Wednesday, May 30, 2007

Leading cause of preventable death...

World Health Organisation urges smokin ban in public places. jus came across this article on the web. i couldnt help notice the followin:
"Tobacco use is the world's leading cause of preventable death,
accounting for 10 percent of adult fatalities, according to WHO"

I don't think that's true. simply because anybody who knows anything about the present situation of the world, would know that, the leading cause of preventable death is not tobacco but Bush jr. and the likes.

just couldn't resist putting this up...

Monday, May 28, 2007

Pirates of the Caribbean - At world's end

Ok.. it's a bit long (2hrs 45mins), but IMO it's worth it. If nothing else.. then Jack Sparrow is definitely worth the time.. Savvyy

Jonny Depp is too cool. Well actually Captain Jack Sparrow is too cool. So is captain Barbossa. Some of the one liners are just too good. I cant seem to make up my mind.. was it the words that were funny or was it the way it was said... but it was fun, that's for sure.

I still think the first one was the best. But the third one was good too. Kiera has a substantial role in the movie.. and she does it well, n looks great while doing it (well i like her, so even if she didn't, I'd still say she did... but I really think she did a great job here).

Alot more drama in this one. More on the story side as well, probably overdone a bit, but it didn't bore me.

Do watch it. I don't think anyone needs to be persuaded for a POTC movie, but still just doing my part.

Insult to National Honor - !!??!!

Read this news article today morning - Murthy faces criminal case over national anthem row.. I honestly thought the issue was over. Guess it's going to take some time.

It's very disturbing (for me atleast) when I see such petty issues being blown out of proportion when there are much more important issues - pertaining to general public interest - that remain neglected.

What's surprising is that the instrumental version of the national anthem is played for a lot of other occassions too. Olympics, asian games yaada yaada yaada. Guess no one ever bothers to pay attention to these things unless they can file a case against some public figure. Seems like they need to attack a public figure to show-case their own 'national pride'.

Just incase this wasn't bad enough, just want to highlight one more point. Some of the people who were OUTRAGED by this - (speaking of some individuals - who I know on a personal level) - hold the opinion that the national anthem of India was in fact composed in the praise of King George - V.

If you believe so, then why get outraged now?? Just seems contradictory thats all.

Like I said.. some individuals believe that Tagore uncle wrote it in praise of the king. Although clarifications have been issued but then, the individuals I am referring to here, believe that the clarifications/explainations are just a cover for the goof up. May be it was... who knows, this topic - some other time.

But seriously, there are a lot more important things in this world that actually deserve attention than moorthy bhaiya playing the instrumental version of the national anthem.

Sunday, May 27, 2007

Marne ki duyaaen kyon maangun...

Moen Ahsan Jazbi...

Marne ki duyaaen kyon maangun, jeene ki tamanna kaun kare
ye duniya ho ya wo duniya - ab khwahish e duniya kaun kare

jo aag lagaayi thi tumne, usko to bujhaaya ashkhon ne
jo ashkon ne bhadkaai hai - uss aag ko thundaa kaun kare

jab kashti saabit o saalib thi, saahil ki tamanna kisko thi
ab aisi shikasta kashti mein - saahil ki tamanna kaun kare

duniya ne hume chhoda - e dil - hum chhod na den kyon duniya ko
duniya ko samjh kar baithe hain - ab duniya duniya kaun kare

so thats why they take the fifth amendment.. hmm

Friday, May 25, 2007

Bush is ALL EAR

Religion - OHH MY GOD!!

Personal view - believing in god doesn't necessarily mean that you have to believe in a religion too.

In all likelihood - I will be going to hell, but I am pretty sure it won't be because I chose not to follow any religion.

Had put up a similar post earlier on the same subject. Just decided to take it a bit further.

This is the way I look at it. God made man (of course everything else that goes with the territory) god didn't make religion. Now, how do you think god would feel when his creation (human beings) discriminate among each other, and that too - IN HIS NAME?

I mean, if it wasn't bad enough that mankind is divided based on numerous grounds - sex, geographical boundaries, language, social standings, financial status, education etc - did we REALLY require another basis for distinction?

Does it really matter what rituals or practices one follows? I mean - sure, they have a traditional and cultural importance associated with it. But don't you think at times we take these a little too far?

I don't intend to start a debate here, but its' just that.. the message in all the religions is pretty much the same. All that we are expected to do is believe in god.. the all merciful and the all forgiving. The omnipotent and omnipresent.

Surprising.. we associate phrases like - all forgiving and all merciful - with god, yet - when it comes down to it - we present such a scary picture. Does the following line sound familiar: -
" if u dont do .. so n so.. you are going to hell for sure."

I personally don't envision god's kingdom as a rigid dictatorship. If it was so.. god wouldn't have given us the gift of instincts.

Mallika's Photoshoot for Maxim

Thursday, May 24, 2007

Shrek the third

The first one was awesome. The second part wasn't bad. The third one... hmmm. not happening. but then again, I am sure the kids will enjoy it.

Personally, I found it a bit disappointing. I didn't expect to enjoy the first two parts, and was pleasantly surprised by how much fun an animation could be. For the third part.. the disappointment was because I expected it to be as good - if not better - as the previous installments.

I found the plot moving a little slow and I guess a little less attention to Charmin n Arthur would've helped the movie. The point is... the movie is watchable... just doesn't match up to the shrek or shrek 2.

Ranjish hi sahi....

Ahmed Faraz .....

Ranjish hi sahi, dil hi dukhaane ke liye aa
aa phir se mujhe chhod ke jaane ke liye aa

pahle se maraasim na sahi.. phir bhi kabhi to
rasm-o-rahe duniya hi nibhaane ke liye aa

kiss kiss ko bataayenge judaai ka sabab hum
tu mujhse khafaa hai to zamaane ke liye aa

kuch to mere pindaar e mohobbat ka bharam rakh
tu bhi to kabhi mujhko manaane ke liye aa

ek umr se hoon lazzat-e-giriya se bhi mahroom
ae raahat-e-jaan mujhe rulaane ke liye aa

ab tak dil-e-khush-fahm ko hain tujhse umeeden
ye aakhiri shammen bhi bujhaane ke liye aa

88 minutes

Well it's an Al Pacino movie.. so I HAD to watch it.

It's a suspense thriller. The movie starts off ok and then - somewhere along the way, the movie gets hit by some very bad acting (not by Al Pacino), poor direction (too many obvious flaws) and a very mediocre plot.

The plot should've been better. There should've been a better set of supporting actors and then perhaps it would be easier to ignore the flawed direction.

One suspense which still remains - even after watching the movie - is - WHY did Al Pacino star in something like this??

It's a very average movie (I am being polite) .. and it's just that, one expects a lot more from an Al Pacino starrer

Wednesday, May 23, 2007

For Sigma - Lyrics for the song - Zindagi bhar gham diye

Zindagi ne.. zindagi bhar.. gham diye
jitne mausam bhi diye.. sab namm diye.

jab tadaptaa hai kabhi.. apna koi
khoon ke aansu.. rulaa de zindagi..

jee ke phir karna kya.. mujkho aisi zindagi
jisne zakhmon ko nahin marham diye.

ik muqamaml kashmakash hai .. zindagi
usne humse ki kabhi na dosti

jab mili mujhko aansu ke wo tohphe de gayi
hanss sake hum.. aise mauke kam diye

Zindagi ne .. zindagi bhar.. gham diye.

Tuesday, May 22, 2007

Dekha to mera saaya bhi mujhse judaa mila

Ayaz Jhanswi...

Dekha to mera saaya bhi mujhse judaa mila
socha to har kisse se mera silsilaa mila

shahar-e-vafaa mein ab kise ahal-e-vafaa kahen
hum se gale mila to vo hi bevafaa mila

fursat kise thi jo meri haalat puchhta
har shaks apne baare mein kuch sochtaa mila

us ne to khair apnon se modaa tha muunh - haaye
maine ye kya kiya ki main gairon se jaa mila.

Bush on 'Moral Highground'

Sunday, May 20, 2007

Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.

Just because an idea or a view point is different, doesn't necessarily mean it is wrong.

If there is logic to the point, then why not consider it properly. Is it really that hard to open one's mind a little bit for sometime and allow a new thought to enter?

If you oppose new ideas just because they are new, there can be no progress. Questioning what is readily accepted doesn't necessarily mean that you are opposin it.
In all likelihood, there is a logic to it which one isn't aware of and by questioning it, s/he seeks to find THAT LOGIC. If a logical conclusion isn't arrived at, then there is no harm in accepting something else which makes logical sense.

Think about it. There was a time when people believed that the earth is flat. That's just one. There were tons of things that were readily accepted once, and aren't accepted today because someone decided to question them, or came up with a better logic.

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without completely accepting it.

I am not saying that everything proposed should be accepted, but at least consider it. Even if it threatens to shatter your entire belief system. Again, I am not saying you HAVE TO ACCEPT EVERY NEW VIEW, but do give it it's due and consider it. If it makes logical sense, accept it. If it doesn't, discard it.

Just because something has been going on for years or decades or centuries, doesn't make it RIGHT (tons of examples for that too.. like Sati, child marriage, female infanticide, slavery etc etc.).

It might not solve the problems of poverty or starvation or reduce the crime rate or improve the economy over night.. or anything like that - but changing the earlier view of 'EARTH IS FLAT' - didn't solve those problems either. It did answer some questions and of course it made many individuals think in a different way, thereby paving the way for new inventions and discoveries.

Not every new idea will make logical sense - I agree.. but you won't know that until you've considered the idea and thought it over. Just don't discard a different opinion because it happens to be different.

Lagtaa nahin hai jee mera, ujade dayaar mein

Bahaadur Shah Zafar.....

Lagtaa nahin hai jee mera, ujade dayaar mein
kis ki bani hai aalam-e-naa-paayedaar mein

Keh don in hasraton se - kahin aur jaa basen
itni jagah kahaan hai, dil e daag daar mein

umr e daraaz maang kar laaye the chaar din
do aarzu mein kat gaye, do intezaar mein

din zindagi ke khatam hue, shaam ho gayi
phaila ke pair soyenge kunj e mazaar mein

Kitna hai badnaseeb zaffar, dafan ke liye
do gaz zameen mil na saki, ku e yaar mein

Wednesday, May 16, 2007

'Smoking is bad for you' - (psst... we KNOW)

Telling a grown person that smoking is bad for them.. is.. well frankly speaking - not only redundant but also very very annoying.

Harping on about the dangers of smoking and giving real life examples and mouthing out statistics and all that. Well here is a news flash for all of you - WE ALREADY KNOW MOST OF IT.

A smoker chooses to smoke. Those of us who want to quit.. will quit. Going on and on about how bad it is for us and how we are ruining our lungs really doesn't help.

Hell most of the times I light up just to tick off certain friends of mine - who have been bugging me to quit. It's basically - ' YOU tell me to quit.. it annoys me. So now I get back at you by blowing smoke all over your face'

Lots of people have lots of annoying habits. I should know, I happen to have most of them. But just because you find them annoying doesn't give you the right to preach to me. You have a problem with me smoking, then its YP (Your Problem).

I could be considerate and shift to another place.. or perhaps be too considerate and put off the cigarette and not smoke in front of you. BUT that really doesn't mean that you have to yap away of how I am killing myself and bombard me with statistics and tell me how harmful the smoke is or how addictive nicotine is. Most of us are well aware and really don't need a revision lesson in Harmful Effects of Smoking - 101.

For the love of god, if you have said it to us once, and we have tolerated it, doesn't mean we would like to hear it again. WE WERE JUST BEING POLITE - the first time.

Smoking is bad, you know it and I know it. I choose to ignore that fact and smoke away.. and that's MY PROBLEM. If someone's smoking really bothers you so much, then you dont HAVE to sit next to them while they smoke. MOVE AWAY (that's just in case the smoker ISNT being considerate). Alternatively, when you go to a public place or something, please ensure you go to a non-smoking area - they now have dedicated areas in restaurants for smokers and non-smokers (don't be so happy with yourselves.. people like you succeeded in dividing mankind YET AGAIN).

Smokers - well we don't have a choice. The world decided to become health conscious and we really don't have much options (surprising.. go ahead and bomb an entire country.. thats fine.. but if someone is smoking next to u.. OMG.. that person is not only killing himself, but killing you too.. never mind how much pollutants you inhaled while walking on the road when you were taking your healthy morning walk)

Nobody stopped me from smoking in the non-smoking areas at the airport.. but then as soon as I saw the sign.. it just felt appropriate to put off the cigg. (see.. we do know how to respect the opinion of the non-smoking members of the public.. would be nice if the gesture was reciprocated)

Kuwait Airport's smoking area - SAD. (talking about the one AFTER the immigration point). They didn't even have the courtesy to put a couch for us to sit and enjoy our horrid habit (the last time I went, there wasn't one, don't know if there is one now). Would be nice if someone was courteous to the smokers too. I mean.. there is no reason why one can't be civil.

Saare manzar bhool gaye

Nazeer baqri ki likhi ye ghazal..

Yaad nahin, kya kya dekha tha - saare manzar bhool gaye
uski galiyon se jab laute... apna hi ghar bhool gaye

tujhko bhi jab apni qasmein - apne vaade yaad nahin
hum bhi apne khvaab teri aankhon mein rakh kar bhool gaye

mujhko jinhon ne qatl kiya hai, koi unhen batlaaye 'Nazeer'
meri laash ke pahlu mein wo apna khanjar bhool gaye.

Monday, May 14, 2007

Hannibal Rising - why??

Silence of the lambs - Hannibal Lecter - Nothing happened to me Officer Starling, I HAPPENED.

You cant reduce me to a set of influences. You've given up good and evil for behaviourism.. nothing is ever anybody's fault. Look at me officer Starling. Can you stand to say I am evil?

Now... THATS Hannibal Lecter - witty, brilliant, unapologetic.. and pure evil. That's why the audience was fascinated by this character. Well, that and Anthony Hopkins. Till date - I don't think anyone else can ever qualify to be Hannibal Lecter.

Hannibal Rising on the other hand, is a sad sad movie. The character isn't nearly as witty, but rather extremely lucky. Of course the movie does have its moments. Sadly not many of those. The movie, in my opinion is watchable for sure, but why did they have to call it 'Hannibal' Rising. they could've just named it something else without trying to make it as a prequel to the classic.

The worst part is.. Young Hannibal is killing for REVENGE.. RETRIBUTION.. and that just doesn't set well - with me, at least.

Honestly, some movies should be left alone. There is no need to make a prequel or a sequel for a classic. They rarely match up to the original and more often than not succeed in only irritating you.

For the ones who have not watched any other Hannibal movie or haven't read the book, might actually find Hannibal Rising a decent movie. But I seriously don't think there will be many of those.

Hannibal Lecter (Silence of the Lambs, 1991) - We begin by coveting what we see everyday. Don't you feel eyes move over your body, Clarice? Don't your eyes seek out the things you want?

Sunday, May 13, 2007

Not wearing a seat belt - SHOULD NOT BE A TRAFFIC VIOLATION

Some people wear a seat belt because they believe it is a safety measure. Some wear it out of habit. Some wear it because they just don't want to get a traffic ticket.

Before everyone starts yelling - looking at the title, lets just stop and think for a second.

How does me NOT wearing a seat belt effect anyone else?

If I am driving on the wrong side of the road or I am speeding or I have parked in a no parking zone or anything along those lines - I understand, there should be a fine. Because those things are either unsafe and/or cause inconvenience for other individuals on the road. I am totally cool when the above mentioned - or the likes - are considered as a traffic violation.

BUT NOT WEARING A SEAT BELT.. let's see, how does this really effect the other drivers on the road. If I do meet with an accident (well accidents do happen) then it's only me who will be getting injured because I CHOSE not to wear the seat belt. Does this REALLY cause any inconvenience or is it really a safety hazard for the others on the road? I don't think so.

I am all up for creating awareness and trying to impart road sense to the drivers, but if I chose NOT to wear a seat belt, in spite of knowing the risks, why should I be fined for it? It can definitely be considered irresponsible on my part. Some people would go to the limits of calling it immature or juvenile rebellious behaviour or having a problem with authority. But the point still stands.

Now people may argue with a point that - since you know that its unsafe for YOU - NOT TO WEAR A SEAT BELT - ARE YOU STUPID that you still insist on not wearing it??

My answer would be - perhaps.. if that's how you want to look at it, then OK, YES I AM STUPID. But the last time I checked, people weren't being fined for being stupid. If that practice were to be implemented... ummm I cant even begin to imagine what the state treasury would do with all the money they WILL end up collecting against the 'STUPIDITY FINE' clause.

just ma views on the matter.

Drive safe...

Friday, May 11, 2007

An Interesting Debate..

A few days back, I had a very interesting discussion with a friend of mine. Now it wasn't really the subject that was interesting but it was her approach.

The topic was actually very simple (of course another beaten to death topic) - harassment of women because the child she gave birth to wasn't a male child.

Now, like all sensible people, I too think that this is complete nonsense and shouldn't happen. Of course one does have their preferences. For example - I PREFER to have a son. That's simply because I THINK THAT - I know what boys want and it will be fun to give all that to my son before he asks for it and spoil him (well you have your dreams.. I have mine)

Either ways, swaying from the point here - what I was saying is that.. harassing the mother for not delivering a male child is ignorant.. and the friend I referred to - in the beginning of the post - agreed with that. However, she had a very interesting approach to the subject.


She backs up her above statement with scientific facts (which is usually the right way to go about any discussion) - she says 'the Mothers ovum contains only X chromosomes and the females can't produce Y chromosomes at all.
The father, on the other hand, can produce both X n Y chromosomes'

I totally agree with the scientific fact. Of course we all know that for a male child to be born the fusion should result in a X Y chromosome pairing and for a female child to be born the pairing should be XX.

But what my good friend seemed to be conveniently forgetting is - the Father doesn't really get to pilot the Y chromosomed sperm cells to the ovum.

Millions of those little guys are shot into the err.. pathway - so to speak. One of them might just manage to get to the target and fuse. I just can't seem to understand how does the father determine which one of those little guys goes to the target and fuses.

Unless the fusion is being done in a lab... (NO! I don't mean go to the lab and have sex.. what I meant was - hell you know what I meant).

Come on. Let's be realistic here. It isn't like this process is a game on PS 3 or X-Box. It's highly unlikely that the father gets to control the movements of the sperm cells - guide them to the target. The thing is - by some stretch of your imagination - EVEN IF THAT WERE POSSIBLE - how does the father identify which one of the sperm cells has X chromosome and which one has Y??!!!!!

I addressed the question to my friend giving her tonns of examples. Should Mitsubishi Motors get the credit because you got into your Lancer and made it to work without banging the car on the way? Or should Microsoft get the credit because you managed to make a great presentation? (well Mistsubishi produced the lancer, and Microsoft produced the Windows.. so .. you get the point right??)

Just because the father can produce the Y chromosomed cells, doesn't really mean that he can also identify them when they are.. ehmmm.. fired away - so to speak. Not only can't the father identify them, he can't exactly pilot them to the ovum and ensure fusion.

Now unless there was an upgrade to superman's X ray vision powers or some nano tech firm came up with nano-pilots which have a chromosome identification kit, and which get attached to the sperms as they are being shot out, I don't think you can hold men responsible for determining the sex of the embryo (I really have to stop reading Michael Crichton... sheesh)

Like I mentioned earlier.. just because Boeing manufactures 747 jets, you can't give them credit for a good take off, smooth flight and perfect landing, can you?? The credit goes to the pilot and of course nature too because - it didn't rain - the runways weren't slippery.... yaada yaaada yaaada.

The thing is - regardless of what SOME women might think.. MEN REALLY DON'T GET TO INSTRUCT THE LOAD THAT'S FIRED AWAY.. it's not like we get to brief them on their mission and assign them different positions to launch an attack.

And men DEFINITELY DON'T get to choose which one of the little guys hits the target.

Just because some pathetic people thought (and continue to think) that it's the women who are responsible for the sex of the embryo.. it doesn't really mean that women can now start saying that it's the MEN who are responsible (Two wrongs don't make a right).

sweetheart.. WE JUS MAKE THE SPERM.. what it does after it's shot out is really not up to us.

I really do hope she isn't the one having the SEX TALK with her kids when they come of age..... scary thought.

Just a little something..

Ek tutti hui zanjir ki fariyaad hain hum
aur duniya samjhti hai ki azaad hain hum

hum ko iss daur e taraqqi ne diya kya 'Meraj'
kal bhi barbaad the aur aaj bhi barbaad hain hum

Depending on how one looks at the above lines, the meaning can be so different. Of course the entire poem is definitely on another tone but when I read just the above four lines, it conveys a very different meaning. Yeah but, why bother with that.

Thursday, May 10, 2007

Zindagi ne zindagi bhar.... gham diye...

How true.. sigh.. but.. kya kar sakte hain.
Hota hai, chalta hai... duniya hai..

Ahmed Faraz ki ek ghazal hai.. it's been ringing in my head for a few days now.. just thought I would put it up here:

'faraz' ab koi sauda koi junoon bhi nahin
magar - qaraar se din kat rahe hon - yoon bhi nahin

lab-o-dahan bhi mila - guftaguu ka fan bhi mila
magar - jo dil pe guzarti hai - kah sakun bhi nahin

meri zubaan ki luknat se badgumaan na ho
jo tu kahe to - tujhe umr bhar - miloon bhi nahin

'faraz' jaise koi diyaa turbat-e-havaa chaahe hai
tu paas aaye to mumkin hai - main rahoon bhi nahin

God - Whats in the name?

Have wondered about this for a considerable portion of my life and I am still unable to get a satisfactory answer.

Why cant people seem to understand that there is a difference between Religion and God?

When I think about the whole thing, it seems rather simple, and the answers seem very obvious. At the same time, there are people who think veryyy differently. Ok.. here we go

According to me - most of you guys reading this blog (assuming that someone will actually read it - wishful thinking, I guess) - hmm like I was saying, most of u people reading this blog would agree that there is only one god, right?

(for the ones who agreed - read on)

Now does it really matter what one chooses to call that only one god? I mean - seriously, what's in the name?

What is more important - going to the temples/churches/mosques ... or just being a good human being?

Is going to a temple/church/mosque a prerequisite to being a good person? I don't think so. I am pretty sure god doesn't think so either.

Just think about it (I know it's kind of a beaten topic.. but.. just couldn't help it) - every one believes that there is only one god.. everyone believes that god is omnipresent and omnipotent. yet there are individuals who would just sit and argue with you endlessly over the topic just because you were born into a family which follows a different religion.

The saddest part is - most of the opposition comes from people who are educated and that really bothers me. If it was an illiterate person yapping all this, then it would've been fine. At least that way I could hope that - if given proper education, in a non-isolated environment, perhaps this person would get some perspective and not have such views. BUT as I mentioned.. it's the educated individuals who harp on about these distinctions and that's so disturbing.

What's even more surprising is (at least to me) that this post of mine is going to be frowned upon. People will come in with stuff like tradition, culture, history and all that (again - assuming someone will be reading this).

In principle, they will all agree that there is one god. But when it comes down to it - they would insist on giving the supreme being.. the force.. the creator a NAME and that's where the problems will start. You will have people quoting various religious scriptures, wanting to convince you that -