Scott Adams AQUA'd

I read a blog post by Scott Adams today and was pleased to read some of the reader comments. I do not hate Scott Adams. In fact I love reading his blogs. Some of his arguments can be quite stimulating. There is the occasional streak humour or an insightful piece. Not to forget the follow-up discussions from readers that are an important aspect of his blog - a must read. Then there are ones like today's post. Other than the fact that it seemed to go places, I found this bit rather itchy. Read the original post - 'Principled or Stupid' - if you like because I only focus on one bit in this article.

The premise: Suppose you were driving along a long stretch of desert, low on gas and saw a gas station (that you've vowed never to buy gas from because they are unethical weasels) along the road with a sign that said it was the last gas station for the next 100 miles, would you buy gas from them (against your principle) or would you prefer to drive past the station, run out of gas and eventually die in the desert. 

The question: If you chose to die, are you stupid or principled?

An aside: For the sake of argument, we will assume that they are telling the truth, unethical weasels though they may be.

I know of people who will jump up and claim that they would rather die than go against principle. Would they really do it is not the question here. It is a hypothetical situation, so I will buy their argument for the moment. If you are like me, you will admit that you would buy the gas and get on with life. 

What I noticed on the comments in Adam's blog was that the first person who put in his 2 cents worth said the argument was specious (I just learnt the word, click here if you are like me). Of course, he meant it in the context of the entire post, not just the bit I refer to in my blog. The interesting thing is that he did not simply jump on Adam's bandwagon and try to answer the question. He questioned its validity. More often than not, people read the comments as they scroll down to post their own and in the process are influenced by what the first few readers have said. As a first reader comment, it improved the value of the write-up by adding one more dimension to the discussions that follow. 

This reminded me of a stand-up comedy show that I watched last week - Arj Barker's Let Me Do The Talking. He did the talking alright - was not one of those comedians who have people strategically placed  in the audience to yell out something that will lead to another joke. Quite a few of his jokes were long-ish and we had to listen to the story before we laughed. In other words, the audience laughed, listened, laughed again, listened again. Unlike Danny Bhoy (who I loved) where the audience kept laughing all the way through till you could laugh no more and probably even pee'd in your pants. 

I digress. Back to why I was reminded of Arj Barker. He narrated a few anecdotes explaining how people simply do things without questioning the validity. His take on that is to follow AQUA - Always Question Unvalidated Authority. For example,

Airhostess: Sir, please switch off your mobile while you are in the plane. 

Someone: Why? 

Airhostess: Because the door of the aircraft is now closed. 

Someone: Ok.  You need to switch off your mobile, the door of the aircraft is closed.

Barker could not see why the cell phone had to be switched off? What did the text message have anything to do with the door of the aircraft. Whoever heard of a plane crashing because of a text message? 

(Again, for the sake of the story, we will refrain from various reasonable arguments that could lead us elsewhere and pretend that everything Barker says makes sense)

A couple more similar anecdotes and he commented along the lines of 'I would really like to pull my pants down and take a dump right there, in response to such absurdity where I cannot get a reasonable answer to the why'. In other words, AQUA.

The audience laughed. He picked up a guitar that was on the stage since the start of the show and requested to be allowed to sing a few lines. He started off by asking the 1500-strong audience to raise their hands and start clapping. The audience obliged.

"STOP STOP STOP!", he screamed.

He could not believe that after all that he rambled about AQUA, the audience blindly conceded to his request to put up their hands and start clapping. 

What I would have really liked is to find 1500 piles of smoking, stinking crap in the room and no people. Then I would know you guys listened to what I just said. 

Clearly, Adam's first comment followed AQUA. The reader left a pile of dump in response to the specious post. I am sure Arj Barker will be proud of him.

IPL 2011 Selections

I'm missing the IPL drama back home. The news, discussions, slapping each other back and forth, the spicy bhel puri that is dished out every time the term IPL pops up. Unable to bear the ignorance anymore, I googled for an update on the teams, as one after another friends and family vented on Twitter and FB. 

Cricket, glamour and money have always been the main ingredients of IPL, not necessarily in that order. Possibly in the reverse order, money being the most (in)famous player of all. The mindboggling figures splashed across the internet, therefore, failed to bother me. Of course!

What I miss most is the accusations hurled and explanations provided, the juicy arguments across the teams, by team owners, cricket afficionados, the fans, policiticians and anyone who cared to venture an opinion. Somewhere in the midst of all this, there is always a few true facts hidden. Some probably untrue but put out there in a seemingly reasonable package to appease the legality component. 

Among one of these, I wish to find answers to RCB's decision to hack Ross Taylor and Kevin Pieterson from their team. Weren't they two of the best players in RCB last year? I remember being at the stadium at one of the RCB matches, screaming myself hoarse - Taylor Taylor Taylor - as Ross Taylor played a brilliant innings. Twitter and FB splattered my undying love for the man, throughout the duration of the match. In the next match that I followed, my love had passed on to Pieterson, who smashed the ball with his bat like an unstoppable. Once again, the Twitterati and FB world found me spewing cheers to Kevin Pieterson, my man of the hour. It was these and only these that, at the time, drew the light of my devotion over the Royal Challengers Bangalore.

What was Mallya thinking? My sibling says "They realise they need better reasons for losing, hence the tactic". Rings true, I admit. I didn't find their names on any of the teams. Surely, they deserved their minutes of fame while it lasted. I bet there are others who faced similar fate. There are other decisions by IPL team owners, captains, etc that are being torn apart by the media and public, not to mention peers. All that I miss. This is my penny's worth of contribution to the debate that I do not get to witness. 

Oh, the joys of being away from home...

PS. The teams, from a page belonging to the Herald Sun.

Why Do You Get to Define Morals?

In a discussion about women of the (g)olden days and today, the group supporting the latter spoke of how much bolder and confident women are today. As a counter, one of the guys argued that women were bold and courageous even in the years gone by. He cited an example of how the great Alexander was first defeated by a woman. I cannot help but wonder... if she had not defeated him, would the same guy have spoken of her with such regard? If she had failed, I'm willing to bet anything, the guy would have said (if he had to cite the same example) that women should remain confined to indoors and not try bravery. 

In another point made during the same discussion, one of the men drew a parallel between Beluru shilabalike (the famous stone sculptures of Belur depicting women in various poses) and the girls strutting down M G Road in skimpy attire. It seemed to appall his opponent, who dismissed the comparison by saying, "If you are going to compare Beluru shilabalike with the half-undressed chicks on M G Road, then I have nothing to say to you". Obviously, he has nothing to say. Our defendant said it was just the costume that differs. I  tend to agree, it is just your view that differs. The way you choose to look at it. 

You gawk at the shilabalike with awe because everyone talks about it's awesomeness, even though you may not understand what it is that you are really admiring. Is it the stone art or the visuals that are fantastic? Do you even know? If it is the stone art, then the costumes, or lack of them thereof, should not matter to you. If it is the visuals that you admire, then how is our defendant wrong? Are you just a hypocrite who can stare at a pair of breasts carved in stone and openly claim admiration for it but will ridicule a pair of uncovered legs in real flesh? Hang on, why were you staring at those legs, in the first place if you are such a saint? Do not tell me that when you walk down M G Road, you have these 'skimpily-clad women' jumping in front of you and flashing their stuff. 

I am amazed by some of the ideas and beliefs people hold about women rubbing shoulders with men, in modern times. I might understand that in somebody from an older generation, they may be set in their opinions, but to hear the same from the younger people is a revelation to me. How can you not see all the development around you? What world do you live in? What is with all the moral-policing? Why are your close-minded notions right? How is that our culture?

On a somewhat unrelated note: Muthalik's rent-a-riot issue is slowly gaining ground. People are discussing it and insisting that the government clamp a ban on the Shri Ram Sene. With the Chief Minister Yediyurappa refusing to impose the ban, Pramod Muthalik seems to be making the most of his new-found ally.