5 Women were buried alive in Pakistan because they wanted to choose their own husbands
"A Pakistani lawmaker defended a decision by southwestern tribesmen to bury five women alive because they wanted to choose their own husbands, telling stunned members of parliament this week to spare him their outrage."
No Comments
Sunday, August 31, 2008
Saturday, August 30, 2008
WTF
The secular elites obsession with Modi is beyond me. TOI,IBN and NDTV have reported that US government has "denied" Narendra Modi a US Visa.
First of all I am not sure what the big fuss about this whole Visa is? When I last checked, I thought you denied someone a Visa if and only if someone applied for it in the first place. The democratically elected Chief Minister of Gujarat has NOT APPLIED for USA's visa, so what are they denying at all?
A handful of Commies and Congress Non-resident Indians, who have formed forums in USA have been lobbying against Modi since last 5 years. And if you ask me, he cares a damn about USA or visiting it.
Modi has been duly elected as a leader, not by those handful elites, but by people of Gujarat. There have been allegations but no convictions against him personally. So I am not sure of the grounds of this so called denial. I always thought Rajiv Gandhi, one of the most popular leader of India, who's implicit and complicit involvement in killing of innocent Sikhs of New Delhi and Punjab and who clearly justified the killings of people should have been denied Visa if at all there was a case of such instance. (Although I would have opposed that too)
But anyways, barking dogs keep barking, and Elephants move on their path. Gujarat is moving at 15% GDP and it's people are happy with their efficient, resourceful and productive leader.
So sulkers and whiners can whine all they want to... no one really cares for your stupid Visa. Boooo to u.
First of all I am not sure what the big fuss about this whole Visa is? When I last checked, I thought you denied someone a Visa if and only if someone applied for it in the first place. The democratically elected Chief Minister of Gujarat has NOT APPLIED for USA's visa, so what are they denying at all?
A handful of Commies and Congress Non-resident Indians, who have formed forums in USA have been lobbying against Modi since last 5 years. And if you ask me, he cares a damn about USA or visiting it.
Modi has been duly elected as a leader, not by those handful elites, but by people of Gujarat. There have been allegations but no convictions against him personally. So I am not sure of the grounds of this so called denial. I always thought Rajiv Gandhi, one of the most popular leader of India, who's implicit and complicit involvement in killing of innocent Sikhs of New Delhi and Punjab and who clearly justified the killings of people should have been denied Visa if at all there was a case of such instance. (Although I would have opposed that too)
But anyways, barking dogs keep barking, and Elephants move on their path. Gujarat is moving at 15% GDP and it's people are happy with their efficient, resourceful and productive leader.
So sulkers and whiners can whine all they want to... no one really cares for your stupid Visa. Boooo to u.
Friday, August 29, 2008
Presidential Race
By all accounts the Obama vs McCain race is amongst the most interesting political races of last few decades. McCain today picked up Governor of Alaska - Palin, for his choice of Veep. After Democratic nominee, Barak Obama, gave a stirring speech last night, one of his best I have heard, it was McCain camp's time for hogging some spotlight and remove some wind out of Obama's storm.
By announcing a female conservative women as his VP nominee, McCain has to some extent taken out the thunder out of Obamania. But will this be enough?
This race is interesting because to an extent both candidates are not run-of-the-mill nominees. This race is "colorful" (no pun intended). McCain has gone against his party's line of thinking a few times and Obama seems to at times talk pragmatic politics over partisan one. Both candidates do not come off as hard core ideologues to me, but what do I know?
Obama looks to have the momentum, energy and lead at this time. But this could be deceptive. There may be a build up of groundswell for McCain in rural America, which will show up in polls only later in the race. Who knows? One cardinal rule of Election analysis is to "never under-estimate the force" (As Sunny Deol once said)
If Obama wins this race ultimately though, it would be a historic moment for America and even for the world as we know. A pre-dominantly white country electing a semi-Black man, to it's most powerful post, will be monumental and infinitely appealing. USA will once again lead by action and not mere words. To that effect Obama's win can go a long way in lifting the sagging image of USA around the world.
But is that what it is all about? Image? What even if USA's image improves, as we think, it will? Will it be enough to counter the growing domestic issues , some real , some perceived. The important question the US voter needs to ask to herself or himself is who will make a better president?
As a non-citizen and an outsider, I am more interested in how the America of today will tackle this question? I have limited stake in who becomes the president. In a lot of ways it does not affect me one way or the other. My interest is more out of curiosity to see how this functional democracy responds to a significant moment in it's history.
I don't really buy into the Democrats blame game of "more of the same" if McCain comes to power. I think his term, if it happens, will be qualitatively different from Bush's. I also do not buy Republicans argument that Obama will be a disaster on foreign policy and his perceived lack of experience will be bad. Both these arguments don't stick as far as I am concerned. Both candidates, at least on paper have a potential to bring some freshness to the governing. And that is what I am interested in. Will Americans trust with their country's faith with a Harvard educated, suave, and eloquent speaker or will they hand it over to a veteran of a war. What America decides can have a rippling effect outside it's shores.
The race is too close to call currently and I think, it will unfold in coming weeks, what approach is taken by each side. I have a feeling that negative campaigns won't fly with general public. If a candidate focuses on other sides negatives and keeps harping about it, he won't make any substantial gains. John Kerry's democrats did that mistake. They kept on attacking Bush so hard and on so many occasions, they lost the focus on what alternative were they offering to the people. People want to know, what is that, that you bring to the table. They already know so and so is bad. So don't keep reminding them that.
McCain and Obama both should learn from the badly executed campaign of Kerry. Criticize your opponent but don't make "attacking other side" as your campaign's base theme. Tell clearly what you are offering instead.
If I was a campaign manger I would create a 70-30 model. 30% negative attack, 70% positive alternative. The 30% of attack is important because, you don't allow the other side to run over you in politics and keep it guessing where the next one is coming from. The 70% +ve is for the people, who want to listen to the solution you are offering and not bothered about how bad other candidate is.
You can only hope and not ensure winning election by default. Meaning- "the other guy is so bad, you should elect me to keep him from coming to power. So elect me by default." This does not work, even if you hope. And hope is not strategy. It is an abstract emotion.
By announcing a female conservative women as his VP nominee, McCain has to some extent taken out the thunder out of Obamania. But will this be enough?
This race is interesting because to an extent both candidates are not run-of-the-mill nominees. This race is "colorful" (no pun intended). McCain has gone against his party's line of thinking a few times and Obama seems to at times talk pragmatic politics over partisan one. Both candidates do not come off as hard core ideologues to me, but what do I know?
Obama looks to have the momentum, energy and lead at this time. But this could be deceptive. There may be a build up of groundswell for McCain in rural America, which will show up in polls only later in the race. Who knows? One cardinal rule of Election analysis is to "never under-estimate the force" (As Sunny Deol once said)
If Obama wins this race ultimately though, it would be a historic moment for America and even for the world as we know. A pre-dominantly white country electing a semi-Black man, to it's most powerful post, will be monumental and infinitely appealing. USA will once again lead by action and not mere words. To that effect Obama's win can go a long way in lifting the sagging image of USA around the world.
But is that what it is all about? Image? What even if USA's image improves, as we think, it will? Will it be enough to counter the growing domestic issues , some real , some perceived. The important question the US voter needs to ask to herself or himself is who will make a better president?
As a non-citizen and an outsider, I am more interested in how the America of today will tackle this question? I have limited stake in who becomes the president. In a lot of ways it does not affect me one way or the other. My interest is more out of curiosity to see how this functional democracy responds to a significant moment in it's history.
I don't really buy into the Democrats blame game of "more of the same" if McCain comes to power. I think his term, if it happens, will be qualitatively different from Bush's. I also do not buy Republicans argument that Obama will be a disaster on foreign policy and his perceived lack of experience will be bad. Both these arguments don't stick as far as I am concerned. Both candidates, at least on paper have a potential to bring some freshness to the governing. And that is what I am interested in. Will Americans trust with their country's faith with a Harvard educated, suave, and eloquent speaker or will they hand it over to a veteran of a war. What America decides can have a rippling effect outside it's shores.
The race is too close to call currently and I think, it will unfold in coming weeks, what approach is taken by each side. I have a feeling that negative campaigns won't fly with general public. If a candidate focuses on other sides negatives and keeps harping about it, he won't make any substantial gains. John Kerry's democrats did that mistake. They kept on attacking Bush so hard and on so many occasions, they lost the focus on what alternative were they offering to the people. People want to know, what is that, that you bring to the table. They already know so and so is bad. So don't keep reminding them that.
McCain and Obama both should learn from the badly executed campaign of Kerry. Criticize your opponent but don't make "attacking other side" as your campaign's base theme. Tell clearly what you are offering instead.
If I was a campaign manger I would create a 70-30 model. 30% negative attack, 70% positive alternative. The 30% of attack is important because, you don't allow the other side to run over you in politics and keep it guessing where the next one is coming from. The 70% +ve is for the people, who want to listen to the solution you are offering and not bothered about how bad other candidate is.
You can only hope and not ensure winning election by default. Meaning- "the other guy is so bad, you should elect me to keep him from coming to power. So elect me by default." This does not work, even if you hope. And hope is not strategy. It is an abstract emotion.
Sunday, August 24, 2008
Edurance unlimited
Even as the Beijing 2008 Olympics came to an end, there's no doubt in my mind that it meant many things for many people around the world.
For people who keenly follow geo-politics, it was no less than a Chinese "statement" announcing it's grand arrival on world stage with a bang. No where was that statement more underlined than at the opening ceremony of these Olympics. There was an unmistakable machismo associated with that sensational exhibitionism and show of grandiose on Day 1.
2000 young Chinese men shouting out their lungs and beating drums marked the ARRIVAL of China on world stage, like never before.
It was never in doubt that China was going to use these Olympic games as a showpiece event. And China spent a whopping 43 billion USD to do what they finally did. (The London Olympics budget is 1/3rd of this even 4 years from now). Just shows how much these games meant for the 1.3 billion people of China. The People's Republic did not let it's people down. Brand China came out as the ultimate winner of these games.
If the opening and closing show was spectacular, the Medal tally of Team China was nothing less than a miracle. 51 golds, 21 silver and 28 bronze medals, a whooping 100 overall medals left little doubt in the sporting world, who was the next ogre. China finished in style.
It picked up about half it's golds only from 3 events - Gymnastics, Diving and Weight Lifting. Tells you of their incredible strike rate. It was a well planned effort. They focussed on events that would have highest returns.
If China's medal tally was story 1, story 2 would have to be Usain Bolt and Michael Phelps. If the Jamaican thunder bolt, made a mess of all records in athletics, Michael Phelps made a mockery of all previous swimming records. When Phelps left Beijing, he had broken 7 world records out of the potentially 8 he could have. Usain Bolt on the other hand was part of 3 record breaking efforts. These two are super humans. Phelps with 8 golds had more than 20% of total US gold medals.
Great Britain put a neat overall performance and came close 4th only behind Russia in medal tally. Coming ahead of teams like Germany and France would be specially sweet for the Brits.
Another story for me was the silver medal win by Afghanistan. Rohullah Nikpai's of this war torn country won it's country's first ever medal in Taekwondo . Truly a great hero.
I had a lump in my throat when Abhinav Bindra stood on the podium and India's national anthem was played. But Vijendra and Sushil Kumar's win were no less sweet for 1 billion Indians.
In the end, Olympics is about breaking new barriers of human endurance. Both mental and physical. How long, how high, how deep can you push the human envelope. At what point, would it break? If 9.69 seconds in 100 meters is not good enough, what is? Are we going to see some one break that record soon? May be Bolt himself.
Just as Bolt completed his 100 meters race, a thought struck in my mind. What if half of the humanity became half as fit as Bolt - wouldn't we solve the world energy crisis :) ? Think.
I would also like to mention that one of the reasons I got hooked to this years Olympics is a well packaged presentation by NBC. The other day I read a report in Hindustan Times, about how India's Doordarshan had messed up it's Olympics telecast big time. A cousin, in India, I spoke to told me the same. He said no one was really following Olympics there.
Luckily NBC is pretty professional and if I was from Chinese government, I would send across special thanks to NBC for being agents of these games promotion for the North American audience. Not only did NBC focus on sports, it took us to various facets of Chines culture. It was truly fascinating.
I am going to the Gym now. Hope this Olympic fever does not fade out soon. I will be resting my bums on the couch a little less.
For people who keenly follow geo-politics, it was no less than a Chinese "statement" announcing it's grand arrival on world stage with a bang. No where was that statement more underlined than at the opening ceremony of these Olympics. There was an unmistakable machismo associated with that sensational exhibitionism and show of grandiose on Day 1.
2000 young Chinese men shouting out their lungs and beating drums marked the ARRIVAL of China on world stage, like never before.
It was never in doubt that China was going to use these Olympic games as a showpiece event. And China spent a whopping 43 billion USD to do what they finally did. (The London Olympics budget is 1/3rd of this even 4 years from now). Just shows how much these games meant for the 1.3 billion people of China. The People's Republic did not let it's people down. Brand China came out as the ultimate winner of these games.
If the opening and closing show was spectacular, the Medal tally of Team China was nothing less than a miracle. 51 golds, 21 silver and 28 bronze medals, a whooping 100 overall medals left little doubt in the sporting world, who was the next ogre. China finished in style.
It picked up about half it's golds only from 3 events - Gymnastics, Diving and Weight Lifting. Tells you of their incredible strike rate. It was a well planned effort. They focussed on events that would have highest returns.
If China's medal tally was story 1, story 2 would have to be Usain Bolt and Michael Phelps. If the Jamaican thunder bolt, made a mess of all records in athletics, Michael Phelps made a mockery of all previous swimming records. When Phelps left Beijing, he had broken 7 world records out of the potentially 8 he could have. Usain Bolt on the other hand was part of 3 record breaking efforts. These two are super humans. Phelps with 8 golds had more than 20% of total US gold medals.
Great Britain put a neat overall performance and came close 4th only behind Russia in medal tally. Coming ahead of teams like Germany and France would be specially sweet for the Brits.
Another story for me was the silver medal win by Afghanistan. Rohullah Nikpai's of this war torn country won it's country's first ever medal in Taekwondo . Truly a great hero.
I had a lump in my throat when Abhinav Bindra stood on the podium and India's national anthem was played. But Vijendra and Sushil Kumar's win were no less sweet for 1 billion Indians.
In the end, Olympics is about breaking new barriers of human endurance. Both mental and physical. How long, how high, how deep can you push the human envelope. At what point, would it break? If 9.69 seconds in 100 meters is not good enough, what is? Are we going to see some one break that record soon? May be Bolt himself.
Just as Bolt completed his 100 meters race, a thought struck in my mind. What if half of the humanity became half as fit as Bolt - wouldn't we solve the world energy crisis :) ? Think.
I would also like to mention that one of the reasons I got hooked to this years Olympics is a well packaged presentation by NBC. The other day I read a report in Hindustan Times, about how India's Doordarshan had messed up it's Olympics telecast big time. A cousin, in India, I spoke to told me the same. He said no one was really following Olympics there.
Luckily NBC is pretty professional and if I was from Chinese government, I would send across special thanks to NBC for being agents of these games promotion for the North American audience. Not only did NBC focus on sports, it took us to various facets of Chines culture. It was truly fascinating.
I am going to the Gym now. Hope this Olympic fever does not fade out soon. I will be resting my bums on the couch a little less.
Saturday, August 23, 2008
The Kashmir Fatigue
India has a choice again on Kashmir, as it had in 1947,65,71 and 98.
Great articles by M.J Akbar and Swapan Das Gupta
Superb analysis at The Acorn- here and here
Great articles by M.J Akbar and Swapan Das Gupta
Superb analysis at The Acorn- here and here
Sushil and Vijendra
I would put grappler Sushil Kumar's and boxer Vijendra Kumar's achievement's at Beijing no less than Abhinav Bindra's
They both won bronze for the country and we owe them big.
And if UPA politician Suresh Kalmadi is not too busy blowing his own trumpet at bird's nest, the Indian Olympics Association would do well to recognize the brilliance of these two great heroes.
This is the best performance by Indian contingent at the Olympics ever and it is no thanks to IOA or MS Gill (who congratulated himself when Bindra won). In fact India won three medals not because of IOA but INSPITE of it. And that is a tribute to individual spirit of persistence and hard work.
The three medalists have given lot of us hope and lot of positives to take away from 2008 Olympics. As a country we owe them all a royal salute.
*********************
P.S : I would like to see all politicians not hog the limelight for once, when Indian Olympic team is felicitated. This disgusting scenario we saw on the podium in Mumbai, when Dhoni's team India was relegated to back rows when all khadi clad Sharad Pawar led politicians hogged the limelight after the WC-T20 win. Please spare us this time!
They both won bronze for the country and we owe them big.
And if UPA politician Suresh Kalmadi is not too busy blowing his own trumpet at bird's nest, the Indian Olympics Association would do well to recognize the brilliance of these two great heroes.
This is the best performance by Indian contingent at the Olympics ever and it is no thanks to IOA or MS Gill (who congratulated himself when Bindra won). In fact India won three medals not because of IOA but INSPITE of it. And that is a tribute to individual spirit of persistence and hard work.
The three medalists have given lot of us hope and lot of positives to take away from 2008 Olympics. As a country we owe them all a royal salute.
*********************
P.S : I would like to see all politicians not hog the limelight for once, when Indian Olympic team is felicitated. This disgusting scenario we saw on the podium in Mumbai, when Dhoni's team India was relegated to back rows when all khadi clad Sharad Pawar led politicians hogged the limelight after the WC-T20 win. Please spare us this time!
Friday, August 22, 2008
Microsoft picks Seinfeld
Microsoft needs to re-brand itself. We all know. Mac (and specially it's new ad) has taken the wind out of the software giant. But to choose Seinfeld as brand Ambassador!!!
Nah...not cool.
Just for the record I am huge fan of Seinfeld's. I can't stop talking of this guy's genius whenever I get on it. But the combination of MS and Seinfeld looks far fetched.
Also for the record I am not anti-MS or pro-Mac. I would actually want Microsoft to combat Mac in a fair way. I come from the Java world and here, even hinting at supporting Bill Gates and Microsoft is plain sacrilege. But I usually stick my neck out in wrong direction. So be it.
Microsoft need to be "cool" again, alright. But how does it do it by roping in Jerry Seinfeld, a 50 year old living in Hamptons, who probably all his life used "geeks" and "gadgets" as fodder for his stand up?
Not a big fan of this new marriage... nah.
Nah...not cool.
Just for the record I am huge fan of Seinfeld's. I can't stop talking of this guy's genius whenever I get on it. But the combination of MS and Seinfeld looks far fetched.
Also for the record I am not anti-MS or pro-Mac. I would actually want Microsoft to combat Mac in a fair way. I come from the Java world and here, even hinting at supporting Bill Gates and Microsoft is plain sacrilege. But I usually stick my neck out in wrong direction. So be it.
Microsoft need to be "cool" again, alright. But how does it do it by roping in Jerry Seinfeld, a 50 year old living in Hamptons, who probably all his life used "geeks" and "gadgets" as fodder for his stand up?
Not a big fan of this new marriage... nah.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)