A Confederacy of Dunces?

Just had to write a few words about this news item! It was nice to hear that Tiger Woods was declared the AP Male Athlete of 2006. I was just wondering how close Mr. Roger Federer had come to being thus honoured....after all, he deserved it as much as Tiger did (perhaps more). Surprise of surprises! I was informed that: "Woods won the award over San Diego Chargers running back LaDainian Tomlinson, with tennis great Roger Federer a distant third." I rubbed my eyes in utter disbelief, but my eyes weren't deceiving me....the news article went on to explain: "Woods received 260 points from sports editors around the country. Tomlinson, who already has set an NFL record of 31 touchdowns with one regular-season game left, was second with 230 points. Federer, who won three Grand Slam titles and lost in the final at the French Open, had 110 points." Gimme a break, I thought! LaDainian Tomlinson? The chap who plays a sport which isn't even played anywhere outside the US? Then, it dawned upon me that the selection of contenders wasn't the point to be noted. Rather, the most crucial part of the article was the section that revealed the identity of the voters: sports editors around the country!!!! "The country"! That's when I heaved a sigh of relief....there was no need to remain shell-shocked any longer! It is common knowledge that ultra-patriotic sports editors from "the country" cannot think beyond the borders of "the country" in discussion, while bestowing such honours upon individuals! What more can we expect from "the country" that unabashedly declares its National basketball & baseball tournaments as World championship & World series (this, despite the fact that they have been losing all the recent Genuinely International tournaments)! To the citizens of "the country", it is indeed "a small world, after all"! Hence, my respectful title to this blog, in honour of the the beautiful minds that, through this mind-boggling voting process, made sure they lived up to our (limited?) expectations of them!

Gimme A Break!!!!

I'm an ardent animal lover as well as an avid reader. Hence, I'm always interested in books on animals. Today, at the local library, I was looking at a book called "A Hunt For Justice". It's about a female undercover wildlife agent who tries to expose illegal poachers & hunters in the heart of the Alaskan wilderness. The book sounded interesting & had received good reviews, hence I went to the Amazon website to check out further details. One customer review described this book as a good book for hunters, and another claimed that while legal hunters are amongst the best conservationists, illegal hunters perform the most despicable acts! I immediately abandoned all plans of reading the book. This mightn't be very fair to the author, but the reviews indicated that there's a huge distinction being made between legal & illegal hunters. There's even a chapter in the book entitled "To Kill For Conservation"!
This is where I need a break! Illegal hunters might be even more evil than legal ones, but legal hunters are conservationists!!!! We human beings have taken over the entire planet and shamelessly use animals for bizarre sports, cruel medical experiments etc. etc. We have no qualms about ruthlessly killing them while fighting Our Dumb Wars which the poor animals have absolutely nothing to do with! When we talk of hunters, we're discussing a group of people who venture into severely limited animal terrain and shed the blood of innocent animals for the fulfillment of their idea of fun & sport! It would have been totally understandable had they been hunters & gatherers, had hunting being their mode of survival, their only means of feeding themselves & their families! However, that isn't the case at all. Granted, they can argue that the law permits them to hunt, hence technically they aren't doing anything "wrong". But hunters as conservationists!!!! Reminds me of an investigative report documentary that I had watched on TV, where an ex-cop used to enter the homes of single women at night, rape them at gunpoint, & then, before departing, give them detailed instructions about steps they should take to prevent crimes in their homes (good info too, considering his keen knowledge thanks to his professsion)! I don't know (nor am I interested in finding out) what kind of helpful info hunters provide to enivironmentalists, but as far as I'm concerned, their efforts at conservation are akin to this ex-cop-cum-rapist's attempts at ensuring women's safety! Hunters as conservationists....I'm still reeling from it! What next? Pedophiles as child psychologists? After all, they do provide info regarding all-important facts of life to naive little kiddies!

Lady In The Water

I had only heard strong criticism of this film by M. Night Shyamalan, elaborating on how senseless & idiotic this movie was. Imagine my surprise, then, when I came out of the discount theatre last night, pretty impressed & fascinated by the movie! Granted, I myself had a few gripes against a couple of aspects of the film, but overall I thought it was one of the most poignant & intelligently made films to come out of Hollywood in recent years. The visual beauty & magical quality were astounding, especially in the last 1/2 hour of the film!
I personally felt that the director has done a terrific job in symbolically presenting his main message through this movie....that human beings have become so immersed in their humdrum existence, that they've become almost like robots. They no longer think freely, feel from their hearts, or use their power of imagination. We humans no longer listen to what our hearts say & act accordingly. Particularly fascinating to me were a couple of scenes/episodes from the movie. One of them was the dialogue between Paul Giamatti & Bob Balaban right after the former had a narrow escape from the attack of the vicious beast, and consequently begun to suspect that he wasn't Story's guardian spirit. Balaban, who plays the cynical, all-knowing film critic with a condescending attitude towards fellow humans, makes some derogatory remarks about some film that he's watched recently, saying that it was preposterous that the main characters started expressing their feelings for each other standing in the rain! Giamatti (even in his harried state) has the heart to offer the explanation that this might be symbolic of the purification of the human soul, an interpretation that Balaban predictably sneers at. This scene was important to me at 2 levels: firstly, it was tied in with the main message of the movie that some humans have become completely devoid of feelings & imagination and are totally incapable of appreciating the beauty that surrounds them, while there are a precious few (like Giamatti's character) who still have the humanity & feelings left in them to appreciate the wisdom & value of symbolism. At another level, I interpreted it as the director's (Shyamalan's) message to his detractors. Shyamalan is well aware that his fairy-tale of a film, which requires the power of imagination & deep thought in order to be appreciated, will be dismissed with a wave of the hand as ludicrous by many critics. This scene, put together with the final outcome of Balaban's fate (he was devoured by the beast just when the audience was tempted to consider the possibility of this arrogant, over confident person being revealed as Story's guardian), is Shyamalan's way of saying that ones without any power of imagination & those quick to criticise, have no role in this fantastic story/film of his! Another scene, which at the time of my viewing seemed silly & childish, on further analysis presented a deeper meaning. I'm referring to the scene where the older Korean lady, who narrated the fairy tale that inspired this film, finally decides to tell the story in Giamatti's presence (instead of narrating indirectly through an interpreter). The interpreter (the lady's daughter) had told Giamatti that her mother wouldn't open up to him because she viewed him as an untrustworthy stranger. In order to gain her trust, Giamatti was advised to behave like a small child full of wonder, awe & amazement in her presence. This, to me, was the director's way of saying that in order to be a privileged recipient of the wisdom of this story, one must possess some child-like innocence & willingness to believe in the fantastic elements of this tale. Doubters and naysayers cannot be privy to the truth & wisdom offered by this awe-inspiring tale. In my opinion, these scenes expressed nothing short of cinematic genius. It was so refreshing to finally watch a movie that was so thought provoking and intelligently made! Could've said more, but my computer's started acting up....I'd better log out before I lose all these thoughts that I've poured out in writing.....

If U Can't B Sexy, Then At Least B Sexist?

This is about Jay Leno's latest late night show. I don't have a whole lot of respect for this fellow's brain power, but have to say that some of his comments have really been annoying me! Maybe more so because I'm a female who was born & raised in a highly sexist society and consequently have had to deal with this kind of nonsense for most of my life! For a while now, I've noticed that Leno often makes pretty blatantly sexist remarks in his shows. Yesterday, in the middle of his opening monologue, he suddenly said that some professor or some kind of an academic had said that men are on an average smarter by 4 IQ points than women. Leno went on to say that he wasn't expressing his own view; he was simply quoting this chap. Mind you, this wasn't part of his monologue jokes, and wasn't followed by any related remark....he just made this statement out of context! First of all, I totally disagree....I don't believe human intelligence is influenced by race, gender, or religious background. Secondly, Jay Leno's show is not a news report; the purpose of his monologue is humour & entertainment! How is this kind of a remark relevant in his show, unless he is implying that he is in agreement with this bloke? A few days ago, he made another random remark like this. Said some fellow was in trouble for saying to a white woman that she was so fat, that unless she promptly lost some weight, only a black man would be prepared to marry her!!!! Leno's black assistant acted a bit confused & asked what that was supposed to mean. Leno didn't elaborate on it, but I personally feel the fellow meant that black men are so desperate for white women, that they'd even be prepared to marry someone obese! Now, making a blatantly racist remark is considered more politically incorrect, but Leno's sexist remarks are really becoming somewhat of a pattern now! He keeps cracking jokes abt the stupidity of Jessica Simpson, Paris Hilton & other young female celebrities. George W. Bush is the only male he constantly ridicules the idiocy of. But Bush is the president of the US, who, according to many, keeps making a mess of all important affairs...Jessica Simpson, Brittney Spears & Co. don't have any such responsibilities & hence frequent discussions regarding their lack of intelligence are totally unnecessary! I don't hear Leno mentioning the "words of wisdom" of "genius" male celebrities like Tom Cruise, Charles Barkley etc. etc. Besides, before ridiculing Jessica Simpson's poor language skills in every 2nd show of his, Leno (who is way older than she is) should make it a point to improve his own English (amongst other things, 1 of his patent errors is the frequent usage of "mother-in-laws" {as opposed to the correct plural version of "mother-in-law": mothers-in-law!}). This might sound a bit mean, but have you seen Jay Leno's wife? Can't help wondering if his anger towards attractive, young women arises out of some frustration over the fact that despite all his money & fame, he is stuck with a spouse who seems to be about his age & looks like his identical twin!!!!

I had mentioned weird research subjects & their "mind boggling" conclusions in my last blog. Well, one that I recently heard had to be added to my Book Of Howlers! Mind you, this wasn't supposed to be a joke at all; this report was published in all seriousness! Apparently, "research" has shown that Good-Looking couples are way more likely to produce baby girls rather than baby boys as their 1st offspring!!!! This "intellectualy stimulating" discussion arose because both Angelina+Brad and Tom+Katie have recently had baby girls. The report said that this isn't mere coincidence....research has shown that....!!!! I would create an epic if I tried to compose an article detailing a comprehensive list of ALL that's preposterous about such a conclusion. However, for now, suffice it to scratch my head and wonder: Who exactly are "good-looking couples"? The whole concept of beauty lying in the eyes of the beholder is completely & conveniently done away with?

Heard on the news a couple of days ago that recent research has shown that fathers over the age of 40 are way more likely than younger fathers to have autistic children. Apparently, the mother's age doesn't have any effect where this condition is concerned. Not that I have much faith in the results of most of these surveys (some of them can be pretty ludicrous!), but this one made me chuckle a bit. The first person I thought of was Mr. Tom Cruise. After all his criticism of his fellow human beings, their follies and misdeeds, how would he like to be told that he might very well have caused the birth of an autistic child? Of course, in his defense, it could be argued that if his child takes after daddy, she's bound to be autistic, regardless of daddy's age....that was probably inevitable. Cruise's "enlightened" comments on Brooke Shields especially come to mind in this context. It would be interesting to see how the old fart who's recently been acting like a lovesick, giggly teenager with wifey who is 1/2 his age reacts to news such as this!

Hello! Just testing! This is my debut!