सूअर-ly a good thought!!

i got a forwarded message yesterday on my cell phone... if you excuse the language, i found the message quite appealing. thought i'd share it. i've reproduced it as received:

"900 ppl gt Swine Flu & d whole World wants 2 wear Surgical Masks. 20 Million Ppl hav AIDS, But Bhenchod, nobody wants 2 wear Condoms!! Pas dis 2 all known Fuckers"

to each his own, right? :)

Another milestone in my path to Chauvinism

Take a look at the article in the link below.

http://in.news.yahoo.com/240/20090810/1301/twl-6751773.html

Now this is some seriously maddening stuff!! Go ahead and read the article above, and tell me if at some point you feel in your gut that something’s not quite right! I know I did. I felt at one level that even with the first example of the woman in her hotel room, there was something wrong. And no, please do not mistake this as merely a show of sympathy for the poor working woman! Hell no, how about a little show of faith in the drunk working man!!

It was an office party in the bar downstairs. A coworker with more ‘power’ than the woman called her and asked her to get outta bed and come enjoy the party. She felt threatened by it? Oh yeah, so the next time the guy in charge asks to you to come and chill with everybody else, that’s a threat? You know, I’m gonna look at this from a few angles. Say the guy was drunk and in the mood to fool around. So he called the woman and asked her to get down to the bar. She said she needed to sleep and hung up. Guy told himself, “Oh crap, guess I’ll look to the other chicks for a nightcap.” Or maybe something like, “That chick’s boring as hell! She oughtta let her hair down a lil’.” How about, “I think it makes sense if she came and mixed with everyone else. Good for the team.” Or, for the paranoid, “Goddamn that bitch!!! Here my thingy’s getting all steamed up, and she hangs up on me??? I’ll show her at work tomorrow!!!” Admittedly, there is a possibility that if that last option was a fact, AND it was followed up by some bullshit by the guy at work against the woman, then we’d have a problem. But basically, all that the woman really thought was that the guy was drunk, that he was someone with ‘definitely more power’ than her, and that he was calling her to the Bar at 2 a.m. to party with the rest. And she felt threatened by it.

Bloody hell, I’d be pissed off if some asshole called me at 2 a.m. and asked me to come party. That’s cuz I love my sleep. Now, I’m not a woman, so I don’t have to go through various indignities that they face as a consequence of their gender. Now I feel for them, I really do. Their lot has a tendency of being seriously crappy at times, too many times, really. But for God’s sake, do they have to be threatened by every drunk human with a penis?

It’s in the West, and it’s flowing into the East. No, no, sexual harassment very much exists here, and we don’t need the West to teach us that men here can be pigs too. But the idea of sexual harassment is evolving, and the stuff that’s accepted as unacceptable there is just automatically espoused here. Part of our modernization, perhaps? Just as we meekly accept Microsoft Word converting our ‘s’ to ‘z’ (yeah, I do it too), we’re beginning to accept concepts that might simply be considered a whole lot of bullshit when looked at objectively.

Look, ladies. The guys will think sexually of you whether you like it or not. And my God, that article practically says flirting is illegal!! What the hell is going on here?? We spend a pretty big part of our lives in the workplace, and we can’t even flirt?? If we do, people will start looking for a pattern? Sheesh, get a grip. Anybody got a problem with being made to feel pretty or attractive?? Stop a guy before he drools into your cleavage, sure, but if he thinks your haircut is looking great on you, and he seems to be checking you out, do you seriously have to be threatened by it?

I used to work in this activist place, once. We used to have these little office meetings to discuss issues. Once, the meeting was on sexual harassment at the workplace. We saw a video on the issue, and then began discussing the policy apparently existing in the office. There was no hard copy of the policy, and I don’t know what the fuck we were talking about. There was only one point that people (read: the women) wanted to be firm on; the fact that the policy existing in the office should protect women only. There was a (defunct) wing in that office which was to be working for the rights of the LGBT community. My ‘Boss’ jokingly said that we have LGBT people often working in the office, so what if a gay dude makes unwelcome advances on a male coworker? The women said that the male coworker wouldn’t be protected, which set me off, since I complained that harassment can certainly come from women as well. The entire group of females in the office started fighting with me, saying that women had faced decades of subjugation in society, so our office policy should protect only women, and why should we be any different? Because you’re trying to make a difference, you sloganeering hypocrites! One of the men in that group summed it up perfectly; he said that as long as there are more women than men in that office, the policy would never be gender neutral. I bloody laughed out loud!! Fucking activists!!! For over a week after that day, all the women looked at me like I’m Judas or something, and would whisper snide remarks behind my back. I felt harassed too for a while, but I couldn’t do a damn thing about it.

Sexual harassment is a real and terrible problem. But when labour lawyers start advising offices about non-fraternisation policies in the office, the need to lighten up a little seems to arise. Goddamn, in my current workplace, one of my earliest assignments was to edit a sexual harassment policy that some female had prepared before I joined. That crazy policy was so bad, that it banned any kind of physical contact between male and female colleagues in the office. If that shit were the norm, we wouldn’t even be able to shake hands!!! Luckily, my Boss trashed it and asked me to make a new policy from scratch.

That news article speaks of how the internet and new communication technologies have allowed for the smallest thing to be potentially ‘misconstrued’. That’s like a way of saying that if you’re a guy, and you have sent a winking emoticon, you’re potentially fucked (in the not happy way)!!! Really? Maybe we shouldn’t hyperanalyse every damn thing we receive as a message or email. Otherwise, what the hell am I supposed to believe when you consider the fact that my Boss’s WIFE sent me that link to that article with the message, “Bikram, for your information”???!!!!

Tell them that it's Human Nature

i received a forwarded email today. i don't know of it's authenticity. i don't particularly care. it touched a raw nerve. my response, as i mailed back, was far tamer in text than my temper would ordinarily allow. the email's s'posed to be the ranting of a US soldier in Iraq who's miffed at America's concern shown at Michael Jackson's death, and the lack of it when soldiers die. I'm putting up the forwarded mail, and my response, just for kicks...

THIS WAS WRITTEN BY A SOLDIER IN IRAQ.

Okay, I need to rant.

I was just watching the news, and I caught part of a report on Michael Jackson . As we all know, Jackson died the other day. He was an entertainer who performed for decades. He made millions, he spent millions, and he did a lot of things that make him a villian to many people. I understand that his death would affect a lot of people, and I respect those people who mourn his death, but that isn't the point of my rant.

Why is it that when ONE man dies, the whole of America loses their minds with grief. When a man dies whose only contribution to the country was to ENTERTAIN people, the Amercian people find the need to flock to a memorial in Hollywood , and even Congress sees the need to hold a "moment of silence" for his passing?

Am I missing something here? ONE man dies, and all of a sudden he's a freaking martyr because he entertained us for a few decades? What about all those SOLDIERS who have died to give us freedom? All those Soldiers who, knowing that they would be asked to fight in a war, still raised their hands and swore to defend the Constitution and the United States of America . Where is there moment of silence? Where are the people flocking to their graves or memorials and mourning over them because they made the ultimate sacrifice? Why is it when a Soldier dies, there are more people saying "good ridence," and "thank God for IEDs?" When did this country become so calloused to the sacrifice of GOOD MEN and WOMEN, that they can arbitrarily blow off
thier deaths, and instead, throw themselves into mourning for a "Pop Icon?"

I think that if they are going to hold a moment of silence IN CONGRESS for Michael Jackson, they need to hold a moment of silence for every service member killed in Iraq and Afghanistan . They need to PUBLICLY
recognize every life that has been lost so that the American people can live their callous little lives in the luxory and freedom that WE, those that are living and those that have gone on, have provided for them. But, wait, that would take too much time, because there have been so many willing to make that sacrifice. After all, we will never make millions of dollars. We will never star in movies, or write hit songs that the world will listen too. We only shed our blood, sweat and tears so that people can enjoy what they have.

Sorry if I have offended, but I needed to say it. Feel free to pass this along if you want.

Remember these five words the next time you think of someone who is serving in the military; "So that others may live..."

[My response]

To the brave soldier in Iraq, and all others that are interested,

From your phraseology, it is evident that you are American. Since you are in Iraq ostensibly to foster democracy, of which the Freedom of Speech and Expression forms an integral part, you will not begrudge me my little reply to your ranting.

At the outset, let me be very clear of one thing; you are a soldier. You fight for your country, you follow orders and you do the best you can (to give you the benefit of the doubt). Your actions and decisions on the field are dictated by your commanding officers and they in turn must seek their instructions from civilian bureaucrats and politicians. So even if you are fighting a senseless, dirty war leading to incalculable loss in terms of money, property and, above all, lives, you are only doing what you believe is your job for your country, which lends a certain degree of credibility to you personally. Thus, even though you do not fight for my country, I appreciate and laud the sacrifice that you make for your own country "so that others may live" (even though many others must die at the same time, but that's not the point of this email).

You have rightly pointed out some of the sacrifices you and others like you are required to make in service of your country. But I am surprised that you have overlooked one other thing that you must sacrifice in the line of duty- individual recognition. You righly feel that the sacrifice of every soldier in the battlefield should be realised and appreciated. Certainly the feeling of security among the citizens of your country is largely at the cost of the lives of many such as yourself. Evidently several war memorials, parades, massive graveyards and walls with names of martyred soldiers is not enough recognition for each of you, and you would like Congress to have moments of silence for the loss of each one of you. This might seem reasonable to you considering you risk your lives to do your jobs. It feels nice to be thought about individually. But in service of your country, you are told repeatedly to be ready to make the ultimate sacrifice. You may believe it's your physical life they're talking about, but what they also mean is that you have to accept your fate as being one who may be trampled and forgotten "so that others may live." I'm afraid you're going to have to be satisfied with a flag over your coffin, trumpets and gunfire at your funeral, and your name etched in a wall, should you die in the line of duty.

Now let's talk about Michael Jackson. You complained of the reaction of a nation to the death of "ONE man". I beg to differ. Michael Jackson wasn't (isn't) "ONE man". Michael Jackson is an idea, a phenomenon, a dream and a miracle. One that asked us to talk to the man in the mirror and ask him to change his ways. One that repeatedly reminded us that it doesn't matter if you're black or white. One that moved in a manner that dazzled generations of people of all races, in all parts of the world, and forced us to wonder how the human body is capable of such magic fluidity of motion. One whose voice touched the hearts of billions of people, including those who didn't even understand the meaning of the words that carried the voice. He opened a world of music, intrinsic and endemic to a historically downtrodden race of people, to the world, thereby also opening the gates for people of all races to celebrate their music in an industry earlier dominated by white skin. Despite terrible allegations, decidedly strange behaviour, and after being reduced to little more than a caricature during the final years of his lifetime in the popular music industry, he still managed to move the world by his death.

You are wrong, Sir, to consider Michael Jackson's influence to be limited to making just one nation grieve his loss. Millions (perhaps billions) of people in several countries of the world have had to accept the bitter fact of his demise. I know I am one of them. But, even you will acknowledge that, growing up, you watched Michael Jackson perform, you heard his songs, and maybe you even loved him for it.

Yes, Michael Jackson was an entertainer. But he didn't just sing songs, make music videos, and take a bow. Through his music he became one with the subjects of his songs, and when those subjects were the starving and downtrodden millions, he mocked the affluent world exclaiming that they don't really care about us. Yes, he was rich, but he stood with the poor and asked us all to heal the world.

For the sake of brevity, I will not extol his virtues any further.

I'm sorry many people don't appreciate the worth of a soldier. I am also sorry you don't appreciate the worth of Michael Jackson.

Sincerely,

Bikram Chaudhuri

An MJ fan

Freedom... At Last...

as i have grown older, there have been much that i have lost, about myself... innocence... a certain degree of righteousness... an abhorrence for smoking... to some extent compassion... and the ability to cry, when i probably should...

i cried today, just a few minutes ago actually... perhaps the reason for my crying will be scoffed at by some that might read this, if not all... it was more than a momentary pang of sorrow, or remorse for what is in the past... it lasted for probably near 5 minutes, and i did not struggle to control the sobs this time (though they were more or less muted)...

the last time i had cried like this, or actually a lil worse than this, was when i woke up in the middle of the night a few years ago, after having dreamt of shooting my brother through the throat with a 9 mm and watching him die, his eyes screaming hatred, vengeance and, above all, agonising pain... there was so much wrong with that picture... neither he nor i hate each other, we have no history even remotely suggesting the need for revenge, and i cannot even think of him in pain, physically or emotionally... i love the guy...

today a brother died, a husband, a father to an unborn child, a friend, a genius... i never knew him really, i knew him only to the extent that they let me... i watched him challenge impossible odds again and again and again... i discovered his immense propensity for loyalty, his utterly selfless desire for helping those in need, his total acceptance of self-sacrifice if it meant the safety and security of the ones he cared about... i also saw his fierce determination, his never-say-die attitude, his unnerving capacity of using all around him to the furtherance of his goal, which was never selfish, always aimed at the protection of others, always guided by his notion of what is right... i watched so many people being confounded by him, deceived, betrayed, all because they had an agenda, because they would mete out far worse to him and his loved ones... his genuis practically mocked the security of an entire nation... destroyed the aspirations of those that could think of none but themselves... and in the end, the villains were served justice, either by a jury or by a swift execution outside of the law, his loved ones survived to live the life of freedom they dreamed of, and he stood with a smile, moments before he made his final sacrifice...

my brother is married today, with a beautiful baby daughter... she's 2, and has only recently started school...

Michael Scofield lies dead and buried... there will never be another episode of Prison Break...

Cuz i say so... # 1

bottomline is, there's nothing that Rajni-can't...

i'm not sure i remember the last time i accessed someone's blog and read a post that is genuinely happy... you know, about life, their own specifically... i read the papers and usually it's about people getting killed, corruption, crazy dictators, sanctimonious demagogy, useless activism.. you get the picture... a lotta people just curse the media, say they hate the news and don't like reading it or watching it because it's all bad... but how many of us are genuinely happy about our lives... before 'mulling over...' starts telling me he loves his life, especially his 'nirlajjam sadasukhi' credo, even he might privately concede that he'd rather be telling his story in circumstances more favourable to him to be truly happy (sorry biks, you're one of the very few who reads this stuff and comments, so i thought i'd anticiapte your reaction first :) ...

we don't seem to be happy in general... maybe we are happy, in spurts... those moments might reflect in our actions and our thoughts.. for bloggers it would be natural to post those thoughts on their blogs... but how often does the genuinely and simply happy, joyful-in-the-moment, non-reflective / introspective post get obliterated by a deluge of sad ones? could someone maybe comment to this with something that's making them genuinely happy right now?

Semantically pedantic

i read an article yesterday in the Indian Express that pissed me off. well, not the idea in the article itself, just the use of a particular word. the article was a report on how safe sex and the spread of HIV/AIDS awareness is leading to lesser kids being available for adoption. now, i think this is excellent in many ways, two of which i wanna discuss.

first, i believe in pre-marital sex. i have come to believe, through enough literature and some minor empirical research, that a healthy sex-life is necessary for a healthy married life. sex, communication and compromise are hallmarks of a good marriage, though not necessarily in that order (i'm talking about the spouses between themselves only, leaving out the added need to be together for the kids and the like). and let's face it, we're born with the necessary mechanism to reproduce, and also with the propensity to enjoy it, but, for us, and chimpanzees, sex it not just about propagation. in fact, sex is hardly ever for propagation for the better part of our lives. i say that sex is primarily for recreation, for enjoyment. so, considering that the healthiness of the relationship to some extent depends on the sex, it follows that the sex must be good for it to continue to be desired by both parties in a relationship. for the guy, things are simple enough, for the gal, they're not. simply put, the guy's got his job cut out for him if he is to satiate the gal. that takes knowledge, patience, self-control, and above all, (in my opinion) practice. that's where pre-marital sex comes in. practiced partners know their way around better, or at least they should. at the very least, they are less inhibited, and are likely to be more proactive in thier sexual relations, getting the partner to do what they want, and giving what they can reasonably expect the partner to want. that'll take that much longer for virginal spouses to figure out, and if the initial encounters are disappointing, that could lead to the disastrous consequence of less future encounters, or fear of intimacy arising from self-doubt over performance. these are not the only arguments i have for pre-marital sex, but that's not the point of this post. anyhow, safe sex, effective use of contraception, diminished need of emergency contraception, but use of emergency contraception when necessary, and hopefully no need for abortions, these are considerations for those indulging in sexual relations outside (or inside) of marriage.

secondly, i think it's great that there are lesser kids available for adoption. that translates to lesser orphans, lesser kids being abandoned, most of them being born due to unsafe sexual practices anyway. i've never been to a childrens' home run by an adoption agency. i've seen a juvenile justice home ('rehab' home for minors convicted of crimes) and it's no picnic. in any case, i don't think it can be a lot of fun growing up as an abandoned child, your closest hope of leading somthing like a normal life depending on the chance of someone thinking you're cute enough to be adopted. or being chucked out of the children's home after you reach a certain age and then trying to scratch a living. heck, if infertile couples think adoption is their best hope, let them go in for IVF, surrogacy, sperm banks. no harm in reducing the number of orphans, is there?

but anyhow, i'm sorry it took this long, but i'll come now to the point of all this. the article had a sentence which reads as follows - "Most of them (adoption agencies) attribute it (lesser kids being available for adoption) to the HIV awareness campaigns advocating the use of condoms, besides availability of emergency contraceptive pills, preventing unwanted pregnancies and leading to fewer illegal births by unwed mothers." (Emphasis mine)

excuse me, "illegal births"? as in births not in accordance with the law? that's got some rather wide connotations, don't you think? the word "illegal" is being thrown around rather flippantly these days, kinda like the word "love". rape's illegal, human and narcotics trafficking is illegal, driving the wrong way down a one-way street is illegal. giving birth out of wedlock is illegal? hey, it's not like these kids have enough to deal with already. start calling their births "illegal" why don't you? i mean after all, they're bastards anyway, why not tell them that the societal fabric equates them to spitting on the street.

for the record, a child born out of wedlock is "illegitimate" for the purpose of family and succession laws. it means that their rights to parents' family property are either limited or non-existent depending on the context. but courts and legislatures the world over, including in India, have held that the illegitimate child is entitled to certain things from his bological parents, like maintenance. they weren't born out of choice, not their own anyway.

fine, i'm prepared to accept that the express news service didn't 'mean it that way'. but this is a premier newspaper we're talking about. how about a little bit of caution in what you write! even if very few people give a shit about those bastards in the first place, at least we're hypocritical enough to be pissed off at incorrect references to their existence. doesn't that count for something these days?

p.s. if u wanna read the article, it's on the front page of the pune newsline supplement to the indian express dated may 25, 2009, monday.