On Internet Social Networking September 7, 2008

Brave New World of Digital Intimacy

The New York Times had this extensive article on Social Networking websites. I wrote the following comment as my rumination on the subject. Surprisingly, moderators rejected it( to the best of my knowledge). Wonder why? Was it misogynistic? Anti Religion? Too religious? Would you know why? Anyhow, I am glad I can still post it and let the world read.

This article almost gave me headaches. It reminds me of Internet’s trillions of tentacles. Get to this Wikipedia link for a list of popular social networking sites for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_social_networking_websites

You get Facebook, then Twitter and then something else. Then another new site pops up providing the best of three and then yet again something else. It’s a NEVER ending quest. I think the book of Ecclesiastes in Bible was written when some prophet foresaw the internet and digital age of today: ”All things are wearisome; more than one can express…there is nothing new under the sun.”

Once a friend asks you to come look at his or her page, soon you realize you MUST register to view the page and you end up getting signed up for all the Facebooks and Twitters spread all over the face of this once green and blue but now all digital earth. Even newspapers (like Washington Post) and book sellers (like Amazon) offer social networking to their registered users.

Sometimes, a pioneering Social Networker (for some reason, They are ALWAYS women) invites the flock to some new social networking site (It might be Shelfari or Multiply or HeavenknowsWhat) and then gets sick of it and abandons it anyway, only to proclaim that the next one she’s found is the perfect one.

It’s like some lady Moses of the digital age messing about her flock through the eternal silicon valley of utter wastefulness and constant flux. But in this story there is neither Jehovah nor Jesus to save us.

And these things can of course become very obsessive. You must know what new ”moods” or ”twitters” or other updates there are. Even news websites and news aggregators act like twitters and heart beats of the world that get updated every minute.

Recently, Atlantic Monthly came with an article ”Is Google making us stupid” (http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200807/google) You bet it is. Reluctantly, I did an experiment to find out the truth. I actually switched off my computer (if I keep it on I must check all twitters and emails every 30 minutes)… so I switched it off (I was able to do it as I’d also gotten sick of the latest Spywares, Adwares etc. that afflicted my PC, by the way, my latest blog offers some good tips to fellow sufferers and surfers).

After having my digital contraption off… I was learning so much more in my spare time by simply being able to read books and sticking with the reading, newspaper articles, even just watching TV, listening to radio. And I relaxed a lot, enjoyed my coffee better… was able to productively and creatively think about many other things. Also, I was at peace.

You can do that too! Or else, Abandon hope all Ye who enter here….

American foreign policy and the sad state of ”War on terrorism” August 22, 2008

I know this blog’s About Page proclaims my passion for America and English speaking world. But of late I am growing very weary of latest international developments. It appears that America and NATO don’t really have any aspiring noble central aim for a better, safer, peaceful and a progressive world. The latest conflict over Georgia was a calamity in the making propelled by consistent undermining and mockery of Russia even after the collapse of Soviet Union. Stoking the selfish interests of Georgia and its president like spoiled brats did not help either.

The latest result in violent attacks on Western forces in Taliban is not the result of strengthened Islamist forces but because of NATO’s own lack of purpose and decline in popularity among native people.

The New York Times comes up with naive editorials LIKE THIS about how to win war on terrorism in Afghanistan. I really don’t understand what would NATO’s victory mean? Beat back Islamist forces as they can escape to all the neighboring shelters and later they can reemerge at any moment? What Western military alliance does not understand is that Afghanistan is where these terrorists live and recruit. It is their home. But western military forces are only foreigners living in military camps and one day they’ve got to leave. Fire power will never resolve these conflicts. It is time to negotiate with those who control the levers of these terrorists. Also, negotiate with regional military forces: Iran, Pakistan and to some extent Russia and India who can help bring peace in this region if they iron out their own differences with Western world and establish mutual understanding with the regional powers.

Suicide Notes- an excellent article on suicide. July 9, 2008

Well, the only purpose of this post is to present and share with you the wonderful article I read in the magazine section of New York Times. Not only it is very beautifully written but also it is informative and points towards some of the common myths about suicide, the prominent being that there is not much we can do for people who are intent on committing suicide. Most suicide attempts reach ”completion” because the dark impulse of a suicidal mind meets ease and convenience of the method of ending one’s life.

Another theme of this article that is not really pointed out is that some places act as hypnotic traps for a suicidal mind. The Golden gate bridge in San Francisco is given as an example. I have read an excellent book by Tom Hunt called ”Cliffs of despair” that explores Britain’s Beachy head chalk headlands as such spot that lures suicidal people from all over the country.

Here’s the article from The New York Times,

”The Urge to End It All”

Hey, you know where YOUR brain is? January 17, 2008

Hello readers, I am still not timed or primed for much blogging but right now I am waiting for someone and it occurred to me that I should share with you something. It started with this article from The New York Times, that has stimulated me immensely: ” Big Brain Theory: Have Cosmologists Lost Theirs?”

 

It is a long article in the science section but I am only concentrating on one thing: the possibility of the existence of parallel brains in the parallel universes. It is very possible that in the vastness of the cosmos around you some atoms happened to be assembled exactly in the manner of your own brain, for whatever duration. In this sense, there are the clones of your brain out there floating into the eternity that think like you, feel like you, fear like you, become happy like you and make sense of everything like you do. Isn’t it just amazing? The very thought! 

 

Maybe some brain out there is writing this very blog and there are other brains out there, just like your brain, who are reading it at this very moment. Surreal it maybe but impossible it’s not.

 

And this was the queer thought I wanted to share with you. Until next time, bless your brain folks.  Take care.

The mess of Iran and Dick Cheney Rising. December 4, 2007

Of course the latest newspaper stories are ablaze with the report from National Intelligence Estimate stating that Iran stopped working on nuclear weapons program in 2003. But Mr. Bush has debunked the obvious implications and asserted (Read BBC Story, ”Bush says Iran remains a threat”) that the report mentions Iran’s capability of producing nuclear weapons, so it needs to be checked. Also read, TIME’S ”If North Korea, Why not Iran?”that contrasts Iranian situation with North Korea (I discuss it in the middle of my post)

 

 

This is a totally messy subject and Ahmadinejad’s rhetoric doesn’t help. Sometimes I wonder if Ahmadinejad is getting huge pay checks from Pentagon and Israeli military to keep the air charged with threats and vivid images of looming mushroom clouds? Because if he is not getting paid there is nothing that can explain how can he be so stupid? Here is an excellent New Yorker article that thoroughly analyzes this growing confrontation between Iran and the Western world (America, Britain, and now France as well): Click to read: ”Shifting Targets: Administration’s plan for Iran”

 

 

Suggestions for peace– My personal feeling is that US foreign policy should do its best to engage Iran in a long term strategic friendship. Iran will never be a direct terrorist threat to Americans. There were no Iranian terrorists on September 11 hijacked planes. Iranians don’t have direct interests to bomb American civilian targets. This kind of terrorism is mainly the work of Arab-Sunni Muslim fundamentalists. Iran stands alone in the Muslim world as the only Shiite Muslim majority country (Iraq is only other Muslim country in the world with large Shiia population). But the reality is that Iran will never be an ally with Arab Muslim fundamentalists or Sunni-Arab led Al Qaeda or Afghan Sunni Taleban. Iranian interests are regional.

 

 

And meaningful dialogue with Iran can not only foster long-term peace but also trade with Iran in many areas including developing its huge reserves of oil and natural gas. Such meaningful engagement with Iran would also be in the best interests of Israel. If Arab Egypt can be persuaded to adopt the policy of non-belligerence towards the state of Israel, I can’t see why Iran cannot be included in the same group of Muslim nations that recognize the legitimate existence of Israel. The United States could explore the similar responsible, monitored civil nuclear deals with Iran that it has tried to pursue with North Korea and India.

 

 

 

Dick Cheney Rising….. Dick Cheney is behaving bad again. He continues to bay for Iranian blood as his first priority. Maureen Dowd has been chasing up on this madness. In ”Method as Madness” She writes, ”Dick Cheney’s craziness used to influence foreign policy. Now it is foreign policy.” In another column, ”W.M.D. in Iran? QED” she further explores Dick Cheney’s obsession with Iran that blinds him to all other aspects of American trade, national defense and foreign policy issues.

 

 

I don’t know what’s wrong with Cheney. He is not even Halliburton’s CEO anymore. He resigned in 2000 as the CEO, at least officially. He has stated once his current term in the US administration is over, ”I’m out of here.” He has an ailing heart, medically speaking, for which he has undergone various surgeries. He also survived a bizarre hunting incident when he nearly shot (”accidentally”) his fellow septuagenarian quail hunter buddy dead. But despite all this the exiting Dick Cheney is rising with madness in his mind. Why?

 

 

 

This comment was made on someone’s blog post (CLICK TO READ) and I thought it is relevant to this post:

 

I knew you will blog about it with your beautiful myopic eyes. But here is some info to balance the misconceptions.

 

The report says Iran had stopped nuclear weapons program in 2003. It does go on to mention that Iran continues to enrich uranium and according to best estimates it can make nuclear bomb within 3 to 8 years if it wants to (and I am sure it wants to, it’s dying to)

 

 

As for military strikes. They can happen right now as you are reading this. Nuclear bomb is not the only issue. The fundamentalist, military wings of Iran have been destabilizing Iraq since Saddam was toppled. They’re supplying money, arms, ammunition and providing training to Shiite Iraqi militants and thugs like Sadr’s Mahdi army.

 

 

The next time you read a news story where a bomb blast or a suicide bomber killed men, women and children, you can take comfort in the fact that the bomb was made in and supplied by your favorite country, Iran.

 

 

Iran must stop Hizbollah and other criminal outfits that spread violence, terrorism, war crimes or else next time you won’t be able to blog about Iran, because there will be no country called Iran on this planet anymore. I am only expressing my genuine fears.

Freedom quote and the Right to Privacy November 28, 2007

”When the government is allowed to show up unannounced without a warrant and search people’s homes, it is bad news for all of us.”

 

 
— Says New York Times in an editorial (A Loss for Privacy Rights) against unwarranted police searches in California (In breach of the 4th Amendment that forbids unreasonable searches and seizures) targeted at poor people who apply for social security.

Something about The New York Times November 26, 2007

In one little sentence, The New York Times is great.**CLICK HERE TO VISIT THEIR GREAT WEBSITE)** But of course it is often bitterly (from ”conservatives”) and sometimes idealistically (Noam Chomsky, Gore Vidal, Columbia Journalism Review) criticized for its coverage. Of course I do not worship New York Times as I used to as a teenager. It certainly is a business wanting to make money and has a political agenda that usually serves liberal and Democratic party interests. But like any humongous entity it is bound to have cracks, errors, corruption, scandals etc. But it has survived and stood tall.

 

My real introduction to New York Times was in 1999 when I got internet for the first time. I had always heard about it but never had laid an eye on it. (Fact: To this day I have never held the original paper copy of NYT in my hands as even the best libraries in New Zealand, both public and academic, do not subscribe to NYT in paper form) But internet access changed it. At the age of 19 it completely satisfied my extreme lust for international affairs, American issues, intellectual stimulation and good writing. I remember, my dial up connection used to be pitifully slow and it cost me for the time I was online. So I used to cheat. I discovered that by making little tweaks in the URL address of news stories I can open all articles for printers, which means all text and no graphics or ads. So, everyday I would quickly download several articles, save them, disconnect internet and read them at my own leisure.



Then I came to New Zealand to study media in 2002. I was introduced to Noam Chomsky and many other resources. New York Times was not the infallible broadsheet it once was. I did not read it all that much. In 2005 I was so incensed with ”TIMES SELECT” (the subscription only sections), I completely stopped reading NYT. I think I even shot a couple of angry emails to NYT. The most annoying bit was, I would get links to NYT stories in Google news and My Yahoo, click on them and be asked to subscribe to TIMES SELECT before I could read! But TIMES SELECT was a flop. It displeased readers, alienated them and the NYT writers. Moreover, many Bloggers would just copy paste articles and make them available to the world for free.



So, in September 2007 NYT decided to scrap TIMES SELECT. I’ve had lots of free time for the last one week and compulsively started reading on the web only then I got to know about the death of TIMES SELECT. And boy am I happy… I have been surfing the delightful maze of a Website of NYT with passion and pleasure. I don’t read it just for News and Politics but also for great writing. The sections on science and technology and especially books and writers are just super awesome. The New York Times is here to stay.



I just read this article from Michele Malkin’s website, CLICK TO READ> ”New York Times hits new 5-year low”. It is almost laughable when ”conservative” writers feel compelled to condemn almost everything they fear as ”liberal media”. I have been visiting lots of conservative blogs and they all religiously drub NYT as the part of their ”conservative” intellectual underpinning. As for the dropped sales, I believe it might be the result of NYT stand on War in Iraq and people’s displeasure with it, TIMES SELECT, rise of internet news services. But it is comforting to know that NYT has not turned into a crowd pleaser like Fox News and various other ”Conservative” media and writers. But here is just one question: Where else do these people suggest we should go? Washington Times? or New York Post? DO YOU HEAR SOMETHING? This is the sound of my skin crawling and my brain screaming.


And what is a NYT 5 year low anyway? Let’s say Michele Malkin’s readership and credibility trebled in the same period. So what would it be now? Up from 0.00000001% to 0.0001% of the total readers ? She sure has benefited from The New York Times’ temporarily declining readership.