Guilt

Our society these days is full of guilt complexes. White guilt (or slavery guilt), western guilt, wealth guilt and the list goes on. But if you look under the covers, it is all guilt about things done by past generations. And none of the folks feel any guilt about things that they do every day.

Some level of guilt of ones own action is warranted and is healthy for the society. But guilt about the actions of the past generations is unnecessary and accomplishes nothing. In fact, it is counter productive.

Let's take White guilt. This is mostly an affliction of the liberal elite. And yet this guilt has not advanced any positive outcome in either race relations in America or the uplifting of the blacks.

On the contrary it has advanced a sense of entitlement. There are no slave holders nor slaves alive today. So, how is a government handout achieved through general taxation, fair to the current generation. Providing an equal opportunity is fair and available to one and all. This is after all the land of opportunity. Anyone who claims otherwise are ignoring the countless immigrants to this country that have succeeded.

And western guilt. This is a more global phenomenon afflicting the European elite. And it is the basic belief that their occupation of Asian and African countries resulted in their widespread poverty. Where is any evidence of that? British laid millions of miles of rail lines across much of Indian subcontinent - much of it for their own gain. And yet they did not rip it all off when they left (scorched earth policies of most vanquished armies). India wasn't even a single nation until the British rule. And then there are all these African nations. Their infighting is to blame for their current state. Assuming that the British plundered India and the African nations equally (and left around the same time), India is not remotely as bad as majority of sub-Saharan African nations today are. Once the Europeans left the scene, fate of Africa remained their own. And why does west agonize about that. And yet their actions now, with their farm subsidies really matter to poor African countries. That is what they can do to remedy. Not express guilt about a past generations actions.

And then there is guilt about being rich. If you earned every one of your dimes honestly, it does not matter if you have billions. There is nothing to be guilty about. Poverty exists no matter what you do. Because if you are not rich, then you are poor. And making it even worse for others. At least, with you being rich, we don't have to worry about you. Your personal philanthropy is great, but don't recommend socialist principles for the rest of us. You see this with Warren Buffet and Bill Gates. I don't have a problem with their success - just what they profess for us, high taxes.

And finally, the rest of us - the average Joes. Get rid of those guilt feelings about what your grand father may have done - either willfully or ignorantly. Think and feel guilty about things you do everyday, every little thing indeed. Did you speed today? Did you beat a red light? Ultimately, these things matter you know.

Prime Minister of United States

He is running for the office of the President of United States. And yet on his campaign trail, he sounds like he wants to be the Prime Minister of United States. Of course, I am talking about Mr. Obama.

I can certainly understand his dilemma. As member of the most pompous deliberative body, his tendency is to debate, debate and more debate. However, that is his current job - not the job he is running for.

For as back in history as George Washington, almost every president had to fend off the legislature encroaching on constitutionally guaranteed privileges of the executive. So, in his stump speech recently, he was critical of Mr. Bush for not consulting the legislature. I think Mr. Obama fails to grasp the separation of powers as enshrined in our constitution. Or, it is merely an electioneering gimmick.

Each of the branches - legislative, executive and the judicial - have always been pushing the envelope of its reach throughout the existence of this nation. And each has been rebuffed by the other. From time to time, the balance has moved from one to the other. But overall, it has been a healthy balance. And all of that is enshrined in the 220 year-old document - our constitution.

So, Mr. Obama's proposal might even run foul of the constitution. But my own guess is that this is pure electioneering. If he were to be the president, he would be fighting the legislature just as much. We have an interesting spectacle in this election that all 3 remaining candidates are from the 'Most pompous deliberative body in the world'.

My transition is now complete

For a long time, I was programming in Microsoft technologies. But I have always been proud to claim that I never programmed in Visual Basic. And for that reason and others, I have also always used Windows-based systems.

For many years, I believed the canard that the security vulnerabilities of Windows are due to its widespread use. And that if Unix or other systems were as popular that they would have as many vulnerabilities. This despite the fact that I worked with Unix systems exclusively for several years. How naive was that?

In 2000, my then boss set me on a course correction. He wanted me to perform a technology landscape evaluation for the benefit of the company. I reluctantly undertook that effort - knowing fully well what I would find. The result was an overwhelming recommendation for the company to shift its infrastructure to J2EE-based solutions. And inevitably, I would lead the charge to train, equip and mentor the developers to start J2EE development.

However, I continued to use Windows based systems at home. And increasingly getting frustrated with the security vulnerabilities. Even Swiss cheese has less holes than this operating system. Can we even call it an operating system? And every new release they tout as being better, is much more insecure than the one before.

So, I have been considering switching to Mac for a few months now. But never ventured into an Apple store - knowing that if I did, I would love what I see.

Finally, last weekend, I went to an Apple store with my wife and kid. I loved what I saw. What I had not imagined that my wife, usually not quick to want to buy something, loved it as much. I expected to hear excuses why we don't need to make the purchase then. Nope...nada. She liked it and we were buying one right away.

And, thus I came home with an iMac. For one thing, it is a piece of art. And then came the big surprise. Setting up a new computer is never easy - although, I like new toys. I pulled it out of the box, plugged it into a power outlet. Turned it on - voila, it picked up my wireless network - asked for the credentials, and tada...it is all set. Can there be anything more simple than that?

There is absolutely no reason that I can think of that a normal home user would buy anything but a Mac.

I consider my transition now complete.

What's not to love a Mac!!!

Maestro: Not so sure

He had been the darling of the media - for much of the 90s and even recently. He is known as the Maestro - for his skillful handling of the US Monetary policy. He is the venerable Alan Greenspan.

I think he is a brilliant economist of all times. And a top notch Fed chairman too. And he is most well known for his 'irrational exuberance' comment. He was dead on. Except, the market did not tank after that comment. So, he too was more guarded later on. No one, apparently, even the Fed chairman wants to second guess the wild beast - aka, the Market.

My point is not to take any credit away from him. But to dispel the mystique about him.

Wall Street Journal always pointed out that the Fed uses trailing indicators and is always using its monetary policy in a reactive mode. It had warned repeatedly in and after 2003 that the Fed easy money policy will lead to huge problems in the future. And their analysis was simple. They were looking at forward looking indicators - dollar and gold.

Fed, although independent, is not immune to political pressure. And this is essentially what has led to this sorry state of affairs right now. And the media circus too. He reveled in that.

Poor Bernake had to inherit this mess. And also to live up to this out sized void of Greenspan. Not an easy task.

He was right in wanting to include Food & Energy back in the Core Inflation indicator. Any one but an economist can think of a 'Core Inflation' indicator without Food & Energy. Isn't that what people use and measure their well being based on that?

However, Bernake would not be able - at least at this time, to modify core inflation indicator. Political pressure is too great. It also happens to be an election year.

So, in conclusion, Greenspan deserves some weighted blame for the current mess in our markets. Maestro - not quite.

Evolution

Each side of this debate will put me on the other side. I guess that would put me in the mainstream.

I believe in 'The Creator'. And I also believe in the evolution. It couldn't work any other way.

Let's look at the facts. Through our scientific discovery we know the expanse and the complexity of the universe. Just the multitude of beings on our planet (past and present) is so enormous that if the creator were to micromanage each of our concerns, he would be very busy.

I like this passage - a true story that happened in the beginning of the 20th century in South Africa. Gandhi (Indian Freedom fighter) was fighting for the just cause of liberating Indian miners in South Africa from bondage. And a young Charlie Andrews, a British clergyman who had a profound impact on Gandhi's life, visited Gandhi in South Africa. And the two were headed into Capetown. On their way they run into a gang of white kids who wanted to rough up the colored man and the priest. However, one of the boy's mother, unsure of her son's actions drives the boys away from the confrontation. At that point, Charlie remarks that they were lucky. And Gandhi, looking at Charlie's tunic, responds: "I thought you were a god's man." To which Charlie replies, "I am too modest to think that he (God) plans his days around my dilemmas."

This is a powerful statement coming from a devout Christian. Just think about it.

In the same way, I don't think "The Creator" - God, meant to create every being from scratch and control their destiny personally. Evolution, God's creation also, is at work. Beings were to evolve from the original creation, prosper, breed and die in a complex of circle of life. Everything we know in the Universe is interacting with each other and evolving. It is in a constant state of change. Call it whatever - but that clearly is evolution.

I enjoy Astronomy a lot. Read a lot about it and contemplate a lot about it.

Considering Big Bang - that is the handy work of "The Creator". And the primordial stew from which everything evolved till today and continues to evolve is his masterful creation. Can you think of anything more divine than that?

Scientists are hard pressed for any other explanation as to the "perfect mix" that led to this Universe - the one and only that we know and inhabit.

In conclusion, I think the creationists and the evolutionists need not be at odds with each other. No one theory is complete without the other.

Energy Independence

Must be a code-word for something else. Otherwise, it is an oxymoron.

In this Universe, no 'Matter' is independent of 'Energy'. Einstein proved conclusively that matter and energy are different manifestations of the same thing. Everything needs energy.

From the earliest times in human history, men looked for energy. And always wound up with the most efficient way of getting that energy. This was evident even amongst cave men.

So, it essentially is a code-word for the enlightened greens' concern regarding human consumption of oil and such hydrocarbons. But at the current time, despite our technology, it is the cheapest form of energy. Otherwise, we would have moved onto something else - that is just human nature.

No other source of energy known to man is as efficient, as compact and as clean - all complaints to the contrary. One other source of energy, Nuclear - is as efficient, is neither compact nor clean nor safe. Can you imagine a wind-powered car?

Our congressmen and senators found a boondoggle known as Ethanol. It is neither efficient to produce it nor is it efficient to consume it. It takes 4 gallons of water to make 1 gallon of Ethanol - just during the extraction process. Add the 1600 gallons of water needed to grow the corn and you blow the economics of it all. Unfortunately, water is a relatively scarce commodity.

And proponents of wind-power want to erect wind mills every where. And for the ordinary folks, wind mills evoke the mystic of the lone, gigantic wind mills in the picturesque Netherlands. But the wind mills that would be erected are the modern contraptions - more functional than beautiful - and a whole lot of them. See, these are supposed to be powered by wind. With a string of them and the eddies they form, these wind mill farms will create wind patterns of their own. Wonder if anyone bother to run simulations of what such large wind mill farms would do to the wind patterns across our continent?

For sometime there was talk of Fuel Cells. And the best line was: they emit pure water vapor. Classic! And such a vehicle would consume hydrogen (its fuel) and oxygen from the air to emit pure water vapor. First let us think of the output: pure water vapor! Think - clouds. If a majority of the vehicles used fuel cells, our immediate problem would be the cloud cover - which then increases the albedo and that would result in - ta da...global warming. Then the inputs: I guess we humans now have to compete with these vehicles for the oxygen we breath. Next up, where do you get hydrogen from? Hydrogen is abundant in the universe. But here on earth - it is abundant in 2 forms: Water - inefficient to extract hydrogen from water, and "hydrocarbons" - isn't that where all of this started?

For one thing, corporations can do more to use solar power where they can. But it should not be due to egalitarian reasons - but largely based on efficient cost allocations.

I do not drive a large contraption. But neither do I like to be roadkill.

Until we run out of all forms of hydrocarbons or its use is inefficient and uneconomical, humans will continue to consume it. And when it does come to that, we would have moved onto the next optimal source of energy. This is how humans evolved.

Software Arsonists

Society will never forgive a fireman who is suspected of setting fires to appear heroic. Fortunately, there have been only rare occurrences of such behavior. Not quite so with software.

A multi-billion dollar industry that is yet to solve a problem that is seemingly important to the end users. Each new release touts 'fixes' - to the problems the programmers have created in the first place. And we have to cough up more money for this new release. And you got to love the 'dated' versions of software.

In my organization, every one was cheering a group that has supposedly solved 'performance' problems in their application. I asked a simple question: Aren't they the same guys who wrote the over-engineered bloat-ware to begin with?

Don't get me wrong. I am part of that industry. And I have been young too. And I have had my share of bad programs. But over the years I have become more of a cynic.

See, I am an Electrical Engineer who drifted into Software for one simple reason. Yes, I admit it - money and opportunities to make money - modest by comparison to some other professions, but pretty good in comparison to some others.

Software is not an engineering discipline. And most respectable folks agree with that. Most engineering disciplines do not change as dramatically in such short time frame as does software.

My criticism is not contained to software vendors. Even at companies that can ill-afford to write and maintain software invariably end up with an IT organization. And those organizations have yet to fulfill their mission. Instead they are fixing their numerous blunders and getting paid to do so.

And even folks who do not use computers often have heard the standard fix for your 'computer problem' - just reboot. Every software programmer must ask himself this question: Does your doctor/surgeon have the 'reboot' option? And what would happen if doctors were more like software programmers.

Sure, there are some bad physicians too. And they get sued. Is it time software programmers get sued as well? I think so.