अनिल एकलव्य ⇔ Anil Eklavya

February 29, 2008

English is Language Independent

It’s the Global Language, right? So how can it be language dependent? You propose a theory based on English. It has to apply to all languages. You propose a Natural Language Processing (NLP) or Computational Linguistics (CL) technique for a particular problem. For English. It applies to all languages. You build a software for some purpose. For English. It has to be useful for all languages. You build a dictionary…

Never mind.

But the vice versa is not true. You propose a theory based on Hindi. It is language specific. It doesn’t count for much. You propose an NLP technique for a particular problem. For Hindi. It is language specific. It doesn’t count for much. You build a software for some purpose. For Hindi. It is language specific. It doesn’t count for much.

That’s how it works in practice, if not theory. Or may be even in theory, with some help from the (very valid) idea of Universal Grammar (except that the UG may be the UG of English).

Even today I have got a review of a paper on a problem which is like one of the holy grails of NLP or CL. One of the comments is that the approach has been evaluated on Hindi so it can’t be compared to other techniques that already exist. True. But what is the number of papers published in the ‘first class’ NLP/CL conferences and journals in which the approach has been tried only on English? Doesn’t matter, because English is language independent. If you only evaluate your technique on English, that’s OK. But if you evaluate on only Hindi, that’s not acceptable. Because Hindi is language specific.

We know this very well in India. The Elite talks about (Indian) literature. And sometimes the Elite magnanimously (or dismissively) talks about (Indian) literature in languages. The first, of course, refers to literature in English. The second refers to literature in other languages. Indian languages.

The Elite talks of media. And the Elite (rarely and mostly negatively) talks of language media.

Hindi is a language. English is not a language.

Pardon me.

Hindi is a language. English is the language.

English is above being merely a language.

That’s why all the work done in English is language independent. Not just research. Not just in NLP/CL. Anything. Movies, literature, music.

I am guilty of the sin of indulging too much in mere languages. I should be working mostly on English. Not just writing blog posts in English. Sometimes, of course, I can bestow a bit of my attention on languages. Like Hindi.

But I won’t do that. I will do the opposite. I am incurable.

Advertisements

Can Confrontation be Turned into Collaboration?

In the last post I tried to put across some points against blind reviewing. The intention was to show the limitations of blind reviewing. As I said in that post, I don’t have the correct solution. But I do know now that blind reviewing is not as good an idea as it seems on the surface.

I will have more to say about this, but in this post I will digress from the topic a bit and consider a hypothetical situation.

At present, when the author(s) of a paper get the reviews, they (in most cases) have no venue to reply to the comments made in the reviews. Now, suppose we had completely open reviewing. Not double blind. Not single blind. Zero blind.

Zero blind means that the reviewers know who the author(s) are and the author(s) also know who the reviewers are.

Hard to imagine? But we already have such a reviewing process in real world. In fact, this is the most used process. This is how books are reviewed in the media. Or movies. Or anything artistic or scientific.

Yes, I know, the situation with research conferences and journals is a bit different and there are many practical difficulties. But let’s ignore them for the time being and just assume that a zero blind process is in place and a paper is sent to a conference.

Now, the reviewers do their job and based on their comments and scores (if any) it is decided to reject the paper. This is again not a universal thing, because there is also something called ‘killing a paper’ where a single reviewer can virtually ensure that the paper is, well, killed. Regardless of what other reviewers might have said. This actually happens.

But we will ignore this too for our hypothetical case and just assume that the paper was rejected after considering all the reviews and discussion among the PC members.

Now, when the authors get the reviews, they believe that the reviewers have made mistakes in understanding the paper. Also, that the reviewers have made statements which are not justified. The authors, because they know who the reviewers are, write a detailed reply and counter all the comments and statements made by the reviewers which they think are not justified.

The reviewers are also interested in the problem that the paper is about and they probably are also working on the same problem. Which is why the paper was assigned to them in the first place.

Once again, this is an assumption for the sake of idealization. In reality, the reviewers often are not working on the same problem and may not even be interested in it.

What is going to happen now? The reviewers also reply to the author(s)’ comments. This could start a confrontation which goes on for a long time and arguments are traded back and forth.

Note that the decision about the paper has already been taken because the only reform that has happened in this hypothetical situation is that we have zero blind reviewing instead of single or double blind. So the confrontation was started by the reviewing process, but it is no more a part the process now.

‘Conventional wisdom’ says that confrontations (with words and verbosity) among researchers (or, in general, members of a group) are bad. This is the same wisdom which says that confrontations (with weapons and violence) may be good among nations or communities because there are things called national interests or communal interests.

So how about collaboration? Can this exchange of arguments lead to collaboration among the author(s) and the reviewers?

Apart from practical constraints, is there any reason why this can’t happen? I mean, even if collaboration is ruled out in many cases due to practical constraints, it may still happen is some cases. Wouldn’t that be a good thing for research?

Of course, I am talking about Computational Linguistics and Natural Language Processing, where most of the action takes place on computers. Which are likely to be connected to the Net. So, collaboration, i.e., long distance collaboration, is not a Utopian dream.

And I also know it’s not just that collaboration may not happen, there may be an ugly confrontation. This might lead to worsening of social relations among the researchers. It won’t be a good situation.

But wait a minute!

Aren’t researchers supposed to be mature people who, for the most part, think rationally? Aren’t they supposed to be objective, or at least rigorously and honestly subjective? Aren’t they supposed to be good enough to take the responsibility of deciding which research paper should be accepted and which should be killed. Or not allowed to be born, to put it more politely? In fact, aren’t they assumed to have a lot of qualities which we don’t so easily assume in ordinary mortals? Such as the fact that when they recommend the rejection of a paper and make sure it’s never published, they won’t take some ideas from those rejected papers and use them for their own work as their own contribution? Unconsciously, if not consciously. To suggest otherwise (i.e., that they can be unknowingly plagiarist) would actually be considered a blasphemy. And if someone gets caught, it would be considered a great scandal. There is some social psychology involved here which I would rather not talk about right now.

If the researchers who review papers are already assumed to have all these wonderful qualities, can we also assume that in most cases they won’t get into an ugly confrontation? That they would, if possible, convert a possible confrontation into a collaboration?

It all depends on what our preferred model of relations among researchers is. If there is a four colour (color) spectrum, which one is your preferred color:

  1. Between Newton and Leibniz
  2. Between Einstein and Bose
  3. Between Bertrand Russell and Wittgenstein
  4. Between Hardy and Ramanujan

In case there is anyone reading this, and assuming that they don’t think this is all pure BS…

What do you say? Which model do you think can work? Which is your preferred model? Which model would you recommend for application in the real world?

In today’s world? But more importantly, in tomorrow’s world?

February 26, 2008

On Blind Reviewing (2)

In the first part, I presented a case in favour (favor) of blind reviewing as a bulleted list of ten reasons to have blind reviewing as the most preferable implementation of the concept of peer reviewing.

Excuse again the legal sounding language.

I also indicated that I am not sure that this is indeed correct, i.e., blind reviewing is the best that we can do to ensure quality research. In this post I will try to present a case against blind reviewing, or at least a case against the idea that blind reviewing is only or the best way to go about the business of research.

First, let’s take each of the ten points I had listed:

  1. Human beings can be biased. So, if a reviewer knows that a research paper is written by a person she doesn’t like or has strong disagreement with, she can get biased against the paper and will not be able to review the paper fairly.

    Human beings can be biased and their biases can really come to the fore if they know that their identities won’t be revealed. There may be enough in the paper to trigger their biases.

  2. Apart from the above kind of biases, there can be the bias in terms of the weights associated with the names of the authors, their institutions, their countries, their group, even their academic background. Most of the people who have been working in NLP/CL[1] for some time know about the linguistics vs. statistics or machine learning bias. This kind of bias increases the chance of your paper being rejected or accepted depending on whether you seem to be in favour (or favor) of a linguistics heavy approach to NLP/CL or of a statistics (or machine learning) heavy approach. There are variants of this bias in other fields too. For the closest example, we can consider Linguistics. Where your paper is perceived to be situated along the Chomskyan or Empiricist or Cognitive or Computational axes with respect to the chosen position of the reviewer can have a large impact on the decision about your paper, irrespective of what else your paper says. And the chances of such a perception can be increased if the identities are known.

    Such biases are especially the ones that can be triggered mostly by the content of the paper itself, because enough is revealed about the authors by just the content of the paper. More on this later.

  3. Human beings can be unduly confrontational and they can also be unduly wary of confrontation. So, if the identity of the reviewer is not withheld, the author(s) may be offended by the reviewer and they may also become confrontational and carry on this confrontation with the reviewer, thus making the process of reviewing difficult and something which a lot of people would like to run away from. Also, the reviewer may avoid making adverse comments, especially if the reviewer doesn’t want to offend the author(s).

    This is perhaps the strongest point in favor of blind reviewing. However, the problem is that, like all the other points, it assumes that identities are not revealed at all in the blind reviewing process. The truth is that the content of the paper often gives enough information about the possible identities of the author(s). And this happens more in the cases where there are much higher chances of biases and where a proactively fair reviewing process is needed the most. For example, if someone is working on languages of the Third World, those languages will be mentioned in the paper. From this, and from the language and presentation of the paper, it will be easy to guess that the paper is from some Third World researcher. In many cases, the reviewer might even be able to guess the author(s), or at least the groups of which the author(s) are part. It is these cases where the need for fairness is the highest because it is so easy for a reviewer to become biased against the paper. So much so that she doesn’t even care to read the paper carefully. If you get two papers to review and one of them seems to be from a major research group from a major university from a First World country, while the other is possibly from a graduate student from a second class university in a Third World country, would there be any difference in the way you review the papers? Would there be any prejudgment? Won’t you be more careful in reviewing the second paper if you knew your identity will be revealed?

  4. If the author(s) don’t know who the reviewer is and vice versa, the whole reviewing process may be more fair for the above specified reasons and because of the general association between anonymity and fairness. If you don’t know who is criticizing and the person criticizing also doesn’t know who is being criticized, then you can expect more fairness.

    Seems to be a valid point on the surface. And it is: To a certain extent. But there is an even more valid counter-point. If the reviewer knows her identity is not going to be revealed, she can be as biased as wants. Even as biased as she doesn’t want. There is not much ‘incentive’ to read the papers carefully. You can get away with anything, especially if the authors are not ‘prominent’ ones so that even the chair(s) won’t probably notice. Unknown authors, paper rejected, extremely negative comments and ridiculously low scores. So what? Common occurrence. No need to take note.

  5. If the Program Committee (PC) chair(s) also don’t know who the authors are and who the reviewers are, then they can assign equal weight to all the reviews for making the final decision about a paper.

    This is actually a hypothetical point. It doesn’t apply even to double blind reviewing. The chair(s) always know who the authors are. The reviewing process is not actually completely blind. In almost all cases, the chair(s) assign the papers to the reviewers. Now, the reality is that the fate of a paper depends on which reviewers are assigned to review it. Moreover, in many cases, the chair(s) or the area chair(s) actually overrule the assessment of the reviewers. They are supposed to do this to ensure fairness, but why should the chair(s) be assumed to be free from bias? They are as much human as other reviewers. Reviewers in one conference or journal are often the chair(s) or the editor(s) in some other conference or journal.

  6. If the author(s) don’t know who the reviewer is, then they won’t have any reason to attribute bias or prejudice to the comments made or ratings given by the reviewer.

    Only if they assume that the reviewer didn’t guess anything about the possible identities of the authors. That might happen with their first few papers, but later on they might catch on to the fact that this is not really so. In fact, just as the reviewers can guess the possible identities of the author(s), the vice versa can also happen. One small remark might give away the identity of the reviewer. And it often does.

  7. Peer reviewing of research papers, like the administration of justice, should not just be fair, but seen to be fair. And this can only happen with blind reviewing.

    Again a superficially valid point, but there is a more valid counter-point. If everything is ‘blind’ but not really blind, how can the process be seen to be fair? Perhaps there can be some other ‘non-blind’ way which actually seems more fair.

  8. Blind reviewing, through the use of the device of anonymity, gives a true meaning to the idea of ‘peer reviewing’, because if the identities are not known, all the people involved can be treated as peers, even if some of them are senior most pioneering researchers or Directors of first class institutions in first world countries, while some others are graduate students in second class institutions in third world countries.

    As discussed earlier, anonymity doesn’t really happen in the cases where it is supposed to matter the most, i.e., in cases where there can be biases. Could it be that ‘blind reviewing’ actually gives an impression of fairness where it doesn’t really exist? This could be a very undesirable situation if we are really sincere about ensuring fairness.

  9. If the identities are not known, both the reviewer and the author can focus on the content of the paper and the review, respectively.

    Another strong point in favor of blind reviewing, but again it depends on the assumption of anonymity. Also, could it be that (consciously or unconsciously) the reviewer starts guessing who the paper is possibly from so that she can review accordingly, without spending too much time in understanding the paper? And when the author(s) get the reviews, could they be guessing who the reviewers are (from the remarks they have made). Both of them might reach right or wrong conclusions, and whichever they reach, such a situation will not be an ideal one for the purpose of fair peer reviewing. This is, of course, more likely to happen with papers which get rejected, fairly or unfairly.

  10. Finally, the very practical reason that blind reviewing provides a reasonably fair mechanism to ensure the selection of the best research papers such that everyone can be more or less satisfied with the outcome and no one will have valid reasons to complain.

    Not all conferences or journals have blind reviewing. Yes, some studies have been done which show that blind reviewing reduces biases, but these studies have not considered the cases where the biases are most likely (as mentioned earlier). What these studies show that biases are somewhat less in cases where biases are likely to be less anyway.

So the case it not as clear as it might seem at first sight.

Now I will mention the really bleak reality of blind reviewing which made me think about the reviewing process and, over the years, has provoked me enough to write this.

Let me emphatically state first that when I started research and was thinking of publishing my first paper, I was really happy to know that most NLP/CL conferences and journals use blind reviewing process to select papers. My reasoning was exactly as I have listed above as points in favor of blind reviewing. So this post is not being written just out of a whim.

What I have found is that blind reviewing, though it does work to some extent, actually becomes a cover for reviewers to be as irresponsible as they want because they are anonymous. As an analogy, there are some good anonymous commentators on blogs, but many use anonymity as cover for their mean and nasty (completely unjustified) comments with perfect unaccountability. Something similar happens with the blind reviewing process. Many reviewers, including those who are most probably very senior researchers, use the cover of anonymity to let all their biases flow freely into their reviews because they know they are safe. And, unlike on the blogs, the author(s) can’t even reply because most conferences don’t have a rebuttal phase. Even if there is one, the reviewers simply don’t care. They have reviewed and their comments are final and unchangeable, whatever the author may have to say. They don’t change their reviews in response to author(s)’ rebuttals or clarifications. They don’t because they are safe in anonymity.

What makes this kind of situation even worse is the fact that a lot of reviewers review for many conferences and journals and, therefore, your paper if unfairly rejected from one place, is quite likely to run into the same set of reviewers at another place.

It can be quite depressing. I am sure many researchers have thought of or have actually quit from the research arena because of what I have described above.

I think it’s time we gave another look to the reviewing process. I don’t have a solution, but I will try to make some suggestions later. Perhaps more experienced researchers and organizers can say something better.

I know there are many great people out there who put their best in writing a review and actually go beyond what’s expected of them, but I think such people would do the same even if their identities were revealed because they know they are doing what’s right to the best of their abilities.

February 18, 2008

A Comment on an Influential Article

A colleague has been sending me links to articles by Philip Greenspun. When I got another link today and just finished reading it (a rather long article), I thought I needed to comment on that article. So here it is (I have posted it at his site too):

A great looking intellectual construction, but it is based on some fundamental flaws. So, even though a lot of the things said are correct and sensible, the most important ones are not.

For example, let’s take the practical implications: You first suggest that it is poverty that is increasing the ranks of the suicide bombers. But then you conclude that if we keep these third world incompetent Muslims poor for eternity, we might just save ourselves from terrorism. A dead giveaway I would say.

That’s the trouble with people like you. You ask others to look in the mirror, but you yourself don’t.

What about America’s record in general? I mean active participation in or encouragement of mass murder: Chile, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, etc.? Could that have something to do with the fact a lot of people around the world ‘hate the US’?

The ‘conventional wisdom’ that you quote (“Nations don’t have friends. They have interests.”) is from a person who is actually a mass murderer and a war criminal. You seem to have no problem with these ideas. And this person happened to be a Jew.

But so is Noam Chomsky. So was Spinoza. So was Einstein. So was Joseph Heller. So is Woody Allen.

Like most ‘Experts’, though in a slightly better way, you have presented a mixture of true facts and unjustified simplifications to come up with a theory that is sufficiently complex to bore most people into accepting it as true. It is coming from an Expert after all. Why should we bother to look deeper into it? In fact, most people will be overawed by just the MIT label.

You look hard enough at everyone else: Muslims, Europeans, Third Worlders, etc. but you are unwilling to look that hard at the deeds of the Americans, i.e., the establishment of the USA. You put the USA and Canada in the same category, but the facts, if you look deep enough, wouldn’t allow you to do this. Canada has hardly any record of imperialism and attempts of dominating the world as an unchangeable policy that can justify even mass murder, assassinations, drug trafficking to fund terrorism against enemies (as in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union) as long as it is hidden and there is scope for plausible denial.

You even refer to decolonization as if it was only a bad thing. I come from a country where more people died at the time of independence and the partition (of India at the time of ‘decolonization’) than did in the Holocaust. There is no way you are going to confuse me into thinking that the independence (decolonization) was the same as (or the cause of) the horrible events that followed. Decolonization was a good thing. A lot of the events that followed were horrible. There are two different things we ought to be talking about. But, of course, you are not interested in that. It might show the flaws in your theorizing. For example, did colonialism have anything to do with the fact that a lot of non-westerners ‘hate’ westerners even if they try their best to get into the western paradise? And the fact that the US now represents what the UK did in an earlier age. The empire that seeks to rule the whole world and won’t be satisfied until it has risen enough and then falls down (perhaps to be replaced by another empire that would also be hated by the rest of the world). At a huge cost to be paid by people other than you.

February 17, 2008

Mr. Expert-Vexpert, Please Leave Them Alone

My laptop was out of order for some days. For the last one year, since I bought it (my first), I was completely addicted to it. I became a laptop junkie. Then suddenly one day it was not available.

Life stopped.

But not for long. I picked up one book and again became a reading junkie. I finished ‘The Inheritance of Loss’ (another British Man Booker Prize winner written by an Indian woman). I won’t talk about it now. Deserves more than a few lines. I also kept reading a (Linguistics) book I am going to review. Then I picked up D. J. Taylor’s biography of George Orwell.

I have not finished it, but whatever I have read has provoked me to write this post. I will complete it and if there is something significantly better than what I have read till now, I will modify my comments. Eat my words as any person proved wrong should.

So what was in the book? A wealth. Of trivial details. Of no significance. I was hoping I would at least get some new insights about what kind of a person Orwell or Eric Blair was, if not about his work. The biographer claims to be an Expert on Orwell, so much so that when someone else wrote a book about Orwell, he reviewed it with the feeling of his territory being trespassed. He says he has read and researched Orwell for over twenty years.

He doesn’t seem to have much to show for it. I didn’t find anything new of any value about Orwell or about his work, even though I haven’t read any other biography of Orwell. I have not even read his literature as extensively as this biographer has. Then how come I got nothing new? Because what the Orwell Expert presents to the reader are a deluge of bits of information which are not even well connected. And these bits tell nothing of interest or consequence which can’t be obtained from reading Orwell’s two three novels (1984, Animal Farm), one or two non-fiction books (Homage to Catalonia), some essays written by him (Shooting an Elephant, Reflections on Gandhi) and some essays written about him (Tourism among the Dogs by Edward Said).

What the bit torrent from the big expert boils down to is that Orwell was not really a ‘secular saint’ and that he was just a mortal with many shortcomings. Of course, all this comes with a lot of technical trappings, just to show how big an expert the biographer is about Orwell and how much research he has done.

Big deal.

I knew that much just by reading one of his books.

The fact is that Orwell was one of those authors who are quite self-conscious and self-consciously responsible. He doesn’t really hide what kind of a person he is. Of course, a small margin is due to everyone, including the saints. He shows up in his writings quite clearly. The biographer (I am not writing about Taylor because I want to make a general point: My objective is not to review his book) does try very hard to show that Orwell was in many ways different from the impressions his books give. But he fails miserably. Every ‘insight’ that he tries to derive from his extensive research of two decades is easily derivable from the books written by Orwell. From just a few of his books.

Mind you, I do believe that trivia can give illuminating insights quite often. But not always and not everywhere. The biographer seems to have forgotten that.

The fact also is that Edward Said, who wrote quite critically and disapprovingly, did a much better job at showing that Orwell was not as great a human being as some of his fans might believe. And he did this in a short essay I mentioned earlier, not in a fat book.

Tell you what: George Orwell or Eric Blair was nonetheless a great and rare human being and an even greater a writer. He was (relatively) exceptionally honest in his writings. What’s more important, he was unpretentiously honest, which many of the ‘high class’ elite writers, artists, scientists, movie makers etc. are not. Of course he was no saint. He never claimed he was. Just as Gandhi didn’t: A fact which Orwell pointed out in his essay.

Knowingly or unknowingly, the ultimate effect of the book (in cases where it has turned out to be effective) is to undermine Orwell’s writings and concentrate on showing that Orwell has two eyes, one nose, one mouth, two hands, etc. and that he ate food to keep alive, that he needed money to buy food, that he had to earn money, that he managed to earn some money from writing, that he tried to have relations with women, that he even flew into a rage once in a long while etc. Very illuminating. Should we thank the author to tell us that Orwell was a more or less normal human being but was also quite different?

There are references to Orwell’s writings, of course, but they mostly seem to be dismissive in the sense that author is more interested in proving the above mentioned fact than what Orwell’s work tells us. There are a few interesting things, but they are very infrequent.

Orwell’s name has been so much misused that it’s no less than a tragedy that a person who claims Orwell to be his territory and has read and researched on him for over twenty years seems to be so little interested in the insights that can be obtained from Orwell’s life and his work and so much more interested in the fact that Orwell studied at Eton.

I would any day prefer a ‘fictional’ biography like Lust for Life if I want to know about Van Gogh. Even if I want to read a ‘researched’ biography, I would like to read again (third time) Awaaraa Maseehaa (आवारा मसीहा) by Vishnu Prabhakar (विष्णु प्रभाकर) if I want to refresh my knowledge about Sharat Chandra (शरतचंद्र). Or Ray Monk’s Bertrand Russell: The Spirit of Solitude. Even though Ray Monk didn’t really like Russell, he still tells you much more about Russell. And he doesn’t waste pages in his two (fat) volume biography on proving that Russell had two eyes and so on.

My advice to expert-vexperts like Mr. Taylor, researching writers or artists, is to just leave them alone.

Do something useful with your life. Orwell’s work can give a lot of clues about that.

For the rest, just leave him alone. Your kind of expertise is not worth two pennies. Or two pens. Or two pencils.

P.S.: Perhaps I shouldn’t be surprised that this Expert of Literature understands so little of literature. You shouldn’t really expect much from a person who calls Guliver’s Travels a ‘children’s classic’.

February 14, 2008

The Biggest Douche in the Universe

Yes, the title is borrowed from the South Park[1] episode 615. But the award doesn’t go to John Edwards. No, it doesn’t go to Bush either. I have no doubt about who it should go to. I will give you some clues.

He was, for a long time, one of the most powerful men in the world. Even today, when, if the world had any sense, he would be on trial as a war criminal and much more, he is often quoted about important affairs of the world. The International Affairs. He is quoted even in the Indian media even though in those days of power he showed nothing but contempt for India and actively worked against the Indian national interests: To the extent he cared for India. Now he has become a kind of Indophile. In the national interests of his own nation. He wasn’t bothered about how many men were killed, mutilated, burnt alive, gassed etc. due to his actions, even though he was (presumably) from a community which was the target of the Holocaust. He could say things which would make even Hitler and Stalin look mild, without, as they say, batting an eyelid.

Or bowling an eyelid, for that matter.

Need more? Joseph Heller is one of the greatest American writers. At least two of his books, ‘Catch-22’ and ‘Something Happened’, are definitely masterpieces. He also wrote one book called ‘Good as Gold’ which didn’t come out that well. But this book is remarkable for one thing. For the characterization of its second (invisible, in a way) protagonist. That second protagonist of ‘Good as Gold’ is the person I am talking about.

If you have still not guessed, then, Ladies and Gentlemen, the Biggest Douche in the Universe award goes to…

Who else?

Yes, it is none but the great statesman, a Nobel Peace Prize laureate, the former Secretary of State of the US of A, the former National Security Adviser (of the US of A), the defender of democracy, the crusader against the commies, the mass murdering member of the community which was mass murdered only some years earlier, a giant hypocrite even the likes of L.K. Advani can’t come anywhere near. In fact, using the word hypocrite is an insult to him. It’s too light for him.

Security. Peace. Nobel Prize. Mass murder. Security.

Great sounding designation that: National Security Adviser.

Alias: International Mass Murderer.

Alias: Super-Duper Official Terrorist.

I can go on. But I don’t have to. I will just make the announcement and you can find out all the details about him. They are all over the place. Online and off. That book I mentioned earlier. The only really good thing about that book is that it gives a fairly good account of our winner.

The Biggest Douche in the Universe (BDU) is no other than Henry K. That is, H. Kissinger. H for Henry. K for Kissinger.

Note that this award is not for the BDU of the year. It is the BDU of all history.

There simply is no match.

[1]: I don’t really approve of the South Park politics, whether it’s called South Park Republicanism or something else. More on that later.

Blog at WordPress.com.