Snips and Snails, and Puppy Dog Tails

Okay, I am just going to come out and say it. Feminism, with their methods of fighting, their arguments, rhetoric and hypocrisies are much alike, “moderate” Islam, pro-affirmative actionists and what I consider to be a predominantly Indian trait¹.

The argument:

1. Women would NOT go raping men.² (Context: If stereotypical sexual roles were reversed).

   That is perhaps³ as far from the truth as the myth that pedophilia did not exist (in the 70s and 80s), or that women were not sexually aggressive with minors, especially with minors under their care.⁴ The fact remains, that most feminists will gladly enjoy the support of the existing gender stereotypes in order to gain advantage in this “battle” of the sexes. Most women, especially feminists, that I have encountered, either find it hard to believe, or are incapable of entertaining the notion that women can be sexually aggressive with adult men. It stems from the stereotypical notions that men want/need sex all the time, and any offers for sex are by definition, not unwanted. That is just as sexist as a guy claiming dominion over “his woman’s sexual real-estate”. As for the original argument, it is only rhetoric, since there is no way we can find for absolutely certain the actual results. However, if nascent studies of female sexual aggression towards men are any indication, the first argument might quite easily be rebutted and debunked.

2. Men are sexist.

   Yes, some men are. Perhaps I am too. But I would rather test this with a simple hypothetical scenario. Answers to this question help us understand who really is sexist.
   
   Stop being a whiny little runt and grow a pair.
   
   A guy saying that to a woman is… a jerk (using societies predetermined standards).
   A woman saying that to a man is… assertive.
   
   Somehow, when women proudly proclaim their superiority over men, claiming men think from their penises and only use a fraction of their brain as compared to women, they are not being sexist.
   
   So, as is quite visible from the double standards, as I am going to be judged as being sexist no matter what I do or say in my life, I would like to earn that sentence… so here are my parting thoughts on men being sexist. We are.
   
   Q.What do you tell a woman with two black eyes?
   A. Nothing. She has already been told twice.

3. The Indian feminist and the dichotomy of Affirmative action.

   This argument is only valid for non-backward caste women that are anti-affirmative action in relation with the correction of India’s caste system. This might be a small group, but in India, it is a significant proportion of people in the “limelight”. The average feminist⁵ is against the affirmative action policy of the Indian government as a means to correct the (caste based) social structure that has been in social turmoil for centuries. My stance on this subject matters not. What is telling, however, is that the same affirmative action is rampant, and lobbied towards by feminist groups in India. With reservation for women in almost every sphere, from bus seats across the country, to entire railway cabins (in Bombay’s⁶ urban railway transportation system), to government jobs to the legal system⁷, it is insanely hypocritical to criticize affirmative action for backward castes while lobbying aggressively for affirmative action for women.

   The andro-feminist⁸ lobbyists and/or apologist camps are either in for the rhetoric⁹, or patronize any actual debate by lackadaisical (at best) propaganda¹⁰.

   “sorry our point of views don’t meet, since i geniuely want reservation for women even if caste based reservation is removed….the needs of women is better understood by a women and not men…. some men show respect to women not all…..u r blog show ur insecurity….if u hav mother , wife n daughter ask them to read it, they might gv u the right opinion…” [sic]

   The rhetoric of this argument is quite lucidly and effectively rebutted within the same web-blog.

   “You are basing your ideas on assumptions and pre-conceived notions such as:

   1. Women understand women better.
   (By that token of false logic, men understand men better. Therefore, no laws that affect men should be made by women.)
   2. Women are better than men.
   (Do I need to say something? Really?)
   3. Men are privileged and women are victims.
   4. Women alone are discriminated (against).
   5. Men’s rights constitute insecurity.
   (Being concerned about men’s rights, in a day and age that is saturated with women’s rights groups is not being sexist or insecure. It is insecure in so much that we do not want to sit by, watching the freak show, only to find we are left with none of our basic rights and freedoms. This can be illustrated by the adoption laws of various countries, and father’s rights. It is only gaining prevalence, that gender bears no significance as far as child interests)
   7. Some men show respect to women (Which implies that women alone should be respected and with an assumption that men are automatically respected)."

   [Changed for formatting and omission of point 6 due to out of context information. Italics indicate content added]

   The same rhetoric is repeated on Wikipedia’s article relevant to the Women’s Reservation Bill of India that aims to incorporate a 33% reservation for women in the upper and lower houses of the union parliament as well as in state legislative assemblies.

   • Due to female foeticide and issues related to women's health, sex ratio in India is alarming at 1.06 males per female. It is expected this will change the society to give equal status to women.^{[citation needed]}
   
   
   • Women are supposedly more resistant to corruption. Therefore, this bill might prove to be a factor restraining the growth of corruption.^{[citation needed]}”

   [citation needed tag to the Wikipedia article did not exist prior to the conception of this post, Saturday, July 24, 2010]

   No original research is cited for any of these claims. They are, in principle, a fallacy from false assumption. For instance, “women are supposedly more resistant to corruption” is a false assumption since there is no reason to believe that statement. I could submit my own rebuttal committing the same logical fallacies that are committed by feminists¹¹, but hey, some of us actually have ethical responsibilities to the truth.

4. Equal Work for equal Pay.

   The equal work for equal pay argument, at the surface seems like a valid concern. After all, why shouldn’t women get paid equally for performing the same work as their male counterparts? It seems only fair. However, the equal pay fight is not a request for equal pay for equal work, though that is the premise. Financial equality is an attempt at equal pay for equivalent work.
   
   The perfect example of this is Wimbledon and women’s tennis.
   
   The same is true in countless other disciplines (of sport, at least). Why do women’s leagues exist in other sports? Why don’t female cricketers, or baseball player, or basketball, football play in men’s leagues? Aren’t they “equal” to men in every way? Yet, they harp about the lack of interest in these disciplines from the general population. Perhaps because the level of competition in the women’s disciplines is hardly even a fraction of the level of competition, fitness and skill of their male counterparts, in this day and age.
   
   And in the event that these comments are misconstrued as being sexist, I am a big fan of Karnam Malleshwari, have always been. In spite of the fact that Women’s weightlifting is separate from Men’s. I have no misconceptions that men and women have evolved differently (biologically and physically) that it won’t be over-night, that women will be able to compete on a regular basis at the level men do (if at all that possibility exists). Keep in mind; this is true of (generalizing) strength and stamina sports. The same cannot be said of skill sports.

5. The Label Argument.

   Whenever men decide to take the offensive stance against feminisms ill’s we are suddenly met, with a defensive, pitiable¹²stance. The argument against all of the above 4 points takes on the form of “us and them” within the “realm”. Brands of feminism are invoked, and an adherence to a different brand can be prescribed as seen fit. It is, in essence the same argument that “moderate” Islam prescribes to.
   
   “We are not violent. Do not label an entire group because of a few miscreants.”
   Or
   “The Quran does not prescribe violence. If a muslim uses violence, he/she is not a muslim.”
   
   The same argument is used by feminists, claiming that radical feminism should not be used to tarnish the image of “real” feminism. However, the “qualitative” differences matter not when the quantitative damage is vast and can be enjoyed by feminists irrespective of their brand name.
   
   But I should make the concession for the possibility that I am wrong, or too harsh against feminists. Perhaps it is true. Why should all the feminists be tarnished because of certain brands of feminism? Oh well, because ALL men must pay for the sins of some? Because a guy in delhi cannot keep it in his pants, I must too be labeled as a sex-craving lunatic. Every guy can think only from his pants. Well fuck you to the women that prescribe to this double standard. If you can generalize all men based on the (horrific) actions of some, then you too should be able to face the criticism of the whole based on sub-sects of feminism. Some would argue an eye for an eye. Well, sure, I am all for that. Go rape those men that raped that innocent, helpless woman¹³, but don’t stand there, trying to poke my eyes out and expect me not to defend myself. And if the eye gouging gets too insistent, do not expect friendly counters.

Note:

1. I am talking about hypocrisy here, of course. If there was any doubt.

2. This is perhaps the oldest, most naïve, and dumbest argument I have heard for a pro-feminism stance.

3. I say “perhaps” because there isn’t really a way for us to find that out. Unless we find ourselves magically transformed into (or remotely viewing) an Amazonian civilization.

4. Female Sexual Abuse

5. I do not care what label of feminism you identify with. Neo or not, feminism is feminism.

6. It is Bombay. Fuck you to the self-proclaimed keepers of India’s future. Or lack of it.

7. Yes, laws can be made, with a bent towards affirmative action. Renuka Chaudhary, or as I like to refer to her, sexist bitch extraordinaire, has successfully done so with the Domestic Violence act. And yet, not the slightest of mutterings from these egalitarian feminists I am told exist. Seems kind of like the flying spaghetti monster.

8. A term I have coined, for there is a lacking of such. An Andro-feminist, is a male feminist lobbyist, either actively, or passively. These are men that have been so brainwashed into thinking themselves unworthy, sexist pigs, that they cannot rationally form an argument, unless their wives/mothers/sisters etc. tell them so.




9. Full Post Here

10. http://india_resource.tripod.com/caste-quotas.html
    “A humanities professor at IIT-Mumbai tried to argue that because "merit" isn't applied uniformly in the socio-economic sphere in India, one ought not be too perturbed over its sacrifice in India's centrally-funded institutions of higher learning. Moreover, he argued that merit was a concept that was "over-emphasized" because it was so fraught with human subjectivity and contextual sensitivities that it wasn't really possible to truly determine who was "meritorious" anyway. Jayati Ghosh (a British-educated JNU academic in the Prime Minister's Knowledge Commission) was cynically dismissive of the merit argument, opining that the IITs weren't institutions of merit anyway presumably because a Chinese study (of rather limited value and significance) had determined that because the IITs had produced no Nobel Prize winners, they could not be considered as institutions of any international import. Even though Ms Ghosh is neither a scientist nor an engineer by training (and does not appear to be particularly familiar with the biased methodology that was used in the Chinese study) Ms Ghosh enjoys the luxury of being taken seriously because of her political connections with the CPM.”

11. An example of such a logical fallacy would be:
    Benazir Bhutto, Mamata Bannerjee, Jayalalitha, and countless other female politicians are corrupt. Therefore female politicians are corrupt. Therefore an increased representation of women in parliaments will not reduce the corruption in the country.
    
    This logical fallacy is called Fallacy of accident or Sweeping generalization. See ITY, you don’t just learn “bad” words here.

12. argumentum ad misericordiam

13. It is startling how easily women transform their images from strong, capable and “equal” to, helpless as need suits them. To the few women that have confided how unsafe they feel in the streets (of India, usually) and their fears of male aggression, I find the best solution is to recommend mace/pepper spray. However, all these women have, by way of one nonsensical argument or another, convinced themselves of how ineffectual that would be.
    
    Female1: But what is common in most of my dreams is me, out on the roads all by myself…feeling so unsafe
    TDD: Buy yourself a pepper spray?
    Female1: I dont go out at night.

In Defense of the Critic

Being a critic is a thankless job, most often. I admire real life critics who do it for a living. After all, it is the ultimate “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” profession¹. You are always going to hurt someone, cross someone off. Let me get straight to the point, for once, and only just this once.

I was accused, recently, of criticizing things far too much, having no authority in the fields I am criticizing people for, and while that is completely true, the premise is utter bullshit.

For the sake of coherence, which I doubt too many of my readers are comfortable with, I will go about this in logical sequence, another thing brainwashed sheep have difficulty doing. Having accepted the criticism that I have no authority in the fields I choose to criticize people in, the proposition on the table is that I should graciously accept defeat and cease any further attempts at criticizing things I do not understand. Well, I am willing to accept that proposition, but only as long as my one condition is met, and anyone with half a rational brain (again, it would appear I am singing to the tone deaf) would agree that what I am about to suggest isn’t too unfair.

So, all those of you, anxious to know the key to shutting me up, hear me well. The same rules must apply to you as well. Since none of you are authorities on music, movies, literature, politics, cars and practically everything under the sun, YOU HAVE TO SHUT THE FUCK UP as well. When you stop opining about how good the latest Michael Bay fiasco is, or how good Ledger’s joker was (oh, what a bitter-sweet was that is), or how great Michael Jackson’s mediocre song and dance styles really are (if you take out the pop out of it), then I will follow suit. When you admit that you have no basis to be showering laurels on these sorry excuses for “artists” and that you will forever purse your lips regarding your personal attempts to glorify these people, I will lay down my pen.

Before I end, I must clear the air. My comments on my facebook status message etc, about the mediocrity of the pedophilic Michael Jackson as an artist, were hardly to stir shit up. That is my true opinion. Would the world have lost out if Michael never sung a single note? Not mine. And while it is politically incorrect to diss the dead, I have never cared for being politically correct. So here is a big fuck you to Michael Jackson fans, and a vehement fuck you to Sacha Baron Cohen and Universal for bending over backwards. If you can’t handle the witty and not so witty snipes at “MJ” (funny, how that is so similar to OJ) then don’t fucking watch TV, don’t visit my blog and definitely DO NOT click on this next link.

Another contribution of MJ to pop-culture is definitely his contribution to costume design on movie sets, having inspired the alien in M. Shyamalan's Signs and the instantly noticeable Joker, from the crap-chute that was The Dark Knight.

Yes Michael, I know “You’re bad”. Now if we can only get rid of the Catholic Church, the kids will be safe.

And for those looking for a moment of sensitivity, Billy Mays just died last month as well. He will be missed. He did have a soothing voice. Or he just nagged the fuck out of you till you bought something. But he will still be missed by me; Funny guy.

1. Unfortunately, the professional critics are just whored out publicists. I have yet to come across a decent review of a “mega-hype” movie that does justice to the profession, whether it be favorable or not.
   
   
2. I was thinking about calling this post, “Fuck You, Michael Jackson”. Only one thing prevented me. The possibility that he really was a pedophile and that a title like that might be insensitive to the plight of the kids whose lives MJ touched.

Red, White and Brown Nosed

For a man that makes his living off stereotypes, Russell Peters does not notice the dichotomy of assaulting the media for using stereotypes for furthering agendas and propagandas. But for those people that like intelligent humor, be it the wit and sarcasm of Yes, Minister, or… the wit and sarcasm of George Carlin, you will instantly notice the fallacy of Peters’ chosen words. He is a part of the media. But unfortunately his ignorance is shown by his inability to take part of the blame, or it just shows his hypocrisy.

In his “new” act, “Red, White and Brown”, Russell Peters claims to have found himself a new voice; retiring old jokes. As usual, his act is confused as he shuttles between his identity of a North American and his “cheap” accented brown identity, and in that we can take solace, that Russell Peters is Indian, not just genetically, but even culturally.¹ He is a true hypocrite; One that would do Mother India proud.

Russell Peters is a cult comedian, like George Lopez, or Dane Cook, mediocre comedians targeting fringe audiences and cults that they have cultivated. Perhaps with respect to the specifics of the jokes Peters is “fresh” but considering the subject matter remains the same as his earlier acts (same jokes about Indian cheapness, about Chinese accents, about Italian machismo…). And while there is some humor to be found even in repetition, it can only go so far. If Red, White and Brown weren’t advertised as a “new act”, perhaps this would be a good extension of his earlier acts… and amusing². However, this blatant attempt to beguile audiences or just his ignorance as to what constitutes a “new act” takes out some of the fun of watching a mediocre comedian.

After all, it doesn’t hurt if you are eating an egg salad sandwich, knowing that it is an egg salad sandwich and nothing more. But when you are served an egg salad sandwich, all while you were expecting smoked salmon, then it is just disingenuous; and you have every right to take it as an insult to your intelligence. After all, you just paid for something more!

P.S. I watched it on YouTube; “The new home of piracy”.

NB:

1. Peter’s attempts to make the distinction between his genetically derived Indian-ness, such as his skin color, his physical attributes versus Indian personality traits (which he claims not to have) is a large part of the act as he discusses his trip to India. It is only laughable that he does not notice how he undermines his own point!


2. Notice the distinction between amusing and funny. A good knock-knock joke is funny. Repeating a good joke over and over again, is at best… amusing.

Holy Wars

“In a short space of time all the people in the Delhi fort were put to the sword, and in the course of one hour the heads of 10,000 infidels were cut off. The sword of Islam was washed in the blood of the infidels, and all the goods and effects, the treasure and the grain which for many a long year had been stored in the fort became the spoil of my soldiers.”

Taken from the Tuzk-e-Taimuri‎, Timur’s (alleged) memoirs recount a fateful day of “ethnic cleansing” as he looted and plundered and amassed wealth and a haraam harem. I could see Timur being an egotistical, religious maniac, exaggerating his escapades to sound impressive; to furnish a permanent place in the annals of lunatic murderers. But in spite of his bloated ego, Timur’s intent is clear. The infidels must be purged. Allah’s will be carried out.

Elsewhere, less than a couple of centuries away, the French Religious wars raged on, 36 years, probably desensitizing a couple of generations of brie lovers to violence. The culture shock the French must have faced was thankfully short lived. Nearby, less than 20 years later, the Germans and the British would start one of their own wars based on their inability to agree on the details of what god “instructed” some random asshole on some remote mountain over a millennium ago. Over these 66 years… and one day, an estimated 15.6 Million people would be wasted away at god’s command¹.

Almost instinctively, the apologist is certain to point fingers at the murderous tendencies of prominent “atheist” mad men, Hitler² and Stalin³. While this argument has swiftly and effectively been rebutted by the “four horsemen”, I choose to show that the genocides and wars that raged from religious and theistic impetus have been far more gory, gruesome, blood curdling than the major wars of the 20^th century, The World Wars.

In comparison, the two world wars overshadow the two major religious wars (that I can recall) by sheer volume of cadavers. With conservative estimates of 19 and 40 million chronologically, they far outyield the 15 million estimated of the religious wars.

Tanks, mines, missiles, gunships, bombers, fighter planes, submarines, and of course, Fat Man and Little Boy have made the body count of the world war’s possible; making wars a little more impersonal in the 20^th century. The days of staring into the eyes of the enemy had been left behind in the medieval ages, to those who could stomach the blood and gore; to the pious. Technology in battle had the ability to delay the effect of battle, the effect waste of human life can have on a rational mind, only bringing it to the foreground post mortem.

But what the religious wars lose in body count, they make up for in sheer callousness and underestimation of human life. Staring into the enemy’s eyes, day after day, for decades together, mercilessly slaughtering, is a task that the religious masses seem to effortlessly pull off and master. Only god knows what devastation these armies would be capable of, if they had the resources of the 20^th century, with enough enemy bodies as in the 20^th century⁴.

1. These remain just the most obvious, bloody, and patent representations of religious violence. James Haught recounts other atrocities that have been committed by religion and the pious.

2. Hitler’s religious beliefs are still highly debated, and to this day, attempts to prove his atheistic ideology have been inconclusive. However, Hitler was a practicing Roman Catholic and remained one until his death.

There is an obvious rebuttal to this point of mine, and I will preempt it by offering my rebuttal, saving us some time.

Many claim that Hitler, an irreligious man (at least one who was against Christianity in his heart), used his ties with the roman catholic church to gain the sympathies of the catholics and protestants, and was nothing more than shrewd confidence trick. Having said that, it was the above mentioned churches that lent credibility to Hitler among the people of Germany, and more importantly, they were not against the bloodshed and means of the Nazis and Hitler. So as co-conspirators, the above mentioned churches are just as guilty as Hitler’s ideology (whatever it may be).

3. Hector Avalos, a scholar of the Bible, has in his book “Fighting Words: The Origins of Religious Violence” claimed that Stalin “had a complex relationship with religious institutions in the Soviet Union.” I say claimed, as I have not read the book myself and rely on a source, while not completely reliable, certainly no worse than the monkey work contained in certain other texts.

4. The world population and its explosion has been a primarily 20^th century phenomenon. During the period of the two world wars, the population rose from about 1.5 billion to 2.5 billion, in spite of the massive bloodshed in the two wars, of 131 million or 0.131 billion, or more importantly 6.5 percent of the mean population. While the world population during the 100 year period of the two religious saw a negligible rise from 427,000,000 to 500,000,000 and the death toll at 3.5 percent.

While that figure might seem to indicate the brutality of the world wars, it is limited, as almost all statistics are by the “big picture”. The big picture here shows of a zealous war, fought with no major technological assistance, in just a small portion of the earth (the world wars were fought by 35 and 68 countries compared to a handful during the two medieval wars).

Gun Shy

"There is no reason for anyone in the country, for anyone except a police officer or a military person, to buy, to own, to have, to use, a handgun. The only way to control handguns use in this country is to prohibit the guns. And the only way to do that is to change the Constitution."

-- Michael Gartner

NY Times: Daily gun deaths in USA

Gun control is probably one of the most controversial debates in current day United States. After LGBT rights, abortion and possibly the death penalty, gun control is probably the most hotly debated issue. A pacifist for as long as I have thought about this question, everything seemed black and white. People for the right to bear arms have always struck me as a little crazy.

My first experience with a handgun was not so long ago. Even though it wasn’t loaded, the safety was on, I felt a bit like a geeky teen at the prom, just approached by the prettiest girl; apprehensive, panicky and definitely sweaty. I was silently relieved when the firearm was put back into its gun safe. Okay, not so silently. I even made it a point to vocally point out how uncomfortable I was, if my body language hadn’t already betrayed the fact.

Don’t get me wrong, I have always been in reverence of handguns. During my high school years (Junior college back home) I was quite the gun enthusiast, admiring their inherent beauty, while awestruck at their immeasurable power, but always too much of a pussy to ever venture into the real world of guns. Forensic science and firearm forensics especially, held me captivated. Fortunately, I told myself, firearms let go that strangling grip, of an invention that definitely would have been the end of me, and from a career that would definitely be a dead end. My knowledge of firearms, therefore, always remained nascent and underdeveloped.

It has been said that fear always springs from ignorance. It could be argued that this was the case with me and firearms. They would be right. I was soon to re-discover and re-think firearms; though not as blue eyed as my teen self. Having been on the Pro-gun control side of the issue, the arguments for gun control were sufficiently convincing to me. After all, who needs more guns in the hands of the corrupters of society?

But things would turn gray soon. Thanks in part to an “indie” movie that I accidentally came across (a sign from god? *^%K, I’m republican) tackling the very issue of gun control. Dear Wendy, probably one of the most hated movies (because it is “ideologically doctrinaire on the one hand and a wannabe hot youth movie on the other”) seemed to make sense to me. I guess I am THAT insane. The movie is about a pacifist youth, exploring guns, his fascination for it, and the eventual demise of his pacifist views when he is forced to use his guns, and on the law too!

People dislike this movie, because it is supposedly anti 2^nd amendment, and “talks about an issue the filmmakers know nothing about”, but for some reason I found it the exact opposite (again, only cranial misfirings to blame). The movie was a romanticized commentary on perceptions of guns, pacifism, pacifism and guns, their incompatibility etc. And for me, it began the dreaded thought process of the “morality” of gun culture.

While the movie had barely begun to make me think, barely budging me out of my comfort zone, another incident would force me on a fast track to reconsider my stance. The Mangalore Pub incident (where 40 politically backed psychopaths violently evacuated a pub of all its women, while battering them and assaulting any men that came to their aid, all in the name of Indian culture, while media and law enforcement paraded and silently witnessed, respectively) while initially leaving me unaffected and unruffled, as my capacity to withstand Indian stupidity and idiocy was assumedly at its limits; would soon turn to shock and squeamishness, as I witnessed the videos of the act. This was further compounded by the reactions to the incident, which I thought Indians would unanimously find revolting. What I was to discover, painted a very different India, from the one I was exposed to, during my formative years in three of India’s four metropolitans.

Apart from an unprecedented culture shock (one that I didn’t even notice when I first stepped onto US soil), these incidents forced me to empathize, (not with the women, for that would be patronizing) with the men that tried to protect their women (be it sister, girlfriend or just out of humanitarian kinship). I was forced to relive the scenario, for the terrible fear that gripped me, warned me of my unpreparedness for such an eventuality. “What would you do under these circumstances?”

The answer would not come, possibly because I really was unprepared, not just physically, but mentally and emotionally as well. And being as physically advantaged as I am, there was no recourse in sight. That is when I came across Thomas Jefferson’s own views over guns. He opined that guns (as a symbol of power) are necessary for every citizen to hold onto, not to shoot down their neighbors dog, but to make sure no one else gets to shoot him down, or his rights.

A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks.
--- Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 1785.

It can be argued, and rightly so, that Jefferson was in an era of the Wild West, where an honor code was sufficient to keep people from killing each other, which has been eroded away by people and, I hypothesize, their religion. In fact, since we are quoting Jefferson, here are some more, to get some perspective:

We may consider each generation as a distinct nation, with a right, by the will of its majority, to bind themselves, but none to bind the succeeding generation, more than the inhabitants of another country.

"We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."

--Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816.

While the debate in America is a lot more complicated than Jefferson could have visualized, with all the (religious) nuts that roam around freely, I feel that India, which is in this regard more than a 100 years behind it’s time (arguably more), is yet to embark upon its true revolution. We are yet to fight for our freedom, and show that we will not stand for an aggressor, whether it is from within the state or from outside of it. All Gandhi did, was show to the world that we have the capacity to withstand immeasurable amounts of cruelty and injustice. And while Gandhi’s non-violence might have earned us some brownie points in international opinion, on our non-violent and non-aggressive stances, it has long been nullified with the history of violence since then. It is time; I think, that Indian’s re-evaluate their stance on guns. It is time we lose our sheepish naiveté, our misplaced mistrust of guns and our indoctrinated fear of revolutions.

Olympic Dreams

With the end of the Beijing Olympics (yes I know it ended some time back), there are those that are reveling in the pseudo-national pride that comes with your nation performing, however lack luster, at the big event; ecstatic at our performances in shooting, wrestling and boxing, Indian sports fans and the above mentioned pseudo-patriots are going crazy with accolades. At the other end of the spectrum there are the critics that either can’t/won’t take anything positive from it or are just inclined to finding the cloud that carries the silver lining.

The medal trio is enjoying the adulation being poured in on them, while the other athletes either disappear into obscurity or get back to training for the next event of their season. But that sounds just like the India I left two years back, where effort goes unnoticed, hard work and dedication sidelined by the Indian publics need for instant gratification.

But let us leave them for the moment and concentrate on our critics. Just 3 medals from a billion strong? Or how about the fact that countries the size of Estonia, or ones with political strife like Zimbabwe manage to win more medals than us?

"We are the world’s biggest democracy, the second most populous country in the world. Then why is that in a span of 4 years, we are only able to produce 57 top athletes?"
Source: http://www.iwebie.com/indias-2008-beijing-olympics-dreams

But these comparisons are simplistic. Canada, the second largest country finished just 19^th, and Indonesia, with the 4^th largest population did worse than the aforementioned politically handicapped nation. This just goes to prove, your size, population or wealth has no bearing on how well you will do at the Olympics or any large sporting event for that matter.

"This is a matter of national shame, an aspect that the Indian Govt. needs to look at closely."
Source: http://www.iwebie.com/indias-2008-beijing-olympics-dreams

This sentiment is highly reflective of Indian behavior, our need to shirk off responsibility and redirect blame. It isn’t the government that is to blame. It is the Indian public. A nation, taking a crap on Rathore, without even knowing what the reason for his poor performance might have been. And even if there is no reason, I believe our medal winners (and prospects) deserve a little more respect than they are currently being shown

But what irks me more than everything else Indians do is the fact that some of these critics aren’t too appreciative of the fact that our medal winners are getting the attention that they are currently receiving.

"Now lets move our focus towards the sportsmen themselves. Vijender Kumar has already started talking in terms of modeling. Sushil Kumar seems to be completely over the moon. Its obvious that these people have started losing their focus even before their actual journey has commenced. At a time when they should start concentrating on the Commonwealth Games, India's so called medal winners are everywhere except for where they should be."
Source: http://www.intheorbit.com

Note: They are not “so-called” winners.

Well, it is alright when those douche bags get coke and Pepsi deals, isn’t it? I find nothing wrong with the Indian sportsmen and women cashing in on their newfound and (possibly) short lived fame due to their “so-called” Olympic triumphs. After all we are a fickle nation with no regard for our sports heroes. Maybe you will remember some of our athletes that had to sell their medals¹ from other events in order to survive. Or maybe you do not. But that is our nature. And it is this nature that has dawned on these three men and they deserve to make the best of what they have now. May they never have to worry about selling their hard earned medals.

But all this begs the question, who is to blame; when our system rewards performances after results and provides no impetus (different from incentives) for our athletes (cricketers aren't athletes in my opinion). I don’t have the answer, and I don’t think Indians really care either. The question will be put on the back burner until a few months before the 2012 Olympics.

But all this doesn’t hold a candle to the final and most absurd accusation, one that pisses me off so much that I believe that anyone that dare make such an accusation deserves castration; and that is for the lack of time to construct an appropriate torture that matches the blasphemy. It is said that the reason we had so many ‘flakers’ these Olympics was due to the fact that they lack passion. To those cricket loving douche bags that know not true passion when they see it, I hope you rot in the world’s dirtiest cesspool

I don’t see how they can levy this accusation, with reasonable seriousness, when our sportsmen who toil in their respective sports even though the chances of any glory are minimal, even if they do bring in the results (Karnam Malleswari won a few lakhs for her bronze and some Arjuna Award or some titular facade). Most of them toil in their sports into obscurity. Few have heard of the gallant sportsmen who fight so that we may one day have an Abhinav Bindra or an Akhil Kumar.

India doesn’t deserve the medals these young men and women bring in. And while I will be hurt if we continue to perform as we have in the past, I believe the Indian nation deserves nothing more.

1 Poverty crushes spirit of weightlifters.

And the Oscar goes to...

Indian cinema is awakening to the need for intelligent cinema they say. Move over masala flicks and poor scripts; move over bad acting, over acting and no acting. The glory days are finally here and here to stay. Gone are the days where actresses were mere furniture on the sets, gone are the days where actors carried movies. Intelligent scripts are dawning on a new day for Indian cinema.

So what if the Oscars don’t recognize our talent and potential. “Bling” Khan won’t go to the Oscars even if they invited him. He wants the Oscars in India. He wants Cannes in India. He wants to focus on India’s wealth, prosperity and happiness. It is time we stop selling our shortcomings and showcase a whole new India to the west. Let’s have our song and dance movies, but let’s make them 90 minutes he adds.

But this isn’t about Shahrukh Khan. It is about the rejuvenated spirit of Indian cinema. It is about the Rang De Basanti’s, the Taare Zameen Par’s, the Dhamaal’s, and the Munnabhai’s. It is about how the west sidelines Indian cinema, ignoring the underdogs of International cinema. After all, we are one of the largest movie industries in the world!

Lagaan’s loss in the Oscars was sufficient proof for Indians that the Oscars were racist, politicized and one sided. Oh yes, movies like Amelie, No Man’s Land, Son of the bride and Elling had the big bucks.

The French film, Amelie, an Oscar nominee, is a huge hit, having grossed $20 million in America and $100 million abroad. The Golden Globe winner for best foreign film, Bosnia's No Man's Land grossed a modest $300,000 before the awards but won significant kudos including best screenplay at the Cannes Film Festival. 'Superb, fierce, funny,' declared Rolling Stone.

They lobbied hard and made sure Lagaan didn’t stand a chance. And why would a brown man win the Oscars? Oh yes. That has to be it. Lagaan with its 224 minute run time was a sure fire winner, if it wasn’t for racial prejudice.

I have heard reasons spanning its brilliant musical score to the majestic acting by the cast, to the reality of past India, in reviews praising the movie; some westerners too. This is hailed as an international audience accepting the movie and accepting Bollywood standards as satisfactory, if not excellent.

IMDb User Review

From The New Yorker
This Indian film-a period musical drama about a group of drought-stricken villagers who play a cricket match against the British authorities to avoid taxation (lagaan)-is pure Bollywood. The director Ashutosh Gowariker crosses a lavish romantic epic with a muscular adventure tale and comes up with an outrageously buoyant hybrid. The musical sequences burst from the story organically, and the outdoor production numbers are composed of brilliantly edited tracking shots and spectacular choreography. Not all the performances soar (the British actors seem particularly stiff), but the romantic leads are wonderful. Aamir Khan's masterly preening is worthy of a young Tony Curtis and his ladylove, played by Gracy Singh, does a Janet Leigh turn at getting her man. The daunting four-hour length leaves plenty of room for meandering subplots and misunderstandings, but the film is so visually alive and superbly structured-it also breaks for an intermission-that you will be happily taken in by its bighearted charms. In Hindi and English.

-Bruce Diones

But to the objective perspective, it hardly seems so. The attractiveness of this movie to international audiences was far from those reasons. People believed the movies to be a “musical” and I would strictly avoid that label. All Hindi movies have song and dance in them. What differentiates them from a musical is the fact that the songs stunt the forward motion of the script. It is filler, an intermission, a pause for the viewer to recover from the barrage of non-stop nonsense. The exotic nature of our staple song-dance rituals eventually dies out and cinema will eventually be graded on more than the exotic appeal of a region. Lagaan may have benefited far more from its cricket inspired, sing-song, David-Goliath theme, than it has lost. In fact, I am willing to stick my neck out, that on the basis of cinematic excellence, it would have failed to make even the 5 nominated.

But where Lagaan has succeeded, all other bollywood flicks (in the visible future) will fail. The sing-song is no longer novel and cute. The constant breaks in the flow of the movie will be perceived with the same level of annoyance as Lagaan’s 4 hour long tirade. Of all the Oscar nominations in this millennium, Lagaan is by far the worst of them (from the 9 that I have seen so far). Of the 2002 nominations, I can quite comfortably say Lagaan is at best the second from bottom. The reason it has managed this feat, is because I am yet to watch Elling, the Norwegian nomination.

But this rant is a little late, isn’t it? This story is 6 years old. Ancient history. But is it? The reason for our apparent disinterest in the Oscars (for all its political propaganda) is not for justified reasons. The Oscars (at least the foreign language segment), is mostly devoid of the big bucks. No Man’s Land, the eventual winner had hardly grossed millions. Amelie did, but that didn’t make it easier for the producers to lobby for the movie.

The fact remains, whether we like it or not, the Oscars are still considered the epitome of cinematic awards. An even more disheartening fact is our inability to use a common platform to measure our movies with those from around the world. The Taare zameen par’s would hardly withstand the onslaught of sheer brilliance in world cinema today. Yet it hails supreme, as epitome of present day Indian cinema. This is, in spite of there being several good movies launching all over the country. I could go on with this rant, but it is, after all, just my opinion; an opinion that does not outweigh the opinion of a person who is forcefully opposed to my views, even if he hasn’t watched the other nominations, or the eventual winner.

But to drive home the real purpose of this rant, movies hailed in the Indian media are so covered in hype, that it is usually impossible for an objective opinion. Taare Zameen Par, had a sub-par script, with even worse acting from its super-star, and a total lack of originality. When a movie rips off ideas from famous comic strips in a 2+ hour long movie, you know there isn’t a single creative bone! We remain content with our unsatisfactory movie industry, hailing award ceremonies as and when they please us. Cannes is great only as long as they do not shun India’s favorite. The Oscars met with quite the same reaction in India.

But to celebrate excellence, my deluded friend, you must create it. It is easy for the Lagaan's and TZP's to win filmfare and all those countless awards when it is contending against Dil Chahta Hai and Kabhie Khushi Kabhi Gham. But when it is pitted against the likes of Amelie, No Man’s Land, it falls short.

Some more (interesting) reviews:

Lagaan: The Review

Art in the absence of reality

Update Feb 17th:

From NDTV.com

"Shah Rukh admitted to the interviewer that his last year's home production, Om Shanti Om, was full of cliches of Indian cinema. "But it is full of heart. I think we need to make more movies like this and gradually more and more people will come to like that," he said."

That is absurd on so many levels. And if the world standard ever got to that level (god forbid), I will swear off movies! Though am I glad for DVD's and digital media...

Forgiving Eva Kor/Pugh/Hercules

It’s been a while since I have blogged about anything. It had reached a point where I was thinking about having it deleted. Then I watched the documentary, “Forgiving Dr. Mengele” and I realized why I do have this space.

The documentary revolves around Eva Mozes Kor, a holocaust survivor, part of Mengele’s experiments on twins, consisting primarily her version of what happened at Auschwitz, and a comparison of the emotions of the other survivors of the twin experiments. The movie obviously had great reviews. It’s one of those topics that no one dares to voice a contrary opinion about.

I too, for a large part of the movie, got sucked into the emotion that the movie-maker so obviously wanted the viewer to concentrate on. One of the user reviews on imdb by Eric Monder (obviously having nothing critical to say about the issue on a public forum) could only find the sweetest nectar.
“In one of the many dramatic sequences, as a group of Jews argue with Kor at a Jewish centre, the meaning of the word "forgive" is even debated, but the isolated and outnumbered Kor holds her own”

But by this time, the sappy hold that the movie had on my dormant emotional repertoire had let loose enough that I could see clearly once more. After the “strong-willed” Eva Kor forgives her “Nazi captors” the movie begins to delve into what forgiving is all about, at least from the viewpoint of Kor. The movie goes about following her, past her public statement forgiving the Nazis and into new territory. To me, this was the meat of the movie, surrounded by inedible fat of her “act of forgiveness”. Obviously, it was a very sick cow.

On a mission to test her theory of forgiveness, in order to heal wounds of the past, she makes her way to the “promised land” to meet with some Arabs, to discuss with them the issues that they face and to see if dialogue cannot lead to a better understanding of the situation and heavily interspersed with debates and discussions with Jews in the US on her act of forgiving the Nazis, including one at a Jewish center in Chicago. From then on, anyone not so teary eyed that they can’t see the screen will find it hard-pressed to miss the obvious contradiction in her statements.

Firstly, you immediately notice her body language, defensive and unwilling to listen in a room full of Arab scholars and teachers. Her comments about how she feared that they might kidnap her shows how much of a waste of time, effort and money the entire act was. A rather annoyed Dr Sami Advan (Professor of education at Bethlehem University) gets it just right when he tells Kor off for a statement she makes about how she would rather be asleep in her apartment.

Finally, the debate at the Jewish center in Chicago, where she is “grilled” on the meaning of forgiveness and her right to do so, in the wake of those that continue suffering through the trauma of the acts.

I will cut to the chase. By the end of the movie, I was hoping I hadn’t chosen to watch the movie. The movie was badly made, failing to delve deeper into anything about Auschwitz apart from the purely trivial, just sufficient to make sure the holocaust is refreshed in the viewers memory and to incite a barrage of tears. It showed that Kor, the subject of the documentary was unable to engage in fair discussion. Her discussion abilities were limited to parroting her stance on forgiveness (at best) to a complete unwillingness to listen or participate.

Lastly, is everyone so retarded today that they can’t notice the difference between making peace and forgiving? Quoting another halfwit off imdb lustyvita, “I don't see her forgiveness as being weak- quite the contrary, she just wanted to relieve its hold from her soul, she wanted the suffering to be over, so she let it go.” That would be the perfect layman’s definition of MAKING PEACE.

I guess, in a world of propaganda, blind faith and political correctness, there is no room to question those that have “gone through more than the human mind can fathom”.

P.S. The dictionary certainly should go into all those Books-to-buy lists everyone keeps making.

The Losing Battle of Uber-Patriotism

Uber-Patriotism is the phenomenon (as perceived by my limited faculties and partial knowledge and understanding of the term) of over-zealous nationalism and patriotism. Uber, German for super or often over, along with patriotism creates some of the worst kind of excesses, the excesses that created the Hitler’s and the Mussolini’s. Anyway, I am not here to discuss the effects of uber-patriotism in history, or its continued effect on world politics and the Middle East, or even the "war on terror", how the United States has been zombified into believing in things that don’t really exist.

This might be stretching too far into the past, but it certainly is still in touch with the trend that is growing in present day India. Uber-Patriotism is a steadily growing phenomenon in India. The film Industry has certainly caught onto this sense of shallow patriotism and cashed in. The Rang De Basanti’s, Chak De India’s, Lagaan’s, Sivaji’s etc. I could go on. This millennium has certainly seen a lot of bollywood "enthusiasm" into the patriotism genre, raking in the big bucks. But this isn’t about the intentions of the movie makers, however noble/ignoble . Its about how we have allowed ourselves to get caught up in the grip of uber-patriotism.

It was sad, for me, as a starry-eyed, quixotic, almost over-zealous patriot, in my mid-teens to see the lack of any spirit of patriotism in the average indian. The ever-ready question, "Aap kahan ke ho?" (where are you from?), to indicate that you are different from them (and to those that lack the background, I am talking about Indians asking people that are obviously indians). But just when you think it can’t get any worse, it does (though the starry eyed boy is long gone).

The pop-culture of patriotism means you have the indian flag waved around on every damn occasion, more pomp and show on days of national celebration, more movies celebrating the national spirit but at the end of the day, you notice that most of it are just words. Empty, shallow words, that have no actions attached to it, nothing of significance to make you stand and take notice.

Anyway, the rambling must stop, let me get back to what originally got me here, the "stretching into the past" that has forced me to make this post. This was a forward that made it’s rounds a few years back. Perhaps more than a few. The gist for the vast majority that won’t bother reading it is, how the current national anthem is in praise of our colonial rulers and hence does not warrant its place in history and certainly doesn’t warrant being the national anthem. The forward then urged unequivocally, that everyone, "united in breath" ask for it to be replaced by Vande Mataram.

Now let me take this opportunity to dispel any notions that might indicate that I have anything against either of the two songs. Both were born out of the minds of literary geniuses. The point to all this is how easy it was to generate mass hysteria, that we as free indians continue to sing the adulations of our colonial miscreants and in doing so, lower ourselves to our slave status, and hence required the urgency that no other matter deserved. The starving millions, the poor federal reserves (at the time) and the countless other problems faced by the nation were all of secondary importance as we prioritised our need for a national anthem that truly forged in our minds the idea of independence. A hyseteria born out of pure speculation and if the same sources are to be believed as the ones that generate the rumour, then the writer very well knew what he was doing.


But irrespective of the intentions, as sensible indian’s that understand the meaning of the word patriotism, shouldn’t you be more open to interpretation than what the original author intended? Should we dismiss all great literary works because its topical relevance contradicts our belief system? Or should we just take a more rationalistic, non-sensationalistic approach to the whole thing, realise that even if the author wrote the song in praise of our evil over-lords, to the vast majority of a billion indians the song is simply, a song in praise of the motherland?

Editor on Holiday.

In between the work I have had to do coupled with the necessary amounts of procrastination, I have been left with little time over the past few days but to read nonsense like English Verb Tenses, Bread Recipes, Barbecue recipes, and How to Make Beer and Wine.

So I apologize beforehand for the extreme boredom that will reflect in this post, but do bear with me. I promise more interesting posts in the near future, or atleast to a degree amusing, depending on how you are inclined. Some might find it boring, and I strongly urge them to be as critical and/or abusive as they can be. It surely will reduce the boredom.

But for now, I feel the need to rant about the Indian "news media" once again. The fact that this happens to be an article about Shilpa Shetty is purely coincidental.

Startling that Newspapers or their online counterparts let such bullshit fly. I don't wish to debate over whether this is News or page 3 bullshit. The thing that does startle me is that a reporter typed this out and the editor didn't bother to proof read. Apparently, newspapers don't care about correct grammar and language.

"Indiafm.com

Wednesday, July 25, 2007: (Mumbai):


Shilpa Shetty is in legal trap. The writer obviously never got an A in class. Hence she figured no one would miss it in the sentence. Bad joke? Perhaps, but undoubtedly poor grammar. A London law firm has sued Shilpa's company Cine Entertainment for not clearing their dues.

A security company called CTR services is also planning to sue her on non-payment of bills as they had provided security services to Shilpa in the UK sometime backs. What backs? And if i remember my school grammar correctly, the subject of the sentence is a collective noun (Company) and hence 'is' should be replaced with 'are', purely speculative.

According to the reports, Shilpa has also been dropped from famous publicist Max Clifford's client list due to conflicts with Max's employees.

However, her representative in the UK, Farnath Hussain informs that her company Cine Entertainment has already paid every penny that they owe. Their payment got delayed because the figures CTR submitted were not right and her company asked them to rework on it. Rework on it??? wtf! 'it' refers to 'the figures', so lets plug it in place and see if it makes sense. '... asked them to rework on the figures. If you haven't shot yourself yet, I assure you the next one will take you over the edge.

Recently, she was allegedly linked up with her "good friend" and producer Raj Kundra. Kundra's wife Kavita openly accused Shilpa in media for breaking their marriage." In media? need I say more?

She's No Mother Of Mine

Mother Teresa is well known for having founded the Missionaries of Charity and her ‘good work’ in the “slums of Calcutta”. And all is hunky dory, as the questions raised by those more skeptical of her are suppressed by the heavy hand that is religion. And the list of people that are skeptical is not merely limited to the “religious bigots” of the VHP, but can find a resounding aye amongst the most revered thinkers of our times, including Richard Dawkins, Sanaal Edamaruku (first president of the Rationalist International and Secretary General of the Indian Rationalist International), Walter Wuellenweber (who published an article on Teresa’s first death anniversary in the German Magazine STERN) and more importantly Seiku Murmu. The list on non-believers goes on, from the prominent to the experienced, and it can be easily shown that the believers choose not to see all that surrounds the sainthood of Teresa.

A lot of people will claim these people are jealous of her having become a saint, and prior to that regarded as one in the eyes of millions. Or perhaps that she has shown the “strength” to do what they could not. But the so called strength Teresa showed during her ‘good work’ in the slums is the same strength that propels the mad-men at Gaza, at Al-Qaeda camps and the religious crazies that whip themselves to feel ‘closer to god’.

What about the Nobel peace Prize she has? Isn’t that the greatest sham on earth? I think so. I am not claiming that all other Nobel prizes are sham, but just this one.

The right to submit proposals for the Nobel Peace Prize, based on the principle of competence and universality, shall by statute be enjoyed by:

1. Members of national assemblies and governments of states;

2. Members of international courts;

3. University rectors; professors of social sciences, history, philosophy, law and theology; directors of peace research institutes and foreign policy institutes;

4. Persons who have been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize;

5. Board members of organizations who have been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize;

6. Active and former members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee; (proposals by members of the Committee to be submitted no later than at the first meeting of the Committee after February 1) and

7. Former advisers appointed by the Norwegian Nobel Institute.

If you read it carefully, any religious bigot could nominate her and in the face of her public popularity there isn’t much contest. But where in this list do we find Mahatma Gandhi, probably the greatest expounder of peace. I may not agree with everything that he did, but little debate can be made over whether he was deserving of a peace prize.

The Vatican is also out to win a popularity race. With so many Christians demanding her beatification, it was easy to have done, considering the office of “Advocatus Diaboli” has been abolished, to allow for instant sainthood. The traditional role of AD was replaced by a single anti-Teresa voice, that of Christopher Hitchens. They saw no need to seek the opinion of more important people, core to this issue and witnesses of the supposed miracle. So predetermined was their need and intent to see her as a saint, that they didn’t deem unethical or unholy (as is their kind) to take away credit from the medical practitioner that put in the effort to cure her. Neither did they seek the witness of the husband, Seiku Murmu, who has constantly maintained that the whole miracle aspect is bullshit and who has gone on record that it was the doctors and no pseudo-saint that cured his wife.

But all of this is concerned with whether she should be granted sainthood. Some would say that it doesn’t matter and that her work speaks volumes to her perseverance and generosity. In response to that, all I can do is hang my head in shame that so many people see what they want to see. Teresa was a fraud. There remains millions of charity money with the Vatican intended to alleviate the condition of the poor in the slums of Calcutta and elsewhere. Most of this money comes from the most “evil” of people like Robert Maxwell and many of them see it as a quick fix for all their moral crimes. Not to mention that it’s the best way to launder money.

Teresa’s and Nirmala’s (the one who now heads the freak show) own statements, show clearly that they are not here to help the poor. Anyone who has bothered to look beyond the pristine white saree and blue border knows that the poor have been harmed more than helped. Those that have delved deeper into the working and psyche of Teresa and the missionary begin to see all that is fucked up with the way they work.

In the end, the supposed good that they missionaries have done in Calcutta is a bunch of bullshit. Ask the people in the slums of Calcutta. Thousands of independent interviewers have penetrated the façade that is the picture of the generous mother. There are thousands of charitable organizations in India that do more. They do not seek to convert the sick and weak of will, but truly put in their efforts to improve the living conditions of those they touch. In conclusion, Teresa has harmed India more than she has helped her. I am not indebted to her and her missionary for anything.

I feel it is impossible to illuminate all the facts that go to show Teresa is a fraud. Especially not within a blog post. The over whelming pages of evidence would be far more if religious organizations were more transparent in their financial dealings. When sisters of the missionary start to speak out (those that still believe strongly in the Christian faith) people should begin to wonder if all is as it seems on the surface.

Pannalal Manik also has doubts. "I don't understand why you educated people in the West have made this woman into such a goddess!" Manik was born some 56 years ago in the Rambagan slum, which at about 300 years of age, is Calcutta's oldest. What Manik has achieved, can well be called a "miracle". He has built 16 apartment buildings in the midst of the slum -- living space for 4000 people. Money for the building materials -- equivalent to DM 10000 per apartment building -- was begged for by Manik from the Ramakrishna Mission [a Indian/Hindu charity], the largest assistance-organisation in India. The slum-dwellers built the buildings themselves. It has become a model for the whole of India. But what about Mother Teresa? "I went to her place 3 times," said Manik. "She did not even listen to what I had to say. Everyone on earth knows that the sisters have a lot of money. But no one knows what they do with it!"

The Britishers referred to Mahatma Gandhi as `Mr Gandhi'. Why should we call her `Mother'?
- Giriraj Kishore

On the issue of abortion, Mother Teresa's was a fundamentalist position, one that was firmly allied with the Pope's hard-line position. Mother Teresa went so far as to appeal to victims of rape during the Bangladesh war not to terminate their pregnancies; the Pope, naturally, wanted the more recent victims of rape in Bosnia to follow the same course. At a public Mass in Knock, Ireland, in 1992, Mother Teresa said: "Let us promise Our Lady who loves Ireland so much that we will never allow in this country a single abortion. And no contraceptions."

All this irritates Monica's husband Seiku. "It is much ado about nothing," he says. "My wife was cured by the doctors and not by any miracle."
- Seiku Murmu, husband of "miraculously cured" Monica Besra

Suggested further reading:
Op-ed: The unblessed of Calcutta

Indian rationalists call Mother Teresa's miracle hocus-pocus

Calcutta-born doctor speaks out: 'Mother Teresa did more harm than good

India has no reason to be grateful to Mother Teresa

Intellibriefs

What's Mother Teresa Got to Do with It?

Mommie Dearest: The pope beatifies Mother Teresa, a fanatic, a fundamentalist, and a fraud.

Mother Theresa - Where are her millions?

Neurologist: Sodomy "Common" in Mother Teresa's Orphanage

This Last one, is thanks to Bhavna. She brought this book to my notice and a quick search on google and I had found the book. Just goes to show how many people would like to know the truth.

Mother Teresa The Final Verdict By Aroup Chatterjee

Superscar - Sivaji

Sunday morning, 15 minutes before noon, I hear a faint knock followed by a familiar voice. It has just been 3 hours since I fell asleep. I groggily lift my head as I enquire to the reason of this blasphemy. Coming from a family that regards the Sabbath to be a holy day, I was obviously annoyed at the brazen intrusion. Turns out I am being asked if I want to join my roommate to a Tamil movie (for the record, I don’t speak the language and my understanding of it is just sufficient to hire an auto rickshaw). He just got ditched by another friend of ours and wants to avoid going alone. After some calls (trying to avoid having to say ok) I seem to have worked myself into a corner and agree to accompany him. The car is rented, made some ham and cheese sandwiches with bologna (we ran out of different types of salami as you can see) and we hit the road.

Starting time, 4:30 PM; that’s what the ticket reads. 4:05 and we make it into the parking lot. There seems to be a huge queue of Indians. We join it right at the back. But it isn’t until 5 that we are allowed into the theater. The show is delayed, apparently because “cleaning the theater will take longer”, sugar-coated for you cultureless motherfucking excuses for civilized humans since the previous crowd had thrown bits of paper into the air as a symbolic gesture for happiness. Hence the delay. As I hear the news, the grumblings begin. Not to mention the 90 degree weather that has me sweating like a hippo (got sick of pigs, except one ;) ) So I’m watching the bemused passersby as they wonder why the fuck there is a 100 man queue outside a theatre. Some pause, to enquire, all the time adding to my hysterical laughter and terrorist jokes.

5 past 5, lights dim before finally going off and before the movie even begins, a series of roars and whistles and god knows what else overtakes the theatre. The movie lasts a little shy of three and half hours. Luckily I’m not paying for this movie. I have some free sodas and my handy bag of cream and onion chips. One hour into the movie, and its not started. Though I have seen more skin in this movie than in Original sin or Embrace of the vampire, the censor boards continue to find breasts and vaginas too sensitive for the Indian paying public, who continue to objectify women in their movies and in their lives. Can’t blame them, for the main female role is just for the sake of titillation and to render the depth in the stereotypical patriarchal male lead character. On a different note, I enjoyed it. She was hot and almost naked most of the time, except when she had to step into the role of the “perfect woman”.

After the intermission the movie finally picks up. The second half of the movie had the lead popping gum on rebounds and flashily changing his sunglasses and stupidly retarded dialogues. Though, some were funny, I wish I was emo enough to slit my throat. There was no real story to carry the movie for half a good nights sleep except the “superstar” status of the lead. Actually it is not too late. I can slit my throat even now. Crap. I don’t have it in me. And now the semi-naked female interest barely shows herself either. Fuck. Maybe I should start making out with the woman next to me!? Oh… crap, wall to one side, roommate to the other. Maybe hitting my head on the wall will save me from the toothache of a movie and just in case my roommate can read minds. So it’s 8:30 PM now. Movie just got done. And we have to be home by 10. I was hoping to get 15 minutes of parking lot driving experience before heading back. I should have stayed home and finished the third season of family guy. Damn you 4 hour movie making slime balls to hell.

Mediocre Criticism

I keep feeling that we as a species are mediocre, satisfied by it, if we aren’t too busy glorifying it. I too, suffer from the same ailment; mediocre at best at the things that I do. But this isn’t about doing, this is about critics.

What is a critic’s job? Is he supposed to judge an action or performance based on the mediocre standards we set for ourselves or with the elite few that surpass our standards many fold? I guess that would depend on many factors. Perhaps the level of interest would be one. I would not judge an amateur act against a professional act, simply because of the amount of time they invest in learning their specific skill sets. I am sure I could come up with a bunch of other “guidelines” I implicitly use to gauge an action.

But this brings me to my question, What if something is mediocre after compared to those that fall within its most comparable sub-sets? A professional football player would be judged with another player, of the same era and then decided if mediocre. But this takes the “discussion” to a totally different course. So I shall steer clear of the fine line of what that appropriate “sub-set” really is.

But having identified that sub-set, and having judged an action as mediocre compared to the other actions from within those most alike, is it fair to elevate the performance based on the fact that the critic is incapable of that level of performance? I have had this argument thrown in my face that I should reserve my comments unless I was capable of out-performing the person whose act I am criticizing. This argument actually amazes me, since it denies the very nature of a critic and the logic that governs it. Movie critics are not the cream of movie directors, actors, editors, writers etc. Some perhaps have no experience in the movie making industry and all knowledge is purely academic.

If you can't take a good kicking, you shouldn't parade how much luckier you are than other people.
Charles Saatchi