Now I can relate to him!

Apparently, George Bush is a "cricket - match person" - hmm...I am taking stock of my fondness for cricket now - never let it be said that there are any similarities between PUSA and me...

But Cricket isn't a sport, it's a way of life!

Oh me, oh my!...More reactions than I thought about my previous blog and from unexpected quarters. My cousin Anju used to be a big football fan (something which I never knew) but says she's grown out of it. That could be something to do with the fact that she's a doctor and has two kids - who's got time for sports with that going on? On the other hand, she did name her two sons after, arguably, two of the best sportsmen around. Her youngest is Sachin, clearly a reference to the best cricketer that India (and perhaps the world) has ever known, Sachin Tendulkar. Her eldest? His name is Akash so I don't need to say anymore on that...

I think there are a couple of things people like about sport - first, as Sandy B says when you watch people at the peak of their sporting prowess there are moments of pure physical poetry regardless of what sport it is. Watching Agassi or McEnroe playing one of those impossible shots with such grace is breathtaking. Federer is the same way. Ditto someone like Sachin Tendulkar or Virender Sehwag who sometimes play cricket shots that defy belief. I think it is because of this that people generally like watching the sports they play (or have played). You know that even on your best day playing that sport - even one of those days where everything is going your way - that you'll never even be able to think about playing in the way that some of these sportsmen do. It is such a cliche but the best games to watch are those where the commentator always says "well, no matter who wins, Cricket/Tennis/Football/Rugby[insert others here] is the winner today". In those cases, where both people/teams have played to the absolute maximum of their ability it really is a joy to watch, regardless of who wins. In fact, scotch that...if your side wins then it's even better because you know that they beat a team/player at their peak. The difference is you just don't mind losing in situations like that.

The second reason is that, it allows us to be competitive vicariously.

There have also been a number of comments about Ganguly and my bias toward him. Well, I have blogged on this subject before so don't intend to say anymore except this. He embodies what is interesting about sport - sure he is no Dravid but the enjoyment watching him play is different from watching Dravid - it is lovely to watch technically correct sportsmen who have little personality but it is much more entertaining to watch flawed people who are just like you and me, who show irrational human behaviour and then see them conquer themselvees despite it. It's why people love to watch John Daly play golf almost as much (if not more) than Tiger...it's why we love McEnroe (who, by the way, was in his day arrogant, cocky, brash and almost universally hated but now is recognised for the entertaining flawed special talent that he always was) over Lendl. I am not arguing that Ganguly is past his peak but I think he is still at least as good, if not better, than his replacements Kaif and Raina - plus he always playing against England and spanked them rotten.

Anyway, enough on that subject - I have a soft spot for Ganguly and that's all there is. His contribution to Indian cricket is well documented and frankly I loved that he waved his shirt around in a moronic fashion (simply copying Flintoff when he was in India) on the balcony at Lord's - probably the most stuffy of English institutions.

What is it about Sport?

For me it's cricket, for others football, rugby or tennis. I have blogged about India playing England in the forthcoming cricket series and the most recent news is that my absolute favourite Indian cricketer and former captain, Saurav Ganguly has been dropped from the team. Stupid I know, but when I heard the news, it was a bit like a gut check. Saurav has been one of the most inspirational captains India has had and, to me, represented the best of the entrepeneurial, cocky and smart new India that has emerged over the past few years. This is an excellent article which hits the spot about why he is such a compelling man.

But then I got to thinking, why should it matter to me so much whether India wins or loses, or whether Saurav is in the team or not? It can't be explained, I think, although it is such a common feeling and that mostly with men. Why does it bother me but my wife couldn't care less? In fact, I sometimes ban Shadi from being in the same room when there is a match on, because in that Indian superstitious way, there always seems to be a wicket or two when Shadi says "oh, they're just going to lose again".

Well, allow me to retort!

Following on from that absolutely shocking article in the Times I blogged about previously, comes a delicious article from Dileep Premachandran in Cricinfo. Worth reading the whole article but essentially it's about how he supports anyone but England in cricket.

I confess that, although I am a British citizen and really an Englishman more than an Indian (from my cultural references, sarcastic sense of humour right down to my marks & spencer underwear), there is a particular delight in seeing the English cricket team spanked by any other team. I think this is a legacy of how boring and crap English cricket was in the late 80's and early 90's typified by Nasser Hussain and his "spinner" Ashley Giles bowling 4 foot outside Sachin Tendulkar's leg-stump last time England were in India. Also, it is down to how superior and smug the English commentators always were (a la Times) and then Norman Tebbit saying that you couldn't be English if you didn't support English cricket teams over India or Pakistan in his infamous "Tebbit Test" (without, of course, mentioning those Ozzies, Kiwis and South Africans who were English but still vociferously supported Australia, NZ or South Africa).

But now, it's a little different. England are an exciting team now - you'd be hard pushed to match Pieterson and Flintoff for sheer talent and excitement anywhere in the World and, as the recent Ashes shows, they've got a massive fighting spirit about them. Also, they have just included Monty Panesar in the team so props to the selectors also.

Still, it's not going to stop me rooting for India in the coming series but I might just change my allegiance to England when they play Australia or Sri Lanka next...

Zut A(rce)lors!

This is a story that has been simmering for a while; Mittal's hostile bid to take over Arcelor. To some it might be seen as simply another business story, one big company eating up another. But no, it is seen as another clash of civilisations - an "indian" company taking over a French institution. But really, that's a load of balls. Anyone who works in the corporate world (although I am not intending to exclude my humanitarian brother and his colleagues) knows that when dealing with these massive conglomerates nationality really plays no part. In fact, Mittal is a company registered in the Netherlands (presumably to take advantage of the tax benefits of the Dutch Antilles) which technically makes it a European company.

Regardless, there is a significant objection to the takeover by politicians, and in particular Jacque Chirac, with the seedy undertone of racism seemingly informing their views. Chirac has had to publicly state that "in principle there is no objection to a non-European taking over a European company". Can you spot what's wrong with this statement? First, as mentioned, Mittal is not an Indian company, but registered in the Netherlands. Second, the reference appears to be directed at Lakshmi Mittal, the head of Mittal, as opposed to a company. Chirac is not talking about one company taking over another but a "non-European" individual taking over a European company. This fact is underlined by the numerous news reports on this matter which always refer to Mittal as being owned by "Indian-born Lakshmi Mittal who is one of the richest people in the world" - this is true even of the Guardian, my favourite left leaning paper.

Martin Jacques in the Guardian has written a very interesting piece about the cartoons and referring to the Arcelor matter which he ties in as being indicative of Europe's contempt for other nations.

I wonder what you all think? Is it just paranoia or is someone really out to get me? Reading the Martin Jacques article, I was reminded of another quite astounding article I read in the Times recently on India's new found role as superpower in the cricket world. Don't worry, I'm not going to discuss in detail the lbw rule (leg before wicket), but the article makes interesting reading in terms of perception. The first sentence alone is a sign of things to come:

"INDIA was once the jewel in the crown of Britain’s Empire and no matter how willingly citizens of the sub-continent shook themselves free from the yoke in 1947, they and their descendants remain generally glad of many of the legacies, including sanitation, the legal and parliamentary systems and, not least, cricket."

The premise of the article is that when England ruled India it was a benign rule, helping the 'darkies' more than hurting them. Of course, if left to its own devices, India would not have the sanitation it has now...it would not be able to rule itself with its own laws, nor govern itself with its own parliament. What a load of crap!

Now that it is acknowledged that the coming century will belong to India and China it is India's turn to the play the benign dictator. It actually states later on that because India control 60% of the overall income from cricket this means that India

" must start to behave with an emperor’s responsibility. All empires tend to be commercial in origin, but some of the actions of the officials in the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) have put financial gain above the wider interests of the game and under the leadership of Sharad Pawar, the experienced politician, better was expected.".

When I read this I was pretty gobsmacked - remember this is an article written not more than a week ago, in the middle of the war in Iraq, having the benefit of seeing what western rule has done to the Middle East, Africa and basically anywhere else. Does the author really believe that England (and all other ruling powers) behaved with "emperor's responsibilities"? I love England and consider it to be one of the most tolerant places in the world but, come on, this is too much...

or maybe I'm just overreacting... what do you think?

Anyway, the original point was that all empires are commercial in origin, which I actually tend to agree with. Perhaps this is the real reason behind the resistance to the Arcelor hostile bid.

Judge This!!!

An English High Court Judge, Mr Justice Collins, has delivered a broadside to the US run Gitmo. The whole article is worth a read, but this quote is especially interesting:

"America's idea of what is torture is not the same as ours and does not appear to coincide with that of most civilised nations."

It is becoming somewhat of an English habit to proclaim their superior handling of "l'affaire Iraqe" along the lines of "Isn't Abu Ghraib frightful, those Yanks just don't have what it takes to be a benign imperial power" or "English soldiers are much more civilised than the yobbo Americans.

Frankly, this is just not true as video tapes of English soliders beating up Iraqis show. The situation in Basra, once advertised as the model of UK-Iraqi collaboration has gone backwards; the English government is implicated in 'rendition' and recent memos have made it clear that Bliar promised Bush that he would do anything he wanted re Iraq.

And yet, and yet... the English legal system has consistently thrown up strong resistance to government's attempts to evade the law. Having been a litigator for a number of years in England, I appreciate the independence and verve of the English judiciary, especially at the Court of First Instance level. These are people who (for the most part) were formerly barristers, which means they essentially lived their working lives independent of any need for a 'firm' or 'office' structure (and much less, the need to please a particular brand of client) and who are highly intelligent and knowledgeable. Almost all of them have got some slight eccentricity which makes them compelling characters.

I am sure my American friends will point me to US judges of the same quality and calibre. Unfortunately, not many of them are members of the Supremes..

What a Dick!

There are just some people who you can tell are evil pieces of shit. Cheney must must must be one of those people. Of course, the story of Cheney shooting a friend of his - mistaking him for a quail??!? Now I am not much of a hunter but shouldn't a quail and a man be fairly distinguishable? anyway what I find more amusing is the coverage. Here is the Guardian's newsblog on the subject. A funny comment from a poster, Doug Sheet:

"Dick Cheney - I've never met the guy, so I don't know what he's really like as a person, but, hey, if I was given the opportunity to drag him behind a car through dog-shit, I'd do it.
What about everyone else?"

Excellent!

India v England - the Prequel

Just to get the juices flowing, India and England met in the semi-final of this year's Under 19 world cup being held in Sri Lanka - the score? India piled up 292/4 and England were bowled out for a measly 58. First blood to India!!

The English are coming!!

The English cricket team landed in India today to begin their upcoming tour of India. The Telegraph has a great article about the tour but I can't get the link. It will be interesting to see how england cope with the pitches and I'm especially keen to see the new Sikh spinner Monty twirl his fingers a bit. Also Kevin Pieterson hit four hundreds last time he came to India with England A team so he looks as though he might score a few. I still think it is an uphill tasks since India are virtually unbeatable at home.

Cartoon Violence part 2

I know I know, the debate is over - television no longer constantly harp on about the cartoons and the rioting has died down. But I noticed this piece in the Guardian primarily because Richard Dworkin was a favourite of my jurisprudence professor at college and his book on abortion and euthanasia (I can't remember the exact title) was our required reading for my course. I remember appreciating his views immensely, although it was a little simplistic and seemed to follow the middle ground. His view was that you could exclude those people who say that abortion is wrong at all times and you could exclude those people who though abortion was ok whenever and look at the majority of people who think abortion is not just an everday event, but that most people think it should be allowed with limits (whether that is at the mother's choice, or only in specific cases such as rape was not relevant). If you did this, you saw that most people agreed that there was something called "Sancity of Life" which every person felt and that it was just a question of balance. It seems pretty simple now but I am sure that the book itself was more complicated. Anyway, this is an interesting piece; again sticking to the middle and, some might say, obvious ground. Notice how he starts by clearly stating that Britain was right not to publish the cartoons...

I also notice now that he is formally a professor at University College London (my old university)..

Damn!!

Just as I was saying that, Rahul Dravid goes for a stupid run and is caught well out of his crease...that means the tension mounts and my decision is made for me.

India v Pakistan 3rd ODI

It's a dilemma - it's Monday night in HK, India v Pakistan on the telly - they are 1-1 in the 5 match ODI series and Sachin Tendulkar looks like he's just about to let loose - India need him to fire to get to Pakistan's 288 - India need 6.24 per over with 2 wickets down. It's delicately poised and looks to be compelling match.

On the other hand, I've got an advice to finish off before tomorrow close of business. I've got a deposition all day tomorrow so I need to either finish it tonight or very early tomorrow morning. It's complicated and requires me to make good on my promise to be a full service IT/IP lawyer with an emphasis on IT.

On the third hand, I've been in a deposition all day today, starting work at 7, worked a lot yesterday and Saturday morning...and I'll always back myself to get up early to finish it off.

What say you all? should I work or should I watch?

cartoon violence

I haven't posted for a while, partly because there is so much interesting stuff out there to discuss that I couldn't decide what to write! Classic 21st Century problem of too much choice. Anyway, it's about 8.30 am on a Thursday and I'm supposed to be preparing for an advocacy course which starts in about half an hour but I thought I'd do this instead. Damn! I just remembered I told my boss about the blog so will just hope that he hasn't been bothered to read it.

The major news story is the cartoons, of course... what can I say that hasn't already been said? Not much I guess, except that Shadi and I had an intense discussion about them last weekend which was extremely instructive. Shadi is Iranian, but definitely not a muslim. Having said that, we had an islamic wedding and obviously she feels a certain affinity for mueslis around the world - as do I. But what we/she concluded was that there was no point in publishing the cartoons especially in the current era of suspicion, violence and misunderstanding between certain people in the "west" (This description has always bothered me - aren't there muslims in the west? What about Australia/New Zealand?) and "muslims". Freedom of speech is powerful but does not mean that insensitive and offensive material should be published. Now approaching it from a moral point of view, this is not particularly controversial - but it doesn't answer the question of whether the papers should be permitted to publish them. Ah, but it was all a question of context says Shadi. If the people who published the cartoons only meant to demean islam then they shouldn't have been published - what was the paper doing anyway asking people to send in cartoons of Mohammed (peace be on his name...)?

I think that's true to a point but then I realised that we had just had an intense one hour discussion about this topic and had read and seen many many news reports about it without actually having seen the cartoons themselves - so the next question - what if a newspaper or channel, in an interest to put the debate into context, published the cartoons and said "this is the subject of the debate across the world" - to my mind that would be fair and the context would be appropriate. But that just illustrates the problem with this approach - who is the arbiter of the correct context? Certainly not me, and certainly not Shadi. So, my view is between the choice of freedom of speech for everyone or freedom of speech for none I would rather have the former. Anyone who takes advantage of the freedom of speech should expect criticism but not punishment.

I have to admit, also, that the argument about cartoons leaves me a bit cold, as diverting as it is. Surely it is less important than (in no particular order); the war in Iraq; the fact that in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Afghanistan, Pakistan and other countries people are regularly oppressed for their beliefs (or lack of belief); corruption in most countries around the world; Israel v Palestine... and countless other things.

It also strikes me that when countries protest against Denmark or, in fact, all Europeans for the publication of the cartoons in a newspaper, they are following the same thought processes that a European follows when he thinks "if one muslim is a suicide bomber, they all are". Painting the many with the tar of the few is one of those human impulses that we just can't seem to get away from....

Anyway, I have seen the cartoons and (having known artists and once been pretentious enough to ascribe motive and meaning to apparently meaningless pieces of art, music, cinema etc) think I could argue fairly convincingly that the picture of Mohammed with a bomb in his turban was a post-modern ironic take on how islam is a stereotyped religion associated with violence, as opposed to a piece of propoganda - again it comes down to motive and how do you police that?

Oil is the new smack!

A quite remarkable statement from Dubya in State of the Union speech - unsurprisingly, the State of the Union was pronounced 'strong' but what is this? -" the US is addicted to oil"!! says W - D'uh! - I thought this was pretty obvious. What is amazing is that this is coming from a former oil man (at least on paper - no-one is quite sure whether he actually did any work) who only became a candidate on the back of his name and "big oil"; and invaded Iraq to ensure that the US could take full advantages of Iraq's "resources".... The hypocrisy is so brazen it takes your breath away. You think to yourself "why can't people see through this man?". Still, despite the scepticism about his motives and thought processes it was quite a statement - I wonder how it will be received especially by his big oil contributors.

Probably won't bother them if what he said is looked at carefully. First, he claims he wants to reduce dependency on middle east oil by 75% (and that too only be 2025). But, the US only imports about 20% of its oil from the middle east so that would only really mean that the instead of importing 20% of its oil from ME it will import 15%. Now, on the basis that the oil consumption will probably rise in the US (how can it not!) this may not mean that there is any quantum reduction.

Second, what about using ethanol as a substitute for oil? Well, the first thing is that this benefits a different type of industry, that owns the rights to manufacture ethanol and to grow the corn required - I'm thinking here of the Monstanto's etc (remember them from the GM food debate?)...also, there is some debate about how efficient ethanol actually is. Sure, it might be a substitute for oil but, here's the catch, some people say that it actually takes more oil to produce ethanol than is saved by its subsequent use - see this piece on the website of NPR - it also says that even if all the corn grown in the US was to be allocated for fuel purposes, the oil produced would only be about 10% of the US present consumption - can anyone do the Maths here?

What was also interesting about the SOTU is that although Bush identified the addiction, there was no push to stop people unnecessarily using oil - I'm thinking here in particular of the massive and omnipresent SUVs in the US (and "Hummers" which I suppose is one of the nicknames which most accurately describes the relationship between cars and dicks). Will legislation be introduced to ensure that the auto industry imposes a minimum fuel economy for SUVs? Answers on a postcard please....

No, the speech was meant to reassure Americans that, although the addiction to oil is a problem the problem isn't down to inflated consumption, but down to being addicted to the wrong thing! and then only because it's running out or in the hands of those nasty a-rabs...

anyway, the rest of the speech was pretty much the same as ones given in the past - I don't t know how many times he can say we're winning the war in Iraq until it becomes true...

There was also a bit saved for Iran, as there was last year. Last year it was taken as a signal that there would be an invasion last year. I read that June was the preferred month. the language was a bit more mellow this time - references to the "World" not allowing Iran to have nuclear weapons as opposed to the "US" doing what it wanted. And still the debate continues. This morning, news is that Iran has said that it will retaliate if it is attacked. Front page news!! As Shadi said, 'isn't that obvious'?