Ricky Balboa, Ladies and Gentlemen...

Gazo: How's about investing in condominiums? It's safe. 

Ricky Balboa: Condominiums? 

Gazo: Yeah, condominiums. 

Ricky Balboa: I never use 'em

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eSGweaROZBQ

[to Mitt Romney, about a rematch with Ricky on Super Tuesday] 

Chris Christie: He's all wrong for us, baby. I saw you beat that man like I never saw no man get beat before, and the man kept coming after you. Now we don't need no man like that in our lives.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sutS7C7WQSc

[Ricky says to Mickey after the Primary Election]  Ricky Balboa: I feel like a Kentucky Fried idiot.  Ricky Balboa: [after his Obama.. what a snob speech] What's that in your ear there?  Mickey: What it is, is I hear stupid things better.

Adrian: Do you know how to drive? 

Ricky Balboa: Do I know how to drive? I drive airplanes and bulldozers. I'll drive you crazy if you give me a chance. You know what I mean?

[Before Arizona Republican Presidential Debate]

Rush Limbaugh: You're gonna eat lightnin'; you're gonna crap thunder.                                     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0CXUv-xxtY

Mickey: This guy don't just want to win, you know. He wants to bury you, he wants to humiliate you, he wants to prove to the whole world that you was nothing but some kind of a... a freak the first time out. He said you were a one time lucky bum!  Well now I don't wanna get mad in a biblical place like this, but I think you're a hell of a lot more than that kid! A hell of a lot!

But now wait a minute, if you wanna blow this thing, if you wanna blow it, then damn it I'm gonna blow it with ya. If you wanna stay here, I'll stay with ya. I stay with ya. 

Mitt Romney: [after slapping Rocky in the face with his left hand] Now you didn't even see that comin', did ya? And that's comin' from a broken down punk like me. What... what do ya think the Obama would do to ya?  Ricky Balboa: Hurt me bad, I guess...  Romney: Na, he'd hurt ya permanent. Permanent!

[at the end of an exhausting Republican Primary, Ricky lands a knockout punch at Mitt Romney but sends them both falling onto the ring] 

Adrian: [shocked] Oh! 
Referee: One! Two! 
Bill Baldwin: If he gets up, Romney will regain the title! If neither of them gets up, it's a draw and Romney will win the title automatically! The count... 
Referee: Four... 
Chris Christie: [calling to Romney] Get up, my Man! 
Rush Limbaugh: GET ON YOUR FEET!

Adrian: [whispers] Get up.

Referee: [Pandemonium in the stadium grows] Six! Seven! 
Paulie: [Screams] Get up! 
Referee: Eight! 
Anne Romney: GET UP! 
Referee: Nine... 

[Finally admitting that Ricky deserves the championship, Romney collapses; Mary Anne moans]  

Referee: [Ricky at the last second stands up] TEN! YOU'RE OUT! 

[Paulie and Adrian screams in happiness; Mickey yells] 
Bill Baldwin: He made it at the last second! Ricky Balboa has shocked the world! He is the new Republican Presidential Nominee for 2012!  (and the heavyweight champion of the world)

bada-bing, bada-boom

Of all the things in the world, if there is anything I do not look forward to, it is dealing with the Indian government. No matter what, where and when, it has always left a bad taste in the mouth, with bribes and red tape all around. When I was young and was in situations where I had to pay bribes, I used to feel guilty; I stopped paying, but I get enraged every time someone asks for a bribe. So you can imagine my trepidation as I was getting closer to my passport's expiration date. I didn't dare pick a fight with the officials lest it should go to passport limbo. I couldn't get myself to pay up either.

I kept procrastinating for months.

I finally decided I couldn't keep it off any more and decided to book an appointment (which itself was a recent feature, added three months before my passport was to expire). I was told that TCS took over the Passport application process and instead of waiting in line day after day (as my colleagues had done), we could just go online and apply for a slot. I did.

Once I was in the Passport Seva Kendra, I had to wait to get my documents checked. This was the first step - TCS employees handled the first check to ensure that I have all the documents needed for the application. Once they confirmed that I have the documents, they gave me a token for the next step.

The second step is where they scan the documents I brought and upload into the system. They validated everything, asked me to sign on the copies and when some copies were missing, I was able to get them in the photocopier room within the building. This again was handled by TCS. To my delight, the people were polite and professional!

The TCS personnel then directed me to the next booth, which is when I saw the first government official. By this time, I was sure that I had all the documents. More importantly, they knew I had all the documents - because I wouldn't be in front of them if I didn't. The lady verified the scanned copies, reviewed my originals, stamped the application, signed it and spat on the floor (she was disgusted about the lack of red-tape and bribery).

The next guy is another government official to whom I had to submit the application. He too looked at the documents, stamped them, signed them and spat on the floor.

Once it was done, I just picked up an acknowledgement and was out! That's it! No going back, no begging them to close the application, no greasing the wheels, no searching for agents, or goat sacrifices. Nothing.

I never thought I'd say this in my life - I was pleased with how a government related transaction was conducted.

I am pretty sure, even with TCS handling the process, people are put through a whole of hassles. I am sure TCS hasn't perfected it yet and is not at 6-sigma level. Far from it. But all the people who were around me at that center on that day had a nice experience, and I would be surprised if, unless things change drastically, the experience is any different for typical applicants at that location.

Since people who are dissatisfied with the service will surely complain, I think it is only fair that they get a pat on the back when we are satisfied. Thank you TCS. Please keep up the good work.

We have freedom of speech, but...

India got outraged when they heard Sibal talk about censoring Facebook. First couple of days, they 'dharna-ed' in front of his house with placards. They prayed that Sibal-Mamu would 'get well soon' (Munna Bhai reference) and were furious that Sibal would even think about trespassing on their God given right to the freedom of expression.

To tell you the truth, I was amazed. I was pleasantly surprised that Indians cared to protest. To see that people cared enough to feel threatened by what Sibal was tempted to do. On the face of it, removing sites that are 'anti-social' or 'anti-religious' sounds very reasonable. But censoring the social media is a slippery slope. It will start with anti-religious pages now, but it can just end up being like China, where TV shows which ask people to vote for the contestants are banned because the government thinks it will give people wrong ideas (like, that they should be able to make decisions) This sets a bad precedent and is ripe to get exploited, especially by people like Sibal.

Thankfully, people here got pissed that Sibal was intruding upon their right to expression. And fairly so; you have your rights only when you are willing to protect them. Sibal had to back off.

People 1, Sibal 0.

My euphoria was short-lived though. Last Sunday, I saw a news item about how a Delhi Court asked the same websites to remove the objectionable content, and there was no reaction from anyone!

Well played Sibal.

Innocent until proven guilty

You can only protect your liberties in this world by protecting the other man's freedom. You can only be free if I am free.

- Clarence Darrow

Kanimozhi was denied bail last week. General consensus seems to be that Judge Saini has done the right thing by denying her bail. “She deserves to be in prison”, most say, “the rich and wealthy never go to jail; they should not be allowed to get away”.

Only problem - the judgment was not the sentencing after trial – it was a decision on granting bail.

Bail is the incentive that the court seeks in order to ensure that the accused will come back to court and stand for trial. The accused is let go with a condition that he/she will come back to face trial once the prosecution has gathered evidence and built a case against the accused.

Now there are circumstances where it may be believed that the accused is likely to skip bail (abscond), believed to be a danger to public (commit another crime while he is out on bail), tamper witness (intimidate them) etc., due to which bail may be denied. But unless there is a reason to believe that such a circumstance exists, bail should be granted to the accused. The prosecution should have a convincing argument that granting bail will undermine their case.

(In this particular case, prosecution did not feel that such circumstances exist - maybe because they didn't think she could tamper witness any more than Karunanidhi can)

One may feel that Kanimozhi deserves to rot in prison, but it shouldn't be before she is convicted. We cannot decide that she is guilty before we have gathered evidence and built a case. What is denied to her will be denied to us.

Bail is not designed to be punitive and we should not punish before anyone is convicted of a crime. The accused should not be penalized for the time it is taking the state apparatus to build the case against the accused (unless there is a strong reason to believe that letting the accused to be free will stymie the delivery of justice).

Just because there are countless other cases where the guilty have not been brought to justice, it does not mean that Kanimozhi should be punished before her case goes to trial. That is just misdirected anger and not justice.
 
I have not read the full transcript of what the judge has said, but according to most news sources, the essence of the ruling was:

The persons involved in such offenses... do not deserve any indulgence;  and any sympathy to them not only being entirely misplaced but also against the larger interest of the society [because] such offenses are preceded by cool, calculated and deliberate design with an eye on personal gains and in fact not all such offenses come to the surface.

Here are a few things that Judge Saini has decided:

• Because the crime Kanimozhi is accused of is a serious offense, the accused does not deserve sympathy
• Because the crime she is being accused of needs careful planning, the accused does not deserve sympathy
• Because crimes like these do not usually come to court, the accused does not deserve sympathy
• Because a strong message needs to be sent to... criminals [that] it does not pay to be on the wrong side of the law, the accused does not deserve sympathy

Key word here being, "accused". The judge is condemning the accused before she got her fair trial. I would have agreed with the judge if this was said at the time of her sentencing.

What's even more dangerous is that this sets a precedent. I believe the judge's decision itself has been based on a previous judgment - Mukesh Jain v CBI. From now on, any Judge arbitrating on a corruption case can deny bail to anyone because the crime is a serious one.

In the public's eye, Kanimozhi is guilty, but people have the luxury of sitting on the couch and passing judgment. People do not require evidence. We do not need hard facts. Public decides based on emotions. It is only understandable – we are dejected and impatient with the state of affairs. We are frustrated that justice is both delayed and denied especially when the rich and powerful are involved. The system has failed us so many times that we are baying for blood now.

But judiciary cannot be playing for the crowds! Judges cannot get emotional and make statements instead of passing judgment. The primary objective is to arbitrate, not make a point or an example of someone. What we need is justice, not a witch-hunt.  

Judicial activism gets especially dangerous if judges are unable to rise above their bias, prejudice, or popular sentiment. 

Shit that Patil Said

Ms. Patil expressed her deep concern at the rising trend of crimes against women and called upon the law and order enforcing authorities as well as society to create a safe and secure environment for women. She lamented that even as the country entered the 21st century, families were worried about lack of security for their women members.

She continues to amaze me in so many ways! Patil is expressing her concerns and calling up on law and order enforcing authorities to create a safe environment for women - that is very reassuring. I mean what else can she do? It's not like she can talk to the Home Minister and insist on accountability, or talk to the police commissioners and talk strategy. Its not like she can seek counsel with supreme court judges and discuss how to solve the problem. C'mon.. you cant expect her to do any of that! She is just the president of this country.

So, what is her solution? What is she suggesting?  "Self-defense is the best form of defense". That's right! You are on your own girls.

“A paradox of sorts exists as far as women in India are concerned. On the one hand they have proved to undertake all types of missions and works and on the other they faced numerous challenges and discrimination emanating from social prejudices and social evils.” 

 Do you know what a paradox is, Ms Patil?

The President emphasized a “forward looking and comprehensive approach” to meet the challenges of an “evolving society.”

I am sure you did, Madam President.. this definitely sounds like the the kind of crap you would say.


You go girl!

Delhi Terror Attack

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said, "This is a cowardly act. We will deal with it. We will not succumb to pressure of terrorism." He added, "This is a long war in which all political parties, all people of India should stand united so that the scourge of terrorism is crushed."

You will deal with jack squat, Mr.Prime Minister.

All you will do is add more strip searches in malls and groping in movie lines. You will add more "security" guys who will eyeball car trunks but wont even glance inside the cars or ask whats inside my backpack. You will have more cops on the streets to take bribes from people to allow them right of passage. All this when what failed is intelligence.

Not sure why this is a cowardly act when they just flip us off every time and tell us that they did it and you can do nothing. You cannot prove anything and you cannot get us justice. You are the coward Mr. Singh, not them. You do not have the cajones to do what it takes to bring the perpetrators to justice (the masterminds, not the ones who pulled the trigger or pressed a button). This is war and you have zip to prove it. You will talk a lot of trash and your posse will talk a lot of trash. But nothing will happen. You will make sure that this is a long war.

I don't even know what "we will not succumb to pressure of terrorism" means to the families of the people who got killed. On the face of it, it looks like you are saying that tomorrow is going to be business as usual. That nothing will change. You are saying that they can kill some more and nothing will change.

All the political parties, all the people of India, we will all stand united and we will gawk. We will stand up and we will think that just the mere act of being united will crush the scourge of terrorism.

You suck sir. Big time.

Do Ends Justify Means?

Here's how democracy works:

• people elect their representatives in order to govern themselves
• the representatives introduce and vote on legislature
• most of the legislature that gets introduced by the representatives will be done keeping the interest of their respective constituents
  (otherwise, the people wouldn't elect them next time)
• the representatives vote on each piece of legislature keeping the interest of their respective constituents
  (majority of the constituents, because it may not be possible to get the full population to agree on something and also it is the majority they need to get elected back into power)
• if a majority of representatives vote for a piece of legislature (keeping in mind the interest of the majority of their constituents), the legislature becomes law

Here is how Anna Hazare and Team got the Jan Lokpal bill passed:

• They wrote a piece of legislature
• They forced parliament to vote on it
• With the threat of the mob, they forced the parliament to pass it

Here are some reasons why I didn't like how it was achieved:

• The way this goal was achieved sets a bad precedent - anyone can start fasting and ask for any piece of legislature to be introduced/passed
• Out of a population of over 1 billion people, less than 1% decided what should be law

Most people ask me, "but the cause is just, how can you be not supporting him?". Yes, the cause is just. The goal to remove corruption is noble. I have nothing against it. I myself am frustrated at the rampant corruption in this country. It is the path taken to achieve the goal that I have a problem with. Anna Hazare is touted to be a Gandhian because of his non-violent methods and his fasting. How can he be a disciple of Gandhi when he is just using Gandhi's weapons and has forgotten/ignored Gandhi's principles; the most important one being, "ends do not justify means".

Democracy is a beautiful concept, but it is also very tricky to maintain. It’s a very fine balancing act. What Anna Hazare did can have major ramifications that can debilitate and weaken an already ruptured system that we currently have. The system is flawed not because of the politicians but because of the people. The people who do not insist on telling their representative what they want and the people who do not hold their representative accountable. People (majority of the people, that is) of this republic have no interest in taking any role in its governance. This government is not representative of the people of this country because the people have decided not to communicate to their representatives. The people have not shown a desire to do so. The people have not been educated to hope for such a system let alone demand it.

Instead of cultivating such a system, the media and Hazare have reinforced the idea that the government will never be representative of the people and that you have to take to the streets and threaten the government with anarchy if you want something. Conversely, it reinforces the system where my government can ignore anything I want unless I threaten (and display the wherewithal) to throw the country into chaos.

One big talking point in support of Hazare is that he had the people behind him, and that it was a people’s movement. Here are some statistics I got from the internet:

• When Hazare and Team asked people to give missed calls to show support and solidarity, they received 100 lakh calls from 77 lakh unique numbers
• I think we can safely assume that the number of people on the streets will be less than the number of people who gave a missed call
  (the logic being, giving a missed call is far easier; if you are on the streets, you definitely can give a missed call)
• That is 8 million people, out of a population of 1.2 billion
• All they had to was give a missed call, and less than 1 percent of the population did that
• Even if I take just the mobile subscriber base in India, the figure is 8 million out of 850 million subscribers.

But still, 8 million is a considerable number. Why were they on the streets supporting Hazare? Obviously Hazare couldn’t have paid all of them for their support. (hang on there you crazies, I am not saying he did, I am saying he couldn't have) The fact that there are so many people vociferously supporting this movement should mean something; and it does. It says the people are vexed. The people are frustrated with the current state of affairs. They are sick and tired of hearing of corruption and having to deal with it. People are so desperate that they are clutching at anything that even remotely looks like a solution. But a country this desperate is a threat to itself.

I've been told that no one in the right state of mind could be against Hazare unless they are corrupt themselves. "Are you saying you want corruption?" they'd ask me. That is a logical fallacy. I can want India to be free of corruption and still not approve of Hazare's tactics or his solution. I can want corruption to be rooted out but still be worried that Hazare's solution will create another monster. As Nietzsche says, "Be careful when you fight the monsters, lest you become one." This Jan Lokpal can become the monster we are fighting (but that is a separate discussion altogether).

People say, "This is the only way that works for these politicians", but it is the people that put the politicians there. And, this incident does nothing to fix how the polity works. The media, which has given so much free publicity to this movement does nothing to educate the masses that they should be demanding things from their representatives and how they should be communicating with their representatives about what they want. Movie after movie has reinforced the idea that the politicians are incorrigible and the system is irreparable. We all talk about how the system is rotten, but do we know how we want the system to function? If we have the power to control people’s minds and reprogram them to be honest, do we know exactly how they should function? What does the ideal politician do? How does the ideal government operate? If you were the MLA, MP or Minister, what bills would you introduce?

By Arvind Kejriwal's own admission in The Hindu, "when we conducted referendums on the JLB, we used to try and explain its contents to people. But they said they did not want to understand the details. They just wanted to put a mohar [stamp] on Anna" To me, this is scary. That is why the number of people on the streets does not mean much to me. They don't know the details of what they are supporting and the crux is in the details. 

How are these people any different from the people following KCR and burning down public property because they want a separate state? They are not burning anything down, but they sure are threatening to, unless the Parliament buckles down and gives what their Anna wants.

So tomorrow, if some people want to come in and remove reservation in this country, and gets the support of 10 million people, should we do it? What about the opposite; if someone wants 100% reservation, and gets the support of 10 million people, should the Parliament go ahead and pass that bill?