you do something silly which will enable them to pull off the con.
Actually friends can do the same. Friends who know you quite well can easily predict that you will not do well as a writer but will do well as a teacher. Their model is their knowledge of you. Their knowledge of you is better than that of any astrologer. So get some good and honest friends. They are much better than astrologers and a lot more fun.
Nobody knows yourself better than you. Be your own friend. More importantly, don't be your enemy. Be honest with yourself. Widen your horizons but do not move too quickly and too far from your core competence. Know your fortes, develop them and use them with confidence. Just like your friends help you know yourself, help them know themselves. Just like you should never be dishonest with yourself, never be dishonest with friends (or anybody else for that matter).
Hopefully I have convinced you that astrological predictions are not purely astrological and that you do not need them to live a happy and fulfilling life.
In the above experiment, set A is referred to as the treatment set while set B is referred to as the control set. Supposing you are not allowed to use a control set. In other words you are not allowed to used an unheated iron on one set. What conclusion can you reach about the effect of heat on human beings. You will still get a response, people will remove their hands from near the iron. But can you be sure that it is because of the heat? No.
My problem with astrology is that their is no control in this racket. Someone wins the lottery and an astrologer claims that it is because they were born under a particular condition of the constellations, implying that they would not have won the lottery had they been born in a different condition of constellations. We can never test this, can we? We cannot go back in time and make this person be born under a different condition of constellations and then travel back to the present to see whether they buy a lottery ticket and win. So you see, there is no control. So anybody can make any claim of astrological influence and the claim cannot be verified by any means.
The other things which astrologers do is predict the future. This one is relatively easy to test but astrologers make predictions in ways which make it difficult to test their correctness. Mostly they do not make any concrete predictions. Fuzzy predictions are difficult to test for correctness.
So how can we test how correct the predictions made by an astrologer are? Let us say we can find an astrologer willing to make testable predictions. This is not really possible because none of them really do. But for the sake of convenience let us say we can find one. Now let us go to a T junction on the road and ask this astrologer to make predictions whether cars approaching it will turn left or right while the cars are still at least 200 yards away from the junction. The astrologer should not be familiar with the junction. Now we count how many times the prediction is correct and how many times wrong. What will we find.
- Not all predictions will be correct.
- Not all predictions will be wrong.
- Some percentage of predictions will be correct.
- Not all predictions will be correct.
- Not all predictions will be wrong.
- Some percentage of predictions will be correct.
Whether you are an astrologer or not, there are ways of improving your percentage of correct predictions. It is by having what statisticians call a model. Supposing you have opportunity to study this T junction beforehand. You could count what percentage of cars turn left. Let us say it is 70%, while 30% turn right. Now when you are making predictions you could always say that the car will turn left. And you will be right 70% of the time. Better still, you could mix 7 left turns with 3 right turns for every 10 predictions you make. Given a large enough number of predictions you will be right more than 70% of the time. See anybody can make predictions if less than 100% certainty is acceptable! So prior observations can lead to a model which can lead to better predictions. Models vary. Some are better than others. In general, better models will give predictions of higher accuracy. Coming back to the T junction. Supposing that we do not make any prior observations on the T junction but we know that the left turns leads to a major road while the right turn leads only to a small village. Now without making any prior observations we can still arrive at a model with just this bit of information. Most cars will turn left to take the main road. We could guess any thing, 60%, 70%, 90% to use in our model. As long as we estimate that more than 50% cars will turn left our model will have improved predictability.
At least some astrologers use prior information to make predictions although they deny doing so. They claim to rely on astrological calculations only. There is a lot one can guess from body language, expression, speech etc., and all these can be used to draw general conclusions even about someone you are meeting for the first time. If someone has come to you for astrological consultation then they are already predisposed to believing you. So all the astrologer has to do is to make some intelligent guesses and some generalized predictions based on those guesses. Incidentally, this is exactly what con men do. They make some intelligent guesses about you, predict your behaviour based on those guesses and, then manipulate the circumstances to make you do something silly which will enable them to pull off the con.
Actually friends can do the same. Friends who know you quite well can easily predict that you will not do well as a writer but will do well as a teacher. Their model is their knowledge of you. Their knowledge of you is better than that of any astrologer. So get some good and honest friends. They are much better than astrologers and a lot more fun.
Nobody knows yourself better than you. Be your own friend. More importantly, don't be your enemy. Be honest with yourself. Widen your horizons but do not move too quickly and too far from your core competence. Know your fortes, develop them and use them with confidence. Just like your friends help you know yourself, help them know themselves. Just like you should never be dishonest with yourself, never be dishonest with friends (or anybody else for that matter).
Hopefully I have convinced you that astrological predictions are not purely astrological and that you do not need them to live a happy and fulfilling life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
