'tis the spirit to be...

...helpful*, it seems.

As a cyclist, 4x4s - especially those driven in-city by blondes and tanned lads** - are the bane of my travel-life. As are trucks. And vans. And buses. Sportscars. Food-delivery scooters. Pedestrians. The bloody local council that won't add enough grit to the edge of the frikkin' hello-there's-been-frikkin'-ice-here-for-three-days-now road. Sportsbikes. Pigeons***.

But 4x4s in particular. I'd scrape my handlebars across the side of each and every one of them if it weren't for the fact that I was so bloody noticeable in my reflective gear and I trust them whole-heartedly to hunt me down and shunt me onto the pavement.

And just because they're occasionally useful **** doesn't mean I think any better of them. PR job, I say.



* For a moment there, you thought I was going to relent and go 'jolly' didn't you? As if.
** And yes, it's always blondes and tanned men. I'd know - I make sure I have a clear view before I start throwing rocks at them*****.
*** Fat, stupid birds. It's a wonder people haven't dropped turkey in favour of roast pigeon for Christmas dinner.
**** It's been snowing here a bit. Four inches and this country shuts down. It's like Bombay's Harbour line trains during October showers.
***** Not really (see above about being hunted), but fantasies are meant for being fantasised about.

News for you

* For TR, JAP, Veena, Szer, Black Mamba, Dilip, and all you long-journeymakers out there:
If you haven't read this series yet, do so now. Quite, quite fascinating. Not to mention utterly poignant and depressing.


* For what I'm sure is likely to be a sizeable proportion of the readers here:
A simple, yet wondrously effective physical activity that helps with tennis elbow.


* And for KM:
Because others hate FB too.

Talking of preconceptions

...you'd think by now I would stop being surprised by them, right? Nuh-uh.

Take this film, for example.

It got rented out a while back, because it looked interesting, and it had an interesting mixture of stars. Then, on reading the synopsis a little more, I assumed it was going to be too serious and melancholia-inducing, and decided I was only going to watch it when I was ready for it.

Which meant not when I was already depressed, not when I was very happy either, not in the night so I'd go to bed miserable, not on a Sunday evening because I really don't want to make those worse than they already are - just a very neutral day when things had been just medium-tedium.

Yes, picky. And don't you judge me for not wanting to watch hard-hitting films - sometimes you can have too many of them, and all you want is popcorn brain-numbers. Or a re-run of O Brother (Pop quiz: Is it possible to have watched that too many times? A: Irrelevant query).

Anyways, in the end I got fed up of having it around (plus those nice people from the rental firm were sending out polite reminder emails), so on it went.

And it was....lovely.

Quirky, and funny, and not too cloying or too preachy, and Rickman being typically snarky Rickman, and....just lovely.

So (Shyam, since you were asking), yes, I'm thinking of not seeing the description of an unknown film either and just watching it.

*******************************************************************

Of course, since we're on preconceptions and films, I have to bring this up.

Am I the only one who had no clue whatsoever that this film had been made?

And after watching the trailer, and taking into account the discussions of the past two posts, should I not be too quick to be yelling "Travesty!" at the top of my lungs and refusing to go watch the film or even stick around when it's being discussed? Despite the nice little boxing hat-tip, and despite RDJr (Jude Law....meh)?

Should I not give it the benefit of the doubt? And, even if I'm right, and the reviews find that it totally tarnishes the entire vision that Doyle created, should I still not put that aside and just go watch it as just an extremely drug-induced interpretation of his work?

Will you?

Fatten thee up

I don't even want to think of how much I'd have to eat if I decided to sign up for the team.

I'm suddenly reminded of Russi Mody's 16-egg omelettes. That guy was one dude.

A face-off between Destiny and Romance.

A man going hungrily for a triple prize, one that would bring all the acclaim in the world, against a man just trying to prove he was more than everybody thought he could ever be.

In the end, Destiny won out. Just.

But the Romance just got a whole lot stronger.

*****************************************************

Such a strange turn of events. Two successive second Sundays, two successive epic five-setters. Except this time I was wishing against the guy I was willing on last year. Even though he played just as prettily, and just as gutsily.

And I know that if it was anybody but who he was playing against, I would have marvelled at the way he held it together, and maintained those awesome percentages all the way till the end, ruthlessly crushing the least sign of hope. As it was, I was just crushed for a good man who deserved more.

*****************************************************

If the Swiss talks once more about how it's a remarkable achievement, and how it's such a great thing, and how he's staked his cleam to greatness .....

Seriously. Stop preening.

You hear that?

That's the sound a stupid law makes when it's finally overturned.

Bloggyworld seems to be surprising quiet about something as momentous as this. Nothing on the major community news blogs, or the more active bloggers. Or maybe I'm just not reading the right ones.

Either ways, it's yayness time.

Poor cops though, one less easy money-making scheme taken away from them.


P.S. For erudite and well-researched analyses of what this means for India, you have to check out that fount of wisdom and knowledge - the Rediff commentboard.

I mean, before this I hadn't realised male-gay sex = bestiality. And, of course, I hadn't also realised that 'gay sex' only referred to that performed by men, and that I was wrong in assuming that lesbian sex happens too.

Seriously, much education.

(KM, mind that coffee/keyboard/ lap/nose).

Snippets

Traditionally built.

What an odd little phrase. You know what it implies, or is supposed to - the person is on the heftier side of the average body-size spectrum. But it really doesn't make sense.

What does it even mean? Traditional for that family, that community, that country, that region? Does that mean that traditionally, hence historically, the de facto tendency for humans is to be plump? That our hunter-ancestors managed to bring down entire mammoths but could do so without being lean?

And further, does that mean that traditionally, there have never been naturally thin people? That thinness is an unnatural state brought on by too much exercise, a bout of anorexia, or a little hihellokaiseho with liver-related diseases? That the relative underweight nature of almost everybody running on one side of my family is not traditional, but we've instead been cursed/blessed for deed performed in the long-distant past by one of my ancestors?

Tosh. If you want to be PC, use well-rounded. Traditionally built indeed.

***************************************************************************

Talking of things that don't make sense - the insane (there's literally no other way to describe it) rush by people in this country to buy tickets for the scheduled MJ concerts.

At last count, all 50 shows were sold out. That's 750,000 people who thought it would be worth paying between £50 and £75 each to go listen to a man who could barely speak at the press conference held to announce all those shows, whose last hyped 'live performance' ended with him whispering faintly while surrounded (ironically) by a children's choir, who last had a semi-decent hit in 1993 (and I still say it was only because of that video with Naomi), and compared to whom I look like Fatty Fatzilla, the Fatman of Fattington.

20 quid says he 'collapses' days before the first concert, and calls off the whole thing because they discover some inoperable illness. Leaving him free to not renege on his contract, but keep all the money and pay off his debts.

How can people be so stupid, again? No wait. I got the answer to that when they re-elected Dubya.

***************************************************************************
I want to smack Federer for the outfits he turns up in at Wimbledon each year. He comes across as such a....have to say it....complete and utter prat.

Just play. Don't model for goodness' sake. I'm still getting over Agassi's neon shorts-over-tights outfit.


***************************************************************************

Talking of tennis - yay for the BBC. Live coverage of the matches, across multiple channels.

Also, yay for home-working and being able to watch them all.

Don't hate me, I'm a nice person. Really.

***************************************************************************
Trying to keep the plants surviving in the current heat wave we're having here (I don't want to jinx it by calling it summer) brought to mind an old thought.

For all the efforts being made to reduce pollution by cutting down emissions and preserving trees and burying carbon blocks underground, I wonder if anybody's thought of genetically modifying plant species so that they use more carbon dioxide for photosynthesis.

More CO2 absorbed = less atmospheric CO2 = lesser global warming = life sustainability for a few more years = yayness.

Yes, I know the composition of the atmosphere is a delicate balance and we can't have too much oxygen otherwise we'd all combust and whatnot, but this could be controlled by growing such plants only in designated farms (in pots maybe) and culling them when things get better.

Anybody know any bio-engineers?

A reversal

2008:
1-6, 3-6, 0-6.

2009:
6-1,7-6,6-3.

**************************************************
A wish fulfilled

"I don't have yearly wish-lists, but if I did, I'd want Federer to win the French and Roddick to win at least one more Major (preferably this year)."

**************************************************
One of my friend often accuses me of being just a Federer fan. Untrue. I appreciate other players. I admire Roddick's attempts to reinvent himself, I admire Nadal's almost-insurmountable will not to accept that he could be facing defeat, and Safin - well, every sport needs a character.

And I love a good contest, which is why I was a little sad that Federer lost Wimbledon, but not heart-broken. Because Nadal deserved that victory, and somebody needed to bring Federer down a peg (I mean, blazers with crests? Seriously?), and the game needed a rivalry.

But there's a special joy in seeing Federer win. Not because of him as a person, but because of what he's returned to the game. Delicacy, artistry, and a one-handed backhand - all in an era which seemed to be destined to be ruled by big-serving power-baseliners.

And besides that, for reminding future players that you don't have to be slamming serves down to hit a high percentage of aces - just accuracy. And that you don't need to scream and grunt while hitting winners - just timing and placement. And that whatever people may insinuate and the media may speculate, if you believe enough and hope enough, you can still succeed. And that you can win and still be a nice guy, to the extent that even your rivals want you to win the one tournament you haven't.

**************************************************
Some Facts

I don't get bothered too much about the whole 'greatest' debate. There are so many differences in the eras of every sport, and tennis is no different. The whole pro vs amateur problem of the early days, the differences in surfaces and racquets and balls. Pointless. One of the greatest is enough.

But just two stats -
1. This was the 20th straight Major that Federer's made the semi-finals of. The next best is 10 straight. And.....he's not done yet.

2. For all the talk about how he's lost his touch and he's on the decline, his record in the Majors since the start of 2008 (arguably his worst period in six years) reads like this - SF, RU, RU, W, RU, W. In comparison, Nadal (who has been the most dominant player in that time) has this record - SF, W, W, SF, W, R16. Nobody else even comes close.

People should get some perspective.

Bonus Stat:
Majors won, as a percentage of Majors taken part in -
Federer - 35% (14/40)
Nadal - 30% (6/20)
Sampras - 24.6% (14/57)

**************************************************
Not-so-perfect Destiny

Still, I bet he's wishing it had been Nadal on the other end, netting that last ball into the net.

Ah well, maybe it will still happen on Centre Court.

"You're starting to see some recognition just in the last few days that the obsession with India as the mortal threat to Pakistan has been misguided, and that their biggest threat right now comes internally".

- Barack Obama (Speech on his first 100 days in office)

********************************

Strong, and belated, words.

The sad part is that even if you switch the order of the two names in that sentence, it's almost as valid.

Yes, I know they train terrorists and shelter wanted gangsters and export nuclear weapons training to other countries, but we obsess about them and allow our politicians to use them as a bogeyman to deflect attention from the miserable state of our country's infrastructure, planning, healthcare, education, and civil rights.

We've allowed ourselves to get warped into a mentality where we agree that most Pakistanis are "probably all right", but still froth with rabid jingoism the minute we see that green-and-white flag, just like they love our Bollywood stars but fall for the manipulative games their leaders play.

We've allowed ourselves to be defined by our hate, just like them.

Side-effects

It's a given that in dire economic straits, crime (especially petty crime) increases. And so it has been proved.

But there are other more obvious-in-hindsight trends that are emerging, such as the increased levels of pets being abandoned.

And then there's this story, which predicts that we can expect more lag over the Net in the next few years. Ok, it's not directly linked, and it's primarily it's a case of increased demand and middling-antiquated infrastructure. However, it's worth considering if the demand hasn't spiked right about now because people are spending more time at home, either because it's too expensive to eat/party out, or because they've got more free time from their jobs, or because it's cheaper to shop online than going to a store.

It's also interesting to contemplate just how this problem will be tackled. It's probably safe to assume that people will turn more to the Net as the technology gets more advanced. But somewhere down the line, the increased demand for all this - memory-hungry online-streaming videos and music, shopping portals that rely on flash-heavy advertisements to survive, social networking sites that encourage people to add more photos and videos, blogs that encourage more people to churn out more matter that uses up more data - will begin to hurt. Noticeably.

And how will we react? The only remote hope of a voice of reason being heard will be if there are independent volunteer bodies that work towards getting people to reduce their Net usage (nobody's going to listen to the government). But even then, how many will be willing to give up what will have become an essential part of their lives, just on the say-so of somebody else - even if that person makes sense? How many will have the inclination and the willpower to sacrifice putting up blogposts, or downloading more than a certain number of songs, or even stop just surfing all the time? How many of us will even remember what it means to actually phone someone and email someone, instead of putting up quick post-it notes on their Facebook page?

How much will you be willing to give up?

This blogger just loves Grief, dontchaknow?

Long, looooong post. To make up for the long, loooooooooooong gaps in posting.

*****************************************************************************

So it's that time of the half-decade again, where one's moral and social integrity will be repeatedly appealed to and put up for questioning. Where whether or not you did it matters more than if you didn't do it, regardless of their being better reasons for choosing the latter. Where either you're part of the progress, or you're just a whining ingrate.

Oh yeh, baby, it's Election Time.

And by this time, you will have spent at least six months being bombarded by slick ads, flyers in your mail, group invites on social networking sites, and dinner-party arguments. Most of which will say that you have to vote, because it's your duty, and because the alternative isn't really a viable option, and because if you don't vote, you're as bad as a woodpecker on caffeine, and why are you still living here, again?

All valid arguments, surely?
Nuh-uh.

Let's get this straight. People should vote, it's just that it's not like they must. I'm still to hear an argument that offers more reasons to vote than reasons not to if the candidates do not deserve to be elected .

Let's examine those pro-reasons a bit -
1) Elections are expensive. Re-elections would cost more money to a country that can't afford it anyway.

2) Elections are time-consuming. The amount of time spent in organising and holding one is a drain on society, which could be used for better productivity.

3) If you don't like the candidates, vote for the least worst of the lot.

4) It's your duty as a citizen to vote. If nobody voted, how would anybody get elected, and if nobody got elected, how would any government form, and if no government was formed, how would any decisions be made, and if no decisions got made, how would the country run?

5) Oh, and if you don't vote, you don't get to complain.

To which I say, poppycock.

I don't know why I say it, except that the word is rather pleasing, even if it is rather suggestive. It's also a delightfully dismissive word. Say it. Poppycock. Popppppycock. Even better, say Tosh and poppycock. It flows, does it not? Also, it sounds more dismissive, if possible.

However, I suspect that would not suffice, and I would be required to present some more coherent rebuttals. So 'erewegothen.

***************************************************************
Firstly - and (to me) most importantly - it's not my duty to vote.

It's my right to.

Just like it's my right to be given a choice of candidates who may differ in ideals and strategems and plans, but who do aim to do some good.

Just like it's my right to expect those who want to be responsible for the futures of numerous others, to be responsible enough to be chosen.

Just like it's my right to decide not to exercise that right, if I judge that those who yearn for it are not equal to the task.

I can vote, but that does not mean I have to. I would like to, but I do not accept that I must, whether I like it or not.

And why?

Because a choice between a thug and a thief is no choice at all.
Because a choice between someone with a personal agenda and someone who plunges into the fray with no ideas but with "good intent" is even worse.
Because, in good conscience, I cannot help select someone I know is unworthy.
Because I refuse to bring someone to power just for the sake of it.

And because the lesser of two evils is always - always - still an evil.

I've never got that theory - Choose him, he'll only build 14 totally pointless flyovers....No, no, choose her, she'll only let her brothers build 20 new skyscrapers....No, no, choose one of them, they have no criminal records.
Not done.
If you will not hire somebody in your house, or in your business, who you know is incompetent; if you will ask them for references to show that they're not going to kill you while you sleep; if you're going to report them to the police if they steal your belongings - then how can you hire somebody like that to rule over the fate of hundreds of thousands of people?

It's a sad state of affairs when you're voting for someone solely because of their lack of criminal activity, regardless of whether anything in their lives has prepared them for the kind of multi-tasking, people-oriented, negotiating-heavy skills that politics requires.

Secondly.

Yes, elections may be expensive - but they're less expensive than the money that gets wasted by and on incompetent idiots elected from them. Think salaries, housing, travel, security and all the other perks that get given to someone who doesn't do their job properly. And all the money that gets thrown at unnecessary projects by these people, or worse, on not doing anything.

I'd rather not vote to power someone who I know is going to waste all the money that is collected from me after I work hard to earn it - even if it means wasting all the money that goes into organising an election.

Thirdly.

I'm not asking for saints. I'm not asking for Mr. Perfect or Ms. Awesome. I'm just asking for people who have some understanding of the world around them. Who have some basic understanding of socio-economics, health, and infrastructure. Who have some reason that drove them to do this job besides the greed of all that loot they could wallow in. Who have some sense of shame and accountability.

And since all of that's not going to happen anytime soon, don't expect me to vote either.

As for the last point, if you dare tell me that I can't complain because I didn't vote, then - as the lovable Irish so politely put it - feck off, ya gobby piece of shite.

I didn't give a driving license to the idiots who zoom past me while I'm cycling round a blind corner, but I sure as heck can complain about them. I didn't ask the damn banks to mess around with the world's economy, but I sure as heck can complain about them. And while I may not have voted the idiot who's ruining my city/state/country, I sure as heck can complain about the idiots who did.

Don't tell me I can't complain, because hey, did you see the alternatives? I can refuse to be part of what is at best a compromise, and at worse, a total surrender of beliefs and ideals - and still retain the right to complain about those who do (at least...I think I can).

And yes, yes, stop jumping about, I haven't forgotten point 4.

So, what option does this leave us? No elected candidates, hung parliaments and President's Rule? Like that would help. But, it's not like the option we've gone for all these years has been that brilliant in comparison, has it? I've never been a fan of the government system, and in countries like India, a lot of the progress that has taken place has come about because of the aims and work of interested citizen groups. Despite the government, not because of it.

Of course, that's a simplistic argument. We've unfortunately painted ourselves into a corner where it is pretty nigh impossible to break out of the country-state model that has emerged, and governments are a necessary evil. I'd like to think there's a better way of making the system better than by not voting, but the simple answer is - I don't know.

I'd like to think that if we keep rejecting candidates, the people who put them up for our approval will get the hint and propose somebody else. And that method of elimination, however arbitrary and faulty (and it is both, to an extreme degree), will be better than the system we currently have. But I'm not getting my hopes up too much there, either.

So, vote if you want to, and please vote if you find somebody who's decent and looks like they could improve (or at least change) things. But for the love of all things purple, don't do it because you're told you have to, don't do it and feel you've "done your bit" for the country, and please please don't do it because you're accused of "being asleep" by a holier-than-thou advertisement.

Right. That's me done. Now, bring on the grief.



Note:
In case you were going to vote, and thinking of using that much-hyped '49-0' clause, the actual rule, as detailed in The Conduct of Elections Rules 1961, is as follows:

"If an elector, after his electoral roll number has been duly entered in the register of voters in Form-17A and has put his signature or thumb impression thereon as required under sub-rule (1) of rule 49L, decided not to record his vote, a remark to this effect shall be made against the said entry in Form 17A by the presiding officer and the signature or thumb impression of the elector shall be obtained against such remark".

Which, in itself, raises a whole host of issues.

Such as, Oi you parochial jerk, whatever happened to 'his/her'?
And Oi, isn't this a secret ballot?
And So.....this doesn't come under 'pressuring the voter'?

However, let's leave those for the moment. Do note that there's nothing in the rules which specifies that if the number of 'non-votes' is greater than the number of votes for any candidate, that particular election will be declared null and void. Which obviously puts paid to the theory being suggested that the same candidates can therefore not stand in that election again.

As of now, all that happens is that you go to the polling station, prove that you are who your card claims you to be, get ready to vote and then spring this option on the polling officials. Who will then sigh and bang their foreheads on the nearest wall and wonder why they had to be assigned to this station and suffer such fools, after which melodrama they will note your non-vote against your name in the voting register (since the Electronic Voting Machines do not allow for a non-vote), and everybody around you will stare at you as if you just pulled a purple skateboard from your left nostril.

And, if you're really unlucky, one of those avid starers will be the snitch for one of the candidates' local henchmen, who will then come around to thump you some after his boss loses by one vote.

What's worse, although the details of how many votes were cast for each candidate are proudly proclaimed, the number of non-votes currently aren't. They will just go in the 'Abstain' tally, and won't go towards the overall number of votes cast, thus skewing each candidate's actual percentage of votes won/total number of votes cast. Now, Wikiboo says there's a petition and all to alter this, but nothing's official yet.

Earth Hour.

Of all the magnificently crackpot ideas masquerading as a sensible solution, this has to be one of the best.

Oh I get the point beyond it - let's show those who make our policies that we don't like the way they're shrugging off the rapid way we're erasing the options our future holds, and let's do it when energy consumption is at its highest, and let's do it in a totally dramatic way, and heyyyy! what better way than by showing those who are not convinced what it would be like if we had no energy. Right? Alright!

What shite.

Look, I like to think I'm green(ish). Public transport has always been my first and most common choice, I cycle when the cities I'm living in allow me to do so with some hope of surviving the first 30 metres, I have energy-saving bulbs all over my house, I recycle - heck, I even compost. Sure, I buy the occasional non-local food item, but that's just me cashing in my carbon credits.

But this - this is just such a pointless demonstration. On so many counts.

First, why just the one hour on one day every year? If you're really serious about getting people to reduce energy usage (and hence carbon emissions), why not make it a more regular affair, like once every month? Surely that will have more of an actual impact on saving energy.

What, you think people will refuse to make do without electricity for one hour every single month? Well, then the whole idea of this campaign is flawed, isn't it? Because if you can't convince people that if we keep going the way we do, somewhere down the line we will have to do without energy for large chunks of the day (oh wait, that already happens in India - good old load-shedding), and so they better do without their AC for 60 frikkin' minutes once every 30 days, then you've already lost.

Also, the timing. Oh sure, the photo-op is hard to pass up on. But if there's one thing that has always prevented me from being a green activist, and the one thing that has always pissed me off about green activists, is that with them it's either all or nothing. Moderation, you see, is a bad word. It's got to have Drama!

Of course, playing on humankind's oldest possible fear - darkness - is just as likely to piss off those who are on the fence, and just make those who don't believe more entrenched in their behaviour. Because why wouldn't everybody like to grope about in the dark, making do with candles (which, by the way, weren't just picked in the fields but were manufactured, and packaged, and transported to the shops - hello energy usage!), wondering if that sound they just heard is a burglar chuckling at the way some people just lay down the red carpet? And why wouldn't ambulances, and firefighters, and the police like the challenge of doing their jobs with their vision impeded?

Besides, I'm not even sure that energy usage is higher at night. Yes, the streets are lit while they're not in the day, lights come on at home which they don't in the day. But (most) offices and shopping outlets don't use ACs and heaters and computers and faxes and coffee machines during the night do they? I'd be happy to see statistics that prove me wrong, but I'm willing to guess that they balance out, and daytime energy usage is as much as that at night.

So then, I would have thought it would be better to do something like this during the day. At least that way, people can decide to go out for a walk instead of sitting in a dark office, or sweltering in the heat of their homes. Children can be entertained in parks, elderly folk can have get-togethers, neighbours can catch up on their gossip or even just get to know each other. People might realise that they actually like just sitting around and reading a book. Or just strolling round and noticing their neighbourhood properly. Who knows, even museums might see an attendance boost.

Isn't all of that preferable to people muttering away to themselves in the dark, running the risk of setting something on fire or hurting themselves? Isn't the chance of generating a more social environment preferable to effectively having people lock themselves in? And most importantly, doesn't this make it more practical, and hence, more likely to be adopted by more people, and hence, result in less energy usage, and hence, give us a few more weeks before the flood swamps us all?

Which, surely, is the point. Unless it's all just for a dramatic photo-op.

In which case, as I said earlier - what shite.

Hey, KM

You remember that book by Sooni Taraporewala I pointed you to? Well, turns out her fascination with her community has led her to make a film about them (also, a little bit of perspective about Parsi-based films in Indian cinema). All with contemporary issues and stuff, and an almost-entirely Parsi cast.

Bonus: There's apparently a scene in the film which the interior of a fire-temple has been recreated. I'm surprised there's not more hoo-haa about this, given how protective Parsis can be about these places. The film is probably worth watching just for that, if you've ever wondered what exactly goes on in there.

Now I feel like finding a gloomy old Irani cafe and trying to chat up the bespectacled (always bespectacled) owner about the film, before being (inevitably) shrugged off by the surly man, and deciding I'd rather just quietly enjoy my mawa cake and bun-pav-chai-extramaskakesaath.

Space, review please?


Update from comments: It's Bastani that's shut down (an old story about the state of Irani cafes here).

Mixed bag

Hello poppets. Sorry about the funk I - and this blog - have been in, in the recent past. Too much thinking, too many distractions, too much lethargy, and not enough good health. But never fear, a little outing has done wonders, and I'm back, on track, without crack...and whatever else rhymes with that.

******************************************************************************

First up, there's this brilliant cycling trip for charity that I only just read about, and am really, seriously, properly considering training for. Sure, it's a lot of money to raise, and it's a fair amount of cycling, plus there'll be jhanjhat about leave and visas and whoknowswhatelse. But hello, if nothing else, just imagine the scenery.

So who's with me? TR? Szer?

*******************************************************************************

I meant to blog about this a week ago, but better late yada yada.

You remember this stupid fuckawful concept of a 'game'? Well, somebody decided to give it a serious run for their money. Apparently, simulating rape is now something that some people consider a viable subject for PC games. No, seriously.

Now, the risk of giving publicity to things like this is that it might just bring it to the attention of some deluded creep who actually decides they like it. So why blog about it? Because -
a) It's you guys. You're good and all. Model citizens. No worries there.
b) It's on Amazon. So now open/free-market = 'pander to criminal tastes'? If you're the crusading type, you might want to complain to Amazon and see what they have to say. Or whip up a campaign to force the company to improve their filtering options.

*******************************************************************************

I'm forecasting a ton of posts/articles about how SM shouldn't have won the way it did, and how it will only reinforce the stereotypes about India, and how it's a travesty that it won the main film awards despite being partially in Hindi only because it was made by foreigners.

Hush.

It's not like the Oscars really go to those who always deserve it. Dances with Wolves, anyone? Please! The awards have always been about politics and statements and rewards. SM had to win, because it was a fairytale ending for a fairytale of a film. It's all unreal, all happily ever after.

And you know what? Right now, Bombay could do with this. We didn't get it for Salaam Bombay? Fine. We'll take it now, thankyouthankyou, and the more fool you for taking 20 years to realise this. And you may think it's charity, but hey, who cares, we have the award anyway. So who's the chump now?

*******************************************************************************

And lastly, two words - Bon Iver.

Ideal for workday background listening. All gratitude (and there is much of it here) to be directed towards Scout. The girl may not be blogging anymore, but her taste in music remains impeccable.

For Veena*

Bamse's Guide on how to cope with a little snow.

You know, this country is about as bad as India. Remember the floods in 2006? And now this. Travel is still pretty dire in the capital, the economy is expecting a £2bn hit, and inevitably, some people find reason to moan about giving kids a holiday.

At least this fellow's happy about it all.


* Ok, also for Shefaly, Feanor, Dewdrop, Neha, and Shyam. But mostly Veena.

When Indians think of Zoroastrians, we think of many things immediately.

We think of the Taj, and Jamshedpur, and Godrej steel cupboards, and meat-orgies in the guise of wedding dinners, and little Irani cafes, and those mysterious fire-temples, and Duke's Lemonade, and generous educational charities, and little enclaves in prime Mumbai localities, and how they pronounce 'द' as 'ड' (ask one to pronounce dahi. Guaranteed hilarity).

We think higher education, and hot girls whose parents let them wear a lot more less than most other parents do, and boys with a fascination for Yezdi and Bullet bikes, and white-collar jobs, and large numbers of unmarried old cranks, and dark woodern furniture, and depressing Canada-based writers, and beautiful embroidered sarees, and a higher-than-average level of eccentricity.

We think of them as a community that is better off as a whole, than most others in the country.

Which is why people get suprised when they find out that there are poor Zoroastrians too, and that they also exist in rural areas, as this article highlights.

A related video can be found here (warning: It's in Gujarati), while the actual film is linked to in the last update below.

Not quite the image that first comes to mind, huh?

Related pics and info here.


Update: And a look at those Zoroastrians still living surviving in the land where the religion was founded.

Update 2: An earlier post of mine about the community.

Late, late Update: The article's actually written by Kaevan, who has a couple of interesting blogs on Parsis. He was also kind enough to provide the link to the actual film.

Umm.

I'm certain there's a word that describes an instinctive reaction in some people to avoid for as long as possible any new thing that is glowingly praised by everybody else. And I'm sure we've all experienced it.

My best example of this phenomenon was refusing to read GoST for about three years after it had been published. I was certain I would hate it, that it was pretentious, and was only being promoted by people who refused to accept anything but novels as 'literature' (I really must do that post on defending SF&F).

Of course, I ended up loving it.

Now, in all fairness, I've only read it the once, making it one of those few books in my collection that I haven't re-read, and one of a very small number that I claim to like but haven't re-read. So, if I read it today, eight years after I first did, I possibly might hate it. Who knows?

What I do know is that the woman herself - and all her other writing - evoke mixed feelings in me. Strong mixed feelings. I mean, I know she's an idealistic nutjob, and she waffles - oh how she waffles - but she does occasionally come up with some really relevant questions and opinions.

Anyway, the point of all that intro, was to point you to her latest article. So much waffling, and so many random tangents, but some very valid issues too. Especially that bit about one particularly self-important news anchor.


And yes, posts will probably be infrequent for the near future, and the ones that do occur will probably only be related to this topic.

Those posts may not start today (busy-ness became), so instead I leave you with a little exercise.

Count just HOW many times the reporter used the wrongly-spelt word in this article, without it ever once occurring to him/her that it should be 'e', not 'a'. And then wonder how the sub-ed could have let the article through. And then despair (again) at the state of the Indian print media, if even the ET is getting as sloppy as this.

The obligatory AB* post

* Which moniker now belongs to the Bindra boy, not the Big B. Get with the programme already.

No, no comments on the maid-story (which, if it's true - bad Papa!), or his wealth, or how one yellow round thing is needed to give over a billion people some validation.

Nope. Nothing of that sort. Just this one thought -

You know what would really be interesting in the aftermath of Mr. Shooter-Man winning The Gold Medal? What would really show the fickleness of the public, the shallow nature of 'everybody's triumph' in the victory, and be just a really good way for a tiny percentage of the country's population to get a hernia from laughing at the reactions?

If, during one of those interminable interviews, when asked yet again about his marriage plans, he announced that, actually, he was oh-so-very gay.

Can you not just picture it?

It would be brilliant!

People, there is still some hope

Any world in which people say "Hey, wouldn't this be a great life-mimics-art thing to do?", and then actually go ahead and take a gnome around the world (a la Amelie), is worth having some faith in.

This story is just so cool, it made my day. No wait, month. Nay, year! Ah, joy joy joy.