- No one in the world watches French or UK or Russian or Canadian or Japanese or German or Australian or Indian elections so closely. US presidential elections are watched closely, by both the power-brokers and the general public from the entire world.
- The reason is not only that the outcome of US presidential elections affect the lives of the people in the rest of the world. No. It's also because US presidential elections feel like a sort of reality show to the general public. The debates, the spit that candidates throw on each other, the revelations, the insults, the suspense, the polls, the advantage of English language, etc., together make for a very entertaining reality TV show from the standpoint of the general public. For the general public, the question isn't as much about the effect on their lives. It's the fun part, the part about betting on a horse and then watching its performance with keen interest. Like watching a cricket match. Or like watching Bigg Boss.
- US knows all too well that the rest of the world closely follows US elections. It can only feel happy about this, since this is yet another way in which US spreads its influence.
Tuesday, November 22, 2016
Why does the world watch US presidential elections so closely and with so much interest [COMPACTIDEA]
Posted by Rishabh Singla at 12:27 AM
Sunday, November 20, 2016
Winners of Academy Awards [Oscars] or Nobel Prizes aren't necessarily the best in their respective fields [COMPACTIDEA]
- Frequently, Oscars are politicized. So movies that support Western foreign policy will be awarded, and those that highlight Western crimes won't even be nominated.
- Oscars are inherently biased against non-English movies, since there's only one category/award for such movies. Hence the numerous excellent non-English movies being made all over the world each year hardly stand a chance, at least statistically.
- Nobel Prizes are also politicized to the extent that prominent Russian figures, for example, won't be acknowledged or awarded, just like Oscars are biased against nations which America considers its perennial adversaries. Not to forget lunatic decisions such as the award to Obama, or a lack of award to Mahatma Gandhi [presumably to not humiliate the British].
- Overall, just because a piece of work or a person gets an Oscar or a Nobel doesn't by itself imply necessarily that it is [or he is] the best in its/his respective category. Politics plays a major role. America plays a major role. Hatred of Russia, China, Iran, etc., plays a major role. Xenophobia plays a major role.
Posted by Rishabh Singla at 2:38 PM
Saturday, November 5, 2016
Many people praise the kings/rulers/sheikhs of the Arab world for the huge things they create [e.g., Burj Khalifa or the Kingdom Tower], the grand ideas they have, the large sums they spend, the "big thinking" they have. Nonsense. Nothing great about it. Digging out oil bestowed upon them by nature and selling it on the international market and earning money in the process doesn't equal intelligence or greatness. It's called luck. Or chance. Or just an accident. Nothing great about it. It came to them for free. It was/is valuable for the entire world. No brain was required. They didn't do anything about it. Anyone fortunate enough to be sitting upon trillions worth of crude oil like folks in the Middle East would automatically start to have "great" ideas. Let's not develop an illusion that these PetroSheikhs have something special in their brains which we don't.
Posted by Rishabh Singla at 12:18 AM
Saturday, October 29, 2016
Over the last few years I've seen some South Korean movies - Oldboy, The Chaser, etc., and I have come to the realization that South Korean cinema is a treasure chest that's waiting to be discovered by anyone who admires well-made movies. South Korean movies have a distinctive mix of elements that differs materially from other cinemas such as Hollywood and Bollywood - the characteristic Korean language, South Korea's urban development, use of advanced gadgets/technology, Asian culture and sensibilities, strong themes, etc. Overall, anyone who loves watching quality movies should not miss out on checking out South Korean films.
Posted by Rishabh Singla at 10:30 AM
Friday, October 28, 2016
Guess I'm now at that age or entering that age where these words begin. Earlier I used to call other guys 'bhaiya', because I would usually be the younger one. But now many/most other guys [and girls/women - whether unknown ones or wives of my friends] I meet address me as 'bhaiya'. Since the last 2-3 years, I've heard myself being called 'bhai sahab' occasionally. Initially it felt odd and bad, but now it kind of feels okayish. Maybe we all have this tendency to get used to anything that happens repeatedly. We accept it and then it no longer feels odd. In fact, after a while it's opposite starts to feel odd. Things change after all. And the worst of all is 'uncle'. Has happened a few times in the last 1-2 years [only by small kids], but it's shocking. So much that I've started staying away from small kids just so that one of them doesn't call me out as 'uncle' :)
But guess it's time to get comfortable with all this rather than trying to avoid it. And also it's time to shed some weight and look less 'unclish' :P
Posted by Rishabh Singla at 1:40 AM
Sunday, October 23, 2016
Should a top doctor be punished and barred from saving lives in the future for one foul up? [COMPACTIDEA]
We entrust top doctors to save lives, but we do not give them room for a single mistake. No extra reward beyond normal salary/benefits if he brings a life back from the gallows of death by using his experience/skills, but severe punishment and ridicule if he isn't able to save a life because of a mistake on his part [and not because the patient was medically incurable/unsaveable].
Is this okay? Are doctors not allowed to make mistakes? If he has saved five hundred lives in the past, does that not count against a single mistake he made now? Further, what about the lives that will be lost because this life-saving top doctor is in prison and is thus unable to attend to critical patients [whom he would've otherwise saved]? Are we willing to kill perhaps several dozen patients in the future by removing this doctor from duty, only because our definition of "justice" says that the death of one patient - by mistake - deserves punishment?
Thought about these issues while watching Ankur Arora Murder Case.
Posted by Rishabh Singla at 10:30 PM
Thursday, October 20, 2016
Feminists vehemently support abortion citing "choice", yet they vigorously howl about sex-selective abortion of female foetuses [COMPACTIDEA]
This reveals a serious contradiction in the position and thought process of these hardcore feminists. They apparently want to support choice, but not universally, rather only when it suits their innate desires. They will, for example, support an abortion [basically a cold-blooded murder] when it's the female who wants to have the thing flushed out [even if the father doesn't support the abortion]. They will, however, oppose the same abortion when only the father wants to get it done [and the mother opposes]. In this sense feminists are quite predictable characters. They will use fancy/funny terms such as "bodily autonomy", "choice", "reproductive rights", etc., when it comes to blindly supporting females, but won't support abandoning of girl foetuses even if both parents agree on this course of action. So heartless murder of foetuses is okay whenever the mother wants to have it done, but it isn't okay - even if both parents want it - if the foetus happens to be a girl!
Where is "my choice" and other blah blah blah now? What kind of logic is this?
Where is "my choice" and other blah blah blah now? What kind of logic is this?
Predictable, despicable, eternally frustrated, deplorable and overall nonsense creatures.
Posted by Rishabh Singla at 6:19 PM
Friday, October 14, 2016
Should the smallest and largest countries have equal votes in organizations such as the United Nations?
This is an unresolved question in my mind. Cambodia is small and poor, and its vote can be bought relatively easily by a large, wealthy nation such as China [e.g., Cambodia's vote in ASEAN holds same weight as of the larger Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia and Philippines], just like USA buys votes at UN from small island nations in order to give the impression that it has "multilateral support" and to not look cornered.
Question arises - should a smaller nation [in terms of population, economy size, etc.] have equal voting rights as a nation with much more population [India] or much more geographic size [Russia] or much larger economic size [Japan]? Countries with few people are representative of the people of the world as whole to a very little extent [compared to China, whose people represent over 18% of mankind], yet they vote on global issues with the same voting weight as nations with hundreds of millions of people each.
Taking away this inequality has its own severe negative repercussions [demonic countries such as USA would literally eat up less mighty nations].
Posted by Rishabh Singla at 6:24 PM
Those who've been academic failures feel vindicated by education-bashing movies such as 3 Idiots, M.S. Dhoni, etc. [COMPACTIDEA]
Bashing academics/education/studies is the "in thing" today in Bollywood. Students are usually distributed according to the normal distribution, hence only a small proportional can be called intelligent in any given classroom anywhere in the world and in any decade. Hence, a significant proportion can be termed academic failures or academically poor. These folks sort of dislike education and so feel happy and even "vindicated" watching education being bashed in movies such as 3 Idiots [and the initial part of M.S. Dhoni], and falsely assume the messages being sent out - that education "isn't everything", and that you can easily be successful even without academics, and so on, forgetting hard/practical facts like there are only 10-15 guys in the Indian cricket team versus perhaps crores of aspirants.
Posted by Rishabh Singla at 1:49 PM
Sunday, October 9, 2016
Supreme Court's decision allowing husbands to divorce wives who force husbands to separate from their parents is logical
As expected, hardcore feminists are "outraged" and "speechless" and "shocked" by this decision. Their usual overuse of superlatives has begun [there's already nearly complete desensitization to these superlatives due to prior overuse]. These days, radical feminists feel entitled to have all judgments passed in favor of females, irrespective of what's logical according to the sum total of the basic structure of our society, our religious beliefs, prevailing norms, our culture, and so on. Any judgment/law that doesn't favor females creates shock waves among these predatory feminists, regardless of its merits. An important thing to not here is that these extreme feminists usually express their shock and awe without supporting it with logical arguments. In the screenshot below, she calls it "Shockingly retarded!" and she's left "Speechless 😡😡😡", but she never could explain what exactly made this sensible judgment retarded, other than implying questioning the basic structure of marriages in India [in which case these feminists shouldn't marry anyone at all, except perhaps each other, so they cal vent out their frustrations collectively].
The judges, however, did offer sufficient explanation. Thankfully, they were also cognizant that their judgment will act as a precedent and will be used as a guideline for years and decades to come. They likely also knew that unnecessary rants will follow, but that didn't stop them from issuing a sound judgment.
Posted by Rishabh Singla at 9:10 PM