|
| This Time's response to Joel Stein's articles about Indianization of Edison.
"TIME responds: We sincerely regret that any of our readers were upset by Joel Stein’s recent humor column “My Own Private India.” It was in no way intended to cause offense."
What exactly was its intention if the article contained racist slurs such as "dotheads"? Is this now a bonafide way of generating publicity? Screw up deliberately and then apologize. Time's apology didn't seem even slightly sincere; forget Joel Stein's nonsensical defense of his column.
Would this article have gone through the editor's desk without corrections if it contained words such as "towelheads", "nigger" or "kikes"?
Then again, it is unimportant. For this is a business and controversies sell. And everything in this world is about money. | | |
| The human function is not rationality rather it is choice. A human being chooses rationality but he isn't rational by default. The capacity for reason might be given but its utilization isn't. Capacity does not mean anything more than a potentiality and reason comes into existence when it is exercised. In a way, reason brings itself into existence but there is another relation here which cannot be ignored. Reason is brought into existence when it is chosen by the human being who is exercising it. Reason's existence is therefore, because of a human being and more specifically it is because of a human being's choice. Choice is, therefore, more fundamental as well as more substantial than reason. Choice therefore isn't just the end result of a rational exercise it is the given condition under which rational exercise is undertaken. Choice is the environment within which rational exercise makes "sense" that is, it is the environment within which reason gives birth to itself. In that sense, choice transcends reason. Not only does it exist prior to reason it exists subsequent to it as well.
---
If, there are laws which ignore the function of choice in human existence then these laws ought to be rewritten. I find that religions, for the most part, give weight to the notion of choice. But not always and not in the most complete sense. However, even when religions engage in the practice of limiting choice they do so by acknowledge the role of choice. They may not hold choice as the most fundamental function but they do realize that it plays a significant role. For belief cannot exist without a choice at some very initial level. Although belief is said to transcend choice itself, religions do recognize that it is choice which needs to be transcended. They might figure it as a nemesis which needs to be controlled.
---
Now although choice is most fundamental, does that mean choice is human function? Choice is human function. Is it entirely human function or is it a part of human function? I find that there is something circular in this way of thinking. If it is given that choice needs to exist prior to reason since reason needs to be chosen doesn't it seem reasonable to ask as to on what basis do we choose? That is, shouldn't we already have a way of sorting out why one avenue is more preferable over the other. If it were entirely random then our preference wouldn't be a choice because although we might have made the act of preferring it wasn't us who preferred rather it was the random algorithm which preferred an avenue. If one were to ask us, "why did we choose?" what would our reason be? Basically then, we are looking at how choice requires a reason to back it up.
Then again, although reason might seem to be legitimizing a choice what we chose against reason? And if someone asked us why? And what if we then said we chose it for no reason. Does that make that choice random? But it wasn't a random choice in the way that the previous one was. Here, there was deliberation and reason but the choice went against it because of our power to do so. But then again, devoid of that deliberation, this choice would have been rendered as random and therefore as not a choice at all.
---
There is something missing here.
---
Now if choice requires reasonable deliberation even if choice can reject its conclusion then it seems as though reason somehow precedes choice. But does it seem more fundamental? If reason is more fundamental than choice then reason ought to be able to transcend choice, that is, it be unable to be affected by choice but it must both precede and succeed choice. When choice chooses a reason's conclusion then reason certainly prevails at the end of that choice, for it backs it up. Now if choice chooses a conclusion opposite reason then too reason appears present at the end of that choice, although not in the same role as before. But present nonetheless. In this sense, it might seem as though reason transcends choice. Is that true?
---
It is clear that if a person acted based on reason alone then that act wouldn't be a choice. A choice involves a bit more than reason. There is a special ingredient which is not contained in reason that choice hangs onto. It provides choice the wiggle room to choose against reason. For if the relationship between reason and choice were airtight then they would have to reflect each other at all times. That is certainly not the case. If a person acted solely based on reason then that person would be acting without any choices. For reason has then bound the person to act in the way that it has described it to him. That kind of act is devoid of any freedom. And freedom is that which provides the human being with the ability to choose. So if the human function were simply rationality then such a human function would have to conclude that freedom in human being is either non-existent or inconsequential.
---
The human function has to be choice and it is in the very nature of choice to allow for a wiggle room. This wiggle room, this extra room, is the nothingness which is present in the human being as choice. Choice by itself is a sense of negation. If reason is chosen then that which reason excludes is negatively included in that choice. With the inclusion of nothingness then, choice is a complete function for a human being.
| | |
| I thought there were two awesome, great matches played today. Germany v England was powerful stuff from the German side. England were revealed clearly as a weak side, they looked winded - bereft of the required talent to proceed into the Great 8. That "controversial" goal was a tragedy more for Football than for England. England didn't deserve to win the way that they played, but they deserved that goal, if ever anyone deserved anything rightfully and entirely.
And Argentina. The clinical Argentina remained surgical. In line and at command they are absolutely lethal. The Germany v Argentina match is now my most anticipated match. That is the absolute pre-final. Two teams at the absolute HEIGHT of their prowess, and since when one is inevitably going to lose, it is going to be the most difficult match to watch in this world cup. I think it might prove pre-climatic for the world cup final. But there are very few matches that could grasp an audience like a Brazil v Argentina match. OH yes! That is something worth looking forward to even if, IF IF IF IF, Germany exit EARLY.
Referees screwed that match up as well. And I do believe that allowed off-side goal renewed the Mexican mind. They couldn't focus after that load of horse shit pulled by the refs. How the hell does that work? What in the world was the sideline ump doing? Then they have a discussion about it? How does that not reveal that there was some wrong done? Fifa needs to get its act together. This is seriously some major pile of dog poo. Nobody is going to ask them to use hawk-eye bullshit but at least have a fourth ump somewhere who can instantly watch these replays. Or have a ref somewhere behind the goal post or specifically for that reason so shit like the one with England doesn't happen. When two feet inside the goal isn't a goal then this game is turning into a laughing stock. | | |
| FOUND IT!!!!
Ham Panchhi Unmukt Gagan ke
Pinjarbandhh na reh paayenge
Kanak Teeliyon se takraa kar
Pulkit Pankh toot jaayenge..
Ham behtaa jal peeney waale
marr jaayenge bhooke pyaase
kahin bhalii hai katuk nimbori
kanak katorii kii maidaa se ...
Svarn Shrinkhla ke bandhan mein,
Apni gati udaan sab bhoole,
Bas sapno mein dekh rahe hain,
Taru ki phungi, par ke jhoole
Aise the armaan ki udte,
Neel gagan ki seema paane,
Laal kiran si chonch khole,
Chugte taarak, anaar ke daane
Hoti seema heen kshitij se,
In pankho ki hoRa hoRi,
Ya to kshitij milan ban jaata,
Ya tanti saanso ki dori
Need na do, chaahe tehni ka,
Aashray chhinn-bhhinn kar daalo,
lekin pankh diye hain to,
Aakul udaan mein vighn na daalo ..
--not written by me. It was a poem I read as a child in school. The lines, "pulakit pankh toot jayengey" have stayed with me ever since. I am glad that I was finally able to read the whole poem again. I had been selected in the elocution group and this was the poem we were going to recite for our house 'Neptune'. I am back there, in that classroom where we practiced this recital and how the teacher, who was so enthusiastic about the poem, eventually lost all patience with us. She would scream and shout everytime we would mispronounce words or not do the gestures she'd directed us to make. For me, I was terribly nervous. Being selected in the group was a source of immense pride for only the best students got selected but it was also a lot of responsibility. It was a group effort and the entire 'house' depended on our performance. But more than anything else, I was too afraid to let the teacher down. Oh if that happened then I would have been done for. She would hold a grudge against me and I would never be able to call myself a "good" student again. Yeah. There was a lot of pressure. And it wasn't fun.
We were given our positions based on our rankings. The best ones stood in the front and the further up/back you went the worse the students got. I was in the very last line, in the corner on the left. That always made me feel like I just made the cut and that I didn't really deserve to be here. Moreover, I had no friends in that group. I really felt very out of place. You see, the teacher never asked me if I wanted to be a part of the elocution group. It was simply announced in class that I was selected for it. I had never applied for it, all I ever did was get good scores on the tests that semester. I didn't know that qualified me for anything other than bragging rights. And here I was, barely balancing myself on a bench, in the very back.
Thats how I remember this poem, or more specifically that line. I don't know why that line resonates with me, it means "these fragile wings might/will break". I certainly didn't like the whole process but I was still proud of that achievement. I can't say it broke me, or maybe it did. I have no business of psycho-analysing myself here. That is something I can do while driving.
I was never selected for another elocution group again nor did I ever volunteer for any. And no, we didn't win first place, we came in third - second to last. I remember screwing up some lines but since it was a group thing, it was good enough that I was simply moving my lips. The teacher had wanted us to sing, but we were all terribly off-key bastards. She abandoned the idea and perhaps with that her hopes of winning right after hearing us the very first time.
That reminds me of our music teacher. He was very strict. This all seems highly irregular now but music was, for me, something to be afraid of. And that was because of him. Now he had the coolest room on campus. And by "cool" I mean literrally the coolest room because he had his own little cabin behind the cafeteria so his AC wasn't shared by anyone. We would go there, lined up, carrying our single-line notebooks with red margins and form two lines in the music room. Short kids in the front, tall kids in the back. We would be standing just behind the teacher who was there with this grand piano. Then, he would ask us to sing a song. I never could remember all the lyrics to songs, I still can't and that was a big problem. Being short, I was right up there. He would watch us as we sang and if he noticed you were simply moving your lips and not singing he would ask everybody else to stop except you. That happened at least three times with me. The embarrassment was overwhelming but it didn't end there. Luckily I never got the worst end of it because I was able to pick up the words and how to sing them after the second or third try. Some weren't even that musically inclined. They would get caned. Getting caned for not singing a song properly?
I remember the music teacher had very bad teeth and very sharp and long nose. He was short, skinny and would have his stringed glasses run all the way down to the tip of his nose. He had composed the school's national anthem and was the only music teacher that the school had. A few years later he retired and I don't know if they still continued with music classes. Probably did, and hopefully with a better teacher.
| | |
| Well here we go ... a day ... a new one after the war England vs USA. Did it live up to the hype? To some extent it did, especially with the fumble goal gifted by the English. What that man must be going through right now is unimaginable? They showed the way Beckham reacted to the fumble and it said it all. The "cross" look was extreme and Greene is probably going to be scrutinized for a very long time if not for the rest of his career. A fumble of such a low caliber in a game of such magnitude on the grandest of stage imaginable - what excuse can he give for that? It was right there, and it touched both of his hands... IT WAS RIGHT THERE! Will he be able to ever live it down? Who knows. But importantly, it is highly likely that we may not see him again very soon. They might retain or rather, they can afford to retain him for their match against Algeria next Friday but maybe as the team progresses and England faces some genuine challenges in the round of 16, probably Germany or even Ghana, they might think twice before using him again. In fact, if they change him, his replacement would be under perhaps the same amount of pressure as it would, no doubt, be a big change for a bad necessity... not something one can live up to without feeling any pressure.
America played strictly okay. There was really no cohesion and England totally dominated them for most of the second half. America barely had any real possessions in the second half. England pushed hard and they kept coming closer to scoring the winning goal but they certainly were matched enough to prevent them from doing just that. But thats a very bottom line performance from America and they should be able to do better than that if they really want to win the cup. Which I wish for but after witnessing their game, it seems like they do not possess the teeth to take a bite out of the trophy. USA might even be troubled by Slovenia let alone them facing the likes of Germany or Ghana. So what looked like an easy draw now appears not THAT easy to me.
The best team, from among that have already played, appears to be Argentina. They had a crisp, very controlled game against Nigeria. Now, Nigeria didn't come across as a very strong opponent, they weren't bad though, but Argentina were able to hold their lines really well. Their passing was extremely precise, especially in the initial moments of the game. Argentina really do seem to be a very formidable side that can take it all the way. They really can.
Koreans are not to be counted at all. NEVER. They play hard, gritty games. These guys get on the field and basically pour themselves entirely empty. They obviously don't play as cleanly as other countries and it appears mostly like their plays are instinctive, impomptu creations rather than the result of some strategical planning. Nonetheless, that is what it seems like and they obviously do have some plans out there. I really wish they had made it possible to see Korea vs North Korea in the earlier rounds than just the final. But that's what it seems like. And I know these sides are good, I can't really see them going all the way to the final. I am pretty much wrong about my guesses so I can't back that claim up in any way, whatsoever.
Today's matches, I really think Germany should be able to win against Australia. I am getting pretty tired of Draws. Ghana has already won, so I have my one African side in a good place. Ghana can definitely beat Australia so they most probably maintain at least a 2nd place group finish. Ghana vs England, or Ghana vs America. Ghana can take America, but they might have a hard going against England. Another word about England, compared to last time, this time the English team is THERE. They have the potential. Their ability to maintain possession against America was of kind dominating. | | |
|