World Cup 2010 Draw: My Thoughts
Here are some of my thoughts concerning the draw of the 19th installment of the biggest sporting event in the world, the FIFA World Cup, to be held in South Africa in 2010:
Group A: South Africa, Mexico, Uruguay, France
It was going fairly okay for South Africa till France was drawn. But I still think they will struggle to finish in the top three. France will be rather happy with this group, because being in Pot 4, they could have done so much worse. Mexico are a very underrated team and I see them going through.
My Predictions:
1. France (then playing Nigeria in the next round)
2. Mexico (then playing Argentina in the next round)
3. Uruguay
4. South Africa
Group B: Argentina, Nigeria, South Korea, Greece
Interesting little group, with Argentina seemingly the favourites to finish top. But given all their troubles in qualifying for the WC, they could find it tricky against Nigeria who will be playing in their home continent and South Korea led by Park Ji Sung. There is also Greece, the surprise winners of Euro 2004 who, we all know, cannot be ignored.
My Predictions:
1. Argentina (then playing Mexico in the next round)
2. Nigeria (then playing France in the next round)
3. Greece
4. South Korea
Group C: England, United States, Algeria, Slovenia
England have got the group they dreamt of. Algeria and Slovenia are pretty decent teams, but I don't see them overpowering England and the USA. England and the USA should battle it out for top spot. I am personally outraged at such luck, but then I am sort of looking forward to the deluded expectations which will build up now, piling even more pressure on the England team. They should still go through though.
My Predictions:
1. England (then playing Ghana in the next round)
2. USA (then playing Germany in the next round)
3. Slovenia
4. Algeria
Group D: Germany, Australia, Serbia, Ghana
Welcome to the Group of Death! All teams finished top of their qualifying groups and will all fancy their chances of going through to the next round. Germany are seasoned WC participants, Serbia and Australia are two emerging football nations while Ghana is one of the strongest Africans teams with numerous Europe-based players. I will be very biased in my predictions since I support Germany in major international competitions.
My Predictions:
1. Germany (then playing USA in the next round)
2. Ghana (then playing England in the next round)
3. Serbia
4. Australia
Group E: Netherlands, Denmark, Japan, Cameroon
Another interesting group with a top side (Netherlands here) and which will involve a battle for second place between 2 teams (3 if Japan are not disappointing as they are expected to be). Cameroon will have a tough job qualifying for the next round, but I think with the 'home' support, they should scrape it past Bendtner's Denmark.
My Predictions:
1. Netherlands (then playing Paraguay in the next round)
2. Cameroon (then playing Italy in the next round)
3. Denmark
4. Japan
Group F: Italy, Paraguay, New Zealand, Slovakia
What looks like an easy group for the current world champions will still require them to get the job done. Paraguay and Slovakia could spring a surprise or two, given the very little amount of exposure they have had. Slovakia have quite a technically gifted team, mainly in the form of Marek Hamsik. Paraguay did rather well in the South American qualifiers and would be expected to provide some resistance instead of just rolling over. Finally, it is a tall order for New Zealand to not finish bottom of this group.
My Predictions:
1. Italy (then playing Cameroon in the next round)
2. Paraguay (then playing Netherlands in the next round)
3. Slovakia
4. New Zealand
Group G: Brazil, North Korea, Ivory Coast, Portugal
Another group which has been touted as Group of Death, although only 3 teams will be realistically competing to reach the knock-out stages. And they will all be involved in mouth-watering clashes, especially Brazil and Portugal. Ivory Coast are arguably the strongest African team in this WC, but if they manager to qualify from this very tough group, they could go a long way! North Korea, being an unknown quantity might find it too hard to gather any points at all. Still, one should not forget the 1966 WC where the North Koreans beat Italy on their way to the quarter finals where they lost to Portugal in a thrilling match which ended 5-3.
My Predictions:
1. Brazil (then playing Chile in the next round)
2. Ivory Coast (then playing Spain in the next round)
3. Portugal
4. North Korea
Group H: Spain, Switzerland, Honduras, Chile
The current european champions were as lucky as England, Italy and Argentina. They are arguably the best team in the world right now and I think they will negotiate their passage to the next round very easily. Chile, who finished second behind Brazil in their qualifying group will be a strong candidate for second place although Honduras and Switzerland will provide stiff opposition.
My Predictions:
1. Spain (then playing Ivory Coast in the next round)
2. Chile (then playing Brazil in the next round)
3. Honduras
4. Switzerland
Now, before I get lambasted from all sides when my predictions go completely wrong, let me make it clear that as easy as it sometimes is to predict who will go through in which group, anything can happen in a WC match, as history suggests.
Also, the other big question is whether an African team can finally win the WC. I do not think it can realistically happen next year. But if Ivory Coast or Ghana could reach the semis, they are both capable of winning it. The biggest favourites will be Brazil and Spain, with a lot of other excellent candidates who could win it, because all the big teams have made it to the greatest show on Earth.
What do you think of the draw and its implications for the prospects of the various teams? What are your predictions?
Rotten
It is Saturday night and I am walking back home from the station. The city is full of people making the most of the weekend. The pubs are bustling with men and women relaxing with a glass of their favourite alcoholic beverage. I am not one for weekly escapades to the drinking establishments, I only go out around once in a month with friends. I am not that British. I am still indifferent to Marmite.
I don't normally mind people having fun in their own way. I am not a dictator yet, so for the time being, I prefer to let them do as they please. But the one thing that riles me like anything is the dressing sense of the slags who roam the streets every night. Some of them are just one or two clothing items away from total nudity, while the others have so much skin on display that you start to wonder whether they are wearing clothes or if their clothes are wearing skin.
I understand the need for women to look their aesthetic best. But why can't some women establish some limits? How the hell can you feel beautiful with your arse hanging out and breasts barely being kept under your transparent bra? Any self-respecting man would keep away from such monstrosities. I would be scared to even touch one of these slags, in case I contracted some kind of horrid skin infection. Yes, men can be worse and are lucky because all we need to cover is our lower pelvic area. But I have never seen a guy going out in his briefs only.
You can look sexy without looking like a filthy over-worked pornstar. You don't need to wear a skirt so high that we can see that you have not worn any knickers, What makes matters even worse is that very fat women also display this kind of debauchery. I am not saying fat people are not beautiful. After all, I am not George Clooney, but I can still pull a harem of Rohypnoled and drunk old-age pensioners. But if you have a mirror and a decent vision, you could notice that you are not thin enough to wear that backless, frontless, bottomless and sideless dress! Now, think fat AND old and streets and city centres on Saturday nights suddenly look like a scene out of the most horrifying film that could haunt your nightmares for several lifetimes.
Look, I am not asking for much. Look good. You could even look like a slut without dressing up as a prostitute. Wear that backless dress, the hynoptic powers of which you are planning to utilise on a lucky son of a bitch. But don't overdo it. You will only end up looking repulsive. No-one will tell you that though, because your girlfriends will always be supportive (due to the fact that they will now look much better next to your ugly body) and because guys will only look at you through alcohol-shot eyes and even then, they would rather lick the pavement after someone has just vomitted on it than chatting you up.
Rant over... I am a man of simple pleasures, so thanks for almost ruining my walk back home, slags.
A History of Music
Music has always been a huge part of my existence, so much so that I can easily associate certain periods of my existence to specific songs which were popular at the time. What I find really interesting is how much one's taste in music can grow and evolve through time. Just like personality undergoes a thorough metamorphosis, what one perceives as being good music can also change considerably.
I don't recall the first ever song, lullabies aside, to reach my ears, but I am pretty sure it was something by either Nadeem Shravan or Jatin-Lalit. Having had a typical South Asian upbringing, I was completely into Bollywood. The early Nineties were dominated by countless romantic comedies which had the typically one-dimensional Indian music of that era, characterised by the ubiquitous tabla and loud vocals of Kumar Sanu. ALL songs had the same blueprint. Don't get me wrong though, some of those were absolute classics, like the soundtracks of Saajaan, Dilwale Dulhaniya Le Jayenge and Aashiqui amongst others. But at that time, I was only starting to get to grips with this new type of media.
Then, Dil Se came and everything changed! I already knew about Roja, Bombay and Rangeela, but when this good friend of mine lent me the music cd of Dil Se, I was blown away. I had started to be tired of the repetitive boring fare which was available in the mid-nineties, but listening to Allah Rakha Rahman's (A.R.Rahman) legendary soundtrack to the Bollywood film, Dil Se was an eye-opener (or an ear-opener??). The soundtrack was absolute gold! It redefined Bollywood music through its then unconventional fusion of Indian tunes with Western beats. Even after eleven years, the tracks still sounds very modern and avant-guardist. No other composer would leave such an imprint on my life. I have since then wolfed down anything created by the Mozart of Madras.
The Rahmania still persists to this day, but it became less intensive when I moved abroad for studies. It was quite strong in the first few months I was away from home. Listening to music has a bigger calming effect on my restless nerves than the purest weeds would have. It is the ultimate refuge, the supreme respite from everyday life. After a few months of trying hard to exhaust my inexhaustible A.R.Rahman collection, I set about discovering Western music. In Mauritius, I would never listen to an English rock song or a French pop song, purely because I was not into it at all. But I really started to give it a try at university. This phase reminded of my introduction to pre-1998 Indian music. It was chaotic. I got easily attracted to cheesy pop (which I now totally despise!!). Yet again though, a single album veered me right off the well-trodden track. That Grammy Award winning album was Green Day's American Idiot. Rock had entered my life and was there to stay. This new genre of music which blasted my ears for the next few years would come from artists like the Arctic Monkeys, The Kooks, Kasabian, Coldplay, Marilyn Manson, Muse,...etc
I now had a more varied taste in music and kept on going as I broadened my tastes with the discovery of Nitin Sawhney and Pakistani bands like Junoon and Strings. I never forgot my first true love, that is, Indian music and I still find it incredibly silly when people refuse to listen to Indian music because for some reason they feel that listening to western music only makes it easier for them to be accepted in a westernised society, which is pure nonsense.
All was going fine with me indulging in indie, alternative, acid and alkali rock and at the same time, satisfying my cultural thirst for Asian music. Then a cataclysmic event rocked (no pun intended) my world a few weeks ago. I was once again growing weary of all the rock bands out there. I had narrowed my repertoire to a few Indie bands. But then I thought I wanted to try out some old rock. I had already been enthralled by Blues and Jazz (I am a closet Amy Winehouse fan and a proud B.B.King fan too!) without getting obsessed about it in the way I did about Rahman and western rock music. I think I reached a certain age where I wanted to explore more and more genres to satisfy my urgings for new musical thrills. So, in this verve, a colleague and friend lent me a music cd (getting a sense of deja-vu? I have really good friends!) to explore something new. It was called Experience Hendrix : The Best of Jimi Hendrix. The first song I listened to was Voodoo Child. Now, I knew who Jimi Hendrix was, but I had never given him a try before. As that spellbinding intro kicked in, I was transferred into another world. The guitar strokes were hypnotic. The lyrics and the vocals were mind-blowing. I had never heard anything like that. I had listened to Chuck Berry a few times before and he sounded like the genius everyone knew he was. But Hendrix was taking it to another level in my mind. Hendrix is considered to be the most influential musician of all time, but I am normally sceptical of these unofficial titles, but Hendrix not only made me eat that scepticism with a slice of bread and cheese but has also given me a new obsession.
Hendrix is now ever-present on my playlist and I will endeavour to dig out every single track of his and enjoy them. I am also planning to intensify my search for decent Blues and Country (heard some good things about a certain guy called Johnny Cash) tunes. I also have to check out these two bands that people are saying were quite simply amazing, The Beatles and Led Zeppelin! Will a lifetime be enough to experience all the musical goodies available on Earth?
I apologise for such a lengthy post. It only goes to show how embedded music is in my ordinary life that once I get started, no-one can shut me up. Let me know about how you saw the spectrum of your musical tastes evolve over time, or how it hasn't changed at all!
You can also savour the Voodoo Child track below!
Sensitisation adverts
I have always been a big fan of adverts, especially TV adverts. It takes a lot of talent to cram in meaningful messages into 30-second videos. Many advert directors have actually gone on to become big Hollywood film-makers, like Ridley Scott who was well-known for his rustic Hovis advert (which was named as one of the best ads ever made in the UK) and the advert made for the launch of the Apple Mac. A.R.Rahman, the Mozart of Madras used to compose ad jingles before taking Bollywood by storm (he still does for Airtel).
There are millions of funny TV ads all over the world. I have spent many hours watching them on TV and on video sharing websites. But the kinds of ads which always move me are usually the ones made for sensitisation campaigns. We all know the standard of ads on the channels of our dear national broadcaster, but since I have been in England, I have been fascinated by government ads. The shock element is used conspicuously, which I think, makes sense. If you want to convey a message about dangerous driving, shying away from shocking the audience will not help.
Here's a small selection of the ones which I have seen on TV and which are particularly impressive:
Get Real, Get A Prescription
This is a brand new ad by Pfizer and some other Pharmaceutical entities. It encourages people to buy real medecine instead of knock-off medecine off the internet. It is particularly disgusting and disturbing!!
It's 30 for a reason
This is an ad for respecting the 30 mph speed limit near schools. Please augment the volume of your speakers to the max to appreciate the sound of breaking bones better!
Think UK: Drink driving
Anti-drink driving ads are rampant on TV, but this one stands out for me for its brutality and its unpredictability.
Think UK: Kill your speed or live with it
This one is about speeding and really hammers the message home in a very creepy way!
Alcohol, Know Your Limits
There are 2 versions of this: the one above and the one with the boy, which is equally good. As the title suggests, they are about binge drinking and shows you the disgusting side of being utterly drunk (especially the one with the vomit in the hair).
There are loads more, especially the health awareness ones which do not feature often in this post. Let me know if I have missed any other excellent adverts made for sensitisation campaigns.
Oh and if you have not worked that out already, the poster at the top of this post sensitises people about how smoking can reduce your sperm count.
A Few Thoughts About Blogging
Recently, there have been a lot of disturbance in the force that is the Mauritian blogging world. Instead of commenting on millions of articles about recent events and twittering about it haphazardly, I thought I would set my thoughts out in a number of bullet points:
1) A lot of skirmishes have resulted from bloggers not being able to take in criticism. As a blogger, and more importantly, as a person, I am always open to criticism, as long as it's genuine. The greatest sign of maturity is the ability to accept the harshest criticism. This is more applicable to more established bloggers because they are sometimes unwilling to accept that certain people could criticise them. You should always remember that once you accept the criticism and work on it, the person will never pester you (unless he or she is mentally deranged). But if you keep on denying something, then be prepared to be bombarded senseless. As a blogger, you experience a lot of public exposure, so you should be expected to deal with these kinds of challenges. I would like to grab this opportunity to mention my appreciation for the way Yashvin has maintained his cool and kept going with his blogging work, despite being subjected to a fair amount of criticism in the last month or so. We may not agree with him, but his intentions are noble and he does not mean harm or disrespect to anyone.
2) Opinions! Opinions are the drivers of the blogosphere. If people did not have opinions, there would be no blogosphere. But like all things man-made, opinions can often lead to conflict. Various bloggers express their opinions differently, various bloggers have very different opinions! The most important thing is to respect all opinions. But there are exceptions. How do you define an opinion which cannot be respected and which needs to be condemned? When is criticism a personal attack? The latter question can seem quite obvious, but then where does the blog start and the blogger's personal profile end? Is the blog a fair reflection of the blogger's persona? Finally, how do you condemn an opinion? How far can you go in terms of ripping into someone? These are questions which are still hard to answer for me. But I do know that if people are open-minded and mature, it becomes much easier to debate and discuss. Otherwise, it will inevitably get ugly. When it comes to Mauritians, I think you will all have to agree that we tend to get too sensitive at times. We have so many fiery characters around who can instantly combust at any time! It's entertaining, it's energetic, but it can also be very unhealthy for the camaraderie between bloggers.
3) Another hot topic to have 'graced' twitter conversations recently is anonymity. A vital characteristic of web interaction is faceless communication. No wonder the internet has led to a real revolution in terms of freedom of expression. Such is the value of freedom of expression that numerous bloggers adopt a pseudonym to protect their identity and hence benefit from the lack of retribution if they show extremist tendencies as defined by the society or the authorities. But when does anonymity amount to cowardice? Lately, the notorious Shayus caused ripples of discontent amongst Mauritian bloggers. I think we were right to resent Shayus because the blog was a blatant attempt at personal attacks on specific bloggers. She (I think it's been established that Shayus is a 'she') even noticed cracks appearing in the Mauritian blogosphere, which was absolute nonsense, since the mobilisation front against Shayus was the most united Mauritian bloggers had ever been! If she actually toned down the personal attacks and blogged with her real name so as to give more bite and credibility to the criticisms she was firing, she would have warranted a decent amount of respect. Of course, she had the right to be anonymous, but being anonymous so as to be an absolute bitch is very laughable in my book.
4) Finally something which has made me chuckle a few times in the past: blogging ethics. What are those? Ethics?? I thought blogging was just extended chatting, or informal journalism. There are no set ethics in the blogosphere. Obviously, I do not mean we are savages and lawless. But ethics is too strong a word to be associated with blogging, unless you are a very serious professional blogger, which most Mauritians are not. I do not actually know any professional Mauritian bloggers. So why do we keep on mentioning ethics? Why do we think bloggers need to fit a certain frame? Why can't everyone just abide by the basic rules of humanity? There are fundamental laws to observe when interacting with fellow human beings. That's all you need to follow! You can write whatever you want as long as you are not libelous. Journalists have ethics, politicians have ethics, professionals have ethics,...etc Bloggers who blog for fun do NOT need to have any defined ethical responsibilities. They just need to observe basic etiquette, something which you would abide by in everyday life, in actual life situations. Just like you wouldn't call someone you don't know personally names on the street, you would not do that on your blog or in your comments on other blogs. A blogger is still a person at the end of the day, so why the need to invent blogging ethics when all you need to do is behave yourself in the same way you would behave yourself in society? Bloggers are not the Illuminati or some other underground society. For me, when you start taking blogging too seriously, that's when you start quarelling, that's when you start being intolerant towards criticism, that's when you start seeing conspiracies everywhere and become paranoid, that's when some start behaving like primary school kids,...etc Let's just ditch this idea that blogging is everything and that we need some kind of structure to regulate it so that no-one is offended. Just blog with your heart. Just write down your thoughts. We all have a life after all, blogging is just one small part of our life, it's not everything! Just enjoy the thrill while you can and keep blogging as informally as you can. Bloggers are just normal people. There is no need for special rules and regulations. If you behave yourself like you would at home, then everyone will have a nice time blogging and there will be no stressful tussles.
These were my thoughts. Now for something to relax your nerves:
Delving Into My Psyche
A few days ago, I read with interest Wez's article where she went through an intense psychoanalytic test of her innermost desires and personality. OK, she did not actually do that, she did something called The Proust Questionnaire, which is meant to gauge one's personality. I thought it would be interesting to do it since I rarely write about myself on my blog. This is a long one, so, without further ado, here we go!
1. What is your idea of perfect happiness?
Cup of tea and stand-up comedy dvd. Or, the probability of realising my dreams not being nil.
2. What is your greatest fear?
Being at a standstill.
3. What is the trait you most deplore in yourself?
Laziness. Procrastination. Stubbornness. That's more than one...
4. What is the trait you most deplore in others?
Close-mindedness. Disrespectfulness. That's again more than one.
5. Which living person do you most admire?
My parents. I would be nothing without them. And I am not even exaggerating.
6. What is your greatest extravagance?
I think I have a very comfortable life and that is the greatest extravangance I could wish for.
7. What is your current state of mind?
Duh!
8. What do you consider the most overrated virtue?
Piety.
9. On what occasion do you lie?
When I don't want to get my parents worried about stuff.
10. What do you most dislike about your appearance?
My slowly receding hairline... I am letting it grow long for a last time...
11. Which living person do you most despise?
Piers Morgan.
12. What is the quality you most like in a man?
That's too private...
13. What is the quality you most like in a woman?
Simplicity, honesty...and boobs.
14. Which words or phrases do you most overuse?
Bloody hell!
15. What or who is the greatest love of your life?
Music.
16. When and where were you happiest?
1998, when I started secondary education in Mauritius. I had no worries AT ALL. I just went to school, played football all day and flirted with girls in a haphazard manner, without worrying about consequences and responsibilities.
17. Which talent would you most like to have?
I would love to be naturally funny.
18. If you could change one thing about yourself, what would it be?
I would grow myself wings like.
19. What do you consider your greatest achievement?
Graduating from university last year because I acquired decades of life experiences and maturity in those 3 years.
20. If you were to die and come back as a person or a thing, what would it be?
Gymneth Paltrow's teddy bear.
21. Where would you most like to live?
British or French countryside.
22. What is your most treasured possession?
My insanity.
23. What do you regard as the lowest depth of misery?
Acute hunger.
24. What is your favorite occupation?
Throwing stones at midgets.
25. What is your most marked characteristic?
My muscular physique. Hey you at the back, did you say 'you wish'?
26. What do you most value in your friends?
Sincerity.
27. Who are your favorite writers?
The Actuarial Education Company. That's right, the companies who produce my course notes. When not studying, it's V.S.Naipaul, Michael Crichton and classic authors like Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Shakespeare, Oscar Wilde and Charles Dickens.
28. Who is your hero of fiction?
It's got to be the dark knight of Gotham City!
29. Which historical figure do you most identify with?
None, but I really admire Alexander The Great.
30. Who are your heroes in real life?
Eric Cartman, Stan Marsh, Kyle Broflovski and Kenny McCormick!
31. What are your favorite names?
Any name which carries a meaning, rather than names like Sweety and the ones you get in Mauritius where they take a popular trisyllabic girl's name (like Natasha,...etc) and just play around with vowels and consonants to end up with ridiculous names.
32. What is it that you most dislike?
This questionnaire is getting depressing now... Damn, I have just seen the next questions... Okay, the thing I dislike the most is the act of willingly restricting someone else's opportunities in life.
33. What is your greatest regret?
Not learning to play a musical intrument when I had the chance to.
34. How would you like to die?
I would love to die in a way that is not sudden. I would not mind dying of very old age.
35. What is your motto?
Be the best you can be. Always. If you still fall short of your aims, then that's how it is meant to be, because you cannot be better than your best.
There you go. Apologies to those who got bored midway through (I don't blame you, I almost got bored myself!)! I look forward to other blogger doing the questionnaire too!
Yet Another Great Feat by Obama
Barack Obama adds yet another feather to his cap after being awarded the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize for his "efforts to boost democracy and co-operation". Ever since he beat McCain to the presidency of the most powerful nation on Earth, Obama has become an international symbol of hope and change. But does he really deserve a Nobel Peace Prize award, barely 9 months into his presidential mandate?
News of Obama winning the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize was met with shock and disbelief this morning. I almost choked on my tea as I read the headline on the BBC News website. Apparently, I was not the only one. The reaction to the news was even worse in the US, with most media entities questioning the wisdom of awarding him with the honour when he has hardly done anything in his first few months of presidency.
I do not think I can truly judge him for I am merely a muggle in front of Obama. But what I do think is ridiculous is that people have been jumping on the bandwagon of political correctness, just because he is the first black President of the USA. I am myself a huge admirer of Obama, but there is a limit to my fondness. He has achieved a herculean task by becoming president, but that does not mean he is an exception to the rule. And, in my opinion, he has definitely not done anything spectacular to merit the greatest formal accolade that humans can aspire to. Not yet atleast. He has indeed been a more willing advocate of international co-operation than his republican predecessor, but is he more deserving than anyone else?
According to Alfred Nobel's will, the prize should be given "to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses." The big favourite prior to the announcement of the Norwegian Nobel Committee was current Zimbabwean Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai who has steered his country from the jaws of complete social and economic meltdown towards the gleaming light of hope. Other possible nominees (not definite since the list is only made public 50 years after the prize is awarded) who fulfilled the above criteria include the following:
- Ingrid Betancourt, the Colombian-French activist who was freed after a lengthy abduction.
- Nicolas Sarkozy, the charismatic French President for his work towards peace in the Middle East and his valuable contribution to the ending of the Russian-Georgian conflict.
- Greg Mortenson, an American humanitarian known for the building of schools in Pakistan and Afghanistan.
- Piedad Córdoba, a Colombian senator who negotiated the release of several hostages from the clutches of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia.
- Hu Jia, Chinese human rights activist known for his campaigns for civil rights, for the environment and for religious freedom in China. He has recently been jailed for 3 and half years.
- Cluster Munition Coalition, a civil society movement campaigning against the use of cluster munitions.
Anyway, whatever the arguments for and against, this is an incredible achievement by Obama, which will put incredible pressure on him to deliver on the promise he has shown so far. To be fair to him, he is not to blame at all for this. His humble acknowledgement of the honour epitomises his amazing charm. He would probably have won this prize anyway in the future! It is a magnificent crown for a magnificent human being, but this early appraisal of his work can have detrimental effects in the US and is already providing fodder for his rivals. His biggest challenge now would be to fulfill the enormous expectations bestowed upon him by this Nobel Prize.
What do you make of this news?
The 'Other' Nobel Prizes
The Ig Nobel Prize Laureates for 2009 have been announced and they are as 'crazy' as they have always been. But don't tell that to the laureates!
The Ig Nobel Prizes are alternative Nobel prizes which have been handed out since 1991 by the scientific comedy magazine Annals of Improbable Research and are meant to reward 10 achievements which, in their own words, are meant to "first make people laugh, and then make them think". Previous winning works have included the following:
- Discovering that fleas on dog jump higher than those on cats
- Discovering that slime moulds can solve puzzles
- Showing that rats sometimes cannot tell the difference between a person speaking Japanese backwards and a person speaking Dutch backwards.
- Calculating the number of photographs you must take to practically ensure that nobody in a group photo will have their eyes closed
- Studying ultrasonic velocity in cheddar cheese as affected by temperature.
As you can see, they are all very fascinating achievements! You could think that it's all about having a laugh at absolutely stupid research work, which is definitely true to some extent since the truly mental nature of some of the discoveries is very obvious. But advocates of the awards think that although the Ig Nobel prizes are a disguised dig at trivial research and sometimes very tongue-in-cheek by not rewarding actual research but stupid actions, history suggests that some of them could give way to amazing finds in the future. The warm nature of the awards is characterised by the fact that real Nobel laureates attend the ceremony (which is sponsored by a few Harvard University clubs and societies) and hand out the awards.
OK, let's have a look at the 2009 Ig Nobel Laureates by category:
Public Health: Three Americans for inventing a bra that can be quickly turned into a pair of gas masks: one for the woman (or fat man) and the other for anyone standing nearby.
Mathematics: Governor of Zimbabwe's Reserve Bank for printing notes ranging from one cent to one hundred trillion denominations to make everyday transactions easier in the ravaged Zimbabwean economy.
Veterinary Medecine: Two Newcastle University staff for showing that cows which are named give more milk than nameless ones.
Literature: The Irish Police for writing over 50 traffic tickets to the most frequent driving offender in Ireland, Prawo Jazdy (whose name means "Driving Licence" in Polish)
Biology: Three Japanese university lecturers for showing that kitchen rubbish can be reduced by more than 90% in mass by using bacteria extracted from the excrements of giant pandas.
Chemistry: Three Mexicans scientists for creating diamonds from tequila.
Peace: Five Swiss university academics for determining whether it is better to be smashed over the head with a full bottle of beer or with an empty bottle.
Medecine: An American for his investigation on a possible cause of arthritis of the fingers, by regularly cracking the knuckles of his left hand but not his right hand every day for more than 60 years.
Physics: Three American university academics for analysing why pregnant women do not tip over.
Economics: The directors, executives, and auditors of four Icelandic banks for showing that tiny banks can be rapidly transformed into huge banks, and vice versa (and for demonstrating that similar things can be done to an entire national economy).
Well done everyone!!
So which one do you think is your favourite winning discovery?
An Idiot's Guide to Voting In An Election
Given 99% of Mauritians don't know how to vote, I drafted a list of things to keep in mind when voting at an election:
1) Vote for the candidate, not the party. I agree individual candidates might not have enough influence within a party, which means a party's general profile is sometimes more important to the voter. But what would you rather have: a bench warmer at the Parliament or someone who would actually work for your constituency? At the end of the day, you also have to do what's best for your constituency.
2) Don't vote for whom your dad, your mom, your grandad, your ancestors,...etc vote for. If you are adult enough to vote, surely you are adult enough to make your own choices. Don't get co-erced into voting for certain candidates. If you do let yourself get influenced by people around you, then you are not fit to decide your country's and your constituency's fate!
3) Read the manifestos. If you can get one. I have only ever witnessed 2 general elections where I was old enough to know what was going on, and I have NEVER seen a manifesto! Of course, you might have to look around for one. You should do it. Know what to expect from a certain candidate, don't just blindly vote for the symbols which appeal to you on the voting forms! Vote for the candidate suggesting plans which are more in line with your own wishes.Do not be hypnotised by statements like 'bizin sanzman' or 'nu pu combat communalisme', go for more tangible and clear-cut policies.
4) Go to political meetings and try to see the candidates in flesh. Hear them speak. It's a good way to assess the personality of a candidate. Don't pay too much attention to the rhetorical statements they might blurt out because in the end, most of these candidates are just puppets. Search for traces of charisma, confidence, intelligence,...etc Someone with a good strong personality can do much more of a difference than a wimp.
5) Don't be too confrontational or disrespectful. Respect all parties, unless they reek of Schutzstaffel. You can hate some parties, but give everyone a fair chance. Listen to what they have to say before crucifying them. Of course you can criticise anyone, but do it in a rational manner. And if your best friend is voting for someone else, don't stop seeing him/her! Many elections have been marred by political activists fighting like school kids.
6) Religious affiliations DO NOT matter. I hate to have to spell this out, but people are still stupid enough to think that voting for someone from the same religious community as you is somehow better than voting for someone not having the same religious beliefs as you. It is simply not true. It is not a valid criterion when choosing who to vote for. I know this will be the most ignored point, but this needs to be repeated again and again till it finally sets in!
7) Do not vote for Party Malin. Or any other time wasters. There are loads of them out there. Although you should give everyone a chance, some do not deserve that chance! Party Malin? That's neither English nor French!!!! Front Merron? NOOO! Groupe Kasser Pake? NOOOOOOO! I also find it hard to take openly religious political groups seriously. So, don't waste your time with these people, focus all your attention on the people who mean business. Even if they are inexperienced, it doesn't matter as long as they have concrete ideas. But no, don't vote for Party Malin!
So, guys, I don't know if I missed any other important points to consider when voting. If I did, do tell me! And have a nice time choosing the people to represent you and your constituency at the next general election!!
Inglourious Basterds: Tarantino is back!
Cast: Brad Pitt, Melanie Laurent, Christoph Waltz, Eli Roth, Diane Kruger
Writer: Quentin Tarantino
Director: Quentin Tarantino
"My name is Lt. Aldo Raine and I need me eight soldiers. We're gonna be dropped into France, dressed as civilians. We're gonna be doing one thing and one thing only... killing Nazis", says Brad Pitt in a thick Southern accent and this forms the premise of Tarantino's latest offering!
Synopsis: It's WWII and we are in Nazi-occupied France. The Americans have sent a group of soldiers, referred to as the Basterds by the Germans, to kill as many Nazi officers (100 each to be exact) as possible, led by Lieutenant Aldo Raine (Brad Pitt) and Sergeant Donny Donowitz a.k.a The Bear Jew (Eli Roth). They are aided by a British secret agent and a German actress (Diane Kruger). Their plans also accidentally run parallel with those of a Jewish cinema owner (Melanie Laurent) who once saw her whole family wiped out by the Jew Hunter, Nazi Colonel Hans Landa (Christoph Waltz).
Remarks:
- Firstly, TARANTINO IS BACK WITH A BANG! His classics, Pulp Fiction, Reservoir Dogs and Kill Bill among others, have enthralled audiences. His unconventional approach to film-making is very much conspicuous in all his movies. His narrative style is second to none and in Inglourious Basterds (Inglorious Bastards in a German accent!), he goes back to his chapter format, just like he did in Kill Bill. Each chapter tackles a pivotal scene in the movie, putting all characters involved in full limelight! The chapters don't always overlap or seem directly connected sometimes. In fact, each chapter looks like a mini movie in its own right! Usually, movies are a normal flow of scenes, some more important than others, but Tarantino, when using his chapter format likes to have at most 10 big scenes which displays the course of events. This keeps you well-engrossed, with the chapters building up nicely towards the climax.
- I would never understand why Tarantino's movies have never been showered with awards for acting performances. Once again, the actors deliver mind-blowing execution of their roles. Brad Pitt is extremely funny, even bordering on genial, with witty dialogues and panache, typical of a Tarantino flick. The ladies, Diane Kruger and Melanie Laurent are as sexy and foxy as they are bloody talented (Who cares about 'pretty face' Megan Fox?? Think Uma Thurman in Pulp Fiction and Kill Bill). Eli Roth portrays a ruthless Jewish soldier with frightening ease! Nevertheless the gong for stand-out performance has to go to a certain Austrian, Christoph Waltz with his evil and fantastic jawline (pictured below)! Nope,me too, never heard of him. But the winner of the Best Actor award at Cannes 2009 stars as villain Colonel Landa as if he was born for that role! He is sarcastically polite, charismatic and as cunning as a fox! He is certainly a massive reason why you should watch this movie!
- Now, the story itself. If anyone can rewrite history, it has to be Tarantino! The various layers of the story keep you on your toes. The opening scene of Waltz, that is,Colonel Landa's conversation with a french farmer to investigate whether he is hiding Jews is an amazing start to the movie and sets the pulse racing. The scenes may seem slow at times, but it is meant to be like that, because once they pick up pace, everything starts clicking into place beautifully. It's like the long mathematical problem you have been working on for hours which suddenly starts making sense! Finally, it would not be a Tarantino movie without gallons of blood splashing around and faces being crushed to a pulp! But again, nothing is done haphazardly. The gore carries a purpose and is not only meant to excite the crowd. No eye-gouging this time though... (Kill Bill fans will know what I am talking about...) although you get to see faces blown hollow by bullets!
Final verdict: You HAVE to see this movie. Even if you have to steal money to see it, DO IT! Even if you have to fight with your girlfriend who fancies He's Just Not That Into You, DO IT! In a summer where we have been bombarded senseless by mega-orgies of special effects, Inglourious Basterds is a welcome respite, and there is a fantastic plot and actors can act too!! The audience at the cinema actually gave an ovation at the end of the movie because like me, they were overcome by the sheer brilliance they had just witnessed...
Movie Rating: 4 out of 5
Barah Aana: Movie Review
Cast: Naseeruddin Shah, Vijay Raaz, Arjun Mathur, Tannishtha Chatterjee
Director: Raja Menon
Barah Aana doesn't boast A-List celebrities, but the veteran, Naseeruddin Shah leads a talented cast in this low-key comedy-drama which has a duration of only 90 minutes and has no songs. Barah Aana used to denote an amount of money before the use of cents as a unit of currency in India.
Synopsis: Meet Shukla (Naseeruddin Shah), a man of principles, he is a driver and is always being treated as a lesser human being by his employers. Now meet Yadav (Vijay Raaz), a watchman who is similarly bullied by the rich upper middle-class families who employ him. Finally, there is Aman (Arjun Mathur) who is a young waiter and in love with this white woman who regularly visits the cafe where he works. They are all victims of the arrogance of the upper classes of Mumbai, but they are good friends and enjoy one another's company. One day, Yadav's life is turned upside down when he desperately needs money so that his son can go to a city hospital for a medical examination. Inadvertently, he finds a way to make money fast and dig himself and his friends out of poverty.
Remarks:
- First and foremost, the cast. For such a low-budget movie with no songs and no extravagant special effects, the cast have to carry the movie. And boy are they excellent! We all know about Naseeruddin Shah, he is still a consistent performer who achieves high standards. Vijay Raaz whom I first noticed in the magnificent Monsoon Wedding is absolutely breathtaking. Funny as hell, he delivers his lines in such an original way and makes the character his own. Arjun Mathur is the relative newcomer. He was in Positive, Farhan's Akhtar's short film about AIDS awareness and also in Luck By Chance. He is a rising star oozing with talent. He should be big in a few years' time if he makes the right choices in terms of movies. Here he is excellent as the young and dynamic Aman.
- The story is simple, yet emotions run quite deep. It's a short movie, so it never gets boring or seems like it's dragging on for ages. It has no complex segments, with one or two twists here and there. Overall, it flows pretty well. I personally hate it if a movie has too many twists or un-necessary glamourous bits. That's why Barah Aana was a great watch. A nice cool relaxing movie which also exercises your brain cells.
- The direction is not worldclass, but it's very decent for someone whom I had never heard of before! He seems pretty disciplined and pays attention to details. I will be looking out for him in future.
To summarise, Barah Aana is a feel-good movie about real-life miseries. It has very genuine and realistic characters who immediately make you feel like you have known them all your life. It's not the film of the year, but it's refreshing to see new talent grace the big screen, because it's not all about the big stars. More and more of these kind of movies are being made and it can only be beneficial for Bollywood because the glamour and glitz becomes tiring after a while. And too often are experiments and risks shunned in the name of commercial success. I highly recommend this movie for those who, like me, love movies which succeed in fascinating you with the strength of acting performances and unconventional stories without having recourse to stars.
Movie Rating: 3.5 out of 5
East Jesus Nowhere
This is a small music update!
Since I don't review music anymore, I am going to try to give a little update of what catches my ear as regularly as I can!
There hasn't been a lot of good Indian music lately, so I have been listening to mostly Western music. Green Day have always been one of my favourite rock bands and their new album, 21st Century Breakdown, released some months ago is , well, rocking! East Jesus Nowhere was the song which dominated my playlist for a while. It's got the typical heavy drums and awesome vocals and lyrics by Billy Joe Armstrong. The album is very good overall, all the 18 songs are very enjoyable.
Another rock album I listened to A LOT was Kasabian's West Ryder Pauper Lunatic Asylum. It not only has a magnificent title but a few very decent tracks too! It is Kasabian's first album in 3 years, after the incredible Empire and you can see that they have been meticulous with this album. Kasabian are well-known for their very unconventional music and they never cease to amaze. Two of the songs I constantly listened to are Fire and Underdog. I have embedded a video clip of Underdog at the bottom of this post. Please do check it out!
I also recently bought my first movie soundtrack cds: Pan's Labyrinth and Wall-E. And I must say, they are both amazing masterpieces. Spaniard Javier Navarrete composed the Academy Award-nominated score of Pan's Labyrinth. I am a massive fan of the movie which I have probably seen 5 times and the music was just seeping through my body. Pan's Labyrinth is a scary and tragic fairytale and the score really takes the movie to the next level. Wall-E's score is by the ridiculously talented Thomas Newman (who also composed the music of Finding Nemo, American Beauty and The Shawshank Redemption among others) who has never won an Academy Award despite being nominated an incredible 10 times! His performance for Wall-E almost won him his first this year, but he was narrowly beaten by Rahman. Wall-E is one of the most poetic and enchanting score I have ever listened to. The movie itself is quite deep and touching. Peter Gabriel's Oscar-nominated song 'Down to Earth' is a tremendous song which is my personal pick from the album. I highly recommend these two soundtracks!
Last but not least, only two Bollywood albums have really impressed me recently. The first one is Gulaal, with music by composer Piyush Mishra. Most of the songs are more like mantras and anthems. You judge a movie souundtrack by the way it captures the essence of the movie itself and Gulaal does that wonderfully. You might not enjoy it if you haven't seen the movie, but I have and I thoroughly loved the soundtrack. The second one is Kaminey, the hotly-awaited (by me atleast!) Vishal Bhardwaj flick. The Shakespeare fan also composes for his movies and he is as good at music as he is at directing. The new album is in stark contrast with Omkara. The latter was more melodious and slow while Kaminey is more pulsating and hip. Dhan Te Nan is already a massive hit, and the title song, sung by Bhardwaj who is also an amazing singer is very soothing and likeable. The album as a whole is not as impressive as his Omkara, but with time, I am pretty sure I will listen to it more and more.
It turned out to be quite a long update! More updates in a few months' time!
Paranoia
We live in an world of paranoia.
Paranoia can be broadly described as an exaggerated distrust. In the past, paranoia used to give rise to legends and myths and also strengthened Man's faith in God. But in modern times, paranoia has taken on a new dimension. These days, all incidents are over-analysed and the worst scenario is always the most popular one. An Air France flight crashed in the Atlantic a few weeks ago and the Bermuda Triangle was immediately designated as the culprit (no-one checked the facts before assuming that since the crash occurred thousands of miles from the famous triangle). A shop was recently reduced to ashes in Rose Hill, Mauritius and I was shocked to see people suggesting that it was all part of a hoax. We have a tendency to quickly jump on the bandwagon of doom as soon as an event unfolds. Why don't we sit down and think things over before assuming anything? Why can't an incident be down to bad luck or coincidence? It is as if bad intentions and miscreancy are more entertaining and hence more believable (by some weird kind of logic), even if the odds are high.
We have even higher levels of paranoia nowadays. I am sure everyone knows the New World Order (NWO) 'theory'. Some people believe that certain forces are at work to create an elitist and centralised control centre of the world, a world which will be totalitarian, with dire human rights. All these people base themselves on are myths and unexplained events. When something is secret and concealed (like the Bildenberg group), it HAS to be evil. If CCTV cameras are being placed at every street corner, then Big Brother is keeping an eye on ALL of us. ALL texts and phone conversations are taped and analysed by the powers that be. The financial crisis is the work of the NWO. The Sept 11 attacks were the doing of the US government. Neil Armstrong walked on the Moon while 'on Earth'. It seems to be human nature (doesn't apply to all humans of course) to be paranoid about major world-changing events which haven't been properly explained. I mean who is stupid enough to blindly believe the malarkey that is the alleged end of the world in 2012? Sometimes, certain people would claim to be very aware of these conspiracy theories so as to sound cleverer than their peers. They would often throw random pieces of information at you to prove their point if you try to challenge their opinion. They revel in something which can be described as information manipulation in order to prove certain theories. They work backwards from the theory and gather random information which would lead to that theory. That's not the way it's done. You always work from the facts and information available TOWARDS the theory. Otherwise you are just trying to piece together incoherent information for the sole purpose of proving a conspiracy really exists. If there is insufficient information, DO NOT BLOODY ASSUME THE FIRST BAD THING THAT COMES TO YOUR MIND BECAUSE IT DOESN'T MAKE YOU SOUND SMART!!
Paranoia is also rampant in everyday life. Couples fight a lot because of paranoia. Families break down because of it. If your boyfriend of girlfriend does not return a call repeatedly, then he or she is cheating on you. If he or she goes out with friends a lot, it could again be unfaithfulness. In extended families, you always have brothers, cousins, sisters, sisters-in-law,...etc thinking that other individuals or groups of individuals in the house or compound are 'plotting' against them. This is also called the 'Tulsi Syndrome'. Another instance which is frequent amongst girls is the belief held by certain girls in a group that other girls are trying to upstage them. Girls are also so paranoid about their appearance, it's incredible. I used to be so sick of hearing about the 'problems' or paranoia of some of my friends of the fairer gender that I started telling them that I have no interest AT ALL in their 'troubles' and 'apprehensions' involving their girl friend. I was, as a result, dismissed as being insensitive...
Another form of paranoia can be pessimism, but atleast that is not always irrational. Pessimism can be good because it can be due to prudence. In the same way, being paranoid could be understandable. After all, we can't be all gullible and believe everything we are told or see. But there is a limit and in many ways, the limit is exceeded all too often in the world of today. I, for one am properly sick of it! That's why I probably sound very irritable on certain blogs when people reveal paranoid thoughts and opinions!!
Another rant down, millions more to go. Now, where is my box of Yorkshire tea??! I could swear the maid stole it...
Patriotism
What makes one a patriot and what doesn't?
Some time back, I was discussing government spending in Mauritius on a blog when someone told me that I should not worry about it since I don't contribute any money to the government coffers. The person was implying that it was none of my business since I was not living in Mauritius. This has happened to me too often. People tend to think of me as a traitor just because I have studied and am now working abroad. They think I don't have the 'right' to discuss Mauritian matters.
These people call themselves patriots. They are the ones who are working in Mauritius, helping the country move forward (apparently) and who, generally hate people who dare to move abroad for studies or work. But this is not patriotism, is it? What is patriotism? In the past, it used to be about fighting colonial rule to free your country from oppression. It was about revolution and about sacrificing your life for your motherland. This definition doesn't strictly apply anymore. If you work in Mauritius, you are not more patriotic than someone who is working in Singapore. A Chinese factory worker in Mauritius is not more patriotic than I am because he or she is working in Mauritius and paying taxes! Yes, you might be a bit jealous. Yes, you are indeed contributing to the Mauritian economy indirectly. But patriotism is something entirely different.
Mauritius does not have a very high crippling emigration rate. These days it is even harder to move to another country, given the tougher immigration laws in Europe and it is getting more and more appealing to stay, study and work in the country. But if someone thought he or she wants to study abroad and probably work abroad for some time to get some valuable experience, why do people think that person is letting the country down? Most people emigrate due to financial incentives abroad which could improve their fortunes, a significant number of people really want to get the best education and best work experience possible. When confronted with this, most Mauritius-based Mauritians would immediately get on the high horse of pseudo-patriotism and childishly dismiss the emigrants as people who don't give a damn about the country. This could not be further from the truth as it is pure ignorance.
Patriotism is not a competition. It is not a matter of 'oh no you work abroad, I work on the Board of Air Mauritius in Mauritius and I am helping the country, what the hell have you done for your country?' Patriotism is about changing things for the best. It is about making a positive impact in your own way. If you have to arm yourself with the best possible education and experience, then so be it. If you have to live in France for 10 years and then come back better equipped to make a difference, then so be it. Do not judge someone prematurely. Do not view temporary emigration as a sin. Sure, some people will not come back, but why don't we look at the people who will help? When would we stop whining about those leaving and start taking action or atleast suggest ideas? Why do you want to blacklist people who are abroad? Can't they help at all? Can't they initiate a debate or propose an idea? Hell, they could be more patriotic than the person shouting about the glory of the Motherland from the rooftops, clad in the national flag! They could be more patriotic than the person who will tell them not to worry about the future of the country but then would be complaining like bored housewives hooked on Tulsi-related banter!
As a slight variation to JFK's famous words, ask not what other people are or aren't doing for the country; ask what you can do for your country. Do not accuse someone else of being unpatriotic until you have accomplished something for your country, and even if you have achieved something, does it make you right or more patriotic to call other people unpatriotic? No it doesn't!
Patriotism is not what it used to be. It either is too strong and powerful a word to be usable in this day and age or now has a considerably changed definition. Either way, everyone at some point in their life do something good for their country, whether directly or indirectly. Studying or working abroad has absolutely no bearing on how patriotic you are. After all, you might be working in Mauritius in a manner, destructive to the country's well-being or indeed in a stagnant way. It is all about making a difference when you are best able to do it. Be YOUR best before you can do YOUR best for your country. And if you can't do it, then no-one should begrudge you. Do you think when Gandhi, Bhagat Singh and Nelson Mandela were campaigning for the end of oppression in their respective countries, they were thinking about those damned people who had 'abandoned' the struggle? I don't think so...
Rant over... I need a cup of very strong tea, no sugar please...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
