Only at U.Chicago...

... could a geo-physicist professor take on a NY Times best selling econ professor and come out on top!

... could this attract 652 comments citing references to long forgotten academic papers!

Raymond Pierrehumber of the Geophysical sciences Dept. shreds Levitt's arguments on global warming here. Quoting easily available resources, he turns some of the arguments in 'Superfreakonomics' on their head. From what I have seen till now (and from 652 comments quoting every kind of academic journal and cross referenced studies), Levitt seems to have drawn some shoddy conclusions from superficial facts... a pity, because, Malcolm Gladwell already makes a living out of it. But seriously, c'mon, a Clark medallist couldnt have slipped up so badly... so much so that Liz Kolbert at the NYer tears it apart, quoting 18th century horseshit and Al Gore... sheesh. My GSB tee cringes while my U.Chicago flag flies high!

And if that wasnt enough, Krugman at the NY times gets all wistful that he isnt being allowed to do this....Awwwww.

Scathing, fascinating, Darwinian U.Chicago culture at it's best and no holy cows, not even the ones that win Clark medals... do check out the map at the end!

Even the Bean

... is frozen! Its - 26C outside...they did warn me that Chicago is a tough city, but after the madness of Madurai, I thought I knew it all. Well, come Sunday, some skating and sledding shall happen and then we will know what's tough and what's not. The man in the mirror rolls his eyes: "Here we go again"

The right to die... is not ours to give.

Since we're on a rebellious rant streak here, here I start again on why euthanasia (the right of a person, usually in mortal sickness, to choose to die) needs to be respected... obviously the seers of the Church don't agree.

Actually, Margo McDonald is way better than me at explaining about this here in The Daily Telegraph- to quote her, ''What I find immoral is the insistence of these people who presume that they can impose their moral code on people for whom life has become totally intolerable". Or more bluntly, if you haven't been stuck in a bed completely paralyzed with someone wiping your ass 7/365 or with half of your body missing after an accident, how can you presume to impose your unfair moral code on someone for whom life is a daily struggle?

I've reached this conclusion after seeing people suffer endlessly and also after playing out quite a few ethical arguments like the parallels to suicide and murder and of course, the inevitable Biblical stances. I completely respect people,who in in similar conditions, choose to live and fight it out against tremendous odds - it is an individual choice that requires amazing willpower and dauntless courage... stuff that most of us will probably never draw upon in one entire lifetime. But like I said, it is an individual choice and I stand by my argument.

Being a X'ian - Of faith and its failings

So matters of faith have always been a sticky issue for me - because of a Catholic upbringing, my default has always been belief in the existence of a Christian God. But growing up in India with its ancient, evocative and powerful epics and with Hindu/Muslim friends who live by the faith of different books has made me wonder about the wisdom of professing that only "believers" of a Christian god would be saved. Add the usual existential angst of college years and the mandatory Ayn Rand and Nietzche reads, you can imagine why I opted for the more physical horrors of the NCC.

So here I am, after a while, faith in a year where matters of religious faith have manifested themselves in forums ranging from the US Presidential elections to the Mumbai attacks. As a X'ian, I have serious rants about the institution of the Catholic Church - its' beliefs about saints, its stance on abortion and stem cell research...there's quite a few "official" opinions that I strongly resent. At the same time, I think the Church has been a force of good for humanity, the causes of poverty alleviation, literacy, health-care and political change. There are many strong arguments for and against the Church and its behavior - but I have also come to realize that such issues and differences exist among any body of people on probably any topic under the sun... and the only way to address such issues are to engage and talk about them, rather than ignore them them to a point of explosive isolation.

Consider this debate between a preacher and a public policy expert on the spiritual legitimacy of gay marriage - this was subsequent to a Newsweek article by Lisa Miller where she argues that with the coming of Jesus (and therefore based on the New Testament) the Bible does not exclude any particular group of people based on criteria such as race, region, church or... sexuality. Not only do I appreciate the content of this discussion between these experts but I also have great regard for tone and respect inherent in the discussion. I will leave aside the actual arguments to your interest, but look at how the counter-arguments start:

"Thank you for this. We are actually engaging one another. By my lights, a rarity between our sorts. Please forgive me for being surprised. Our conversation may be more important than I first guessed. And I'm going to be emboldened to say some hard things in response"

"I think we've had a very good exchange. Thanks for being open with me, and letting me understand your thinking. I hope I have adequately communicated why I take the position I do on the issue of homosexuality and same-sex marriage."

Whenever I've tried to start a reasonable debate with the evangelical Xians that I know (sometimes even with my brother, cousins, aunts etc), I get the v"Revelations" and half the scary verses of the Old Testament thrown at me with such vigor and passion that it becomes impossible to be objective, especially with the usual condescending scorn comes along with this "Ha, he argues with his mind and not with his spiritual soul".

In the face of such biased "faith", what does one conclude? That God fearfully and wonderfully made the brilliant mechanism of the human brain so that we could dump it cold storage when we go to Church or when we read the Bible? That we adhere to what we like about the Holy Book and listen to the preachers we are comfortable with, rather than search ourselves for meaning and relevance? Here's to hoping to more reasonable, vitriolic, more inclusive, less bigoted discussions and debate on "Faith" in the year to come.

NYT IDEAS OF THE YEAR 2008

An interesting list that includes...

• The implications of dancing cockatoos
• Airbags for the walking elderly
• A bio-mechanical energy harvester (I had trouble with that one the first time around)
• A new+radical auto-engine design that consumes 50% less fuel (Nah, not yet, its just at the R&D stage)
• Endlessly burstable bubble wrap toy - could be only from a company called Mugen Puchi Puchi and only from the country of...Japan!
• The bus wait formula-what if you could minimize the time you wait for a bus?
• How real warmth (as in heat) melts a cold heart- no, seriously!
• The best way for a goalkeeper to stop penalty kicks is to stay still?!?
• Crows with vending machines of their own
• Spray-on condoms
• Moonvertising - yes, lasers on the moon that spell,what else, COKE!
• Minicattle
• And a national 10% off sale,thats likely to work better than the eco-stimulus cash that the US Govt sends in right now.

The rest of a mostly interesting list is here