The Invictus

This bozo in Qualis (not the poor 2-wheeler) broke the rule (see the prominent "No Right Turn" sign? Yes, am sure, so did the Qualis idiot, but then heyy, he's a bozo ain't he?)- wish he and his ilk get "One tight slap" each time they show their rotten colors...

I am more inclined than ever to capture all such senseless idiots on camera - along with their registration numbers - and post it here (or maybe i'll start a Bangalore traffic offenders blog)...and hope somebody in authority sees it and does something about it sooner than later.

I have a theory. And 'cos you came here, you will get to hear all about it. I call it The Grandiose Nation Theory, and its' somewhat similar to the Escapist theory (by the end of the post you will know that too!).

I think we Indians, as a nation, are more focussed on doing BIG, grandiose things which have a smaller chance of ever becoming reality, as opposed to working on smaller, equally effective ones that have a REAL chance to happening. We have a traffic problem, we clamour and conspire for huge, awe-inspiring flyovers. We watch a poorly performing Indian Cricket / Hockey team, we want them to not just improve on their performances, but go and bring "home" the World cup. We have a water scarcity, we go ahead and plan for huge dams that wipe out several hundred villages.

And as it usually happens in India, these grandiose plans rarely make the jump from drawing boards to reality. And when they do, they get stuck as half-baked projects, ala Flyovers in Bangalore.

All this when we could have very easily achieved the intended objective through simpler, less drastic but more effective means. Means that would not only deliver, but do so at a fraction of the cost.

Let me take an example here - The worsening traffic situation in Bangalore's roads and the remedies that have been bandied about. We seem to prefer

1. Flyovers - more of them, bigger, more complex structures, of course all of these built in super-fast time.

2. 4-lane roads with no potholes

3. Cutting down thousands of trees that line Bangalore's roads, all so that a few hundred more vehicles can continue to violate traffic rules.

All these solutions appear to be unnecessary drastic actions - ones that you normally do not take recourse to without first exhausting all possible simple measures. And believe me, in Bangalore (could be true of anywhere in India), we just haven't tried these simpler options.

You see, Bangalore is a city that is mostly laid out in a grid-like arrangement. You have "Main Roads" and "Cross Roads" that run perpendicular directions (similar to the Avenues and Streets in the US). One of the advantages of this kind of an arrangement is that you will always have more than one way or route to take you from point A to point B. If there is a traffic jam on the shortest and most obvious route, you can always take the next "Main" or the "Cross". Elementary, so far. But the problem is the myopic view that our urban planners take. They would rather focus on ONE single road (say for example Bannerghatta Main Road) and then pour money and effort trying to build a flyover / 4-lane road / underpass etc etc in order to decongest the traffic situation. When all they need to do is ensure that the parallel roads are properly asphalted so that they can act as diversions and take the load off the congested road. But they will not do that - they will let the alternative roads lie in dirt,stones and potholes - while they focus on one more grand vision.

On a connected note, I think this is rooted in our penchant for escapism. Of course, we all want to believe that a messiah will come and deliver us from all our troubles one fine day. Till then we will crib and crib, but not do anything to change it. We crib about hopeless traffic situation, but continue to contribute to it with our utter lack of road sense; We sure hope that the BIG flyover will solve all our traffic woes, of course. We crib about corruption in society, but don't do anything about it. We hope that someday, some big guy will come and cleanse it all for us, of course. We just are not capable of taking small but meaningful steps OURSELVES.

No wonder till then, we will have planned flyovers and leftover flyovers. And traffic jams. Mera Bharat Mahan!

I have travelled to these places in the last 1-year or so...


create your own visited country map

For a change, my blog moves away from its recently acquired quasi-serious, opinionated state of being, to talk about more lighter things. About the music that I grew up listening to, songs that I used to be mad about, music that I don't get to listen to these days, but that I could listen to anytime anyday.

Here's a list of my 12 fave songs - not exhaustive obviously, but of top-of-mind recall value.

1. Wish you were here (Pink Floyd)

This one never fails to give me the bumps each time i hear it, even after all these years. Simple verse, powerful emotions, absolutely brilliant.

2. Comfortably Numb (Pink Floyd)

Dark in composition, music nevertheless. A good lesson for the wannabe punksters and thrash-ers who think loudness is a proxy for dark angst, maybe?

3. More than words (Extreme)

A very non-Extreme kind of a song. Brilliant verse, simple accompaniment on a single acoustic guitar. Perfect! (you have heard this song, haven't you?)

4. November Rain (Guns N Roses)

Slash on a roll! If you are looking for instances of great orchestration in a Rock number, you need to hear this! Quintessential Pub favorite - best heard with a pitcher of chill beer:-)

5. Love will keep us alive (The Eagles)

A mushy number, no less! But so much better and mature than today's nonsense churned out by such luminaries as Ms. Spears and all those whose name I don't even know or bother to know.

6. Unchained Melody (The Righteous Brothers, Air Supply)

I love the Righteous Brothers version, as seen in the movie "The Ghost" (yes, the Demi Moore starrer)...It has a distinct old worldly feel to it which clearly stands out in today's bubble-gummy times.

7. Bohemian Rhapsody (Queen)

Wierd, unconventional and brilliant orchestration! No wonder this is - last heard - the most popular single in the UK.

8. Nothing compares to you (Sinead O'Connor)

WOW! A good composition made great by its rendition!! One of the most difficult compositions to perform to, this number showcased Sinead's vocals to the extent that she could never - alas - ever repeat.

9. Heaven (Bryan Adams)

College favorite! Along with "Summer of '69", Bryan Adams sure made many of us rock!

10. Imagine (John Lennon)

John Lennon at his best! One of my firm favorites too!

11. Piano Man (Billy Joel)

Billy Joel simply rocks in this number! Have forgotten the no. of times we have requested for this number in a Pub..Best enjoyed with friends, beer and while singing aloud in a loud pub!!

12. It might be you (Stephen Bishop)

One of the first English songs I heard to, and remains a firm favorite! A good number to end this nostalgic trip with.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PS: The inspiration for this post is a little conversation I had with DC the other day. I was complaining to her how all music channels on TV seem to have gone bereft of good English music; Almost all the channels (MTV, V) seem to have Bollywood-focused content to an extent that it's rather difficult, neigh impossible, to differentiate between the individual channels. The only non-bollywood music that they manage happens to be some kind of grossed-out remix or Bhangra, or Ms. Spears and her ilk who share names of vegetables, peas, and petty currency. The only good that comes out of these is the 2 dozen scantily clad women in pink dancing to these numbers:-)
That's when I chanced upon VH1 on its late night classic show. And what a throw-back to the good times it proved to be!

PPS: I am resisting the strong temptation to add more songs to this favorites list...the list can get really long, and it's not a easy choice here!

Saw the movie "Parineeta" finally..after 2 weeks of futile attempts..I must say that the wait was worth it, 'cos the movie is brilliant in its simplicity...easy narration, crisp editing for a old worldly story, decent performances from the cast, in all a beautiful movie..

But the one thing that irritated me no end was the punjabisation of the wedding sequence..Garish punjabi-style costumes, "dolak", song and dance..hell, what's all this? we have seen this kind of a thing in almost all the movies, but why in Parineeta, set as it is in Bengal, derived from Bengali literature, steeped in Kolkata's "Bhadralok" culture?? The story is bengali, the families involved are bengali, hell, the bride and the groom are bengali, yet the marriage is punjabi?? Why???

This punjabisation - wrapping a diverse and rich Indian culture in Punjabi garb - is actually something that I find is increasingly taking over most media. You can't switch on a music channel without being subjected to some kind of a "Bhangra" remix; You can't walk into a pub / Disco without being forced to hear / dance to a bhangra..Almost all movies - esp. the wedding sequences, or the patriotic sequences - are invariably force fit into a punjabi milieu...be it in DDLJ or Kal Ho Na Ho or Maine Pyar Kiya or any one of the countless movies that Bollywood churns out...For variety, you can get a Gujarathi wedding, but that's about it...These movie makers would make you believe that India is only Punjab (or with some concession, Gujarat)..

Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against Punjabis or their culture, I quite enjoy (atleast used to enjoy earlier) punjabi beats..but when it is taken to extreme limits, so much so that it starts appearing that India is Punjab - Punjab is India, it becomes irritating..Don't we have anything else to offer - is this country bereft of any other cultural form? Or are you saying that people do not prefer any other culture?

Scene from London blasts


Scene from Mumbai blasts

Blasts in London. Blasts in Mumbai. Both tragic, and such a waste of human life. Both supposedly for some divine cause. A cause so divine that it demands so many human lives. Of course other human lives, never the perpetrators'. *Sad*

Sad that a terrorist can cause so much pain all in the name of God. So much and so sudden that he doesn't even give his victim a chance to call out his own God's name one last time in prayer.

I watch this news. As I watched the Mumbai blast news. And wonder if it is any different. I wonder if the guilty will ever be caught and punished. As I wonder why the guilty who were caught were never punished (Mumbai). Even after 12 memory-scarred years. Will London see justice, where Mumbai didn't? I wonder. And I hope.

I wonder who they were
those who lost life and more
their dreams snatched,bodies strewn all over
can we ever get over
this hatred they call their holy war
in London, as in Mumbai.

Watched the movie "Sarkar" last Saturday, and was completely bowled over by what I saw! Amitabh Bachchan proves once again that he is GOD..and for a change, the mortals around the GOD also stand out with some brilliant performances..btw, this is NOT a movie review - you can check the above link for a review..these are just my immediate thoughts coming out of the cinema hall..

The violence is completely understated in a very subtle manner..you can feel the strong undercurrent of violence that is about to erupt, but nothing very obvious or in-your-face..You end up fearing that a massive bloodbath is about to erupt any moment, thus building up the suspense and thrill..Ram Gopal Varma gets full credit for crafting a movie that keeps its audience by the edge of their seats...

The only negative I found in the movie was its soundtrack that came across as being too loud and unnecessary...While the characters themselves have done a fine job of "silent acting" - with each facial expression conveying more than a hundred lines of dialogue - the background score, esp. the overused "Govinda Govinda" bit stands out of character..But, in all, a tremendous movie...It's amazing - and a sign of maturity on the part of Bollywood - that scripts are being written for a 60+ year old Amitabh Bachchan. Kudos!

The frantic world of Olympic bidding has descended on Singapore, and a vote by I.O.C. members Wednesday will decide what many consider the most hotly contested Olympics ever - with New York, Paris, London, Madrid and Moscow vying to win the 2012 Games.

I did some deep dive into the history of modern Olympic games venues, and was surprised at what I found. Let's start with the choice of venues since the advent of the modern olympic games. We will limit our observations only to the Summer games, since the options of venues for the winter games - human will and behind-the-scene-politicking not withstanding - are largely decisions of mother nature (climatic conditions to be more precise).

Olympic Summer Games:

Athens 1896, Paris 1900, St. Louis 1904, London 1908, Stockholm 1912, Antwerp 1920, Paris 1924, Amsterdam 1928, Los Angeles 1932, Berlin 1936, London 1948, Helsinki 1952, Melbourne 1956, Rome 1960, Tokyo 1964, Mexico City 1968, Munich 1972, Montreal 1976, Moscow 1980, Los Angeles 1984, Seoul 1988, Barcelona 1992, Atlanta 1996, Sydney 2000, Athens 2004, Beijing 2008.

Notice something strange?

1. The first half of the 20th Century - all but one (1932 Los angeles) olympics were based in Europe. This coincides with Europe's golden period so to say.

2. In the not-so-old history of the modern games, USA has staged 3 games; In fact, USA got 2 games in the last 20 years (1984-2004)! And New York is a hot candidate for the 2012 games!!

3. Out of 26 games (including 2008 Beijing - venue for which is already decided),
14 - NATO Europe;
02 - "Iron Curtain" Europe, of which 1 (Moscow 1980) was boycotted by USA and allies.
05 - Americas (of which 3 were in USA)
05 - Rest of the big wide world.

See how the olympic movement has been effectively close-held by certain blocs? A token distribution here and there (Tokyo, Seoul, Beijing) notwithstanding, it really comes across as the Olympic games of the western Europe & USA, i.e. NATO.

And the latest debate on candidates for 2012 does not change any equation. It's again a battle between Paris and New York (the frontrunners), with London, Madrid and Moscow filling up the rest of the list. If economic status and prosperity is an indicator of olympics venues, then why Europe? After all the predictions of how this would be the Asian century, sadly, there is no Asian candidate. Presumably because, Beijing, an asian city, gets to host the previous edition, and the logic goes that you cannot have 2 successive olympics in the same continent (huh? care to explain this logic with regard to historical precendents please?)

Anyways, given this short-sighted list of 5 candidate cities, am yet again surprised to hear that Paris and New York are the frontrunners. And not Moscow. The same city which got to host the games once in 1980, but was robbed of participation from the western bloc. You will recollect that 1980 games were really a no show, thanks to the diktats from the NATO allied countries barring their sportspeople from participating. Isn't this a wonderful chance to redeem the past by hosting the games in Moscow?

Want to know why women's share of tech jobs is shrinking? Look at the temporary guest workers entering the country, most of whom are male.

That's the case being made by a group that advocates on behalf of U.S. software programmers and opposes H-1B visas. The Programmers Guild plans to release a report this week that re-examines data from a workforce diversity study published last week by the Information Technology Association of America industry group. Among the guild's arguments: the use of H-1B visas contributes to low shares of information technology jobs held by women and some racial minorities.

You can read the full news article here.

I am not sure what to make of this news!! except that some analyst is busy peeling too many onions:-) This could - allow me to have some fun here while indulging in some loose predictions - imply the following scenarios:

1. The report gets thrashed.

Pro: Most realistic scenario.

Con: Too boring - why would anyone be interested in this news?

2. US passes a new legislation - women IT workers can be replaced only by women H-1Bs .

Pro: This would "retain" the sex ratio in the industry.

Con: How the rest of the world is going to come out with as many women IT H-1Bs is a mystery.

3. President Bush makes a statement "Replacing women with women H-1Bs is important, but not enough; racial diversity is also important. Therefore, racially diverse women "is" as important as women and racial diversity to address america's security concerns. We will strive to "displace" all hispanics, asians, arabs and women in American businesses. We will bring in new hispanics, asians, arabs and women who will ensure that our great nation remains as "divorced" as ever. Because racially diverse women "is" more important today than women and racial diveristy was before 9/11".

Pro: Proves that racially diverse women are more/less/equally important (or something to that effect).

Con: of course, that's what it is!