Bachelor's Night Out!

[mcgillianaire]

I’ve just got back from Arnav’s where the Gang of Five watched No Good Deed starring Samuel Jackson, Milla Jovovich & Stellan Skarsgård (Ronin, Good Will Hunting). It was a rather interesting movie at first but fortunately/unfortunately the only good thing about it till the end was the aesthetic presence of Ms. Jovovich. A couple of scenes in particular will remain etched in my memory for some time to come. For the others, a movie to avoid @ all costs. It’s not as bad as Scary Movie III though. What movies have you watched recently? Any worth an extra recommendation? I could do with a good, thinking movie.

Later this morning, seeing as to how it is nearly 3:00am right now, I will be trying to sort out what courses I will be taking this semester. I know it’s been a week into the semester but after all that has happened, this is the price to pay for terrible behavior. Anyways, once that is sorted out there is the issue with the Visa. Ahh, let’s hope that all gets sorted out easily. Red tape is lethal here in McGill and even the Management advisor has warned me about it. He is a bloody part of it! Oh well, at least I got back in.

Elsewhere, I am trying to figure out how to sort out my entire feeding habits. Ever since getting back from Oman I’ve not been able to fill myself with three, proper meals a day. It’s been a mix of random things @ the oddest of hours and I’m starting to feel the pinch of it. Any ideas on how to stay cheap and get fat?

Alrighty. I’m off to bed…Read on and stay tuned!

---

Discussion for the Day…
Is my faith in a near-future (15-25 years), developed India, severely misplaced? I’d like to hear your thoughts on this topic that has, for a long time been intriguing me. Despite everything India, as a modern-nation, has achieved since Independence, a lot has been left to be desired and a lot, lot more is needed to reach any of the minimum social/economic heights of the Western nations… How far behind is India and will it ever reach the position the USA is in today, and if yes, when do you foresee such an awesome sight (*smile*), and if not, why not?
Till next time…
Have a good one!

Comments

Re: First world, second world, third world

[dubaiwalla.livejournal.com]

Seriously, where is everybody else?
Miss me?

---

Also, I wouldn't say that Hong Kong is the reason China is such an economic heavyweight. (It is part of the reason, yes.)
Chinese economic reforms began in 1979, nearly two decades before Hong Kong became an official part of the mainland again.

Both of you are missing what I imagine would probably be the largest reason why China is a heavyweight: China has 1.3 billion people (give or take a hundred million)- 1.3 billion people who are being weaned away from Mao and shown the joys of consumerism. That translates into a whole lot of Coca-Cola being sold.

This is not to underestimate the importance of the reforms. Deng Xiaopeng once said, "To be rich is to be glorious." In India, it is still fashionable to attack the rich (verbally, at any rate). The Communist Party of India (Marxist) is still, to the best of my knowledge, the third largest in the country. It would roll back all the post-'91 reforms, given a chance (thankfully, it has very little chance today of leading a national government).

---

There is also the unfortunate legacy of India's corrupt and inefficient bureaucracy left behind by the Brits
The British certainly did leave behind a stifling bureaucratic tradition. However, I've yet to see any reports saying that India's pre-Independence civil service was corrupt. As far as I know, that particular achievement was India's alone.

Unfortunately, corruption is a very hard thing to root out, once it is endemic in the system. There is no country entirely free of corruption. Indeed, it is rife in the first world. However, the difference between corruption there and in India (and other developing countries) is that first world corruption is concentrated at the top. Often, it takes place in full public view ("lobbying" sounds so much better than "bribery," doesn't it?) whereas in India, it is rampant at every level from clerk to Prime Minister (although the current PM is relatively clean). This means that every illiterate villager in the country is potentially held hostage to the whims and fancies of people who want more money to supplement the meager amounts they get from their government jobs. The so-called license-quota raj, exacerbated by India's long and unsuccessful socialist phase, only made things worse, as government approval was made necessary for even the smallest things, and the only way to become big was to have politicians in your pocket.

Re: First world, second world, third world

[(Anonymous)]

Dubaiwalla, I really enjoy ure comments and I think they are really well placed and well thought. I agree with almost everything u say and I say: keep it coming. I enjoy a good lecture. While I am a little more prone to dismissing India and promoting Romania (fo sho, I am Romanian! What the hell!). But my unsigned Aussie friend (sorry, lost ure name, I apologize for that, I am too lazy to go back and see where it is written!) is the other way around: Romania less and India more. I like Dubaiwalla's comments because they refer to both countries as being far back and unable to reach high standards in a short amount of time. I think this is the best approach to the problem.

What is funny with Romania is that we have the people to do it but we severely lack the infrastructure. We have an amazing medical school and Romanian doctors are among the most preferred in Europe. But hospitals are all shit holes. But the best example might be sports: we have had amazing results in sports for a country our size: I would start with our main sport, gymnastics, where, for the past 15-20 years, Romania always came back with a huge load of gold medals. I continue with football (soccer for my American friends), where Hagi was one of the best players ever in the game and Romania nearly missed the best 4 in WC2004 in the US after a dramatic penalty shootout. Between the 50's and 70's the European Champions Cup in volleyball and handball were held between 2 Romanian teams. But, think of this: Romania would never be able to host any olympic games or any world cup football championship because it lacks the facilities. Stadiums and arenas suck and so does the entire Romanian sporting infrastructure. On the other hand, India will most probably host the 2014 olympic games, but in the past few years, they've only won one medal overall. That is soooo bad, but at least they have the facilities to do it.
The same thing happens in Romania politics. We have the people and we have the will to do it, but when the political infrastructure is mostly what it is left from the communist regime, we have a long way ahead.

And one more thing: u brag that India is corrupt? Go to www.nationmaster.com and check the corruption levels in Rom and India. Romania is slighty better than India (better in the negative way, I mean, Romania is more corrupt). India needed 1 billion people to be so corrupt. We needed communism and 23 million people to do it. Take this just as a funny fact.

Take care,

Cris

Ahem

[(Anonymous)]

You mentioned how good at sport Romania is for a country with so few people. I refer you to Australia. :)

And I know we have the infrastructure, so it's nto a fair comparison, but it is my duty to point out how absolutely BRILLIANT we are at sport, in spite of a population lower than Romania's.

Re: Ahem

[(Anonymous)]

Sorry my friend, if Romania had Australia's sports infrastructure we would be one of the best teams in the world in mostly anything (I rule out sports like cricket, which is not known in Romania and our main problem comes with winter sports. But we could improve even there if we had what it takes. I might say that we would not be better in rugby than Australia)

Romania holds the world record for most World Cups in handball (4), men and women as well. Another fact: England has not beat Romania in 30 years (no jokes, official number) in football, their national sport. I believe that a better structure would make Romania better in many sports including tennis, rugby, basketball, volleyball etc. Now gymnastics and football is all we have left, because of a huge lack of funds for facilities. Diana Mocanu, the Romanian swimming champion (I think she even broke a world record in Sydney 2000, I am not completely sure, but she came home with 2 or 3 gold medals) trains in an uncleaned pool of dirty water in a random city in Romania. The next year, at the World Championships she was crap... Why? No facilities to train in.

Give us your infrastructure and I guarantee better results in so many sports.

And BTW, Hari, please support my statement here that Romania has good sports, u know it, I've been bugging u with these things for almost 2 years!

Thanks and take care everyone,

Cris

Re: First world, second world, third world

[dubaiwalla.livejournal.com]

Thank you for your kind, if undeserved, words.

The most well-known rankings for corruption are those released by Transparency International. And according to their 2003 International Corruption Perception Index, India and Romania are two of the three countries that rank joint-83rd out of 133. Not much to be proud of, in either case.

India needed 1 billion people to be so corrupt. We needed communism and 23 million people to do it.
I'm not sure how much size has to do with corruption. The US, the world's third largest country by population (and area too, for that matter) ranks 18th on that list. Haiti sits at position 131. You will, however, doubtless have noticed from that list that less corrupt countries are more prosperous. Although there is probably more than a little bit of the chicken and the egg involved in this.

but in the past few years, [India]'ve only won one medal overall.
False. Karnam Malleswari got a bronze in weightlifting in Sydney AND Leander Paes got a bronze in tennis in Atlanta. Indeed, he came close to beating Andre Agassi in the semis there. Not that two bronzes is a real improvement over one, but I just had to be a pedant and mention it.