Blogger.com's Best Feature

"Moderation of Comments"

Million Dolllar Question: Can you do it?

To stop a thought

You know how the mind sometimes keeps racing towards a thought that you deem as unhealthy, inappropriate, and anachronistic. You try your best to shrug it off but it bounces between the four walls of your head and lands itself back where you don't want it to be.

You try to take control of your mind, and accelerate and decelerate the pace of its processing speed, only hoping that the thought would somehow escape and in the process fill your mind up with fresh new ones.

Even when the fresh thoughts replace it, they linger for sometime and almost in an instant the previous thought gatecrashes again.

So what do you do to stop a thought?

My mom used to say, close your eyes and look for darkness. A friend once mentioned that he thought about naked women to nullify this.

For the record, I have thought about kids, snow mountains, moonlight, parents, achievements, friends, gadgets, food, stand-up comedy, happiness, laughter, comics, pasta, expeditions, parties, light, roads, dance, hamsters, saxophones, hashish, poems, sexuality, scooters, printers, god,zippo, bluetooth, waterfalls, and darkness........all in an attempt to kick out that one thought.

Nothing works, they are all friends of the thought I hate.

Colbert goes Bollywood

So the third gig on Bollywood in three weeks, Stephen Colbert has certainly found an unusual territory to pick on compared to typical American daily or night show standards. Hilariously, all three of them talk about Amitabh Bachchan and what you see in these three videos is the perfect example of Colbert's comedy.

Now, I have been sharing these videos with a lot of friends in the past few weeks, and have more or less had one of the following reactions, I call them Reactions A, B and C

A.This is the typical American mentality!...It's an insult to Bollywood and India!
B.This only shows that the world is waking up to the magic of Bollywood.
C. This is F***** FUNNY!!!...I laughed my ASS out!

Have you seen these gigs? No? Why don't you do that right now and then scroll to the bottom of the post. Thanks.








So what's your reaction? A, B or C? Or may be you are a D.

Let me say this though, I am Reaction C. I have spent countless hours in the last few weeks arguing with the As and Bs, and I don't want to write about it here.

BUT...

I will intelligently point out why I am C, if and only if you give me an intelligent explanation about why you are A or B. And I will do this not because I want to impose my thoughts on you, but only because I just haven't had a single logical and thoughtful reasoning about why this is an insult to India or even an instance to be joyful about for that matter.

Back!

O' Hello!....Yeah I am talking to you'll !!

Ok listen up......YOU, You, YoU and you....

.........Commenting is back on my blog now.

More Astrology......

This time from a forwarded e-mail and more concentrated on the naughty things in life....not complaining till I hear nice things about myself. ;-)

Check out the Capricorn bonus!

GEMINI:. Does Twosomes
Nice. Love is one of a kind. Great listeners Very Good in bed. Lover
not a fighter, but will still knock you the #### out. Trustworthy.
Always happy. Loud. Talkative. Outgoing VERY FORGIVING. Loves to make out. Has
a beautiful smile. Generous. Strong. ULTRA SEXY. THE MOST IRRESISTIBLE.

CAPRICORN:. The passionate Lover
Love to bust. Nice. Sassy. Intelligent. Sexy. Predict future.
Irresistible, awesome kisser. Loves being in long relationships. Great
talker. Always gets what he or she wants. BY FAR the BEST in BED. Very sexy.
Coolest. Loves to own Gemini's in bed sports. Extremely fun. Loves to joke.
Loves to be your first. So you'll never forget.

Cough Cough....LOL ;-)

Weather Gods Smile........Finally!

All my friends and relatives, who got bored listening to my bragging about how I was living in brutal weather conditions, won't hear from me again on this issue!

This morning I walked out of my apartment complex doors, with the same armor of 3 layers of clothing, a down jacket, gloves, woolen socks and a hood. Ready to walk into a gust of icy air hitting hard on my face, I was pleasantly surprised that I was instead welcomed by a warm cozy whiff of air.

Checked out the weather on Yahoo! Weather and by recent standards it was warm as hell! 6 degrees Celsius to be exact. I know it doesn't sound warm. For me its time to enjoy the summer!
Pops! is the sound of the day....the sound of chilled flowing beer.

200 million phones in India......

.........and counting.....

Chinese Astrology: The DOG

Ran into my Chinese prediction for the year :)

The most likeable sign of the Chinese cycle, people born under this sign are honest, intelligent and straightforward. Driven by a deep sense of loyalty and a passion for justice and fair play, they make great friends.

If you have a forthright dog for a friend, you must know that when you are in trouble, all you have to do is dial D-O-G. For no matter how much they complain or feign indifference, they cannot ignore a real call for help!

Are you a dog personality? Read your forecast for 2007

2007 is a peaceful and persevering year for the sensible and prudent dogs. It is filled with plum opportunities. Decisions and actions are executed by you with a strong and calm mind. Success is yours for the taking. Those in the writing/publishing field receive felicitation and encouragement for recent achievements. Expenditures are high. Saving schemes will be
important mid-year. Love life blossoms in November-December as someone you meet in your travels turns out to be a dream come true. Health remains good throughout.

Famous people: Charles Bronson, Pierre Cardin, Sir Winston Churchill, Elvis Presley
Lucky days: Tuesday, Thursday
Lucky numbers: 7, 5

The Lost and Found Essays - I

The objective of this essay was to read two books, Neil Postman's 'Amusing Ourselves to Death' and Jeffrey Scheuer's The Sound Bite Society and then compare the authors' thoughts on how television affects politics.

Vikram S Desai

ENG 50

Marc Schuster

Paper # 4

Television and Politics

I have been reading Neil Postman’s book, ‘Amusing Ourselves to Death’ for a while now. At first, the book felt like an amazing eye-opener to the characteristics and effects of television. I was impressed with the kinds of questions and thoughts that Postman put up and really made me feel that television, is actually influencing everything that exists in the world today. The kind of examples that he put up to show television’s devastating effects, seemed appropriate. But as I went on reading this book, I soon realized that he had this strong tone in his language, a total anti-TV tone. His words did make me believe that TV’s ever changing ways did affect things in ways which were not always positive but I still believe that television has been successful in many ways and when used in the correct way, has always, reached out to people to inform and educate them. But Postman words only suggest that his thoughts for the new television age are that it is completely ruining everything that it is involved with. He has dedicated chapters to different aspects, like education, politics, culture etc., and in almost each line of these chapters, has used words that have only maligned television. In his entire book, he hasn’t even once assertively spoken of TV’s advantages, and hasn’t even suggested ways in which one could take better advantage of television’s infinite capabilities to provide information.

Jeffrey Scheuer on the other hand in his book, ‘The Sound Bite Society’ seems to have a more logical approach in giving out his ideas on television. His idea is clear from these lines in the introduction of the book: “This book is not a catalogue of complaints about modernity, or a critique of television as a vehicle of intellectual, moral, or spiritual decay. There are enough good studies of the nature, content and social impact of television, The Sound Bite Society aims to understand television, not to bash it” [1]. It feels good to see these lines, especially after reading the TV bashing ideas of Neil Postman. Overall, it seems that both the writers believe that television has drastically changed our lives and influenced human behaviors to a great extent. But while Postman talks only about the negative influences, Scheuer also brings out the positive influences of television and hints that one can control the amount of information provided to him and choose as to exactly how much one wants to be influenced by it. But in order to stress on this idea of his and in order to repeatedly mention about him not being totally against television, he ends up contradicting himself on a number of occasions. In this essay I am concentrating on ideas from both the authors on the effects of television on politics and political ideologies.

Television has changed the concept of politics in many ways. I actually believe that out of the whole wide range of issues that both the writers bring out , politics is the one that’s most affected by television. It is probably the reason why both the writers display a common level of thinking about this. Both writers , in their introduction to their argument on ‘television and politics’ refer to the concept that political discourse in the new age is just about how one can present his or her ideas on television. Neil Postman, in fact goes ahead and says that in the ‘Age of Show Business’ , a person can hope to be a successful candidate only if he is able to present himself well on television, in other words only a smart man who looks good on TV can stand a chance of getting elected. This according to Postman is more important these days, no matter what his or her political ideologies are. According to him television commercials are the chief instruments to determine one’s political value. This is very evident these days. One can see loads of commercials being flashed each day between shows which are either speaking good or bad about a political candidate. And since they are aired every now and then, and sometimes repeatedly between the same show, they get too irritating at times. Off late I guess I have been watching more of political commercials on TV instead of the actual show that I intend to watch. I don’t mean to exaggerate here but after a show my mind is full of images of the two candidates who are contesting. The worst part is that some commercials are also of candidates who are not contesting in the area where I live. I have to watch commercials of candidates in New Jersey and Delaware, their deeds, misdeeds etc. even though none of their actions are going to affect me in any way in my entire life. Also, no matter whom the commercial is by, they have this monotonous tone of doing well for the society and making lives easy for everyone. Postman brings this idea out by saying, “the commercial asks us to believe that all problems are solvable”. So if there are a number of commercials talking about the same ideas by different people, it again ends up confusing the viewer.

While Neil Postman goes about his ideas in this matter by using critical wit and strong words, Jeffrey Scheuer, agreeing to this states that the language of political discourse is now a visual vocabulary of images and slogans. According to him it is now television, that favors or disfavors political ideas.(s 9). Unlike Postman, Scheuer has agreed to the fact that television can in fact play a very important role in educating and informing people. It can go a long way in putting forth complex ideas in a simple way, but according to him , it is this simplifying nature of TV that helps in building a society based on the ideology of conservatism. Scheuer has divided the society into the two groups, ‘liberals’ and ‘conservatives’. He repeatedly affirms that television makes the political thinking of people to shift from liberalism to conservatism. He does not clearly mention as to which kind of thinking is actually very advantageous to the society. According to him such an ideology encourages a rudimentary form of personal freedom and less equality (11). He says that the pre-requisites of mature democracy are respectful discourse and democratic debates and that television does not promote them. Citing examples of Clinton and Kennedy he brings about the idea of how easily this medium is being exploited and how easily can this trend continue.

Although Jeffrey Scheuer contradicts his own statements on a number of occasions, he does put up his thoughts in a sensible manner. He manages to make his point that its not just television that can affect politics but also the underlying ideas and thoughts of the people that relate to these ideas in the vast political spectrum. The way in which he has organized his ideas show he realizes both, TV’s importance and the fallout of its exploitation. Neil Postman’s ideas on the other hand make the impression that he thinks that television has caused an ‘end of the road’ situation for politics. “Television can be a great boon to democratic life, and a great detriment” (9). These lines sum up Scheuers thoughts on television and politics and I more or less agree with him.

The Lost and Found Essays

One of the things that I had to unhappily do as a student of Temple University was to take courses that had nothing to do with Electrical Engineering. Television and Life, Intellectual Heritage, African-American History are a few examples.

I was more or less bored to go these classes, but two semesters into them and I had actually begun to enjoy the stuff I was doing there. Things like essays, peer reviews and discussions soon became a fresh breather from the routine of designing circuits and soldering transistors.

I happened to retrieve a bunch of essays that I wrote during these courses. I actually got them from my TU e-mail account, which could expire anytime.

Over the next few weeks I am going to post them here. Nothing wrong in publishing something you loved doing, is there?

Students, coming through web search engines and looking for material, feel free to use my stuff but make sure you write to me. I will smilingly accept your thanks and also tell you the grades I got on these ;-).