What makes an extremist?

What turns a seemingly normal, well-educated young man into someone who believes so strongly in a religion or philosophy that he is willing and eager to take up arms for it? Going one step further, he's even willing to die for it?

This article in The New Yorker is a short but deep sojourn into the vicious cocktail of seemingly innocuous circumstances that may direct a young man or woman down the deadly path to becoming a suicide bomber.

Read Article

The author delves into various experiences, including his own, and outlines how a combination of youthful rebellion, spiritual yearning, immigrant isolation, racial discrimination and existentialist crises could work havoc on the psyche of a susceptible youth.

(Ed note -- Raj)
I originally thought of posting this as a comment to the previous Nathuram Godse post, because I think the same factors explain his large part, his actions too, but decided this article merited a post (and subsequent discussion) of its own.

Nathuram's Court Deposition

Self Defense text
A very interesting read! Many might not agree, but definitely worthwhile to read.
I surely need to get my hand on Mi Nathuram Godse Boltoy.

NYT article on outsourcing by Suketu Mehta

Here's an NYT article by Suketu Mehta, author of 'Maximum city: Bombay lost and found' on outsourcing in today's issue. He brings a perspective to the American reader which is often lost in the politicized nature of the debate.

Here's the article

I will add my comment later, but I also recommend reading Discussion on Sepia Mutiny on the same article.

Raj

'The Namesake' rocks

My opinions on Jhumpa Lahiri's 'The Namesake', crossposted from my personal blog at Anshu's request. Click below for the original post:

'The Namesake' rocks!

NYT: The Heterosexual Revolution

Let me initiate the first serious topic here right away. Here's a link to an article in the NY Times:
The Heterosexual Revolution.

Just in case the link dies, I shall provide a gist of the author's argument in this posting. I shall then place my own opinions as a comment.

Summary of author's argument:

The idea of marriage is not the monolithic concept many imagine it to be, but it has undergone drastic changes through time. Traditional marriage, in all societies including the west, was primarily decided on political and economic considerations, regardless of social class. The concept of marriage for love and happiness did not arise until post-renaissance thinkers until about 200 years ago, even then it was labeled too radical.

The idea of marriage for love took serious root in the 20th century, with women's liberation. As women started becoming more and more equal and independent, some of the traditional considerations of marriage were rendered redundant, and marriage for love became the predominant philosophy behind Western marriages.

This changing nature of marriage so far has been wrought not by the relatively nascent Gay-rights movement, but by heterosexuals themselves. It seems logical the right of two consenting adults in love to be married, regardless of gender, is the next inevitable change to the institution. That path was chosen not 20, but 200 years ago by heterosexuals, when they decided on love as the primary consideration.

Let the adda begin!

Hello world!

We are an eccentric and sanguine group of Bongs at the Dept of Computer Science at Rice.

I say eccentric, for lack of a better term. In a more innocent place and time, we would have preferred the term queer (at least one of us would :) and possibly, gay. Unfortunately, like so many other components of our vocabulary, our favourite words have ascended to rainbow heights, rendering them somewhat unreachable to us mere straight-forward mortals.

We, as our mutated Bong DNA compels us, have three fundamental needs: food, drink, and procrastination. And what better way to fulfill those needs than the Adda, the most important contribution of Bong culture to the world of philosophy?

So let the discussions flow!

Raj, Santa, Amit, Anirban, Apan