"Ideas have consequences"

Can't believe this is not the official video--and the guy's looking for job?!! Hello!

noreply@blogger.com (socal) — Mon, 25 May 2009 18:24:00 +0000

Death Cab for Cutie - Little Bribes from Ross Ching on Vimeo.

Great design

noreply@blogger.com (socal) — Mon, 25 May 2009 17:53:00 +0000

You never know what web throws up.

Doesn't bode well

noreply@blogger.com (socal) — Thu, 14 May 2009 18:25:00 +0000

Abe Rosenthal on the anti-semitism of Pat Buchanan

noreply@blogger.com (socal) — Mon, 11 May 2009 05:56:00 +0000

There are few articles that are rarely as devastating as this one by the late NYT editor Abe Rosenthal. Despite its rhetoric of Religion of Love, Catholic right has had a pungent streak of anti-Semitism since forever. But nothing has ever brought down a more high-profile Western personality from civil life as this one. Pat Buchanan might still be writing, and appearing on TV, but it was this article by Abe that put paid to Buchanan's chances at Presidential run, and, perhaps, ended his political career, for good.

''Forgive them not, Father, for they know what they did.''

Bust some pirate nuts

noreply@blogger.com (socal) — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 02:39:00 +0000

Way to go! That's the way to deal with pirates, and assorted criminals. I wonder what went through the pirates' mind at the moment, other than those bullets.

New posts

noreply@blogger.com (socal) — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 19:43:00 +0000

Some of my posts, starting recently, are going to be on Hindu Fundamentalists' blog. However, occassional posts here will continue, so as to not embarass other blog hosts. :)

Another RSS leader murdered by alleged "Maoists"

noreply@blogger.com (socal) — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 22:49:00 +0000

What more to say? The invasion continues unchallenged. Secularism ki "jai ho"!

He said Prabhat Panigrahi, the head of the RSS’s Kotgarh block unit, was shot by a group of 15-20 “suspected Maoists” at Rudiguma village.

Worth reading

noreply@blogger.com (socal) — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 02:17:00 +0000

Robert Kagan elucidates how Obama's foreign policies are no different from that of Bush. In a tongue-in-cheek manner he notes that Obama had the world at "hello" while convincing them that he was different that Bush. But the substance of American foreign policy has not changed at all. Though Obama is immensely helped by a pliant media, Kagan reads between their lines, and shows how its a no change which you can believe in. Whatever happened to the swooning of world audiences, the disappointment seems to be arriving a bit too soon. Whether it be China, Iran, North Korea, Russia, the spin might be new but it's essentially a case of old wine in a new bottle, and nothing more. I'm sure the swinging crowds in Kenya, Middle East etc., would sooner or later realize that they made a cuckoo out of themselves by buying into media rhetoric.

Worth noting:

Thus the Times's Peter Baker writes that "Obama appears poised to return to a more traditional American policy of dealing with the world as it is rather than as it might be." Set aside what a funny sentence that is to anyone with even scant knowledge of American history and its traditions -- remember Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, John Kennedy, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton? The more interesting question is whether the Bush administration ever seriously pursued a "freedom agenda."

No matter what the rhetoric, America has always worked to further its interests, just as it should. And so we must. Drill baby drill...in your politicians' mind.

Another one is by economist-cum-columnist Robert Samuelson. He skewers the central buzzword of Obamanomics: responsibility. Whatever his rhetoric, Samuelson finds Obama wanting on a principal count, sounding him out on "entitlement psychology--or the belief that government benefits once conferred should never be revoked." (Like reservations!) "Overworked rhetoric" has its downsides. The momentary overconfidence it generates can quickly give in to great depression.

An email I got...

noreply@blogger.com (socal) — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 16:23:00 +0000

...today from an insurance company.

Dear Mr. xxxxx,

.....

We request you to kindly ignore this email.
.......

We value your trust in us and assure you the best of our service at all times.

Regards,

The tragic part: it's from an Indian company.

The party with the mean spirit

noreply@blogger.com (socal) — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 23:15:00 +0000

Congress is not only a feudal party, it also usually exhibits a nasty, and a very mean streak in its protestations. One shouldn't be surprised that the party's inherent dynastic structure condones if not assiduously promote such palatial intrigues for its own sustenance.

A party spokesperson provided us a clear exhibit of this rancid trait. This followed opposition leader L K Advani's compliments to Pranab Mukherjee, a man-for-all-seasons for the UPA:

“Sometimes I think had Pranabji not been there, what could happen to this government? Whenever there is a crisis, he is there. Twenty-five years ago, he presented the budget and did so again yesterday as it was a crisis situation.”

Not able to see one of its own gaining stature the Congman(allegedly "close" to Mukherjee) wasted no time in giving Advani's compliment a nasty spin terming it "backhanded." Not to be outdone, another fellow supposedly from the inner-circle saw a conspiracy in it, a revisit of the media-blown sham tussle between Atal-Advani. Being gripped with paranoia is a characteristic systemic flaw of dynastic intrigues. So no surprises there. It will inevitably consume the party in the longer term-- and, need I say, I can't wait for that moment. :-)

That Advani found it suitable to complement Mukherjee is not surprising. Arun Shourie-- in one of his Youtube videos--is known to have said that the Congress was on the verge of giving away Siachen, and we almost lost it, had Army bosses alerted the BJP, and for one man in the UPA, Pranab Mukherjee.

But then let's not forget that Pranab Mukherjee was also behind the disgraceful surrender to Islamists in Taslima Nasreen's forced flight outside India.

Politics 101

noreply@blogger.com (socal) — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 01:27:00 +0000

Let's not forget...

..to ask why now?

..that now is not the right time to raise divisive cultural issues.

...that Aam admi needs bijli, sadak, paani, and money, more than ever. Especially since the global recession is upon us.

...that not too long ago we decided not to politicize hunger, terrorism, and poverty. Now is the time to say, 'Don't politicize pubs, or panties. '

..and, finally, that the aam aadmi neither has the time nor the means to go to pubs?

...who votes!

Does Pramod Mutalik know? There's no such thing as bad publicity

noreply@blogger.com (socal) — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 17:48:00 +0000

So, there's a campaign going on which aims to send pink chaddis to Pramod Mutalik whose group allegedly ransacked a pub in Mangalore. Their facebook group and blog has generated some interest and attention as well. And chances are that Mr. Mutalik might indeed get some gift packages, by Valentine's day.

That there's some cheap fun in all this is undeniable. It's a stupid campaign afterall, and stupid is as stupid does i.e., profligate on something without any results.

It's possible that the packages may not be accepted for delivery; it's possible that most avid followers of the group will simply backoff once they actually have to open their wallets over postal charges--I can see this happening with overseas enthusiasts of the campaign; it's not cheap to mail all the way home in such a short time.

That this will help Victoria's Secret or few of its cheap imitators, too, is given. Though few thousand buyers will hardly make a dent in normal times, the manufacturers will be the most happy ones. And so the mail delivery people.

But, what if these indeed reach their intended recipient i.e., Pramod Mutalik. All he has to do to turn the campaign on its head is to make profits over it and do exactly what the pink groupies don't want him to: use the generated money to forward his agenda.

Here's how he can go about achieving precisely that: Get some parcel handler to manage the inventory and auction the wares online. Or even sell it to some NGO.

Channeling the accumulated funds shouldn't be difficult. For his part, Mutalik gets to live the marketing dictum: there's no such thing as bad publicity.

As for politics, it's highly doubtful how far his rival netmob will stay interested in one campaign. They'll move one. Mutalik, meanwhile, might end up a winner in public battle. Politics makes for strange fellows afterall.

Akashvani for secular Obamaoids?

noreply@blogger.com (socal) — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 05:43:00 +0000

I don't think so. Maureen Dowd might have annoyed the Obamaoids back home with her column today. I mean the all-knowing-oh-so-secular types. She seems to believe that the new American President might have(actually did?) learnt his lesson:

It took Daschle's resignation to shake the president out of his arrogant attitude that his charmed circle doesn't have to abide by the lofty standards he lectured the rest of us about two years.

Obama " admitted that 'ultimately it is important for this admnistration to send a message that there aren't two set of rules. You know, one for prominent people and one for ordinary folks who have to pay their taxes.'"

It is of course a given that the ebb and tide in Obama's reputation shines on the water carriers of world liberalism. That mantle, in India, rests on the seculars' shoulder. Hence the desperate effort to cast Prince Rahul as some sort of twenty-somethings' hearththrob. That Obama has a Harvard law degree, and le prince, a Harvard dropout matters little to the hype brigade.

Whether Rahul baba's extreme makeover will end up in coronation is a matter of speculation, except that your odds might be better if you have a hotline to the charlatan duo of Chawla and Qureshi.

But Rahul baba's failure to launch cannot, and will not, stop the seculars from ooh-ing and aah-ing at the site of Obama. One won't be surprised if recycling Obama's lofty sentiments becomes a favorite pastiche for seculars. Of course, they're above aam-aadmis and slumdogs when it comes to accepting screwups, learning lessons, or eating humble pies. But even for them, "only a Gandhi can be king."

Can't we all just get along?

noreply@blogger.com (socal) — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 21:15:00 +0000

You've heard the fruitcake expression:

Can't we all just get along?

You love life, and we love death. - Al Qaeda spokesman

[From Sun Tzu Was a Sissy by Stanley Bing]

Secular press agencies goof up

noreply@blogger.com (socal) — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 16:12:00 +0000

A seemingly confident 'secular' journalist clearly misunderstands the little flub during Obama's swearing-in ceremony, and conjures up a completely inaccurate report based on his limited understanding.

"But at one point early on, Obama paused, as if grasping for the next words. Roberts helped him over the brief awkward moment, repeating a few words to get Obama back on track. He was then the first to congratulate Obama on his new job."

And then his overconfidence does him in.

"The smile-evoking assistance could be the precursor to many important interactions between the two men who rose to their positions of power quickly and who have some background similarities, but whose politics differ."

A typical case of putting your foot in mouth, you would agree. The upstart secularist prevailed upon himself, refusing to cross-check his account with what actually went on. Here's a Slate report that accurately jots down the real happenings. It was Obama who tried to help the Chief Justice, and not the other way round.

P.S. The secular newspaper has pushed this erroneous report in the background and published a correct one on their front page instead. Meanwhile, Obama is readministered the oath by CJ John Roberts.

Barackha Omama

noreply@blogger.com (socal) — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 12:47:00 +0000

She might be the ultimate 'secular' redeemer. A downtrodden dalit christian handicapped housemaid, married to an illegal Bangladeshi muslim dabbawala, she will salvage 'secular' glory for India and deliver us the moral equivalence we sorely seek today with America by sweeping...sorry, getting appointed, after the general election, by Priyanka Gandhi's grandson, who will be the then Congress chairperson.

First as tragedy, second time as farce.

noreply@blogger.com (socal) — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 18:17:00 +0000

Thus, they say, history repeats itself.

A superpower never gets mired in a farcical charade with its puny neighbors. A wannabe power doesn't either. Courtesy Sonia Gandhi's govt. what's our status then, huh?

"Pak may seek Samjhauta suspects if India wants 26/11 accused."

But the PM has other things on his mind.

"PM gives up VVIP privilege. Goes to RTO, to renew his license."

On Sunday, mind well. Accounting the cost of overtime for the usually lethargic, and super-corrupt RTO employees, plus distraction from other national concerns, how costly to the national exchequer do you think was his trip? And this guy supposedly possesses economics doctorate, or so we're told.

Mr. Singh, please do the job you've been appointed for, and excuse me, but please don't indulge your righteousness at taxpayer's expense.

Bush will be missed

noreply@blogger.com (socal) — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 17:02:00 +0000

The comics, the late-night stars et al. might miss President Bush for mundane reasons, but for India, and Indians his absence will be deeply felt. And for more serious concerns than seem apparent now!

Bush was good for India for the same reason that the liberals hate him: his certitude in conducting the much maligned war on terror.

Today, Swapan Dasgupta prods us with this premonition:

"Implicit is the advice to India to engage with terror than confront it. Yet, Miliband would have strengthened his case by specifying the values that bind the three democracies with those who idolise Osama bin Laden. Is it democracy? Religious freedom? Gender equity? Human rights?
If this is a foretaste of the Obama order, India will have reason to mourn the passing of the Bush era."

Pakistan might be the world's "migraine," but the coming Obama and Hillary administration (assuming Hillary for '16) might very well be ours. It does not bode well for the real world in which we face Islamic terror. Declare victory and go home policy of the Obamaites is inevitably going to hurt us. Who do you think are the Islamists going to target after taming another superpower?

As if that isn't nightmarish enough, the increasing feeling of a potential 'secular' triumph in the coming general elections keeps me up no end. Only time will tell what's stored for us since Naipaul's "area of darkness" seems destined to embrace the age of darkness. May Gods help us.

Wanted: A Universal Remote app for iPhone

noreply@blogger.com (socal) — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 18:28:00 +0000

It is extremely frustrating to juggle between gazillion remotes for every piece of gadget you might have, and it is equally undesirable to add one more to your already burgeoning, and chaotic, cache by adding yet one more, in the name of universal remote.

Nor is it my suggestion to look for the ultimate universal remote that Adam Sandler got his hands on. I mean the movie sucked (which of his doesn't anyway?) but you got to hand him that those features are universally coveted, at least by men all over the world. Okay, maybe the Taliban types won't need certain features since they treat women so nicely, and are famous for their chivalry as any Outlook hack will swear, but you get my point. :-)

Anyway, the current Logitech line looks good and has some decent reviews, but I really don't wish to fork out more bucks for every fancy thing called 'remote' that they bring out each year. Hopefully someone will design a cheaper and lean alternative for the iPhone, since that's something we might carry with us for a good while, than the one that already exists.

Where are the hackers when you need them? Seriously.

P.S. Suggestions welcome.

'Secular' theater of absurd

noreply@blogger.com (socal) — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 17:02:00 +0000

"India may snap business, transport links with Pakistan: Chidambaram" (emphasis mine)

Clearly, the train has left the station, and it's too little too late to commence such retaliatory action.

Meanwhile, the Pakistani PM is making a mockery of our position. As if the attacks were not enough, he rubs it in further by questioning the "noise" level over Mumbai terrorist attacks, directly cashing in on the world's "disproportionate" preoccupation with Israel.

Fact is, strategically, India's options are limited. The Great Powers game works to Pakistan's advantage, and it has two of them courting her. Besides, 'secular' politics handicaps the maneuvering room afforded to our policy establishment. Risk-averse politicians will not venture out further untill they see electoral gains from such measures, which translates into Indians voting out decisively one way or the other rather than throwing in mixed mandate every so often.

There doesn't seem to be any endgame in sight for now barring the wilting of two superpowers or a sudden rise in India's power status, followed by election of a strong national leader. Both seem equally unlikely at this moment, and, sadly, in the forseeable future.

A worthy precedent?

noreply@blogger.com (socal) — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 14:34:00 +0000

Imagine one of India's friendly neighbors has a problem. Now imagine a whole lot of peaceful aam-aadmi type refugees trying to pour into India across the border. And now imagine Indian govt. refusing to admit them. Further imagine that these would-be refugees belong to a 'certain community.' How many barrels of secular tears do you think will sip into newsreel?

It's a rhetorical question of course, and I'm not looking for any answer. Hazarding an answer is no different from guessing the specifics of the Rajus Satyam scandal, or hairsplitting over the day UPA might act against "non-state elements."

As it happens every so often, the Arab street is in rage over the treatment, or 'mistreatment,' of Palestinians. No matter how tempting it is to suggest that Hamas brought it upon themselves, and the Palestinians, it is politically incorrect to voice such an adomination amidst an informed concerned citizenry.

But despite the chorus of anti-Israeli tirade growing shriller by day, an Arab country's Arab despot has pulled the impossible.

Egypt has so far refused to admit the Palestinian hordes splashing on its border checkposts. Of course Hosni Mubarak, the Arab chap who sits in Cairo (or Alexandria), isn't feeling giddy about his sordid deed. :-) He is doing so out of "enlightened self-interest" in Acornspeak. Hamas is the ideological offspring of Islamic Brotherhood, the fundamentalist Islamic terrorist movement that has beleagured Egyptian state for several decades. In the words of a saintly human rights activist, Hisham Kassem, the report cites, "Mubarak cannot have an Islamic terrorist emirate on his border." (emphasis mine. Btw, aren't human right activists supposed to not link religion and terrorism?)

This is of course true. In nutshell, "enlightened self-interest" has prompted a Muslim, an Arab, ruler/despot/tyrant/emir, to throw fellow Muslims under the bus. Although don't bet on A.G.Noorani ever suggesting to follow this worthy precedent. Count on him to scour obscure European treaties to create a pretext for secession of Muslim dominated Kashmir.

The PM himself is not sure of his evidence

noreply@blogger.com (socal) — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 15:44:00 +0000

Well, Pakistan is not going to be convinced by any amount of evidence. It will simply see the evidence-mongering of UPA govt. as typical girly whining. The only evidence that will ever convince them is the thud of Indian Army boots flag marching on the streets of Lahore and Peshawar. That doesn't seem to be happening anytime soon, at least till the sadbhavna expresswalas are in business.

But how do you blame the Pakistanis when even dear Prime Minister hedges his words in his official statement:

"There is enough evidence to show that, given the sophistication and military precision of the attack, it must have had the support of some official agencies in Pakistan," said Singh.

Note, he still cannot muster courage to say that "it did have the support of official agencies in Pakistan." There is no certainty, no certitude in his "evidence," mind well.

Do you think the world doesn't see through his lack of confidence?

P.S. I think it is the 'secular' conditioning that makes these eminencies congenitally dish out circumlocution as some sort of transcendent reasoning. Of course, it is easy to talk down from the monopolized perches of license-raj editorialdom. What they don't quite get is that 'secular' tricks are only for dhimmi Indian kids.

Peaceniks come out of the woodwork, again

noreply@blogger.com (socal) — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 07:13:00 +0000

Where were they when Hamas was pounding rockets on Israel, all in all more than 1200 over the past twelve months?

The guy in front is perhaps ashamed of his own lie, which may be why he is covering his face with his sign.

And since when is a terrorist organization like Hamas innocent?

Another observation: whenever seculars and Islamists protest post terrorist attacks on India, the turnouts are usually low, their signs lame and the protests very quiet.

But when it comes to protesting against Iraq war or defensive actions against Palestinian terrorists, Muslim and seculars' protests feature high turnout, are extremely vocal and most often violent (remember the mullahs protesting during Bush's India visit and destroying property at the same time?)

The hedgehog knows one big thing

noreply@blogger.com (socal) — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 23:14:00 +0000

Since Isaiah Berlin's essay, Hedgehog and the Fox, this old fable has gained greater publicity. Bret Stephens of WSJ recalls the tale, " The fox, said the greek poet Archilocus, knows many things, while the hedgehog knows one big thing."

This parable is often mentioned while eulogizing Ronald Reagan's anti-Communist focus. But, Bret Stephens sees the terrorist organization Hamas as the hedgehog.

He accurately puts his finger to the problem, "It is merely to point out that no ingenious conceit can disguise the fact that war offers no outcome other than victory or defeat."

Hamas knows that. Lashkar-e-Taibba knows that. Naxalwadis know that. Maoists know that. We don't. Ever wondered why the assorted leftists and seculars ever exhort Indians(read Hindus) alone to give, give, and then give some more? Yes, because they know it, too.

The Lashkar types scored a major win in the recent terrorists attacks on Mumbai. They have not suffered any worthwhile consequence so far. One only has to guess that their fury will only increase as they start seeing their goal in sight. The seculars have already raised a white-flag as far as Kashmir is concerned. Who knows what's next in the line? Perhaps Mumbai. Hey, don't be surprised if they sell out their mothers for "peace" and "sadbhavna." What you and I call motherland is "real estate" for them.

Go green, plzzz!

noreply@blogger.com (socal) — Tue, 30 Dec 2008 03:00:00 +0000

Tom Friedman while rehashing his argument for gas tax observes the perils of petro dollars flowing around the world:

The same is true in geopolitics. A gas tax reduces gasoline demand and keeps dollars in America, dries up funding for terrorists and reduces the clout of Iran and Russia at a time when Obama will be looking for greater leverage against petro-dictatorships. It reduces our current account deficit, which strengthens the dollar.

What he leaves unsaid or unnamed is the country that gets these petro dollars and channels them to the terrorists. While it's politically correct to name Russia, and Iran as the bad guys the Saudis remarkably remain unsullen. If the world has to root out terrorism, it should "follow the money."

Saudi sheiks have been exporting Wahabbism for decades now, and their oil money sustains the terrorist infrastructure, the madrasas, and the jihad factories of this world. Our dependence on Saudi oil is the elephant in the room. Seculars know that.