NBC's Coverage of the Olympics

It is great that there is atleast some coverage of the Olympics here in the United States, thanks to NBC. But I wish the network would instruct its commentators to try and be objective. Is that too much to ask for? Unfortunately, their role seems to be to "b... and moan" when the US athletes are loosing out to other countries, and rave about them when they perform well. For example, when the Romanian gymansts were performing the commentators were saying, "Oh, that was bad, the judges should take away atleast one full point...yadayadayada". On the other hand, when an American athlete falters, "Oh, she has been down with viral infection, she has been exhausted by the heat etc. etc"


Part of what makes America so unique is the wonderful ethnic mix available here. This means, there are several immigrants here in the US, who have lived a better part of their life in more difficult conditions in developing and significantly poorer nations. Thus, when one of these immigrants see an athlete from their country of origin, perform exceptionally well, deep down they appreciate it more than anyone else. They are filled with admiration and pride, that someone from their country of origin can perform so well on a world stage despite the extreme lack of resources in that country. In these circumstances, its extremely painful to hear biased, one-sided commentary. Forget about lavish praise, at a minimum, our commentators should at least recognize good performance independent of the athlete's country of origin.


An athlete from a poorer nation performing well at the Olympics deserves all the credit and praise for his/her performance because it is commendable that they are excelling despite the lack of resources available to them when compared to say an athlete from a developed nation like the US. But our commentators can't seem to appreciate this. Perhaps, some ethnic diversity in the commentary team might help?


Unfortunately, the commentary during the previous Olympics was no different. So if you want to watch the Olympics here in the US, learn to put up with this. Or explore one of the satellite channels, maybe there is another broadcast available that is more fair or atleast less-biased.

Trash leads on Desi Newspaper Websites

Have you seen the kind of articles that appear on leading Indian newspaper websites? I only hope they are not publishing the same articles on their print copies. Economic Times and Times of India websites have front page articles/links with titles such as:

• Will the Ash and Vivek chemistry work?
• Brown girls: New sugar in plums
• Sex, skin and 9/11

This is only a brief sample of the kind of trash these newpapers constantly put up on their websites. With access to modern technology, its obvious they are tracking hits and simplying feeding anything that drives traffic. Thankfully, the Hindustan Times and few others, for the most part, have remained relatively restrained and not indulged in such gimmicks. I hope sense will prevail same day and the madness over web traffic will give way to more sensible web content.

Book Review: The IIT-ians

Book: The IIT-ians -- The Story of a Remarkable Indian Institution and How its Alumni are Reshaping the World

Author: Sandipan Deb

I loved my days at IIT and care deeply about my alma mater, IIT Kharagpur. So the first book on IITs, authored by a fellow KGP-graduate, was automatically of great interest to me. The book has over 350+ pages and thirty-four chapters. Many of the anecdotes described in the book, and the hearsay (of which there are plenty in the book) are largely based in IIT Kharagpur. If you are an IIT Kharagpur gradute from the early to mid 80s and are in the mood for some serious nostalgia this book is a safe bet. Of the thirty-four chapters in the book, I found the one covering the author’s long car ride with Desh Deshpande and Prof Subra Suresh the most interesting. Towards the end of the book, the author offers some valuable recommendations for improving the IITs and highlights the competition from China --both of which are useful for policy makers and influencers (like the alumni) alike. There is no doubt that the IITs are one of India's great achievements, and I want to commend the author for being the first person to publish a book on IITs.


The book offers a perfect "nostalgia trip" for those interested in one. At the same time, the book also has several shortcomings. There is constant ranting and raving about IIT and how great IIT-ians are throughout the book. While this might be acceptable to the reader who is an IIT graduate (though personally, I thought it was a huge overkill), I am not convinced about the non-IITian. I suspect that most would give up quite early on in the process of reading this book.


Given the authors background, the book definitely has a strong journalistic style, that is, reporting style to it. The book is full of "he said so, she said so". In fact, a handful of individuals have been quoted endlessly throughout the book. One chapter is completely dedicated to a bilious outpouring by one alumni! There are others which capture long emails from friends of the author.


The author, despite being married to an IIT woman seems to have done little research to find out if there are any woman IIT-ians who have become hugely successful. Instead, he chose an easy option and described his meeting with a woman friend from IIT KGP and wrote a chapter about it. After 50 years of IITs, so much for the woman IIT-ian's perspective. (No offense to the woman IIT-ian mentioned, who I understand was very popular in her times at KGP). It would have been a lot more purposeful had the author done the required research to identify a woman IIT-ian who has had significant success in her career.


"If I had another chance I would spend a lot less time in class," the second topper from 1986 batch IIT Delhi apparently said. "I learnt very little in class," said another. Throughout the book, there is an obvious glorification of not focusing on academics, and of this being portrayed as cool. This sends a completely wrong message to new entrants to the IIT system. Besides, there is a "Profs suck, while students are smart" message throughout the book. My personal view is that some Profs were good while some were mediocre. This is common in most institutions. A detailed discussion with one or more IIT grads who are currently successful Profs to gather their insights on this topic and what can be done to improve the system, would have been far more helpful than repeated criticism of IIT faculty, their motivations in clamping down on students, and so on.


"A lot of people just copied in the exams and got through." This quote attributed to Purnendu Chatterjee (PC) was outright insulting. Firstly, I am surprised that PC even said this. Besides, even if he did, I am surprised that the author did not exercise some editorial restraint and refrain from mentioning this, because it is insulting to thousands of IIT-ians the world over and it is simply untrue.

Finally, the author says he was approached by the publisher and agreed to write the book primarily because he was an IIT-ian and he writes for a living. With the hype about IITs catching on, especially with the CBS show, articles in the media, etc. perhaps the publisher thought that this was a good time to grab the infamous "first mover" advantage of the dotcom days. Unfortunately, the result is a book trying to ride on the hype, with a generous mix of nostalgia that will appeal to die-hard IIT-ians, but still falling short in effectively showcasing India’s best technical institution.

Clinton on Letterman Show

Bill Clinton was on the David Letterman show last nite. It was bound to be an interesting event for several reasons. Firstly, Letterman loves to dominate his show. This means that he does most of the talking and very often tends to interrupt the guest and sometimes even cut them off. He can't do that to Bill Clinton, the former President and hence once upon a time one of the most powerful men on the planet, could he? Maybe, maybe not. Besides, Bill Clinton has not appeared on a show like this since appearing on the Arsenio Hall show more than a decade ago. So there was an element of what's this guy like in a more relaxed mood, with no real job and no real pressure. Can he sit back, relax, and enjoy a few laughs? Last but not the least, Clinton has been the butt of so many Letterman jokes over the years!

So what was this show like? Well...personally, I was a little disappointed. Clinton was quite stiff all along. He only laughed once, and that too in a pretty restrained manner. Letterman was unusually restrained too. He would ask a question and wait patiently for Clinton to complete his answers. Very often Clinton launched into his favorite political wonk mode with answers laced with stats and numbers. His answers were long drawn, but not once did Letterman interrupt. Also, I think Letterman focused more on policy and politics and hardly any questions were of a personal nature. It would have been more interesting had Letterman asked questions like -- What is it like to be President for 8 years, and then be out of job, and still be quite young, and very capable? What is his typical day like? Would he run for office again? Rumors about Hillary's political ambitions! In summary, I think both men where a little overwhelmed in their respective ways making it not as great an event as it could have been.

Asia Cup Cricket Final: India disappoint after raising hopes

India lost the final of the Asia Cup -- another final, another day, a different opponent, yet the same story as far as India's repeated defeats in finals are concerned. The famed seven batsmen formula failed to achieve a modest target under conditions which should have ideally suited the Indian batting. After holding their nerve to win the earlier match against SL to qualify for the final, India let it millions of fans down by a lackluster performance both in fielding and in batting. As always there are bound to be several million Indian cricket fans pontificating on what went wrong in the final. Here is my contribution to the din.


Kumble dropped!


This was a very very poor decision on the part of the team management. Kumble has been India's main strike bowler on the two most recent series in Australia and Pakistan. He has not performed particularly badly on this tour either. Besides, Harbhajan has not exactly been in devastating form on this tour and is just about staging a comeback. Then why was Kumble dropped? I suspect this is entirely a "Ganguly call" when it came down to a choice between relying on a seasoned star and the much touted "backing your young talent". Strangely enough, the last match against SL saw the inclusion of Zaheer Khan, while Nehra was dropped. This time around, despite a turning track, our best spinner was warming the benches while India was fielding three fast bowlers two of whom (Nehra and more so Zaheer) are as unpredictable as the weather. One can only hope in the interest of Indian cricket that Ganguly is not trying to build his own fiefdom at the expense of picking the best team.


If you look at the Indian team today, the "sure four" --Dravid, Tendulkar, Sehwag, Pathan are pretty much guaranteed of a place in the 11, no matter what. In short, they pick themselves. Then there is Ganguly and his favorites: Kaif, Yuvraj, Zaheer and Harbhajan. Of the remaining two slots, one has to be batsmen, since Ganguly is a big proponent in the seven batsman theory. VVS gets the batsman slot (he has ways to go before he can become like the "sure four") by virtue of his recent good form in Pak and Australia. Given that Ganguly so badly wants to have Zaheer in the team, the second slot has to be another fast bowler for a bunch of reasons. First and foremost, Zaheer has very frequent fitness problems. So going into the match without a back up regular opening bowler is very risky. What if Zaheer chokes and falls apart after his second over? Secondly, Zaheer's bowling is completely unpredictable as we saw the other day where Jayasurya blasted 21 runs from one of his very early overs. What does the captain do under these circumstances, have a spinner bowl as early as the 6th over? Hence, the inclusion of Nehra. I am not a huge supporter of Kumble nor do I have anything against Zaheer. But its obvious that Zaheer needs a long rest to settle down, fix his injury problems, and develop some consistency in performance before he can come back to the team. And for all his captaincy skills, Ganguly could at a minimum treat Kumble with some respect, and not dump him at the slightest excuse.


Batting Order


Why does India have to stick with the same batting order in every single match? When the asking rate was climbing so dramatically, why weren't Harbhajan or Zaheer sent in earlier to crack a few blows and get the runs moving? That would have certainly relieved the mounting pressure on Sachin. In my opinion, the batting order should be driven entirely by the situation. For example, if there is an early wicket, I don't think Ganguly should go in at number 3 for the simple reason that he is best player of spin in the team and the worst player of the short pitched delivery. His position in the batting order must be entirely dependent on the likelihood of him getting a chance to play the spinners. Likewise, if VVS does not get bat within the first 25 overs, Yuvraj, Dravid and Kaif are all better equipped to precede him in the batting order. Yuvraj's weakness appears to be against spin bowling, but he makes up with swift running between wickets to rotate the strike and keep the scoreboard on a constant move. Dravid in his best form is perhaps the most flexible of the lot and can bat pretty much anywhere and at any juncture. It might be worth doing some serious thinking and strategizing on these lines prior to taking on the mighty Aussies later this year.


Sachin's Performance

Sachin Tendulkar's cricketing genius continues to unfold despite the controversy surrounding his much restrained batting style. His bowling performance on this tour has been simply phenomenal. Had he been more instrumental in guiding India to victory with the bat (particularly in the finals), without doubt he would have been the man of the series. Where he continues to fall short is with the bat, believe it or not. He is still the best batsman in the world, but definitely not the best match winning batsman in the world. He has certainly lost his fire. He had two opportunities this series to guide his team to victory and permanently answer his critics and on both occasions he fell short (the second ODI in Pakistan being another). The final is a classic example. Considering that we lost by a mere 25 runs, I certainly think he failed to "finish" despite having stuck it out in the midst of our dismal batting failure.


The scenario was similar in the earlier match against Pak, except that we were chasing a larger total. In fact, in the Pak game he failed to last long enough to even to see India through with the bonus point. Botton line, in both matches he simply failed to finish! This is not the Sachin the world has known. Once again, this is by no means a poor performance. It is is just that Sachin has set his personal standards so high during his peak, that today he himself is unable to meet the same standards. Unfortunately, the cricketing world has become so used to measuring him by these supremely high standard. Understandably, opposing teams now dread Rahul Dravid more than Sachin. In other words, Sri Lanka knew they had a good chance of victory the moment India lost Dravid, while the world number one batsman was still at the crease.

Fighting Spirit

The current Indian team has repeatedly shown that they don't give up easily. The addition of 60 odd runs after the fall of Sachin's wicket in the final was very impressive. Likewise in the previous match against SL India did well to hold their nerve and win in the very last over. Ganguly certainly deserves the credit for this transformation in the team. With a little more fairness and a little less "chela-giri" (slang that means building a following of potential sycophants, by showing caring and partiality towards them), he can mould the team into a one day team that can actually win a few finals.

Spare them the spotlight

Do the spouses and kids of candidates have to be paraded all around at these conventions? The recent Democratic convention saw families of the John Edwards and John Kerry actively participating in "pitching" for them. It is more than likely that the same will happen at the Republican convention. The argument is that this is an opportunity for the country to get insights into the personal side of these candidates. Unfortunately, these events are so scripted like "product demos" that even if these individuals wished to reveal something new about their spouses, its more than likely that it will be staged and crafted. The net effect is that we have speeches from family members that hardly come across as genuine, but instead appear fake and untrue. We know they love their spouses, we know they think their spouses are the greatest (even Hillary told us that!), we know they will do anything to impress us to vote for them, then why bother? Moreover, it puts so much pressure on these individuals to be dragged into this whole drama that the candidate is involved with as they run for public office.

I watched Teresa Heinz Kerry's speech the other day at the Democratic convention. She is not exactly a great speaker, didn't exactly reveal anything personal about John Kerry, and is hardly qualified to talk policy. I think the same is true of Laura Bush. These are two women who are probably more comfortable doing their own things, than making speeches at political conventions. It would be better off if they stuck to press interviews and appearing in public with the candidate and stayed away from giving speeches, especially at conventions. This way, if you really care about the candidates personal background you are likely to research it and find out for yourself. At the same time, it will make sure that people don't end up casting their vote after falling for a dog and pony show at a convention.


Finally, here is what I think is interesting about Teresa Heinz Kerry and is likely to appeal to most Americans -- She appears relatively simple and certainly does not look like a woman who has over $500M+ assets. She wears minimal make up and does not fuss over her hair. She can speak five languages, was born and raised in Mozambique and is not afraid to ask people to "shove it" (which BTW is both good and scary at the same time!). What I knew about Teresa Heinz Kerry, I knew even before her speech and I think that was more than sufficient. I would have preferred (and the DNC would have been better served in my opinion) instead to hear a few more up and coming stars of the democratic party like Barack Obama.

Voting Machines from India?

According to pollsters, the Nov election is going to be a very closely fought race. Given all the drama that happened at the last election which deeply divided this country and created a lot of resentment among the Democrats, why doesn't the US govt. sign up to use the voting machines from India? They clearly work well and the massive Indian elections have just proven that the counting time can be reduced by two thirds. The machines are only $200 a pop.  No issue with re-counting, no hard feelings from the results, just pure harmony guaranteed.  How come little is being said about the counting and the overall plan to avoid the fiasco of the 2000 elections?

 

Its a global economy, its the voting machine of the century, "let's bring 'em on!"