http://blogcritics.org/ A sinister cabal of superior bloggers on music, books, film, popular culture, politics, and technology - updated continuously. en Copyright 2005-2007 by the authors Tue, 14 Nov 2006 11:43:05 EST http://backend.userland.com/rss Blogcritics.org custom software http://blogcritics.org/ Phillip WinnSunday, August 26, 2007, marks the switch of all Blogcritics.org article feeds from full-content to short-content. This is the result of several converging factors, and is unfortunately a permanent decision (as permanent as any decision can be on the web, that is). We are aware of all of the reasons that this is a Bad Idea, and we are aware that some of you will be quite upset about having to click on something to read the free content, and we're sorry. Unfortunately, despite great effort, full-content feeds are not currently economically viable. Two other factors are involved: full-content feeds have resulted in an unprecedented level of content theft, with BC content appearing on many websites, usually spam sites, without attribution or permission. This duplicate content causes a cascading set of problems, not the least of which is that search engines generally aren't favorable to duplicate content, and don't always guess correctly. Finally, our RSS advertising partner is strongly in favor of short-content feeds. We hope that you'll continue to subscribe to BC via RSS, and when an article grabs your eye, it's only a click away, still free on the BC website. Thank you for your understanding. Administration0@blogcritics.org Sun, 26 Aug 2007 12:00:00 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/11/14/114305.php Q BitNowadays you can hardly talk about marriage and not feel the dark insecurity of the vast majority of men and women, many of whom would go a long way, only short of death, to hold on to their tightly guarded paranoia that marriage has everything to do with a man and a woman. The rest of us who suggest otherwise could take a blipping vacation at Guantanamo. Little wonder why in a party last week, a good ol' fashioned conversation with a friend quickly turned into an exchange of politely thrown cynical jabs as soon as the usual suspects showed up. The suspects, as I feared, were not Jack and Jill and Dr. Phil. Instead, they were Adam and Adam and Eve and Eve - the same sex couples, same sex cohabitants, or simply people who enjoy companionship and take part in bedroom activities with the like-minded ones of same sex. Our talking point wasn't, of course, how same-sex people have sex with each other. Even by my friend's standard that would be dumb, although he detests the entire "homosexual" thing with utmost sincerity (he says he can't bring himself to imagine how guy-guy or girl-girl things actually happen, so I asked him to surf the web with a more open mind). We talked about the rights of homosexuals to marry, to call themselves married, and to call themselves a family, all of which now only applies to men married to women and women married to men. The questions we asked ourselves were: Should homosexuals marry? More precisely, should we let them marry? (I know, putting it this way sounds offensive, almost degrading them to second class citizens, but that's the current reality) and should they adopt and raise children and call themselves a family? My answer was 'yes.' I am not a homosexual; not even remotely, platonically, or by any other conceivable or imaginary way you could call yourself one. My friend's answer was 'no,' a thumping negative, all the while hoping he would get his point across the fence and stick it inside my bone head. Unfortunately, his twisted logic (I told that on his face and he turned bloody red) wasn't any better than what the Vatican offers in the press releases, turning his efforts into a total waste. I told him he's an ass; and I can tell you it's good to have friends who don't mind being called an ass. We agreed on something. Assuming same sex couples someday get their due right to marry, which they should get without further delay, we agreed the Vatican could considerably clean up its image by FedEx-ing their blessings overnight. This has the potential of becoming the masterstroke of Benedict XXX, should he decide to strike again after so callously quoting from obscure texts from the Middle Ages to insult Muslims. Methinks the Pope still kinda "lives" in the Middle Ages, so he is probably more comfortable with the medieval texts and ideas. Enough digression. Same sex marriage is not a popular thing. It's not even an acceptable idea among many heterosexuals who are moderate and are usually open to listening to what others have to say (like my friend). Many of these good, decent folks couldn't come up with a single good reason why they are opposed to same sex marriage. Instead, they keep repeating the pathetic moral AIDS logic, strongly advocated by the Vatican (where time is frozen, and God skates on the frozen time) and other religions. The Vatican had previously said gay marriage is "gravely immoral," a "threat to families," and is "harmful to the proper development of human society." While declaring marriage is "holy" (gasp), the Vatican said, "homosexual acts go against the natural moral law." Ouch!!!If you think they sound a lot more like the cave dwellers living in a doghouse and a lot less like someone living in a 21st century society practicing equality, freedom, and liberty for everyone, then congratulations, you are right!The problem is in their premise of objection, which is equating morality with the laws of Mother Nature. Nothing could be further from the truth and it doesn't make sense at all. If they had said we don't endorse gay marriage because we don't know how a man does a man or a woman does a woman, I would have personally sent a thank-you note to the Pope for their collective ignorance. Instead they talk about morality, and I don't see what morality has to do with the preference. I can agree that it could be a matter of taste, but calling it moral or immoral? Never. Also notice the use of such charming phrases like "threat to families," to which I say Amen! How could you notice the perceived (and imaginary) threat of same-sex couples to marriage and not notice a good fraction of families are surprisingly efficient in self-destruction?Married folks don't quite mind abusing their divine bond. About one third (this is arguable, because different studies quote different percentages, but lowest you get is about a quarter) of married couples drop their underwear outside their bedrooms. Again, it's the heterosexuals who engage in frequent, messy, and obscene court battles over custody, infidelity, and everything they cook up to stink an entire courtroom. I don't care if they don't want to stay with each other, but why can't they just get it done amicably? Why do social resources have to be wasted over lengthy courtroom battles? The Vatican is not the only insane representative of religions. Islam, its ever-fighting brother, is not far behind. They don't grab the headlines because Islamic societies, cultures, and countries are usually very hush-hush. But someone called Sheikha advises on the Aljazeera website, "The reason why gay marriage or homosexual behavior is prohibited in Islam and thus banned in Arab and Muslim states is the devastating effect and chaos it'd inflict on the moral and social fabric of society. Same-sex marriage is reversal of the natural order, it's a moral disorder. It's violation of the limits prescribed by God."When it comes to allowing the homosexuals to marry, the torchbearers of Jesus, Muhammad, and Vishnu share the same bed, eat from the same plate, and quote the same God. They don't want the word 'marriage' to come even remotely close to the homosexuals, but they don't mind killing each other with their God's approval (arguably).Religious connotations aside, the most appalling part of the entire debate is the continued endorsement of "marriage-not-for-homosexuals" by a broad section of the Jacks and Jills climbing down the divorce hill. The only explanation is that it is not about principle, if ever there was one. It is all about power -- the existing hegemony over marriage and divorce -- the existing social supremacy.Sad and equally bad. Here is a reasonable way out. It's a "cut and run" solution based on the following propositions. 1. Marriage, as it stands now, is a deep perversion of the equality principle. We are generally opposed to specific groups enjoying specific favors and enjoying them forever. I use the term "favor" loosely, and it could be anything from having quotas in jobs, admission in universities, political stuffs, to marriage for heterosexuals and heaven for Christians or Muslims or Hindus (but not for all of them mind you). We should all be truly equal under all social norms. 2. We need our institutions to be lean and slim - not obese, like marriage, which enjoys no extra benefit from the existing and perfectly acceptable legal civil union. Since legally we are already on a sound platform, all we have to do is to extend the premise of union from "man and woman" to "any Homo sapiens and any Homo sapiens with valid identities." It's not that difficult. 3. Marriage, not including the legal binding, only validates the religious and social approval to fuck and suck. We don't need religious and social approval to do what we choose to do in our own privacy, and with whom. 4. Society won't look any different if we abolish the institution of marriage and move on like it was never there in the first place. 5. Everyone needs a second chance. So do the divorce lawyers (send them to Sudan). The only way I can satisfy all the above propositions is by suggesting marriage should go. Right now. It never made sense then and it doesn't make sense now. Period. I have my friends in Adam and Eve. They never got married. There wasn't any Priest or Mullah, or Pundit available. And they did just fine. Culture55749@blogcritics.org Tue, 14 Nov 2006 11:43:05 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/11/06/163354.php Q BitIt's a humble experience for every sports fan recuperating from the the greatly depressing World Series between the Cardinals and the Tigers, but your misery is officially over. You can now sit back, relax, and enjoy LeBron, Kobe, and Dwyane. By the way, if you are voting tomorrow, leave a note that you want David Stern in 2008. Trust me, I have my reasons. Well, we are now a week (a week!) into the 2006-2007 NBA season, and if you are not watching the games, then shame on you. You have already squandered the opportunity to witness what could be the highlight of the regular season -- the defending champions Miami Heat losing their opener to the Chicago Bulls by (put your guess here and then look below).Not just lost. Beat. By 42 points! That's four times ten plus two, folks. That's an achievement which is insured against all odds, even the acts of terrorism (and by the way I was going through my new home insurance policy and I noticed something that I didn't notice before; which is, my apartment is not insured against terrorism or anything related or remotely related to it and the insurer gave a damn fine definition of terrorism too -- but that's a different post altogether). Kudos to Pat Riley and his boys, because not always you can end your previous season and begin your new one poles apart from one another. At this point you can almost start feeling sorry for those hapless (and whining) Dallas Mavericks fans who took the pain to watch the Heat-Bulls game and felt the pinch one more time. It's one thing to watch the Bulls dismantling the Heat -- and it's another thing to watch the Bulls dismantling the Heat and realize that the Bulls' game is clearly where the Mavs' are ostensibly better. Yes, the Mavs came close to winning it all, but the truth be told, (if you missed it last year), the Heat were clearly the better team (for the record I picked Heat in six) in the 2006 finals.The Los Angeles Lakers -- the glamor boys of the NBA -- currently hold a 3-1 record. Which is good at first glance, but once you break it up it's even better. The Lakers won their first two games back to back -- without Kobe. The first one was at home against the Phoenix Suns (the same Suns who dispatched them after falling behind 1-3 in the first round of Western Conference playoffs), the next one on the road against the Golden State, -- yes, they did somehow show up without Kobe. Makes you wonder why they didn't show up when Kobe didn't show up during the Game 7 at Phoenix in the first round of the playoffs last year.In their next two games, with Kobe, they are a mediocre .500 team at 1-1. I know, I know, two games and a 1-1 record doesn't make for a strong case about a team being statistically mediocre on the road, but don't blame me because I am only using the available data!So, trade Kobe. Send him to Minnesota (a lot less attention will do him a lot more good) in exchange for Kevin Garnett (he deserves the attention he never got in land of forgotten prairies). This is probably not going to happen -- but if it does, just remember you heard me say it first. New arguing rulesLike every new year, there's a new Stern rule in place. Briefly, the rule is this: if you whine at Bob Delaney, you are T'd up. If you cough at Joey Crawford, you are T'd. If you bitch at Dick Bavetta, you are T'd, and I suspect if you cringe from Violet Palmer, you get a T as well. The conspiracy theorists say the rule is aimed at Rasheed Wallace and hopes to slow, rather calm, him down. But Rasheed is simply the sideshow. In effect, and without fail, the new rule is going to cut the crap down almost universally and that's where the game will start looking more and more different. And here I beg to differ with everyone who thinks the rule is welcome. Once you start taking the human elements away from the game, it also takes away the fun elements. I know bitching is a universal problem but handing out T's like sweet candies is a bit too much. My suggestion: fine them heavily. If money talks, then money can spank too. Since they can't feed their family with their millions as Sprewell once famously said, making their wallets a bit lighter wouldn't be so bad. On a similar disciplinary note, Mark Cuban promises to be in his best behavior. Really -- this is not a joke. There's a new rule for the owners which allows Stern to suspend any owner who behaves and handles himself like Mark Cuban of yesteryear. Needless to say, we will miss Mark Cuban when he used to be Mark Cuban. That's why I think David Stern is simply not fit for the NBA. I mean, he's just too good to stick around in the NBA 'til someone starts building a pyramid for him. He should be more ambitious -- daring, if you will -- and instead of schooling Ron Artest, Stephen Jackson, and the Mark Cubans for the rest of his life he should set the bar high. Yes, he should run for higher offices and he can forge partnership with Stu Jackson (senior VP of Basketball operations). This looks very promising. Believe me. What about the Knicks?Only one more thing remains to be said, which brings me to the Mecca of basketball (Madison Square Garden) currently the haunted home of the laughingstock of the league. In the off-season the New York Knicks fired Larry Brown after a 23-59 season and refused to pay him a dime on what was left in his contract (about $50 million). My question is, why all the divorces, especially when one party is Larry Brown is always messy (remember his fall out with the Pistons was equally bad)? Clearly Larry and his "playing the right way" approach works on the court (didn't work with the Knicks, although you can make solid arguments why he should have been retained) but it's a no-brainer that he's still searching the right way to play off the court. Stern stepped in and the next thing you know, both sides are riding back home smiling pretty. Again, how can you not root for Stern in 2008? To make matters worse -- or fun, depending on how you look at it -- Isiah is back as the coach of the Knicks after screwing up immensely in the front office. The good news is Isiah now has the opportunity to find out first hand how badly he actually screwed up. The bad news is Knicks will remain as bad as before. (I always thought the billionaire businessmen are smart people -- they value money and all that and they make smart business decisions, so it's inexplicable how and why Isiah continues to feature within the Knicks in some way or the other).Finally, Nellieball is back. Don Nelson is again coaching the Golden State Warriors. Does he have the right ingredients? No. But will the Warriors be more fun to watch? You bet. With all that said, here are my predictions for the season. Just remember I actually predicted once upon a time that Miami would win in six (for that matter I also predicted Lakers to win over the Suns, but little did I know Kobe had other plans). The NBA Finals Champion: San Antonio Spurs Eastern Conference Champion: Miami Heat (I trust D-Wade but can his teammates earn his trust?) The MVP: LeBron James. (Enough sin had been committed by giving the award twice, and back to back to that guy Steve Nash from Canada). Sports55437@blogcritics.org Mon, 6 Nov 2006 16:33:54 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/11/03/080108.php Q BitOkay. John Kerry is not Jay Leno. He gets an F- when it comes to cutting jokes -- although in his most recent "mission botched", perhaps the most significant after his 2004 presidential campaign, it was very much apparent, once you take the pain to interpret the ill-fated words in the context of the speech, that he was referring to President Bush and not the troops. John Kerry's aides say the Senator mistakenly dropped the word "us" from his prepared speech, which, of course, created the entire controversy. What should have been "... you get us stuck in Iraq," came out as "... you get stuck in Iraq." Either way, it's clear who's the target of the four-term Senator from Massachusetts. However, by dropping the innocuous two-letter "us," Kerry left his jab open to interpretations and misrepresentations -- and the Republicans, who are virtually running the campaign on an empty platter, and are on the verge of losing both houses, grabbed the opportunity with all four limbs. Of course, the people who are taking digs at Kerry are the same people who continue to insist everything is fine and dandy despite the catastrophic consequences of the "stay the course" policy in Iraq and Afghanistan. And the list also includes Senators Clinton and McCain, the Democratic and Republican front-runners of 2008. It's a shame they lined themselves up in the same category as George Bush and Dick Cheney. If they think Kerry should apologize for his slip, how many apologies do they think President Bush owes to America?To err is human, and every reasonable person understands John Kerry slipped big time. And I also agree with everyone, smart, dumb, and lazy, who suggested he should just shut up and go away, and Obama willing, never return. I've always maintained Kerry would make a poor president, poorer if you watch him with your Clinton glasses on, but -- and here's a big but -- compared to President Bush, he'd have been an angel. Look, in the worst case scenario, some jokes, when lamely delivered like this one, can be in poor taste, but they are harmless and they don't cost you a penny and they don't cost American lives. And Kerry has apologized. So, let's move on and focus on the reality -- and the facts. Bush's botched policies are expensive -- the Iraq war itself is currently tagged at more than $300 billion, and counting. Think what you could have done with a judicious use of $300 billion if you were asked to spend it for your country. You would have certainly figured out ways to improve the current state of education, health care, the infrastructure, national security, and going after the real bad guys. You would certainly not help make the already fat corporations like Halliburton fatter. Bush's botched policies have led to the death of almost 3,000 Americans and 40,000 more have been wounded. Many of the wounded ones will never be able to recover to have a healthy, productive, and normal life like you and me. Think what you could have done for your country if you had 40,000 healthy Americans at your disposal, at your command. You would have found better ways to make use of their services. George Bush, his vice-president, and their chosen band of losers, who never served in the army, think they are doing their patriotic duty by wasting billions of dollars and bringing death to American soldiers everyday in the minefields of Iraq and Afghanistan. It's time to tell them to back off. And if the Republicans are hoping they can wash away their bloody mess in Iraq and Afghanistan with a botched joke, they are indeed, as John Kerry noted in his ill-fated speech, living in the state of denial. Politics55263@blogcritics.org Fri, 3 Nov 2006 08:01:08 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/09/21/104312.php Q BitFor a change, George Bush set his eyes on the future. Chit-chatting with a select group of seven conservative journalists in the White House last week, the president made known in his usual cock-sure way how he would like to be remembered fifty years from now. He said, “I firmly believe that some day American presidents will be looking back at this period in time, saying, ‘Thank goodness they saw the vision.’” This is so not the George W. Bush we have come to know over the years. The George W. Bush we know loves to ride his toughness made in Texas, loves to demonize his critics, and loves to give a damn about what other people think. No one has ever accused him of being a visionary, so I presume he took it upon himself. Bush is thinking long-term; nothing wrong in that, except he's screwing the present. He further expressed his hope to leave behind "…something -- foundations and institutions that will enable future presidents to be able to more likely make the tough decisions that they’re going to have to make.”This sounds like he's been trying to make the job of the future presidents easier. That is, how to take tough decisions in tough times without breaking a sweat, which certainly has some merit because the future guardians of America don't have to look any further than the 700+ signing statements of the current guardian. There is a minor problem though. Chances are good that soon after he retires from the presidency, "patriotic" citizens might be frantically searching for the remains of the foundations and institutions -- and perhaps, restoring them back to what they once were. That would make Jefferson happy. To sum it up, Bush is convinced that his rapidly backfiring policies that embody the "toughness" at the cost of core American values will somehow stand the test of time and someday, even if that day is half a century from now, the much vilified president will get the due he thinks he so rightfully deserves. I would be foolish to speculate whether history will be kind or harsh to George W. Bush. Scores of visionaries had been routinely hung and left to dry in their times for what they thought was the right thing to do. And Father Time has only vindicated their positions and the principles for which they once willed to be the last men standing.I cannot help but to think Bush could not be more wrong in his assessment. Never before in history has someone been so eager to wield the executive sword and cut down the foundations and institutions. He believes that's a good thing. He perhaps forgot that his legacy is etched on the abuses of the constitution and the laws. How could he be possibly vindicated later? What could possibly go wrong in the future that could prove him right?There are pretty good reasons why people around the world look up to America when their own existences are at stake. It's no coincidence. America holds an envious record of filtering the right from wrong, and perhaps, more crucially, installing the appropriate checks and balances to protect the “rights" from the future possibilities of contamination. In his six years of presidency Bush has left the entirety of the American soul in jeopardy. He's failed, time and again, to distinguish his doctrine from what is truly American. Fifty years from now, I could still be proved wrong, but somehow I doubt that. Politics53196@blogcritics.org Thu, 21 Sep 2006 10:43:12 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/09/17/012443.php Q BitReggie Bush is in the news again, this time for all the wrong reasons. A Yahoo Sports investigation going on for eight months uncovered evidence that Bush and his family "appear to have accepted financial benefits more than $100,000 from prospective agents while at USC."Please help yourself with the details from the above link, but the evidence is enough to convince me that Reggie violated the NCAA rules beyond reasonable doubt. I'm interested because Reggie Bush is an ex-Trojan, and since I was once a UCLA Bruin, I can't keep quiet on the topic of the crosstown rival's Heisman running back. Reggie Bush is a now a Saint -- not a Saint defined by the Pope, who, unfortunately, is also facing the flak these days for spelling out the truth from some obscure book written during the hay days of Christian brutality. Before Reggie became a New Orleans Saint, he helped the Trojans to a national championship in 2004. Then he won the Heisman in 2005. Now we are retroactively dealing with a situation. Had he taken the favors then, should the NCAA make him and USC suffer now?Take away his Heisman? As if the financial benefits made him the most amazing running back in the recent memory.Take away the national championship from the Trojans? Please -- I beg you. (But that was just the Bruin in me talking.) I say, don't touch the championship. It doesn't make sense. There are tons of gift showers happening in college sports. We all know that. The coaches know that. The colleges know that. Every damn two-legged football junkie knows that. This inquest shouldn't be just about Reggie Bush. All the college superstars, in all sports, have a skeleton or two in their closets. According to the NCAA rules you cannot accept favors -- not even from Don "make him an offer he can't refuse" Corleone. To make matters worse, the celebrity studs of the college get as much press as the pros and yet we expect them to live like ordinary freshmen and sophomores and remind them and their family of their responsibilities. How unfair is that?I am not saying NCAA doesn't have the right to hypocrisy. By all means, they should feel free to be one, but they should stay away from crucifying their bread and butters for not being Jesus. Sports53001@blogcritics.org Sun, 17 Sep 2006 01:24:43 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/09/16/001333.php Q Bit"Let me just first tell you that I've never been more convinced that the decisions I made are the right decisions" -- George Bush addressing a few columnists in the White House on Tuesday. [Link] The words "right decisions" sound ominous to my ears because unless someone helps Bush distinguish the right from wrong, his rhetoric indicates there would be more such "right decisions" . Bush is convinced he made the right choices, but his conviction doesn't carry the weight it's supposed to. Here's a President who's so oblivious to the not-quite-so-right consequences of his "right decisions", methinks he's not even remotely aware of what really goes on beyond his manicured White House lawn. I know he's briefed everyday and I guess he hears what he wants to hear--otherwise how could he be so blind to the reality? Here's a short list of the reality checks--Afghanistan is a mess, so is Iraq, and Osama is still out there, somewhere, recording his next video taped message -- domestic security is still full of gaping holes, -- and, mind if I tell you the cost of his last five years of right decisions? -- thousands of American lives, hundreds of billions of dollars -- and yes, there're also the small matters of molesting freedom, and civil liberties, the Constitution, and the international laws. May be what he actually meant, was, it could have been worse had he not made the right decisions. It could have been worse had he pursued the real terrorists when they fled to Tora Bora, Hell, it could have even led to the capture or death of Osama. But then what reason would people have to be scared anymore?It's infinitely better to keep Osama on the loose -- the politics of fear plays so well -- and Karl Rove keeps his job.It could have been worse had he left Saddam alone with his dreams of WMD. One never knows when dreams come true. Saddam could have also shed his secular skin and started having breakfast with Zawahiri and then we would all be in the soup. It could have been worse, had he not "stayed the course". Critics will tell you Iraq had zero terrorist before we went there and Iraq had absolutely no connection to 9/11. But make no mistake, the Iraqis, always were potential terrorists. Who do you think we are now fighting on the streets of Baghdad? They were terrorists in hibernation, before we woke them up and kicked their collective asses. We got them on the streets of Baghdad before they got us on the streets of New York and Los Angeles. Only ignorance speaks against invasion, never mind, if the invasion speaks of ignorance. It could have been worse had he not allowed wiretapping without warrants. Really, who has the time for warrants? This is war on terror -- and time is the difference between life and death. You gotta trust your guts more than your facts. It could have been worse had we still been enjoying the same freedom and liberties that we enjoyed five years ago. Because it's more expensive to protect more freedom, and less expensive to protect less freedom. Besides, the terrorists hate our freedom -- why keep giving them the reason they hate us for? It could have been worse had he stuck to the Constitution. The terrorists don't have one, do they? Now it's a fair game. It could have been worse without the signing statements, because they make his tasks so easy. It could have been worse had he followed the Geneva convention, international laws and didn't have those dark prisons of the CIA and Gitmo. Without those tortured confessions, and abuses at the prisons, how could you expect him to prevent another 9/11? People who talk about the rights of detainees and their rights to access the courts and their right to see the evidence against them have no idea what they are getting into. We got them there, didn't we? And who knew what they had in mind? Too bad, if most of them were just in the wrong place at the wrong time. You know, there's no reason why the President should get bogged down by the laws, congress, courts and other constitutional checks and balances. Yes, he loves riding the bike and over-riding the laws but he only did all of that for America. You know, it could have been worse had George Bush not made the right decisions. Politics52959@blogcritics.org Sat, 16 Sep 2006 00:13:33 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/09/14/205811.php Q BitThere are good jokes, bad jokes, and PJs. Now there's a new kid in the block, the DJ -- a deadly joke, a joke that could lead you to years of imprisonment and perhaps cost your life. You'd think I'm joking. I wish I were, but sadly, I'm not. That's what happened to Hadi Al-Mutaif, a young Saudi whose joke about the Prophet Muhammad didn't go down well with the Saudi authorities. As a result he's already spent thirteen years in prison, and still languishes in a solitary cell without proper medical attention. It all started 13 years ago, in 1993, when Hadi, an 18-year-old teenager from the desert of Najran joined the Najran police training camp to become a policeman. While he was getting ready to join his fellow recruits for the afternoon prayers following the usual call from the Imam to pray upon the Prophet, Hadi allegedly joked, "Let's pray upon the penis of the Prophet." His quip was reported by two or three colleagues, leading to a series of unfortunate and equally bizarre events. He was first handed over to the local police station, then to the Saudi domestic intelligence where he was tortured, held for months, and finally put on trial in December 1994. He was found guilty and was sentenced to death. Two subsequent appeals, one in a court of Mecca and the other one in the Supreme Judicial Council, were both rejected. Apparently in all his trials, Hadi's religious background - he's an Ismaili Shia - became a major factor that swayed the judges. In Saudi Arabia, the Ismaili Shias are hated by the ruling Wahhabi Muslims. The Wahhabi Chief Justice had even argued that Hadi must get the death penalty, not because it's just for his derogatory comment on the Prophet but because he's an Ismaili Shia. The death sentence was later commuted to life imprisonment by King Abdullah. Presently Hadi, 31, has started a hunger strike and wishes to fast until death. At best, Hadi's joke on the penis of the Prophet was just a joke like any other, and there's nothing more to it. At worst, it's a silly remark from an 18-year-old immature teenager. In what kind of society would such a comment earn someone in life imprisonment? Look, I am not religious, and I really don't care about the penises and vaginas of Gods and Goddesses, and their messengers. For all I know, Gods need to screw the Goddesses because that's how you keep the God-line going. Which holds equally true for their messengers, most of whom have fathered multiple children. I know that the Hindus worship "Shiva Lingam", the "Penis of Lord Shiva" and feel quite happy about it. I know that there have been thousands of jokes on the penis of Jesus. Actually, there's a website called Jesus Penis and I don't think the Pope is after the people who maintain that website. And I do know most religions could care less. The portraits of Hindu Goddesses are generally quite sexy and revealing and very much acceptable.The Pope might not like the birth control pills and condoms but he's not worried about the arguments on the length of Jesus's penis. The problem with Islam is not that it is habitually intolerant. The problem with Islam is the people, the likes of the Saudi Royals, the Taliban, and the mullahs in Tehran, who use Islam to further their own fascist agendas.Sending someone to prison for life, for making a "silly" comment about the Prophet when he's 18, is wrong. It violates all the letters of the word "human". Culture52893@blogcritics.org Thu, 14 Sep 2006 20:58:11 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/09/04/174206.php Q BitA wise man once said, "To those who can dream there is no such place as faraway." To USA basketball, such faraway places include Indianapolis, Athens, and Saitama.The onus was on Coach Mike Krzyzewski and his chosen band of hoopies (if hip is to ... you get the point) and the hoopla that went along with it. It made a strong cocktail -- rich in taste, but poor for health. Few, if any, question the dream of recapturing the throne the U.S. hoops team lost four years ago, at the world basketball championship in Indianapolis. The dream, once again, was squashed away on the sweaty floors of Saitama as Team USA finished third at the world basketball championship.Somewhere in Los Angeles Bill Simmons is grinning with his trademark I-told-you-so face. He was spot on unlike other experts who dreamed along with Dream Team 7.2. For the record, that includes me (but the catch is I'm not an expert, unless you are making the comparison with my editor). Indianapolis in 2002 was ugly. The Athens Olympics in 2004 weren't pretty either. In fact, Athens 2004 marked the beginning of the downward spiral for coach Pound (Larry Brown). He made the mistake of not playing stars like Carmelo Anthony and LeBron James. Now we know it wouldn't have made a difference. This time, however, was ear-marked to be different. The kickass attitude was back. Coach K was at the helm although I was furious (there's no tangible evidence) when he cut Uncle Bruce Bowen, but I convinced myself that it was a small sacrifice to be made for the bigger goal. This time we had a bagful of chosen ones, the original chosen one, the chosen one chosen after Darko Milicic, and the chosen one who was chosen 2 spots after Darko, all destined to prove a point and not warm the bench. But the chosen ones, our bad, choked. The good news is we lost to Greece - name the starting five - my salary's on the table. Thanks to Hoops God it wasn't Ginobili led Argentina, or Gasol led Spain, or Darko led Serbia and Montenegro (coughs again), or else David Stern would be calling "Houston we have a problem". The bottom line is: you can take the chosen ones to Saitama, but you cannot take the pajamas out of the chosen ones. And that's how they played, in pajamas. But, it's not their fault -- yes, you heard me right. It wasn't their fault. It was, if any, the fault of the NBA bubble where accolades rain in every 30 seconds, where the cushy cushions and hypo-hypes make the mortals feel immortal. Do we must send them to face the pins?There's nothing wrong with our hoop. If you say it's international game, you are simply fooling yourself. NBA games and international games are not basketball in Earth and Mars (seriously if you look at the gravity you will see what difference it makes).The wrong is in the culture of overselling. As long as everyone makes money from the hype, everyone is happy because in the end, it's not so much about the fans as we are made to believe. So, every two years when you put them in the same cage with people who value their game, their country and make one thousandth of the dollars that you pay the people here for the same or lesser skills, you get, what you got. A bronze for the show. Since basketball is never played one-on-one (unless it's in your backyard) the 10,000 synonyms for putting that damn ball in the hoop from point blank range actually carries zero substance. Call it AC 360 or Tomahawk or Kid Rock. The net points you get is two, minus the Tarzan cries and chest thumps. It's good for advertising and selling shoes and power drinks and making tons of money. As it turns out, not good enough to carry the dreams of 300 million on the spoiled shoulders. Sports52380@blogcritics.org Mon, 4 Sep 2006 17:42:06 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/09/02/120337.php Q BitWhile a shaky Middle East cease-fire continues to survive despite occasional breaches by the Israeli defense forces, recent media reports suggest that a deal between Israel and Hezbollah, involving a prisoner swap, is under way. An Egyptian daily even went as far as to say that the exchange could take place within two to three weeks. In 2004, a deal brokered by Germany: "saw the return of the bodies of three IDF soldiers who were kidnapped in October 2000 and of Israeli businessman Elhanan Tennenbaum. In return, Israel released some 430 Arab prisoners, most of them Palestinians, as well as the bodies of 60 Lebanese soldiers. The deal also includes the release of German prisoner Stephan Smyrek, accused of planning attacks on the Israeli Embassy in Bonn."In 1996, Israel freed 45 Shiite Muslims and returned more than 100 Hezbollah bodies in exchange for the remains of two Israeli soldiers. Since 1948, Israel has negotiated dozens of similar deals with the Arab groups, and this time will be no different from the previous ones--regardless of whether Israel and Lebanon have already reached an agreement or are still hammering out the exact details, a deal of some form that would enable the return of the captured Israeli soldiers in exchange for a number of Lebanese prisoners held in Israeli jails, looks inevitable. Ironically, Israel is now holding talks for a prisoner swap after presiding over 34 days of carnage and cluster bombs--a proposal it flatly rejected when Hezbollah released a statement making clear its intention for a prisoner exchange shortly after the kidnapping of two soldiers on the fateful morning of July 12. The obvious question is, why did Israel refuse to negotiate before, and instead launched a ferocious retaliatory attack effectively turning back the clock of Lebanon 20 years?The answer, my friend, is blowin' in the ruins of Lebanon--the bloody message of hegemony: you live with Hezbollah, we leave you in your graves; you bite a finger, we will chop your limbs off. Period. From Israel's point of view, the option of negotiation was always there, it's never off the table. However, in Hezbollah's act they saw an excellent opportunity to execute what they had in mind for quite some time. All they needed, was an excuse, no matter how feeble. As opposed to the views of the multitude of pundits (which I'm not), Hezbollah's ambush of the Israeli patrol, although ill-advised, was hardly provocative and not under any stretch of imagination could be conceived as a serious threat to Israel's right to exist. Why not?Because the tactic of taking hostages to be used later as bargaining chips to secure the release of prisoners is hardly copy-righted by Hezbollah or Hamas. Israel is, and has always been a part of the tradition. In 1996, the New York Times ran a story on prisoner swap where among other things it also mentioned: "Among its Shiite prisoners, Israel still holds two top Hezbollah officials, Sheik Abdel Karim Obeid and Mustafa Dirani, kidnapped by its commandos as potential bargaining chips, and Mr. Netanyahu expressed hope that today's agreement might lead to a further exchange."More recently, about two and half weeks before all hell broke loose, Reuters reported a largely ignored incident: "Israeli forces detained two Palestinians, who the army said were Hamas militants, in the Gaza Strip on Saturday in what marked the first such arrest raid in the territory since Israel pulled out of Gaza a year ago."The above incident led Hamas to capture Gilad Shalit. Since then, Israel has pounded away in Gaza killing a number of civilians, and has abducted no less than 35 Palestinian lawmakers and 5 senior government officials, as chips in a potential prisoner swap. And the kidnapping of two soldiers is hardly a threat to existence, which everyone but Israel and its supporters recognize. Even if I assume that's the case, why then the measuring stick is different for the Palestinians and the Lebanese? When would we have the courage to admit that they also have the equal rights to live in peace, with dignity as much as the Israelis, and not continue to languish under a continuous cloud of Israeli assaults? Why should Israeli aggressions be viewed through the looking glass of the three proverbial monkeys? Let me therefore say this again: Hezbollah's ambush on July 12 was neither a provocation--nor a threat to Israel's existence. It was merely advancing a pawn in one of the mindless war games played out by both sides who are blind to the consequences they bring to their own people. Politics52357@blogcritics.org Sat, 2 Sep 2006 12:03:37 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/08/23/004538.php Q BitHad there been a competition of the most dubious cricket umpire in our lives, Darrell Hair would be a runaway winner. When I say "runaway winner" I mean no one, not even Steve "please ... please slooooooooooooooooowly give the finger a raise" Bucknor would come close. I am with the most aggrieved minds that Bucknor has been brutal recently, and the cricketers from the subcontinent were the worst victims of his reckless decisions. I know some of the wounds are still fresh in our memory, like the one in Kolkata test (coincidentally it was also Bucknor's 100th Test match) when Bucknor adjudged Tendulkar leg before leaving the modern Don of cricket in tears. If you remember, the ball missed Tendulkar by miles and no one but Abdul Razzaq, the bowler, appealed. Yeah, Bucknor is horrible, but don't forget that the victims of poor cricketing decisions in cases as above have also been the recipient of numerous benefit of doubts. Okay, Tendulkar walks but he's an exception like Adam Gilchrist and Brian Lara but majority of the cricketers don't. No matter how insane it sounds now, there used to be a time (if you were too young then, ask your dad) when Steve Bucknor was widely respected. People who survived through the golden age of Shakoor Rana and Khizar Hayat would vouch that the mere sight of Bucknor would bring a sigh of relief. Those days are well past us. Back to Darrell Hair. He's the longest running comedy soap in the cricket fraternity. He's not only ahead of Bucknor in goofing up, he's also the most versatile. Yesterday, the Guardian ran a story on Darrell Hair's long and illustrious bungling history. The late Shakoor Rana (you are not forgiven if you cannot recall Rana and Gatting working out together) at his peak would have given Hair a run for his money. But Hair beats him by sheer longevity -- his vitality is Viagra-esque. Never in the history of cricket an umpire has been so consistently incompetent over a span that extends more than a decade. Unbelievable! It boggles mind that he continues umpiring at the highest level despite a steady production of tragedy of errors that has only brought disrepute to the game and to everyone concerned. The reason why he's still around despite a stellar resume of screw-ups is because he's as competent as his ICC bosses. For all practical purposes I honestly think there should be a reality TV show where the ICC chief Malcolm Speed would interview Hair. For good fun we can also have all his past victims including Inzamam and Murali in the audience. I know I will be watching. I am not shocked, and I don't think anyone who has followed him over the years is for that matter. Once again Hair is at the focal point of a needless fiasco that anyone with an I.Q. of 23 (give or take 5) would have handled like Einstein. Since we have been fed the details to death, I am not going to bore you repeating the same sob story. We know how it began, how it ended, and what went in between, up to five decimal places. The only poor guy who's caught in the cross fire and has nothing to do with the entire thing is Billy Doctrove, Darrell's on field partner. The guy is from the West Indies (and he might as well be suffering from Bucknor Syndrome) and he's so junior to Hair, he nodded at everything Darrell said. He's going to be remembered for just being there, at the wrong place, wrong time, although his role at best was marginally marginal. I feel bad for him. The other aspect is that something truly novel happened. Pakistan forfeited the match -- the first of its kind in the 129 years of the history of test cricket. Apparently there's not even an iota of evidence supporting Darrell's ridiculous actions -- no TV camera catching a footage of ball tampering, despite 26 of them positioned to capture the moles on your right elbow and nose hairs. So I am just guessing here when I deduce Darrell must have been on crack when he hallucinated the entire episode. Darrell Hair is the man of choice if we would like to have controversy for fun. Nobody does it better than him. And keeping with tradition he is in a mess, rather everyone but him in a mess for reasons that begin and end with him. And, Darrell Hair is an obvious idiot -- the Graham Poll of cricket -- a class by himself, benchmark of all aspiring wannabes of mental disorder. If there was ever a shed of doubt, Darrell's latest cameo should put all doubts to rest -- he's now officially dethroned the late Shakoor Rana as the most dubious umpire ever. Sports51885@blogcritics.org Wed, 23 Aug 2006 00:45:38 EDT