Desicritics Author: Q Bit

My Superior Take On The Sinister Cabal

Q Bit — Sat, 3 Feb 2007 12:36:40 EST

You have read the story of our own Temporal's third child, an uncluttered insightful account of the beginning of Desicritics and how he got weaved in. As an editor, he mused that his job is to kill spams, and to settle the difference between it's and its, which, so many of the aspiring authors are unaware of.

I am not shocked in the least, to hear that, even if some of you may have been, mainly because I recently finished reading Lynne Truss's outrageously funny and insightful Eats, Shoots & Leaves where I also learned, among all other glorious facets and potholes of English grammar, the difference between "Am I looking at my dinner or the dog's?" and "Am I looking at my dinner or the dogs?" I can now say, without hesitation, I am now prepared to combat every apocalyptic grammatical error that I'd come across (which I surely would, once I am done with this draft), without depressing myself.

But the editors, like our Temporal, Sujatha, and others, who juggle apostrophes around every day should take heart at this bizarre law of conservation of apostrophes (from Eats, Shoots & Leaves): "For every apostrophe omitted from an it's, there's an extra one put into an its." I hope that would bring cheer on the usually deadpan editorial faces when, next time, they push the delete button to remove the gatecrasher apostrophe.

But I digress. I wanted to post a rather mundane account of my life with Desicritics (DC). I promise to keep it low profile, because having said so, everyone would now expect less, and you know, from your experience, it then becomes rather easy to top the expectations.

Desicritics, on January 26 jogged past it's (editor says: Oh God, not again) first anniversary. Milestone? Sure. Perhaps, more accurately a stepping stone to greater heights. And there are reasons to celebrate. [Sir, let this sink in s l o w l y. It is its here NOT it's.-t]

(Look, one year is a bloody long time. Last year, at this hour, I was enjoying Southern California and whatever it brings on the beaches. This year, am sitting in my office whence the temperature outside is -20 C. DC has certainly been a lot more fortunate.)

DC has already achieved a lot in year one. Not sure if it has surpassed the expectations of the founding parents, but the report card looks extraordinary.

The readership has increased, and so did the density of excellent writers, who steadfastly write on issues, that are steadfastly refused the desired attention in the mainstream. At the same time, they are equally, if not more, all over Shilpa Shetty--the wonder girl, who at 31 got racially abused in a stupid show while pocketing a cool one third of a million pounds. For that money I am willing to be called anything for a year.

And we also must celebrate DC's first anniversary because we can't imagine life without anniversaries.

We love anniversaries. We really do. And if you look around your home, you'd find plenty of material proof. Anniversaries are big in our own world of small things.

Anniversaries also make sense in our age of instant gratification. Given our penchant for quickies--quick dating, quick fixing, not to mention elevator and back-seat traditional quickies, anniversaries are quite a stark detour. [what about a plug for mile high club-t? and i also have qualms about traditional after back-seat - for instance tongas are too public!]

Anniversaries can't be quick. And so they are valued.

To put things in a better perspective, no one celebrates the first week of marriage or first month of marriage, but completion of a year of marriage calls for mast celebration regardless of how the first year with your spouse went by. Of course, if you are married to a Britney, you are better off celebrating dailies and weeklies.

Talking about marriage anniversaries, on many occasions, if you carefully read between the smiles when the happily married couple greet the guests holding hands, they always seem to say, " ***&&&^***##@@ .. can't believe I managed to survive another ^$$# year with my anatomy intact". I feel bad, because I know I am the only one who can read between the smiles, but eventually hand them over the cognac and the "stay safe" anniversary card following protocol.

You know, DC is particularly vocal on domestic violence, spousal abuse and abuses against women. And they are relentless in their effort. Kudos to those who hammer us often on the dark and ugly side of human nature, and how we can make our society little better.

I could go on and on, but I presume the editors won't like that, and I know, dear reader, your time is more valuable than mine. So, I would end with a small observation.

Not so long ago, DC used to be a "sinister cabal of superior writers". The caption can no longer be seen on the right hand corner of the main page. It disappoints me big time.

As a matter of fact I miss not being part of a "sinister cabal". But that's not something I can't deal with. What hurts me most is not being called a "superior writer" because there's nothing better than thinking myself superior than you, and drinking mocha burning office hours. When the caption was gone, along with the superiority and membership of the sinister cabal, it also took away my gloating rights.

The Aussies Must Thank Team India For Showing The Way

Q Bit — Wed, 6 Dec 2006 15:57:26 EST

We all know by now how it went for Andrew Fintoff and his boys in the second test at the Adelaide Oval.

England lost the test, which by itself is no big deal, except, by the end of four days play they were in a position to draw in the worst case scenario. Winning, however least likely it seemed to be was another option but losing was never in the cards. And yet, England managed to end the day in debt while waking up in the morning with trillion pounds surplus.

Safe to say, the promise of retaining the Ashes would be another promise broken, because right now they are in a hole so deep even Tony Blair would prefer Iraq to the Ashes.

I don't want to rub it in further because the British press is pretty damn good at that. And reassuringly enough the fifth day at the Adelaide Oval has already been referred to as the darkest day of English cricket (there's no shortage of short memories it seems) which makes you think, for some the sinking feeling has yet to reach the bottom.

I must confess I have no personal stakes at all in this mega-hyped Ashes series, although I would like to see the Aussies emerge victorious, because they deserve that freaking urn containing whatever. So I have been following the games as diligently as possible without actually watching them.

There is, however a significant difference between this loss and every other loss England has suffered in recent memory. Not every time, you can point finger simply to one guy for a loss and you are not wrong. It's generally true we dearly love to put the blame either on the coach or the captain, depending on the likability of the chap concerned (for example: if Ganguly is the skipper, then the fault must be his but when Dravid is the captain, the coach, Greg Chappell always takes the flak while the captain goes scott free), and sometimes both, but realistically, in most cases a depressing result usually follows from several depressing performances on the field. Only in rarest of rare cases you can find one goat--and that's it.

Turns out it is Duncan Fletcher, the coach--if only he listened to what everyone said before the second test (replace Giles with Monty), he wouldn't be here now. You can argue, Freddie being the skipper should shoulder part of the fallout but I don't think he's wholeheartedly in the same boat undervaluing Monty.

That is to say if Flintoff truly believes in the ability of Monty, it's high time he starts asserting himself more and nodding to Fletcher less. By doing so, he won't be able to retain the Ashes but at least he would have the best eleven actually playing on the field instead of forcing one of them to carry drinks, and if can't do that he should seriously consider relinquishing the captaincy to Andrew Strauss, who under any figure of merit would do a better job (actually the same holds true for Ponting--he's just lucky to have a better team but makes irritating and baffling and idiotic decisions on the field--he should hand it over to Hussey).

What I find rather amusing is that virtually everyone, from soccermoms, footballdads to fair weather curling fans are expressing deep shock and despair by the result. Not once since the fall of the empire the collective English psyche have been so overwhelmingly depressed. Even the battle hardened ex-cricketers (you have to count the losers of the 90s too--they did fight at times, albeit for losing causes), and the sportswriters have jumped the bandwagon of disbelief while hailing the Aussie victory as some sort of supernatural, magical miracle delivered by an old charm--Shane Warne. But this should hardly come as a surprise, I repeat, a surprise for those who have been there and done that before.

It's fair to say what the Aussies did to the Poms was exactly what Team India did to the Aussies in 2003-04 , and at the same venue (Adelaide).

I know anything I offer will fail to raise the spirit of the English fans but they might take some solace in knowing their bitter rivals already had a taste of the same fate.

For Team India fans, Adelaide 2003-04 will always remain a collage of fond memories, heroics of Dravid (a double century in the first, an even more important 70+ not out in the second) and Agarkar (singlehandedly bulldozed the Aussies in the second innings), a 1-0 series lead (the series ended in a draw eventually) and a certain Ganguly astutely marshal ling the resources.

Marriage Should Go--Right Now

Q Bit — Tue, 14 Nov 2006 12:56:23 EST

Nowadays you can hardly talk about marriage and not feel the dark insecurity of the vast majority of men and women, many of whom would go a long way, only short of death, to hold on to their tightly guarded paranoia that marriage has everything to do with a man and a woman. The rest of us who suggest otherwise could take a blipping vacation at Guantanamo.

Little wonder why in a party last week, a good ol' fashioned conversation with a friend quickly turned into an exchange of politely thrown cynical jabs as soon as the usual suspects showed up. The suspects, as I feared, were not Jack and Jill and Dr. Phil.

Instead, they were Adam and Adam and Eve and Eve - the same sex couples, same sex cohabitants, or simply people who enjoy companionship and take part in bedroom activities with the like-minded ones of same sex.

Our talking point wasn't, of course, how same-sex people have sex with each other. Even by my friend's standard that would be dumb, although he detests the entire "homosexual" thing with utmost sincerity (he says he can't bring himself to imagine how guy-guy or girl-girl things actually happen, so I asked him to surf the web with a more open mind).

We talked about the rights of homosexuals to marry, to call themselves married, and to call themselves a family, all of which now only applies to men married to women and women married to men.

The questions we asked ourselves were: Should homosexuals marry? More precisely, should we let them marry? (I know, putting it this way sounds offensive, almost degrading them to second class citizens, but that's the current reality) and should they adopt and raise children and call themselves a family?

My answer was 'yes.' I am not a homosexual; not even remotely, platonic, or by any other conceivable or imaginary way you could call yourself one. My friend's answer was 'no,' a thumping negative, all the while hoping he would get his point across the fence and stick it inside my bone head. Unfortunately, his twisted logic (I told that on his face and he turned bloody red) wasn't any better than what the Vatican offers in the press releases, turning his efforts into a total waste.

I told him he's an ass; and I can tell you it's good to have friends who don't mind being called an ass.

We agreed on something. Assuming same sex couples someday get their due right to marry, which they should get without further delay, we agreed the Vatican could considerably clean up its image by FedEx-ing their blessings overnight. This has the potential of becoming the masterstroke of Benedict XXX, should he decide to strike again after so callously quoting from obscure texts from the Middle Ages to insult Muslims. Methinks the Pope still kinda "lives" in the Middle Ages, so he is probably more comfortable with the medieval texts and ideas. Enough digression.

Same sex marriage is not a popular thing. It's not even an acceptable idea among many heterosexuals who are moderate and are usually open to listening to what others have to say (like my friend). Many of these good, decent folks couldn't come up with a single good reason why they are opposed to same sex marriage. Instead, they keep repeating the pathetic moral AIDS logic, strongly advocated by the Vatican (where time is frozen, and God skates on the frozen time) and other religions.

The Vatican had previously said gay marriage is "gravely immoral," a "threat to families," and is "harmful to the proper development of human society." While declaring marriage is "holy" (gasp), the Vatican said, "homosexual acts go against the natural moral law." Ouch!!!

If you think they sound a lot more like the cave dwellers living in a doghouse and a lot less like someone living in a 21st century society practicing equality, freedom, and liberty for everyone, then congratulations, you are right!

The problem is in their premise of objection, which is equating morality with the laws of Mother Nature. Nothing could be further from the truth and it doesn't make sense at all. If they had said we don't endorse gay marriage because we don't know how a man does a man or a woman does a woman, I would have personally sent a thank-you note to the Pope for their collective ignorance. Instead they talk about morality, and I don't see what morality has to do with the preference. I can agree that it could be a matter of taste, but calling it moral or immoral? Never.

Also notice the use of such charming phrases like "threat to families," to which I say Amen! How could you notice the perceived (and imaginary) threat of same-sex couples to marriage and not notice a good fraction of families are surprisingly efficient in self-destruction?

Married folks don't quite mind abusing their divine bond. About one third (this is arguable, because different studies quote different percentages, but lowest you get is about a quarter) of married couples drop their underwear outside their bedrooms.

Again, it's the heterosexuals who engage in frequent, messy, and obscene court battles over custody, infidelity, and everything they cook up to stink an entire courtroom. I don't care if they don't want to stay with each other, but why can't they just get it done amicably? Why do social resources have to be wasted over lengthy courtroom battles?

The Vatican is not the only insane representative of religions. Islam, its ever-fighting brother, is not far behind. They don't grab the headlines because Islamic societies, cultures, and countries are usually very hush-hush. But someone called Sheikha advises on the Aljazeera website, "The reason why gay marriage or homosexual behavior is prohibited in Islam and thus banned in Arab and Muslim states is the devastating effect and chaos it'd inflict on the moral and social fabric of society. Same-sex marriage is reversal of the natural order, it's a moral disorder. It's violation of the limits prescribed by God."

When it comes to allowing the homosexuals to marry, the torchbearers of Jesus, Muhammad, and Vishnu share the same bed, eat from the same plate, and quote the same God. They don't want the word 'marriage' to come even remotely close to the homosexuals, but they don't mind killing each other with their God's approval (arguably).

Religious connotations aside, the most appalling part of the entire debate is the continued endorsement of "marriage-not-for-homosexuals" by a broad section of the Jacks and Jills climbing down the divorce hill. The only explanation is that it is not about principle, if ever there was one. It is all about power -- the existing hegemony over marriage and divorce -- the existing social supremacy.

Sad and equally bad.

Here is a reasonable way out. It's a "cut and run" solution based on the following propositions.

1. Marriage, as it stands now, is a deep perversion of the equality principle. We are generally opposed to specific groups enjoying specific favors and enjoying them forever. I use the term "favor" loosely, and it could be anything from having quotas in jobs, admission in universities, political stuffs, to marriage for heterosexuals and heaven for Christians or Muslims or Hindus (but not for all of them mind you). We should all be truly equal under all social norms.

2. We need our institutions to be lean and slim - not obese, like marriage, which enjoys no extra benefit from the existing and perfectly acceptable legal civil union. Since legally we are already on a sound platform, all we have to do is to extend the premise of union from "man and woman" to "any Homo sapiens and any Homo sapiens with valid identities." It's not that difficult.

3. Marriage, not including the legal binding, only validates the religious and social approval to fuck and suck. We don't need religious and social approval to do what we choose to do in our own privacy, and with whom.

4. Society won't look any different if we abolish the institution of marriage and move on like it was never there in the first place.

5. Everyone needs a second chance. So do the divorce lawyers (send them to Sudan).

The only way I can satisfy all the above propositions is by suggesting marriage should go. Right now. It never made sense then and it doesn't make sense now. Period.

I have my friends in Adam and Eve. They never got married. There wasn't any Priest or Mullah, or Pundit available. And they did just fine.

Afterthoughts On Montreal Shooting

Q Bit — Sat, 16 Sep 2006 15:16:06 EDT

So, I was sipping my morning coffee today and I was looking for the " brewing queries " , our own Temporal so poetically noted on the Montreal shooting that took place a few days ago.

All I could see, there's a freak, freaking out--and such freak outs happen once in a while. Too bad for us, but that's how it is. Fatal shootings are not unusual in North America, but the ones that get the headlines have always something in common--freaks--characters who stand-out, characters who don't fit with our regular Jacks and Jills, and almost without an exception--the locations of the events--in this case a college where you least expect a shoot out to happen whereas a ghetto shooting would go unnoticed.

If you are perturbed by the self--portraits and self-eulogies of Kimveer Gill, the shooter of Montreal from Annie's post, my suggestion is, don't get worked up too much. A thorough researcher would find thousands of such folks on the web, fantasizing on the dark-side.

And there would be thousands more who don't have a profile posted on a web site.

Gill was wearing a black trench-coat -- I'm sure for quite sometime everyone wearing a black trench coat would get uneasy looks.

A Mohawk hair-cut would have an equal effect, now. One of my students in the last fall had a Mohawk hair-cut. There wasn't anything remotely suspicious about him, although he always wanted lots of hints to solve the assignments which I always, politely declined to provide. I don't know what his fellow students would now think about him.

These adversarial vibes are no different from what we hear in other situations--a good fraction of British people said they feel uncomfortable around Asians, and more precisely Asians carrying back packs--people have been deported from planes because fellow passengers were suspicious--more recently dozens of Indians were hauled at Amsterdam because they were loud, and passing around cell-phones.

I have come across black trench coats, Mohawk hair cuts and loud mouths, hundreds of times, you find them everywhere, but if they are white--they are cool, if they are non-white--probably they are bad guys at worst, and obnoxious at best.

Nice to live in a world of profiles. Not so nice when you are singled out not because you look don't look like a Jedi, but because you look like Darth Vader.

Profiling aside, there's something more to chew about the Montreal shooting. In Canada, the debate has heated up once again whether the conservatives are right to do away with the strict gun registration rules enforced by the liberals following a previous fatal shooting at Montreal in 1989.

But gun-rules or no gun-rules wouldn't stop people like Kimveer Gill. They wouldn't stop the likes of Columbine shooters. People like that will always find a way to get their guns.

But having gun-rules, perhaps stricter than what we have now are better than not having them at all--gun-rules don't cure the problem because we don't know what the problem is--but they do make the jobs of Kimveer Gills more difficult.

Religious Intolerance: A Young Saudi Serves A Life Sentence For A Deadly Joke

Q Bit — Fri, 15 Sep 2006 02:21:41 EDT

There are good jokes, bad jokes, and PJs. Now there's a new kid in the block, the DJ -- a deadly joke, a joke that could lead you to years of imprisonment and perhaps cost your life.

You'd think I'm joking. I wish I were, but sadly, I'm not.

That's what happened to Hadi Al-Mutaif, a young Saudi whose joke about the Prophet Muhammad didn't go down well with the Saudi authorities. As a result he's already spent thirteen years in prison, and still languishes in a solitary cell without proper medical attention.

It all started 13 years ago, in 1993, when Hadi, an 18-year-old teenager from the desert of Najran joined the Najran police training camp to become a policeman. While he was getting ready to join his fellow recruits for the afternoon prayers following the usual call from the Imam to pray upon the Prophet, Hadi allegedly joked, "Let's pray upon the penis of the Prophet."

His quip was reported by two or three colleagues, leading to a series of unfortunate and equally bizarre events. He was first handed over to the local police station, then to the Saudi domestic intelligence where he was tortured, held for months, and finally put on trial in December 1994. He was found guilty and was sentenced to death.

Two subsequent appeals, one in a court of Mecca and the other one in the Supreme Judicial Council, were both rejected. Apparently in all his trials, Hadi's religious background - he's an Ismaili Shia - became a major factor that swayed the judges. In Saudi Arabia, the Ismaili Shias are hated by the ruling Wahhabi Muslims.

The Wahhabi Chief Justice had even argued that Hadi must get the death penalty, not because it's just for his derogatory comment on the Prophet but because he's an Ismaili Shia. The death sentence was later commuted to life imprisonment by King Abdullah.

Presently Hadi, 31, has started a hunger strike and wishes to fast until death.

At best, Hadi's joke on the penis of the Prophet was just a joke like any other, and there's nothing more to it. At worst, it's a silly remark from an 18-year-old immature teenager. In what kind of society would such a comment earn someone in life imprisonment?

Look, I am not religious, and I really don't care about the penises and vaginas of Gods and Goddesses, and their messengers. For all I know, Gods need to screw the Goddesses because that's how you keep the God-line going. Which holds equally true for their messengers, most of whom have fathered multiple children.

I know that the Hindus worship "Shiva Lingam", the "Penis of Lord Shiva" and feel quite happy about it. I know that there have been thousands of jokes on the penis of Jesus. Actually, there's a website called Jesus Penis and I don't think the Pope is after the people who maintain that website.

And I do know most religions could care less. The portraits of Hindu Goddesses are generally quite sexy and revealing and very much acceptable.

The Pope might not like the birth control pills and condoms but he's not worried about the arguments on the length of Jesus's penis.

The problem with Islam is not that it is habitually intolerant. The problem with Islam is the people, the likes of the Saudi Royals, the Taliban, and the mullahs in Tehran, who use Islam to further their own fascist agendas.

Sending someone to prison for life, for making a "silly" comment about the Prophet when he's 18, is wrong. It violates all the letters of the word "human".

Hezbollah and Israel: Peace Of The Blind

Q Bit — Sat, 2 Sep 2006 16:08:35 EDT

While the shaky Middle East cease-fire continues to survive despite occasional breaches by the Israeli defense forces, recent media reports suggest that a deal between Israel and Hezbollah, involving a prisoner swap, is under way. An Egyptian daily even went as far as to report that the exchange could take place within two to three weeks [Link].

In 2004, a Germany brokered deal " saw the return of the bodies of three IDF soldiers who were kidnapped in October 2000 and of Israeli businessman Elhanan Tennenbaum. In return, Israel released some 430 Arab prisoners, most of them Palestinians, as well as the bodies of 60 Lebanese soldiers. The deal also includes the release of German prisoner Stephan Smyrek, accused of planning attacks on the Israeli Embassy in Bonn." [Link]

In 1996, Israel freed 45 Shiiete Muslims and returned more than 100 Hezbollah bodies in exchange for the remains of two Israeli soldiers. [Link]

Since 1948, Israel has negotiated dozens of similar deals with the Arab groups, and this time will be no different from the previous ones--regardless of whether Israel and Lebanon have reached an agreement or are still hammering out the details, a deal of some form that would enable the return of the captured Israeli soldiers in exchange for a number of Lebanese prisoners held in Israeli jails, is inevitable.

Ironically, Israel is now holding talks for a prisoner swap after presiding over 34 days of carnage and cluster bombs--a proposal it flatly rejected when Hezbollah released a statement making clear its intention for a prisoner exchange shortly after the kidnapping of two soldiers on the fateful morning of July 12.

The obvious question is, why not then? Why, only after turning the clock of Lebanon back 20 years? Why did Israel refuse to negotiate before, and instead launch a ferocious retaliatory attack on Lebanon?

The answer, my friend, is blowin' in the ruins of Lebanon--the bloody message of hegemony: you live with Hezbollah, we leave you in your graves; you bite a finger, we will chop your limbs off. Period.

From Israel's point of view, the option of negotiation was always there, it's never off the table. However, in Hezbollah's act they saw an excellent opportunity to execute what they had in mind for quite some time. All they needed, was an excuse, no matter how feeble.

As opposed to the views of the multitude of pundits (which I'm not), Hezbollah's ambush of the Israeli patrol, although ill-advised, was hardly provocative and not under any stretch of imagination could be conceived as a serious threat to Israel's right to exist.

Why not?

Because the tactic of taking hostages to be used later as bargaining chips to secure the release of prisoners is hardly copy-righted by Hezbollah or Hamas. Israel is, and has always been a part of the tradition.

In 1996, the New York Times ran a story on prisoner swap where among other things it also mentioned: "Among its Shiite prisoners, Israel still holds two top Hezbollah officials, Sheik Abdel Karim Obeid and Mustafa Dirani, kidnapped by its commandos as potential bargaining chips, and Mr. Netanyahu expressed hope that today's agreement might lead to a further exchange."

More recently, about two and half weeks before all hell broke loose, Reuters reported a largely ignored incident: "Israeli forces detained two Palestinians, who the army said were Hamas militants, in the Gaza Strip on Saturday in what marked the first such arrest raid in the territory since Israel pulled out of Gaza a year ago."

The above incident led Hamas to capture Gilad Shalit. Since then, Israel has pounded away in Gaza killing tens of civilians, and has captured no less than 35 Palestinian lawmakers and 5 senior government officials, as chips to a potential prisoner swap. The list includes the deputy prime minister in the Hamas led government.

Kidnapping of two soldiers is hardly a threat to existence, which everyone but Israel and its supporters recognize. Even if I assume that's the case, why then the measuring stick is different for the Palestinians and the Lebanese? When would we have the courage to admit that they also have the equal rights to live in peace, with dignity and not under a continuum cloud of Israeli assaults? Why should Israeli aggressions be viewed through the looking glass of the three proverbial monkeys?

Let me say this again: Hezbollah's ambush on July 12 was neither a provocation--nor a threat to Israel's existence. It was merely advancing a pawn in one of the mindless war games played out by both sides who are blind to the consequences they bring to their own people.

Darrell "The Flippin" Hair - The World's Most Dubious Cricket Umpire?

Q Bit — Wed, 23 Aug 2006 01:21:06 EDT

Had there been a competition of the most dubious cricket umpire in our lives, Darrell Hair would be a runaway winner. When I say "runaway winner" I mean no one, not even Steve "please ... please slooooooooooooooooowly give the finger a raise" Bucknor would come close.

I am with the most aggrieved minds that Bucknor has been brutal recently, and the cricketers from the subcontinent were the worst victims of his reckless decisions. I know some of the wounds are still fresh in our memory, like the one in Kolkata test (coincidentally it was also Bucknor's 100th Test match) when Bucknor adjudged Tendulkar leg before leaving the modern Don of cricket in tears.

If you remember, the ball missed Tendulkar by miles and no one but Abdul Razzaq, the bowler, appealed. Yeah, Bucknor is horrible, but don't forget that the victims of poor cricketing decisions in cases as above have also been the recipient of numerous benefit of doubts. Okay, Tendulkar walks but he's an exception like Adam Gilchrist and Brian Lara but majority of the cricketers don't.

No matter how insane it sounds now, there used to be a time (if you were too young then, ask your dad) when Steve Bucknor was widely respected. People who survived through the golden age of Shakoor Rana and Khizar Hayat would vouch that the mere sight of Bucknor would bring a sigh of relief. Those days are well past us.

Back to Darrell Hair. He's the longest running comedy soap in the cricket fraternity. He's not only ahead of Bucknor in goofing up, he's also the most versatile. Yesterday, the Guardian ran a story on Darrell Hair's long and illustrious bungling history.

The late Shakoor Rana (you are not forgiven if you cannot recall Rana and Gatting working out together) at his peak would have given Hair a run for his money. But Hair beats him by sheer longevity -- his vitality is Viagra-esque. Never in the history of cricket an umpire has been so consistently incompetent over a span that extends more than a decade. Unbelievable!

It boggles mind that he continues umpiring at the highest level despite a steady production of tragedy of errors that has only brought disrepute to the game and to everyone concerned. The reason why he's still around despite a stellar resume of screw-ups is because he's as competent as his ICC bosses. For all practical purposes I honestly think there should be a reality TV show where the ICC chief Malcolm Speed would interview Hair. For good fun we can also have all his past victims including Inzamam and Murali in the audience. I know I will be watching.

Once again Hair is at the focal point of a needless fiasco that anyone with an I.Q. of 23 (give or take 5) would have handled like Einstein. Since we have been fed the details to death, I am not going to bore you repeating the same sob story. We know how it began, how it ended, and what went in between, up to five decimal places.

The only poor guy who's caught in the cross fire and has nothing to do with the entire thing is Billy Doctrove, Darrell's on field partner. The guy is from the West Indies (and he might as well be suffering from Bucknor Syndrome) and he's so junior to Hair, he nodded at everything Darrell said. He's going to be remembered for just being there, at the wrong place, wrong time, although his role at best was marginally marginal. I feel bad for him.

The other aspect is that something truly novel happened. Pakistan forfeited the match -- the first of its kind in the 129 years of the history of test cricket. Apparently there's not even an iota of evidence supporting Darrell's ridiculous actions -- no TV camera catching a footage of ball tampering, despite 26 of them positioned to capture the moles on your right elbow and nose hairs. So I am just guessing here when I deduce Darrell must have been on crack when he hallucinated the entire episode.

Darrell Hair is the man of choice if we would like to have controversy for fun. Nobody does it better than him. And keeping with tradition he is in a mess, rather everyone but him in a mess for reasons that begin and end with him.

And, Darrell Hair is an obvious idiot -- the Graham Poll of cricket -- a class by himself, benchmark of all aspiring wannabes of mental disorder. If there was ever a shed of doubt, Darrell's latest cameo should put all doubts to rest -- he's now officially dethroned the late Shakoor Rana as the most dubious umpire ever.

Racial and Religious Profiling: Will They Serve the Intended Purpose?

Q Bit — Mon, 21 Aug 2006 15:57:27 EDT

Although the Bush administration is noted for aggressively endorsing unconstitutional methods as critical tools in its declared war on terror, so far it has apparently stayed away from techniques based on racial, ethnic, and religious profiling.

In the wake of the alleged massive terror plot uncovered in the United Kingdom, Representative Peter King (R-NY), Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, thinks selected groups of people should undergo extra security checks at the airports. Newsday reports that King doesn't think "political correctness should hamper airport screens. King has gone so far as to endorse "people of "Middle Eastern and South Asian" descent to undergo additional security checks because of their ethnicity and religion."

King argued, "if the threat is coming from a particular group, I can understand why it would make sense to single them out for further questioning."

I am not sure what Peter King smokes, but I do see some clouded judgment there.

And he's not alone. His juvenile sentiments are recently shared by the conservative Talk Show host Mike Gallagher. In a recent debate in Fox News' Dayside, Gallagher said, "It's time to have a Muslims check-point line in American airports and have Muslims be scrutinized. You better believe it. It's time."

If I am not mistaken I have come across equally fascinating views echoed at Blogcritics and here at Desicritics. And I won't be wrong in my assessment that a large number of people do find the opinions of Peter King and Mike Gallagher acceptable. Now, Peter King and Mike Gallagher may not be racists and neither the people who agree or tend to agree with them. It seems to me that this is an issue of why not? After all, isn't it factually correct that most terrorists are Muslims?

Last year, when New York's mayor Michael Bloomberg ordered random searches of subway passengers after the tube bombings in London that killed 53 people, two city councilmen urged police not to waste their time by searching people who are visibly not a threat when the real threat comes from men of Middle Eastern and Asian men.

The Newsday report also mentions that the U.S. Justice Department issued a policy three years ago banning racial profiling, and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is quoted as saying, "I think that, you know, taking action against someone solely because of their race and solely because of their religion I think is problematic."

As Senor Gonzales is one of the chief advocates of illegal practices adopted by the Bush Government, his stand in this issue calls for some close scrutiny. Gonzales thinks the practice is problematic. He doesn't think that it is flat out and fundamentally wrong. May be he means so but doesn't explicitly say so.

What exactly does he think is problematic about the practice, if may I ask? Is it an ethical and moral problem? Or is it a problem because it's illegal and unconstitutional? For all I know, Senor Gonzales cares about the law and constitution as much as Ahmadinejad cares about the Jews and Israel.

Maybe Gonzales believes it poses a logistical problem. Maybe he's realized that it is an ineffective weapon and will totally alienate the moderate Muslims whose support is sorely needed to win this war on terror, and therefore shouldn't be pursued. If so, it's not bad for someone whose track record on protecting freedom and civil liberties is as glorious as that of Bud Selig protecting Baseball from steroids.

Martin Luther King, Jr. once said, "The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy."

In Martin Luther King Jr.'s test, the Bush administration and its loyal supporters like Peter King have failed miserably. The least they could do now is save themselves from further delusional thoughts.

Juggling Freedom and Security

Q Bit — Fri, 18 Aug 2006 11:08:28 EDT

You, like any other good citizen have put your faith in the Government to do everything in their power to guarantee your security and freedom. And you, an honorable tax-paying law abiding citizen also expect the Government to do so without violating your rights under the constitution, and without encroaching your privacy and without dooming your civil liberties.

As it has become increasingly evident in recent times, we have a situation here.

Fundamentally, our way of life stands on the legs of Freedom and Security. We cannot have one without the other. We also cannot have both stretched to their limits. So, when we make our wishes, we also, perhaps begrudgingly accept the fine prints.

Only a fool would understate the difficult balance we seek today. We don't want to get blown up into pieces by the terrorists--we are also not ready to allow the Government to listen to our phone conversations and read our emails indiscriminately.

The Government wants us to choose between the two--freedom or security. That is, we cannot exercise our constitutional rights to have both--freedom and security. The Government forgets, quite willingly that it was sworn to uphold the constitution.

While we fight an invisible enemy hell bent to take us hostages in this war on terror, and who would go any length to destroy our core values--and vandalize our way of life, we also face the obligation to protect everything our enemies want to send to the graves with us.

Which is why today's ruling (LINK) by a Federal Judge that the warrantless wiretapping program promoted by the Government and carried out by the National Security Agency is unconstitutional and must be stopped immediately, should bring congruous smiles to the faces who realize the significance of the Statue of liberty.

This is an embarrassment to the present administration, which has demonstrated time and time again and beyond reasonable doubts their aggressive intent to bypass the Constitution and the due legal procedures.

Such frivolous practices were part of the former Soviet Union.

I don't think anyone would object to the fact that it is necessary to carry out wiretapping surveillance program for national security purposes. The question is how should it be done. You might be surprised but the answer is childishly simple.

All they--the smart folks in the NSA and Justice Department have to do is to go and convince a judge to give them a warrant to carry out their investigation. I don't see a problem as long as they have valid reasons.

In criminal investigations, such surveillance is routinely carried out by the law enforcement agencies after obtaining proper warrants. I never heard anybody complaining.

I understand that the authorities believe they have justifiable reasons for wiretapping individuals who are terrorists or perceived as threats to the national security. But their insistence to avoid the due process and reluctance to get a proper warrant is incomprehensible--unless of course the whole monitoring business is entirely without merits, or perhaps they have widened their net as much as they could and hoping to get lucky.

To me this looks like incompetence.

Yes, the authorities say that this is not being done indiscriminately--and these are the same people who lied to the country to get into a war that has now cost thousands of American lives and hundreds of billions of dollars.

The Bush administration had the trust of the people. They lost it.

By all means listen to the phone conversations, read the emails if that helps making everyone safer and more secure. But before you do so, get yourself a warrant.

Now, why is it so difficult?

A Pint of Independence

Q Bit — Tue, 15 Aug 2006 16:35:20 EDT

My take on independence day hasn't changed much over the years for I know amidst all the hullabaloo, the people who actually fought for our freedom are largely forgotten. If you care to remember, our freedom was not exactly handed over to us on a platter served with mango pickles and rice. It was a hard fought one.

Celebrating independence is a good thing by itself. Among other things, we are reminded of our good fortune that our forefathers never had. We are indeed a lucky bunch.

There is another aspect to it. Celebrating independence in a country where freedom is guaranteed by the constitution is even better. Pakistan also celebrates its own independence day, but hardly they can celebrate freedom. Again we are far better off than our neighbors who attained their independence only a day before ours.

So what? What good is our freedom when to an average Indian it makes absolutely no sense? True--even after fifty nine years of independence, an average Indian is not happy, nor he or she is feeling good. And there are millions of reasons why. But I am not here to chew upon the deficiencies, which we have in plenty.

Because that is pointless. We take our freedom for granted. We go on and on about our pathetic corrupted system, how our rights and true freedom can only be found in the pages of the constitution and rarely anywhere else. If you call it reality, yes but only half of it.

Despite the agonizing picture we can rightfully paint, we are still in good shape. Our institutions are in place. A corrupt system cannot last forever because that's what the institutions are going to take care of, eventually.

For a poor country like ours, burdened with a billion population and poverty, progress comes with a price tag--time. We can speed things up, sure. But you are mistaken if you think sending a bunch of decent folks to the kursi in New Delhi will actually help improving things. It won't. Good and efficient governance has little to do with good people but has more to do with people who get things done.

Of course the disgruntled ones would still throw their hands up and say, why bother, we are all but fucked up. That might carry an inkling of truth, but is that all there to say? Haven't you noticed any significant change from the days you were growing up till now?

And by the way, there used to be a time, a lot of people cared about independence and freedom. It was when we didn't have any of those. They cared so much that they gave their lives for it. They didn't hesitate to forsake the allures of the world, and the comfort of family, friends and chose the road less travelled.

They might have been wrong in their way. They might have been right. But they made the ultimate sacrifice by putting their lives under the British sword so that we don't have to.

So that we can talk about freedom over a pint of independence.