December 16, 2012

Turn off the News...


Morgan Freeman's brilliant take on what happened yesterday :

"You want to know why. This may sound cynical, but here's why.

It's because of the way the media reports it. Flip on the news and watch how we treat the Batman theater shooter and the Oregon mall shooter like celebrities. Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris are household names, but do you know the name of a single *victim* of Columbine? Disturbed people who would otherwise just off themselves in their basements see the news and want to top it by doing something worse, and going out in a memorable way. Why a grade school? Why children? Because he'll be remembered as a horrible monster, instead of a sad nobody.

CNN's article says that if the body count "holds up", this will rank as the second deadliest shooting behind Virginia Tech, as if statistics somehow make one shooting worse than another. Then they post a video interview of third-graders for all the details of what they saw and heard while the shootings were happening. Fox News has plastered the killer's face on all their reports for hours. Any articles or news stories yet that focus on the victims and ignore the killer's identity? None that I've seen yet. Because they don't sell. So congratulations, sensationalist media, you've just lit the fire for someone to top this and knock off a day care center or a maternity ward next.

You can help by forgetting you ever read this man's name, and remembering the name of at least one victim. You can help by donating to mental health research instead of pointing to gun control as the problem. You can help by turning off the news."

August 03, 2012

Do you carry your PDA with you everywhere...pun intended!

I was going through my Facebook news feed and came across a certain status update by someone in my friends list. What was so special about that update? Well it gave me an idea for today’s post, which is public display of affection. Now PDA has been a huge part of these social networking sites pretty much since its evolution. And I’m not confining to social networking only. I’m gonna go on the limb and take the liberty to explore this social “norm” outside the digital world as well. I’m not the person who hates the idea of displaying rather expressing one’s feelings to the other. In fact I’m pretty much an extrovert. But what bothers me rather infuriates me is the uncanny, unnecessary show off of people’s love to the world.

Let’s start with the social networking sites like fb. I have been inauspicious enough to have witnessed many such examples. The moment someone gets committed or engaged they start sharing cheesy song lyrics and poetry, telling the world how within few days they’re so deep in shit (or love) that they can see stars in the day light, roaming around with a gooey smile on their goofy faces. How they feel the need to tell that significant other that they miss them more than a fat kid misses a Burger King, and that too via their status update. So what if that “significant other” has his/her own personal cell phone. Simple text that tells them that you miss them wouldn’t do any good as the world wouldn’t know the depth of your love. Then those conversations on any thread with that significant other of yours, using the encoded language so the world wouldn’t know what you two have been talking about but enough to reveal that you two mutton heads have been pouring your undying love for each other over a sodding social networking site for the whole sodding world to read. I feel this strong urge to write under such conversation to go get a room you two. Why the hell would the world be interested in knowing that your boyfriend is so damn caring that he gets all jittery if you sneeze more than thrice in a row. Or your girlfriend/fiancĂ©e/wife skips her lunch too just because you didn’t get time to eat yours. Retards!!

Now coming outside the digital world and into the real world. I have been really doomed as I have seen and known in fact still know people who take PDA as their hobby. I know couples who would eat in the same plate over a formal dinner just to let the world know that their love is strong and unbreakable. And yes since their love is so resilient it is imperative for you to witness it! I hate it when I have to play host to such couples. God knows how I refrain myself by telling them that they can have their own separate plates, I won’t mind washing one extra dish. This is just one tiny example of PDA in real life that I have witnessed, rest I can’t even bring myself to mention.

If only I could understand why in the hell do people think that it’s totally cool if they pour out their feelings for the bystanders to comment on, which should be confined between two entities. Only if those so in love morons would comprehend that the rest of the world is least interested in knowing the depth of their unbreakable bound. Perhaps then they would save the effort and spare us with the cheesy torture.

In the nutshell, if you’re big on public display of affection, beware, I’m big on public display of animosity!

March 11, 2012

Not fading away...

Roger Federer’s loss at the 2012 French open or at 2011 Wimbledon quarter-finals does not indicate his waning star. In fact, if anything, this loss can be attributed to the depth in men’s tennis, as can Federer’s recent Grand Slam “drought”. So, the question of whether or not Federer has handed over the baton or torch to the next generation is one that does not merit an answer until one can find a clear-cut successor with a track record of longevity and consistency, or until Federer can no longer make it to the business end of a Grand Slam — clearly not the case yet. Truth be told, the days of the “big three” or the “awesome foursome” are gone.

Younger, fresher perspectives and minds can wear down the best across any sport. Golf is undergoing a similar metamorphosis with McIlroy, Schwartzel, Donald, and Villegas leading the young brigade. Even in women’s tennis a traditionally predictable upper echelon has given way to new faces and young champions like Kvitova, Pironkova and Azarenka, or veteran but unexpected, Li Na and Schiavone.

Rafael Nadal (“Rafa”) is a great champion and a great sportsman, and if he can stay healthy while keeping the young guns at bay, he has every opportunity to attain a baker’s dozen of Grand Slams or more. But Rafa has a limited window of dominance, and as the gluten-free version 2.0 Novak Djokovic showed during his 43-match streak in 2011, Rafa is beatable, even on clay. But, this isn’t about Rafa, or any speculation on how long he will be competitive. This is purely about Federer and his so-called inevitable decline. The receding dominance of Federer is linked to his Grand Slam drought — his last victory was at the Australian Open 2010. Also, there are claims, somewhat valid, that he has lost his aura of being unbeatable. That the world’s number 3 player with one final, two semi-final, and three quarter-final showings in the last six Grand Slams is considered to be on the decline is premature at best, but in all fairness this is linked to his earlier supremacy. His lost aura however is a reality — his opponents do think he is beatable. But then, barring Rafa’s surreal dominance at Roland Garros, there are very few unbeatable players at any venue.

Federer’s loss record against Rafa, Andy Murray or even Djokovic is sometimes discussed as indicative of how he isn’t even the greatest player of our time, let alone of all time. Keep in mind, however, that Federer has played against the very best across generations, and by the time Rafa and friends emerged on the scene, he had already been dominating tennis for a significant time period. And, there is no player in today’s game that he has not beaten, or is unlikely to beat on any given Sunday.

Let’s look at Federer’s performances in Grand Slams in the last 18 months, especially his losses: to Rafa, Djokovic, Soderling, Berdych and Tsonga. Rafa and Djokovic have been playing at an outstanding level in the last 18 months, and Soderling, who beat Roger at the French Open in 2010, is also the only man to have beaten Rafa at Roland Garros. Federer’s 2010 blip was effectively erased this year when he ended Djokovic’s streak in the semi-finals, and then gave Rafa all that he could handle in the finals.

The loss to Berdych, a career under-performer, at Wimbledon in 2010 was worrying — the loss to Tsonga not so much. Already this year, Tsonga has beaten Rafa on grass at the Queens, and narrowly lost to Murray in the finals. He holds a career edge over Djokovic, has beaten Federer before, and handed Rafa his worst loss in a Grand Slam — a 6-2, 6-3, 6-2 demolition at the 2008 Australian Open. Against Federer, he took advantage of a flawless serving performance, and playing textbook grass court tennis. Nevertheless, Federer should have won the match, and Wimbledon 2011. His serene complacency may have been the cause of this early exit, and the pressure of once again being the favorite in a Grand Slam could have also led to undue pressure that he exerted on himself.

Federer is likely to win at least a few more Grand Slams, depending on timing and luck. Perhaps he will thrive more now in an underdog setting without a target on his back — as was the case at Roland Garros 2011. Federer plays the beautiful game, is a tennis connoisseur’s prototype, a brand ambassador for the sport, and is about to complete a decade at the pinnacle of men’s tennis. Appreciate that these are the last few years where Federer will grace the game with his elite and unique style and spirit, and treat the next Grand Slam victory, if and when it comes, as further indication that we are witnessing the greatest tennis champion the world has produced. One whose star is clearly not dimming in the near future.

March 09, 2012

A Lehman style event, but Lehman's went bankrupt, whilst Greece does not only by dint of a technicality?


Some people are clearly that desperate to keep the whole EU financial and political establishment together that they have had to vote themselves (i.e robbed taxpayers,) and then handed themselves, (via the ECB,) a stonking €3 Trillion Euro's.

Just for the sake of clarity that is NOT an everyday, ordinary amount of money (now debt!) And all that just to make sure the bankers continue to play ball and supply credit to the socialist madness that is the EU. Banksters and politicians in their own cozy loop. That's debt slavery and fiscal servitude,  ugly as day right there in front of your eyes. Your only fault is you voted for it.

Truly, truly shocking.