Dexter

How would the story of a serial killer (and a real close look at his modus operandi) make you feel? Disgusted? Nauseated? Enthused?

Dexter is now in its 7th season. But buried in all his kills, the only time I felt the show potent and piercingly strong was when Rita was killed. I have seen many episodes, many series, and seen them multiple times. Save the episodes of Dexter with Rita in them. Seeing them once was a drop of heaven. A salutation to the good in the world. After she died, they became a cursed memory. Every thought of her now reminds me of her final scene, of her son Harrison sitting next to her. She was sitting in the bathtub, silent and serene, may be sleeping. Harrison was crying next to her. There was blood filling the bathtub, blood spilling out of it to the floor, to Harrison. She had gone.

I was in shock for a full day. After I finally got used to the thought that Rita was dead, I could concentrate. But going to the next episode took me a whole year to accomplish.

I couldn't talk of it to anyone till today. It is still painful.
I can't watch her episodes still.

Killer Queen

Hard to believe the same person wrote the lyrics of Killer Queen, as well as Bohemian Rhapsody.
Stumps me every time!


Killer Queen Lyrics
She keeps Moet et Chandon
In her pretty cabinet
'Let them eat cake' she says
Just like Marie Antoinette
A built-in remedy
For Kruschev and Kennedy
At anytime an invitation
You can't decline

Caviar and cigarettes
Well versed in etiquette
Extraordinarily nice

She's a Killer Queen
Gunpowder, guillotine
Dynamite with a laser beam
Guaranteed to blow your mind
Anytime

Recommended at the price
Insatiable in appetite
Wanna try?

To avoid complications
She never kept the same address
In conversation
She spoke just like a baroness
Met a man from China
Went down to Geisha Minah
Then again incidentally
If you're that way inclined

Perfume came naturally from Paris
For cars she couldn't care less
Fastidious and precise

She's a Killer Queen
Gunpowder, guillotine
Dynamite with a laser beam
Guaranteed to blow your mind
Anytime

Drop of a hat she's as willing as
Playful as a pussy cat
Then momentarily out of action
Temporarily out of gas
To absolutely drive you wild, wild
She's all out to get you

She's a Killer Queen
Gunpowder, guillotine
Dynamite with a laser beam
Guaranteed to blow your mind
Anytime

Recommended at the price
Insatiable an appetite
Wanna try?
You wanna try

Debates and Indian Elections

You have to give in to the American system sometimes, even though the calls to despise it are overwhelming. This time, it was the Presidential Debate in Denver, where Mitt Romney and Barack Obama fought over their own disparate views about the same goals and in Obama's words, how the difference of budget choices demonstrates differences in personalities. Critics of both, Obama and Romney, as well as the moderator, Jim Lehrer, are now judging their performances and pointing out the fallacies in their models, in their claims, and their allegations. Surprisingly, the whole time all I could think about was how different this point to point and factual representation of views was from the platitudes of abstract statements that our own politicians make when they stand up for elections. Everytime elections come up, auto rickshaws fitted with megaphones that should have been obsolete by now, makes round of residential colonies announcing that the Government has promoted Gunda-Raj, and all their policies are aimed at securing profits for big industries and their own commissions  if they are the opposition, or how the government has benefitted the poor, and made the middle class grow, and provided new industries and jobs, if they are the government. One would think such claims would be bolstered by facts in the many rallies the candidates have. Instead, the candidates focus on personal vendettas besides reiterating these claims again. A modicum of facts are presented, and much like the show with the chair presented by Clint Eastwood at the Republican National Convention, almost everything is aimed at entertaining crowd at the expense of the opponent. Humor is surely a good thing when addressing people but a trifle overview of your own plans would always be welcome along with it. In the few times that debates were actually held by news channels, the candidates sent their representatives instead of themselves, and the direct personal allegations again obviate the needs of facts. The best and perhaps the only informative "discussion" happens when the candidates are interviewed separately by news channels. Though we get a small look at the respective policies, these interviews are neither impartial, nor structured to allow for a fair review of the options presented before us. If Obama would be contesting in India, he would spend the entire debate on foreign policy, while Romney would spend it entirely on the present economy. I don't think I have ever seen equal weights given to Sonia Gandhi's views on development as well as her views on the secular credentials of Narendra Modi. Similar is the case for Modi, he would repeat again and again the 'Amul' model that was in place and succeeding even before him, but not comment on the recent conviction of his party members in sedition case. The fact that the only source of information on these candidates is these personal interviews, choosing one among them is far more difficult than I had hoped for. Each candidate here claims to be the better choice, but all we are presented with as evidence are bits to sniff.

I have been over the voting age for three years now, but this could be the first time I get to vote, come 2013. I wouldn't want my vote to go just on these obscured facts presented by the candidates. We have a system in place, that has been running for far too long. We also have a system that seems a better alternative. Is it so hard to make a choice?

The video of the Obama-Romney debate is shared. See for yourself, how stark the contrast between the two different approaches at campaigning are!

Innocence of Muslims

A friend of mine, fretting over the maelstrom of news in media over the violent protests in Islamic nations, as well as our secular state of India, came to my room and started his tirade on the irascible temperament of Muslims, and the rationale of violent protests when their Quran proscribes it. I only had to point to his own affections towards his girlfriend that fueled a cataclysm of emotions whenever any derogatory or lascivious comment is made against her. How then could he expect a silent response from every member of a massive community whose entire faith has been mocked? It seems that placated his anger, but I don't expect his doubts have permanently subsided. Though put in abeyance for now, with the continuing surge of anti-Muslim articles in the media, it is definitely laying the groundwork for revisiting Islamophobia, in India and the world.

It seems it all started with the Channel 4's airing of the documentary, "Islam: The Untold Story"(ITUS). Protests were made, both online and in rallies, but this academic work was soon forgotten, as a new video, "Innocence of Muslims" (IOM) surfaced with scenes that intentionally deride the Prophet and Islam. In ITUS, the narrator expresses his doubts over the morality of his endeavors  Over and over he asserts that his conclusions are meant to be taken as an outsider's account and analysis of the Muslim history, and not of doctor prescribing a remedy. But with the ITUS being the harbinger of dissents, and the rapid dissemination of IOM, to an outsider like my friend who hasn't seen either of the movies and is only following the current affairs, the credentials of ITUS seem admixed with the derogations of IO, and thus the misgivings of the latter seem well founded. These aspersions seem so legitimate to him that he wouldn't heed a logical reasoning even if it danced around him naked. And I am afraid he might not be the only one!

All religious groups in an effort to protect and spread their faith engender radical cliques. Be it the Crusaders or Zealots of old, the Khalistan militia in the 1970-80s or the recent Kandhamal riots by Hindu hardliners. With the large followings of some religions, it becomes imperative that some of its members would take the violent path to sustain themselves. The importance and media glare given to the Islamic faction of this extremist collage has started to serve as a self-fulfilling prophecy, with more protests being fueled and by the causal existing ones. Endorsing such violence in any religion is disparaging the beliefs of humanity, and thus no religion does that. But it has to be understood that the Muslim anger, even if aggravated and incommensurate, is not entirely misplaced. The death of the US Ambassador in the juvenile democracy of Libya is the work of an opportunistic terrorist group. But to portray it as a generic Muslim reaction is preposterous. Just as the US filmmaker has taken shelter under the broad definition of freedom of speech in the US Constitution, the protests against the movie should also be covered in the same category. Over the years with the continuous depiction of the violent protests of Muslim hardliners, such a response has become synonymous with any outburst of anger from the community. The media can help allay this pain, but it doesn't. When news of protests comes from every Islamic nation, the Muslim organisations in India also jump on the bandwagon to encash the sad affair. And these violent protests, no more than a mere political stunt, are mislabeled as encompassing a wider public belief. My friend came to me seeing such a protest in Srinagar take a violent turn. When I said it was called by Hurriyat chairman Syed Geelani, he refused to acknowledge the connection. To him a political agenda is a derivative of populist motives. To me such misgivings are partly the reason why religious fanatics even with their sad opinions are able to sustain their lives in the public glare, because people like my friend don't understand that these high religious and political leaders are alone in their tirades.

The recent turn of events has been regrettable. This obtrusive destruction of property and the loss of lives is certainly against the canons of humanity. But to perceive and blame the whole Muslim community, just because they protest is unfortunate. The real culprits are the opportunists who strive to disrupt normal life and foment masses for their own personal gains. Such people are not Muslims, not religious at all. But when media portrays them as such, it only helps to elevate the situation. As a complete outsider, it all seems much like how the fictitious time-travelers live in the same timeline they help create.

We have to stop these generalizations  these misappropriating events to the entire community. I believe in the innocence of humanity, no matter what is being portrayed!