A mole, a mountain..

I'm not sure why this incident scared me. But it did.

I work part time at a cinema. This particular day on a lunch break, I sat chatting with a couple of friends in the staff room. There were five of us - 3 Britons, me - an Indian and a guy from Bangladesh (lets say Shubam). Now all of them are people I am equally fond of, simply I get along well with them.

At 1300, Shubam being a devout Muslim turns his chair east, ties a kerchief around his head and prays. At this, 2 of my Briton friends, look at each other and snigger. No one talks.

I'm not particularly religious. I understand British humour. But I'm afraid of actions like this. I'm afraid they will be mis-understood. And I'm afraid some people may not take it well.

MSN.. my one true love

I really wonder what life before MSN was. As far as I can remember chating online became really popular in the last 5-6 years or so. For chronically reticent people like me, MSN was a saviour. But then, now that I think of it, I did have a pretty good social life even before MSN came to me. Oddly enough 'online chatting' closed me up. Its probably one of the disadvantages of having a long distance relationship. You spend more time with your PC than with real people around you.

And yet, I am grateful for this wonderful invention :) I love using smiley's and silly icons. Abbreviated words annoy me completely (simply because it takes me ages to actually read and understand them). Yes, I hate people who use SMS language on me. What happened to good ol' English?! Good grammar is an art. Not that I claim to have perfected that art, but I'm hoping to get there.

Anyways, with all the silly tests floating around in cyberspace, I decided to take a test on MSN knowledge. I answered only 6/12 questions correctly. So, let me know enlighten you.

MSN stands for Microsoft Network and acts as an ISP only in one country - America. America Online is the only ISP in the US which has more users than MSN (wow!). 110 million users around the world use Hotmail - which was launched on America's Independence Day -the 4th of July. Hotmail was bought by Microsoft for $400 million in 1997. MSN messenger was first introduced in 1999.

So much for trivia.

I've read so many papers and articles about how online chatting is 'ruining' the world. Though I may tend to agree with a couple of those views, I also think MSN undoubtedly revolutionised communication and made the world smaller. Living miles away from my family and friends, it is the only gateway to my past, to people I know and love. And for that, I am grateful.

This is probably one of the random-est blogs I have ever written ;-)

Happy Fool's Day!

"Our wisdom comes from our experience, and our experience comes from our foolishness". -

Sacha Guitry

Happy Fool's Day!

The last cigar

Wow! Today is D-day for all social smokers. It is perhaps the last time friends/ collegues/ aquaintances/ business partners/ lovers etc can sit together and smoke indoors in a pub. Photo journalists will probably have a field day! I truly think it is a landmark event. The government actually putting its people above revenues and taxes that it could possibly earn through social smoking. Very brave I must admit.

Although, I'm sorry for all the business' that will go bust because of this. I'm sorry for people who enjoy their pint and cigarette. For me its difficult to be truly liberal and yet support the ban wholeheartedly. The biggest concern here is for those who suffer due to passive smoking. I wonder if the ban will reduce the number of smokers though. They're probably going to be pushed from the pub into the street. I wish there were a more creative solution to this problem though. But at the moment, this seems to be it. Maybe it is the best.

Eye candy!

This is a girl's opinion about the movie '300'.

It wasn't brilliant. The men were extra ordinary though. I'm not sure whether this is supposed to be a macho-bloodlust kind of film, or an eye candy movie for the ladies. (Other than Ocean's 11, I haven't seen so many good looking men act together)

Although the trailers looked simply outstanding, the movie was very monochromatic. Frank Miller is a great graphic artist and the dark nature of the battle was very well portrayed in the movie. However one wished that there was more colour added to the landscape. After a while, you want to get rid of that dull and dreary feeling. (One of the reasons why Gladiator and Troy were so much better)

Again, the movie was good, but not extra-ordinary. The plot was really simple. Nothing there to think about. Leonidas led 300 Spartans to war against Xerxes' army of thousands.

Now Xerxes in the movie was black. Are Persians supposed to be black? And excuse me, he looked gay. Was that true to the story? I don't know. Can anyone please answer that? What a transformation for Rodrigo Santoro however! He looks so good in reality.

I was disappointed with the script as well. A great script can carry a movie on its shoulders no matter how simple it is. Except for a few lines like 'Tonight we dine in hell' and a few other situational lines, the script was very run of the mill. Nothing that I would specifically remember.

However, it is the actors passion that makes this movie worth watching. Gerard Butler, David Wenham, Vincent Regan, Micheal Fassbender are brilliant. Their enthusiasm shines through.

I'd give it 3 and a half stars just for the boys!

Absolut Stupidity

If I had to spend 18 years in prison being wrongly accused of a crime I did not commit, there would be two things I would want to do after I'm acquitted. First, sue the court of justice, and if I do not get a resonable settlement, then hunt all members of the jury who declared me guilty and kill them. Least of all, I would expect the'court of Justice' to cut 'living expenses' from the settlement I recieve.

What I lose from being in prison is opportunity cost. Yes, I could have earned much lower than what I recieved in the settlement, but then, I could have also earned much higher an income, partnered Bill Gates in his humanitarian campaigns, married Prince William and inherited a fortune. Maybe this seems far and beyond (and silly), but if Bush can be president anything's possible.

Which is why my sympathies are with Michael and Vincent Hickey, who were wrongly convicted and spent 46 years in prison. Their settlements were subject to 25% deductions for their 'boarding and lodging' expenses in prison! Honestly, I cannot comprehend how the court could dish out such a ruling. What these two men lost in prison was not just money. They were isolated, had to spend time with convicted murderers/cheats/robbers/troublemakers etc, when they could have had a family, some quality social time and could have lived without the misconception of being a murderer. Honour, pride, self dignity; all lost. The court makes a careless mistake and the victim pays for it?

This is absolute stupidity in its purest form. I'm from India where prisoners have to wait months, years, decades to get a hearing in the court. We look towards the west in our pursuit for perfection. But if the west lets down its people in such a shameful manner, what face would they have in front of the world.

Incest, a way of life?

My first reaction to incest is of disgust. My second reaction, is of disgust too. And my third reaction, well, its disgust again.

A German brother and sister are taking their fight 'for a sexual relationship' to court. The BBC in their website is following these proceedings and has attempted to explain the taboo that incestual relationships have. Many countries have banned incest and 'culprits' have been prosecuted. In this case, the brother and sister did not meet each other through their childhood and early teens, only later to meet and fall in love knowing that they were brother and sister.

Now personally, I cannot, just cannot comprehend how that happens. I have a huge family and many among them are smart and savvy guys - whom I haven't met for ages. But, even after meeting them, I can never ever think of getting into a 'relationship' with them. It makes me cringe. But then, maybe its how my beliefs have shaped me.

I know people cannot be forced into not doing anything. And the more you try to impose restrictions on them, the more they want to do it. Especially when it comes to supposedly 'moral' issues like these. No one accepted being gay or lesbian earlier. But now its come to be a part of normal society. But where do you draw a line? Although I would find accepting incestual relationships very distressing, I cannot choose to clamp down on a fellow humans' personal liberties. Which is why I find, people being jailed or prosecuted for this 'crime' really silly.

We're all animals yeah? We're just behaving like we're genetically programmed. Right?

I can live.. with or without you

I haven't seen too many happy marriages. And yet to me, marriages are sacred and in a world where everything else is temporary, it should be permanent. Which is why I always cringe on reading articles like 'Start with the end in mind when it comes to marriage' in the FT dated 4th March, 07. The author in this article talks about the importance of a pre-nuptial agreement (especially if you're rich and famous) and why the government in Britain should recognise them. My heart completely rubbish(es) the comments he makes and though a little part of my brain knows that it all makes sense, I beg to differ.

Firstly, starting a marriage with the end in mind is not the most romantic of all situations. Although at a time when 13% of every 1000(1) people in England and Wales file for divorce every year, a pre-nup agreement may seem like a necessary evil. The author in the article says 'Marriage is like a market' where demand and supply play an equal role in bringing satisfaction. Obviously if you marry someone you don't think/see as your equal, differences are bound to crop up sooner or later. I would understand if marriages fail after a year or two, where couples recognise their incompatibility but in marriages spanning decades, I just don't get it!!

Allowing for pre-nup agreements will only make people less responsible towards their marriages and families. I may sound horribly right wing here, but the moral fibre of society will only degrade with easy access to laws that allow for breaking up. Marriage do not fail because one suddenly becomes incompatible with his/her partner. They fail because people are too selfish to put in enough effort to make it succeed.

References:
1. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/5301270.stm

All a gamble?

I am always amazed at the number and quality of technological advances that the world makes. There are gadgets that get written about and everyone wants a piece of it when actually its just a piece of shit. I managed to get tricked into buying the Moto Razr V3i. But then there are Ipods which at one time were a big ‘wow’ to me and I still think they’re great. Another ‘wow’ advance has been reported by Time magazine in its 19th February issue - the cheap and functional plastic microchip.

The article says that plastic chips will be increasingly used instead of silicon chips with market researchers at Virginia-based NanoMarkets predicting that plastic electronics will be worth nearly $35 billion by 2014. Plastic Logic, the company that came up with the idea of plastic chips will first produce a portable reader - a device that will let us carry our whole library on a sheet of plastic. However they will be available only in 2008. Then there are host of other high tech plastic gadgets that they have planned out.

Yes, all this seems very exciting. However the article to me is a brilliant piece of PR. Plastic Logic has attracted many venture capitalists and investors, but very obviously it is looking for more. But then, this innovation that could perhaps cut down the price of electronic circuitry by up to 90 per cent and the setting up of a factory requires capital. However no one seems to have contemplated the environmental damages this product will bring about. After all, this is plastic we’re talking about - and plastic is hugely non bio degradable. Whether we are trading the planet for short term benefits, only time will tell.

National obsession... you must be joking!!

Victoria Beckham was quoted in the Metro saying something to the extent of -

When I go to a party I put in all the effort to dress up, whereas some people don't seem to bother about the way they look. It's such a disappointment.

This was in answer to a question on what upset her the most. She also said that she took all the time and spent all the money on grooming, while others looked like they could've been in their pj's at a party.

And this is the woman Britons and millions around the world are obsessed with? An extremely skinny style icon who's major concern is not war, poverty, disease, football or even music (for heaven's sake!!) but the poor fashion sense of her colleagues... Wonder what she has to say about the size zero debate?!

It makes me think about what the whole concept of celebrity is. Is it all about looking good, being in top 10 lists and of course being rich and famous. I also know that for every Victoria Beckham there is a Bono and an Oprah. But celebrities with causes are few and far in between. Especially women. Women are more likely to be known for their diva like tanturums, their wardrobe, sex appeal, botoxed makeovers, eating disorders and for checking into rehab because of ill physical or mental health.

Ironically, women by nature are more sensitive, caring and possibly more humane. What happens to them in the spotlight that makes them irrational and stupid, I don't know. Except for a few who consistently champion 'real' causes after achieving status and celebrityhood like Oprah Winfrey and Angelina Jolie, I'm not even aware if women in film and media are doing much for the progress of society. Maybe they do things in secret, but I think its time that people know what that is. Simply because nature imitates art as art imitates nature.

I wouldn't want my children to have vain role models who care for nothing more than self gain. I would want them to know who the real hero's are. And Victoria Beckham is not one of them.

Bringing down the heroes (un-edited version)

I’ve always had a little soft spot for Bill Gates, what with him and his wife doing all that philanthropic work. Although Microsoft as a company has been criticized and derided for their "monopolistic" practises, lack of security and stability of software, with innumerable lawsuits, Mr. Gates has made many valuable contributions to the software industry and humanity.

Even so, I’m not surprised at fresh criticism of Microsoft’s latest ‘Vista’. The New Statesman, in its article ‘Hasta La Vista, Baby’ brings out the alleged ‘secret side’ of Windows Vista. It claims that Vista represents the height of content control, and has digital rights management (DRM) code that defines how we can use our own CD’s and DVD’s. It also discourages one from connecting screens or audio equipment that do no have content protection measures in place.

The reason I find this very odd is that yes - Microsoft is probably trying to protect corporations and the music industry so that intellectual property rights are not violated through the use of Vista - they will make a lot of money here - but why should the average computer user feel threatened? The writer says ‘DRM is fine if you don't do anything too naughty, like try to copy your CD collection on to your PC too many times.’ Is this what we should be angry about? Not being able to use illegal content freely? She also advocates the use of Linux, which is on the other hand has a low graphical user interface but is an open source operating software which is free. A black and green interface above my coloured one is not reeason enough for me to switch. Maybe the New Statesman thinks it is.

Oddly enough, in a list compiled by the New Statesman in May 2006, Bill Gates was voted eighth in the list of "Heroes of our time".

Great Britain, little understanding

I have always questioned the concept of what these days is fashionably called ‘karma’. If what goes around comes around, how is it that countries like the United Kingdom still flourish. Aren’t these the people who plundered countries like mine i.e. India, and caused poverty and destruction to an extent? However I cannot help but wonder whether all the social tension in the country - the terror attacks etc is all because of bad karma.

Of course Britain likes to see itself as multi-cultural and all embracing of global ethos. The leader in last week’s Economist talks about how globalisation has done wonders for Britain. And yet Britons worry about its Muslim community who are looked upon as the ‘harbingers’ of terror. According to the article the only reason Britons ‘spirits are low’ is because the presence of ‘lots of foreigners’ is making it uncomfortable. On the other hand they laud their imperial past and trading relations with 'foreigners'. Considering the fact that none of the colonies benefited too much from British rule, I can only see this an attitude of selfishness that dominates the British mentality. An attitude of use and throw.

Perhaps old habits die hard, but the article seems to suggest that all Britons want is to use the best resources - be it labour or services without respecting the culture of those they use. Forcing non-Islamic laws down the throats of the Muslim community is not going to get a welcome response - reflected in the controversy of veils. Though in the article there are suggestions of how to put the individual at the heart of all things, it comes across as very half hearted and does not attempt to understand WHY the 'home grown terrorists' behave the way they do. Or maybe I just did.

Big Bother

So Shilpa Shetty finally won Celebrity Big Brother. Honestly, I'm a little surprised. If she had to be on an Indian version of CBB alongside Indian telly celebrities, she probably would have lost. She's never been a big star in India, but has a reasonable number of fans who either admire her for her dancing skills or her curvaceous body.

I haven't watched CBB and do not know how events unfolded on the programme. As an Indian however I am surprised at the level of agitation the whole racism issue generated in India. My country is one where racism and caste-ism thrives till date. People are always discriminated based on colour, religion and beliefs. If you ever happen to go through matrimonial classifieds in India's biggest newspaper 'The Times of India' or ever any small daily, it will read something like this - 'Wanted fair, beautiful, homely (xyz caste) girl for qualified, well settled boy earning in double digits. Contact Box No...' Only a very few conscientious Indians can overlook colour or caste while seeking suitable alliances. Or else they overlook it just because they have no choice. Sadly enough, beauty and cosmetic companies thrive on these fallacies. Though the India's 'aam junta' - the common man - burnt banners of Jade Goody, Unilevers banners are still intact. Commercials of 'Fair and Lovely' a skin lightening cream manufactured by Unilever propogates that fairer women get boyfriends, jobs, basically everything; while darker women are rejected. So deep has this fear setlled in the mind of the Indian woman and man(!) that the fairness industry accounts for 60 percent of skincare sales in India. [1]

The Indian government criticised Channel 4 and condemned Goody's racist attitude. But "How can we say to our brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when, the log is in our own eye?"

I am slightly over whelmed by some Brits genuine horror over the racist row and the resulting support for Shilpa - it is very kind. Although I really don't care about CBB or even Shilpa winning, I think she summed it up perfectly at the end of the show. We're all fallible. And we have no right to point fingers at anyone. Not even at hoodies. Or veils.