Thursday, September 10, 2009

When brothers clash…

You cannot deny that as a singles player Sania Mirza has put both Leander Paes and Mahesh Bhupathi in the shade since her coming of age in international tennis. This tennis triangle of skill, love and hate may have failed to produce feats comparable to Ramanathan Krishnan, Vijay Amritraj and Ramesh Krishnan achieved in singles play. There, however, is no doubt they have managed to administer occasional jolts to our sense of expectations.
But Leander and Mahesh have succeeded in the ATP circuit, basically by accepting their limitations in the singles arena and narrowing their focus to doubles.
No doubt, doubles is the poor cousin in professional tennis. But that said what glory and drama Leander and Mahesh have served up between themselves!
Leander and Mahesh, friends-turned-foes, will clash in the finals of the US Open Men's doubles, in what could turn out to be one of the most dramatic episodes in Indian sport history. In recent years, both of them have refused to play together even for India, leave alone teaming up for Grand Slam glories.
One should admire them for having a streak of individuality and going their own separate ways, whatever the reasons that cracked the combination.
Leander, along with Lukas Dlouhy, and Mahesh, along with Mark Knowles, must have been aware of the possibility of a fratricidal clash between the Indians at the beginning of the US Open, given the draws, but never would have bet on the other progressing so far.
So if you could watch these two slug it out on Friday, please be aware that you are taking part in a most fascinating episode in terms of rivalry and clash of personalities.
And finally, whom will be you rooting for?
Both men have been scarred by break ups in relationships with women in their lives as well as with their own parting of ways.
Mostly, these two have lived in their worlds, without really establishing a connect with Indian sports fans.
May be Friday is the last chance for these two to bring out the best in them, at an unparalleled occasion such as the US Open, and remind us that their breakup, eventually, was worth the bitterness and rancour on and off the field.
Love all.

Tuesday, September 08, 2009

An Advani in his prime

By John Cheeran
It's not that Bangalore did not boast of worldbeaters till
Pankaj Advani came along in the 21st century. There were men and women who came up with big breaks, be it in cricket, badminton, hockey, football, athletics and tennis.
Yet, many such stars were bogged down by the inevitable mediocrity in team games and could not aspire for the tag of world champions.
Chennai has had a Vishwanthan Anand since mid-80s.
Kolkota could gloat about Leander Paes and, sniggers apart, his bronze medal in Atlanta Olympics, should compensate for his failures in singles. Mumbai produced Wilson Jones and Michael Ferreira in billiards. Hyderabad, in recent years, has had Sania Mirza, Saina Nehwal and P Gopichand.
I leave out cricketers from this list for obvious reasons.
Yes, Indians have excelled as individuals in sporting arena.
Ramanathan Krishnan, Vijay Amritraj, Prakash Padukone
Geet Sethi and Anand have excelled on their own, beating
the system in the process.
Indians can always fancy their chances in non-contact sports where physical power is not the dominant and determining factor in success. That explains our decent record in chess, badminton, billiards and snooker. Once hockey turned a brutish power game, India’s grip loosened irrevocably.
In Advani's success, one can find individual effort and family support playing critical roles. Yes, he has been lucky to be in a city where he could have a great mentor in Arvind Savur and Karnataka State Billiards Association too has helped him. But what has worked in Advani's favour is the space the sport offered for improvement as an individual.
Considering that Prakash Padukone blazed a trail in 1980 by winning the All England championship, the Wimbledon of badminton, Bangalore should have produced more world champions.
Bangalore, the city, since then has rewritten many existing codes of success, especially in entrepreneurship. Anyone could list of the names of tech czars who have put Bangalore on world map but apart from cricketers are there any sports stars who tried to reach for the pie in the sky, the way Padukone did?
That makes the recent victory of Advani in professional billiards all the more important. Advani has given youngsters in the city a moment to pause and wonder. Can we dream bigger and better than this 24-year-old? How long one can crib about venal selectors and rotten politics, lack of facilities, indifferent sponsors and callous public?
It is indeed remarkable that very few, other than the family and close friends, turned out at the Bangalore International Airport to welcome home a world champion. Apparently, we are yet to cultivate a habit of recognizing heroes, the real ones, that is.

Saturday, August 15, 2009

The News Americans Need

By Dan Rather
(First published in Washington Post)

You don’t have to care about media companies or reporters to care about the state of the news, because if it’s in trouble — and it surely is — this country is in trouble. That’s why, while speaking recently at the Aspen Institute, I called upon President Obama to form a commission to address the perilous state of America’s news media.
Some might scoff at the notion that a president and a country occupied by two wars and a recession should add the woes of the news media to an already crowded plate. But the way the news is delivered, and the quality of the information the American public receives about what’s going on here and abroad, has and will continue to have a profound effect on these very issues and on the overall quality of government by, for and of the people.
I am not calling for any sort of government bailout for media companies. Nor am I encouraging any form of government control over them. I want the president to convene a nonpartisan, blue-ribbon commission to assess the state of the news as an institution and an industry and to make recommendations for improving and stabilizing both.
Why bring the president into it? Because this is the only way I could think of to generate the sort of attention this subject deserves. Academia and think tanks generate study after study, yet their findings don’t reach the people who need to be reached.
We need a real and broad public discussion of the role news is meant to play in our democratic system of government and a better public understanding of the American news infrastructure’s fragile condition. We need to know how things got this way and what we need to change.
An intense period of corporate consolidation over the past 25 years, aided and abetted by deregulation by the Federal Communications Commission, has reduced to a mere handful the sources from which most Americans get their news. While independent reporting has been winnowed and homogenized, the news organizations responsible for this reporting have largely fallen under corporate mandates to increase profits quarterly — which has meant a reduction in newsgathering personnel, the shuttering of overseas bureaus and the nearly complete subordination of a public trust to the profit motive.
Moreover, corporate values of risk aversion have increasingly filtered down to newsrooms, supplanting news values. The big conglomerates that own most of America’s news media may have, at any given moment, multiple regulatory, procurement and legislative matters before various arms of the federal government; their interests, therefore, can often run contrary to the interests of the citizens whom journalism, at its best, is meant to serve. There is little incentive to report without fear or favoritism on the same government one is trying to lobby. Increasingly, the news we get — and, significantly, the news we don’t get — reflects this conflict of interests.
The news infrastructure, weakened from within by this corrosive dynamic, is at risk of toppling altogether because of a separate, though not unrelated development: the coast-to-coast collapse of the newspaper industry, which has lost the key revenue streams of classified and local advertising to the Internet.
For radio, television and, yes, the Internet, newspapers have been and continue to be the foundation on which “hard” news rests. They provide the reporters who are our primary and often our only independent sources in places as close as city zoning hearings and as far away as Indonesia. Anyone who has worked in other media knows that, if newspapers are taken out of the equation, dwindling news resources will be stretched to the breaking point.
You will not turn on your television and hear an anchor admit this. What you will see, instead, is more opinion, commentary and marketing masquerading as news. You will get more in-studio shouting matches between partisans, moderated by openly partisan talking heads.
And so shows that can be produced on the cheap, with little to no real reporting, fan impotent citizen anger at a government whose workings, absent hard-hitting reporting, seem ever-more opaque — and at a world that, absent consistent, contextualized coverage, seems to defy comprehension.
We need news that breeds understanding, not contempt; news that fosters a healthy skepticism of the workings of power rather than a paralyzing cynicism. We need the basic information that a selfgoverning people requires. The old news model is crumbling, while the Internet, for all its immense promise, is not yet ready to rise in its place — and won’t be until it can provide the nuts-and-bolts reporting that most people so take for granted that it escapes their notice.
This is a crisis that, with no exaggeration, threatens our democratic republic at its core. But you won’t hear about it on your evening news, unless the message can be delivered in a way that corporate media have little choice but to report — such as, say, the findings of a presidential commission.

Tuesday, July 28, 2009

Ah, Gulf News told to pay up. £1 million!

London Times reports....
AN EDINBURGH property developer has been awarded more than £1m in damages and costs against a Dubai newspaper after it wrongly said that he had deceived Middle East investors.

Mark Emlick, chairman and founder of Dunedin Independent, one of Scotland’s largest privately-owned independent financial advice businesses, won his case against the Gulf News in the High Court in London this week.

He brought the case for defamation of character after Gulf News reported in April last year that he and a partner were being sought in Dubai and in the UK by investors who claimed he had absconded with their money after a property deal that involved his company Strategic Property Investment group (SPI) went sour.

In fact, SPI had returned all the money owed to investors plus 5% interest, after it pulled out of the deal due to rising prices in the Emirate.

Emlick refused to disclose the amount he had been awarded but, along with his legal costs, it is estimated to have been more than £1m.

He said: “Anyone in business will tell you that your reputation is your most important asset, so to have that called into question was deeply concerning. I’m fortunate that I was able to bring a case to the High Court, but there are many people who would have been left high and dry, with their reputation in tatters.”

Emlick still has investments in Dubai.

Tuesday, June 02, 2009

Twenty20 Indian team: Is South India losing its share?

By John Cheeran
Whether India will retain Twenty20 World Cup is a question that will be answered within the next 20 days. But you don’t have to wait to read that Indian cricket is going through a significant phase.
What has happened to cricket in South of India?
The Twenty20 World Cup squad has only Pragyan Ojha from south India. You can even argue that for a change, national selectors, interestingly led by Krishnamachari Srikkanth (from Tamil Nadu), have risen above quota system and selected the best men for the job.
I do not contest that.
I cannot even recall how many south Indians were in the team that played the inaugural Twenty20 final against Pakistan. I, however, remember S Sreesanth holding on to the ball to seal India’s win.
Recently, the second edition of IPL was fought between two teams, ostensibly from south India – Deccan Chargers (Hyderabad) and Royal Challengers (Bangalore). The third team that made the cut was Chennai Super Kings.
Yes, I admit that Chennai, Bangalore and Hyderabad are pan-Indian or even international outfits. But, there should be something about the fact that these three nurseries of Indian cricket do not have more than one a player in the national squad.
In the 90s, Bangalore Boys dominated the national team. Anil Kumble, Rahul Dravid, Javagal Srinath, Venkatesh Prasad, Sujith Somasundar, Vijay Bhardwaj, David Johnson and D Ganesh were in the national reckoning.
Now Bangalore has suddenly found Manish Pandey. His time and day would come.
But Robin Uthappa is fast becoming another VB Chandrashekar.
What happened to the structure and professionalism that south Indian cricket boasted of in the past?
Despite the success of ‘south’ Indian teams in the IPL, I would like to see more talent bursting forth from the region. Let’s have an Adam Gilchrist. Let’s have another Anil Kumble.
Meanwhile, let’s root for the new-look Indian team that will defend the Twenty20 World Cup.

Sunday, May 31, 2009

Farewell, Madhavikutty. Life's obscure parallel is death...

Adieu, Madhavikutty.
Or what was the poet's name? Kamala Das, Madhavikutty, or Kamala Surayya?
Does it matter?
She is the one who wrote about death. "Life's obscure parallel is death."
Is that enough?

Thursday, February 19, 2009

All about cosmic coin toss....

Editor's note: What it takes to survive is a question that concerns me. I hope that may trouble you as well. Here is an extract from Ben Sherwood's new book The Survivors Club: The Secrets and Science That Could Save Your Life

What It Takes To Survive
By Ben Sherwood / Newsweek

Why some people walk away from a plane crash or thrive after a job loss, while others don't stand a chance. And what's luck got to do with it anyway?
The knitting needle pierced her heart. Then it saved her life. Ellin Klor savors the irony, but it wasn't always so, especially when doctors cracked open her chest in the operating room to pry out the wooden needle that had punctured her breastbone and penetrated her right ventricle. Jan. 9, 2006, was her lucky day. After dinner with her family, the 58-year-old children's librarian was anxious to show the gang in her knitting group some new patterns, so she grabbed three bags stuffed with books, yarn and needles and headed to a friend's house in Palo Alto, Calif. Already late, she could tell from the other cars that some of the knitters had arrived. She hoisted her bags from the back seat. "The scourge of a librarian," she recalls, "carrying too much stuff around." Klor climbed the first of two wide steps, stubbed her foot and suddenly fell down, landing chest first on a sack filled with unfinished knitting. Klor, 5 feet 4 with soft hazel eyes and a generous, round face, had long considered herself a bit of a klutz, so her spill wasn't exactly a surprise. When she took a breath, her chest hurt, but she figured it was nothing. Inside, the knitters were already working in the living room. Klor wanted to get started, but the ache in the middle of her chest was getting worse with each breath. It wasn't an ordinary pang. She looked down at her red Façonnable sweater and lifted it up. The next
image is ingrained in her memory. A jagged splinter of a wooden knitting needle, nearly four inches long, was jutting from her chest. It had clearly broken in half, piercing her clothing and lodging in the middle of her bra right between her breasts. "Oh, my God," she whispered. Her friends gaped at the needle and urgently calculated the options. First and foremost, should they try to pull it out? "No, don't touch it," Klor declared. It was pure instinct: she didn't want anyone to go near the injury until she was at the hospital. Doctors would say later this was the first decision that helped save her life. Plucking the spike would have been like pulling a plug or uncorking a bottle, and she might have bled out in the living room.
Klor and her friends faced the next critical question: should they jump in a car and race to the emergency room? "No," Klor decided. "Call 911 right now." Waiting for the paramedics was a second lifesaving choice. If the needle had moved even the slightest amount in transit to the ER, the injury to her heart might have proved fatal. So Klor carefully sat down on a sofa to wait for the ambulance. She felt alert and even noticed something very odd. She had been impaled and yet there wasn't a single drop of blood anywhere. How was this possible? The next string of images flew by like a strange TV drama. Paramedics. Stretcher. Sirens. IV. Oxygen. Emergency room. CT scan.
At the Stanford University Medical Center in Palo Alto, Klor waited anxiously for the ER doctors to tell her the extent of her problems. To distract herself, she focused on her daughter, Callie. Her thoughts also turned to her husband, Hal, a rugged research engineer who once hiked two miles on a broken ankle. Sometimes he teased her lovingly that she was "a little wimpy." What would Hal say when he heard about this?
When the ER team finally briefed her on the results of her scans, she felt the first flood of fear. Their tone was urgent. The needle had penetrated her sternum, the long flat breastbone that's supposed to protect the heart, lungs and major blood vessels from trauma. Over the years, this team had extracted every imaginable object sticking from every conceivable body part, but they told her a knitting needle was unprecedented. Paparazzi style, a young doctor snapped her photo and then took mug-shot close-ups of the offending object. Then the doctors delivered the scary news: the point of the needle had grazed her heart, nicking the right ventricle. They could see internal bleeding. They needed to operate as soon as possible.
Less than an hour after her tumble, trauma surgeons would cut her open, crack her sternum, stitch up her heart, wire her breastbone back together and sew her up. They would leave a seven-inch scar from her neck to the middle of her chest. They would save her life. And then, by chance or fate, the knitting needle would save her life all over again. In fact, Klor's real struggle for survival was just beginning.
Why do some people live and others die? Why do a few stay calm and collected under extreme pressure when others panic and unravel? How do some bounce back from adversity while others collapse and surrender?
At ABC's "Good Morning America," where I worked as executive producer for two and a half years, I watched a veritable parade of survivors appear on television. The procession of death-defiers never seemed to stop, and I always wondered: How do these people endure their trials? Were they always so strong and resilient—or did these abilities suddenly materialize? And what do they know about surviving and thriving that we don't?
It's probably safe to say you're never going to end up with a knitting needle through the heart, but it's equally indisputable that eventually you will face some kind of life-changing crisis or struggle. How would you have responded if your airplane had landed on the icy Hudson River? Or what would you do if you were suddenly fired from your job or received a dire medical diagnosis? Dr. David Spain has a blunter way of putting it. He runs the trauma and critical-care department at Stanford Medical Center and sees what happens to regular people all the time. Every day, he says, some of us get dressed, kiss our families goodbye, walk out the door and get run over by cement trucks.
After two years of research, I discovered that everyone has a crisis personality—a Survivor IQ—that they marshal in a moment of adversity: a mindset and ways of thinking about a situation. The best survivors and thrivers understand that crisis is inevitable, and they anticipate adversity. Understanding that even misfortune gets tired and needs a break, they're able to hold back, identify the right moment and then do what they need to do. Psychologists have a clunky term for this: active passiveness. It means recognizing when to stop and when to go. In a critical sense, doing something can mean doing nothing. Action can be inaction, and embracing this paradox can save your life.
It was early Saturday morning, just 12 days after surgeons had delicately removed Ellin Klor's splinter and stitched her up. Klor had been home for a week, thankful for the attention of her husband and daughter, but she awoke with excruciating chest and back pain. Writhing and struggling to breathe, she had no idea what was happening, and she rushed to the emergency room.
Doctors poked and prodded her. They listened to her heart and lungs. They whispered their greatest fear: perhaps it was a pulmonary embolism, a potentially fatal blood clot in her lungs. They ordered immediate scans along with enough morphine to erase the pain.
When the doctors returned, they shook their heads and seemed confused. The tests were all negative. Her lungs were clear and her heart was healing just fine. So they explained it away as some kind of fleeting discomfort from surgery and gave her more painkillers before sending her home.
The next day, Klor was home alone when the phone rang. A radiologist from Stanford wanted to see her right away. At the hospital, the doctors explained the urgency. On a CT scan, the radiologist had detected a mass under her armpit. It looked like an enlarged lymph node, a telltale sign of breast cancer.
A decade earlier, she had battled the disease on the other side. But this was a brand-new malignancy and not a recurrence of the old tumor, which has lower survival rates. This was like starting from square one, a brand-new battle. Klor felt so lucky that she let out a whoop when the doctor informed her that only one lymph node was implicated and the disease was contained.
The knitting needle through her heart had actually saved her life, her doctors said. If she hadn't gone to the ER—if she hadn't been screened with all those machines—the tumor probably wouldn't have been detected until it had grown and spread. Klor believes she's one of the luckiest people in the world. I didn't die from the knitting needle, she remembers thinking, So I'm not going to die from cancer.
Klor spent most of the year undergoing surgery, chemo and radiation. On every single trip to the doctor, she was accompanied by family or friends. During that time, she also managed to finish a quilt, knit shrugs, scarves and shawls, and watch her daughter grow up fast. Klor suffered plenty from the treatments, but she also discovered something she didn't know about herself. She had always struggled with a sensitive nature; at times, she had been vulnerable to depression. Physically, she wasn't very tough either. "I really have surprised myself," she says about her experience, adding, "I didn't think I had this kind of strength."
The blunt reality of survival is this: too many people perish when they shouldn't. They morph into marble instead of taking decisive action. Exploring this phenomenon is the main focus of Dr. John Leach, one of the world's leading experts on survival psychology. He has lived for more than 20 years in England's Lake District, where he teaches an advanced course in survival psychology at Lancaster University.
In November 1987, Leach was changing trains one night in London at the King's Cross Underground station, a sprawling hub that throbs with more than 30,000 passengers during rush hour. He noticed the "thickest, greasiest, most cloying smoke I've ever seen." At first, it didn't make sense. There were no flames—just acrid smoke like the kind that belches from a ship's funnel. Almost without thinking, he found his way up to ground level and hurried to the exit.
Today, more than 21 years later, most of the memories have faded, but Leach can still smell the foul smoke and hear the wail of a uniformed railway worker: "There are people dying down there." For some inexplicable reason, as the fire spread, trains kept on arriving in the station. Meanwhile, aboveground, officials unwittingly directed passengers onto escalators that carried them straight into the flames. Many commuters followed their routines despite the smoke and fire. They marched right into the disaster, almost oblivious to the crush of people trying to escape—some actually in flames. Thirty-one people perished in the King's Cross fire, and incredibly, the Underground staff never sprayed a single fire extinguisher or spilled a drop of water on the fire.
Leach has a name for this syndrome. It's called the "incredulity response." People simply don't believe what they're seeing. So they go about their business, engaging in what's known as "normalcy bias." They act as if everything is OK and underestimate the seriousness of danger. Some experts call this "analysis paralysis." People lose their ability to make decisions.
In any emergency, people divide into three categories, Leach says. First, there are the survivors like the 155 people on US Airways Flight 1549, who manage to save themselves in the worst situations. Second, there are unavoidable fatalities: people who never have a chance, like so many of the 200,000 people in Southeast Asia who were swept away by the tsunami of 2004. Third, there are victims who should have lived but perished unnecessarily.
After examining countless disasters and categorizing the ways people respond to life-threatening situations, Leach came up with what might be called the theory of 10-80-10. First, around 10 percent of us will handle a crisis in a relatively calm and rational state of mind. The top 10 percent are leaders, like a few passengers on the US Airways flight who took charge and guided others off the plane.
Leach says the vast majority of us—around 80 percent—fall into the second category. In a crisis, most will "quite simply be stunned and bewildered." We'll find that our "reasoning is significantly impaired and that thinking is difficult." We'll behave in "a reflexive, almost automatic or mechanical manner." We'll sweat. We'll feel sick, lethargic, numb. Our hearts may race. And we'll experience "perceptual narrowing" or tunnel vision. We'll barely hear people around us. It's OK—it's not necessarily fatal—and it doesn't last forever. The key is to recover quickly from brain lock or analysis paralysis, shake off the shock and figure out what to do.
The last group—the final 10 percent—is the one you definitely want to avoid in an emergency. Simply put, the third band does the wrong thing. They behave inappropriately and often counterproductively. In plain terms, they freak out and can't pull themselves together. And they often don't survive.
Prof. Richard Wiseman can tell if you're lucky or unlucky just by handing you a newspaper and asking you to count the number of photographs in its pages. Some folks finish the job in a few seconds while others need a couple of minutes to tally all the pictures. The reason for the difference isn't that some people are better counters than others. Rather, the secret lies on page two of the newspaper where Wiseman has inserted a huge message in one-inch letters:
STOP COUNTING—THERE ARE 43 PHOTOGRAPHS IN THIS NEWSPAPER.
Believe it or not, many people actually miss this enormous headline in the paper. They're too busy counting photos to notice. The giant message isn't a trick. There really are 43 pictures in the paper. Professor Wiseman has found that if you see the announcement right away, you tend to be a lucky person open to random opportunities. By contrast, if you don't spot it, you're usually an unlucky person more likely to miss out on fortuitous possibilities.
Psychologists call this "inattentional blindness"—we don't notice things when we don't pay real attention. One of the most famous studies of inattentional blindness was conducted by Daniel Simons and Christopher Chabris in the elevator lobby of the 15th floor of the Harvard psychology department. One team of players wearing white shirts and another group dressed in black tossed two orange basketballs back and forth. Subjects were asked to watch a video of this ball-passing exercise and count the number of passes made by players dressed in white. After 45 seconds in one version of the video, a woman in a full gorilla costume walks right through the scene. The hairy ape is clearly visible crossing the screen for five seconds. Remarkably, 56 percent didn't even notice the gorilla right in the middle of the action. In another video, the gorilla stops, faces the camera, pounds her chest and then marches off. The action lasts nine seconds, but again only 50 percent spotted the furry interloper.
How is it possible to miss the gorilla? And what does it tell us about survival? Professor Simons now teaches psychology at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. The main lesson and surprise of the gorilla experiment, he tells me, is how easy it is to miss something as obvious as a gorilla. "Distinctive and unusual objects do not automatically capture our attention," he says. Many other studies have demonstrated that it's difficult—if not impossible—to be aware of everything going on around you, or even right in front of you. One reason is that your eyes see in high resolution only within around two degrees of your focal point. In other words, no matter how good your eyesight, the vast majority of your surroundings are essentially out of focus. To understand, try holding your arm out in front of you and making the thumbs-up sign. The sliver of the world that you see in high resolution is only about as wide as your thumbnail. If you focus, say, on your cuticle, you'll immediately notice how the detail in your peripheral vision drops off dramatically.
The gorilla experiment is important, Simons says, because it shocks you into realizing how little of your environment you consciously perceive, especially if you're very focused on a specific task. Once you've gained this insight, Simons believes, you can start opening yourself up to all the possibilities that you may be missing. In everyday life, Simons recognizes there's no guarantee he'll notice a gorilla or cement truck coming right at him. This awareness has changed the way he interacts with the world. Especially when he's driving, he's more alert to potentially disastrous events, and he intentionally devotes attention to those dangers instead of assuming they'll immediately capture his eye.
When it comes to spotting hairy apes and red-light runners, Wiseman believes there's another important factor at work, too. Neuroticism is a personality trait of people who tend to be anxious, tense and sensitive to stress, he explains. In the gorilla experiment, people with high levels of neuroticism are very serious and intense about their assignment to count the number of basketball passes. People with low levels are calmer and less sensitive to stress. According to Wiseman, lucky people usually are more laid-back and open to life's possibilities—like giant headlines in his newspaper experiment—while unlucky people are more uptight, nervous and closed off.
If you want to test yourself, take a quick look at this domain name sometimes used by stress researchers: www.opportunityisnowhere.com.
What do you see? For many people, the web site seems discouraging: opportunity is nowhere. But others see the exact opposite: opportunity is now here. When it comes to hidden messages, lucky people perceive more of the world around them. "It is not that they expect to find certain opportunities, but rather that they notice them when they come across them," Wiseman writes in his book "The Luck Factor." This ability (or talent) "has a significant, and positive, effect on their lives."
Wiseman, who holds Britain's only professorship in the public understanding of psychology, at the University of Hertfordshire, has devoted a decade to exploring the secrets of serendipity. He discovered that some people actually do have all the luck, while others are a "magnet for ill fortune."

"Luck is not a magical ability or a gift from the gods," Wiseman writes. "Instead, it is a state of mind—a way of thinking and behaving." Above all, he insists that we have far more control over our lives—and our luck—than we realize. Going back to the Italian Renaissance philosopher Niccolò Machiavelli, great thinkers and writers have argued that 50 percent or more of what happens in life is determined entirely by chance (or Fortuna, the Roman goddess of fortune). Wiseman says no way. He believes that only 10 percent of life is purely random. The remaining 90 percent is "actually defined by the way you think." In other words, your attitude and behavior determine nine tenths of what happens in your life. Wiseman has concluded that there are four reasons why good things happen to certain people.
First, lucky people frequently happen upon chance opportunities. "Being in the right place at the right time is actually all about being in the right state of mind," Wiseman writes. As his newspaper experiment shows, lucky people are more open and receptive to unexpected possibilities. They tend to be more relaxed about life, and they operate with a heightened awareness of the world around them. Quite simply, they spot and seize upon openings that other people simply miss. They also tend to be more social and maintain what Wiseman calls a "network of luck." Most of us know around 300 people on a first-name basis. According to Wiseman, that means you're only two handshakes away from 90,000 people who could bring chance opportunities into your life.
Second, lucky people listen to their hunches and make good decisions without really knowing why. Unlucky people, by contrast, tend to make unsuccessful decisions and trust the wrong people. "My interviews suggested that lucky people's gut feelings and hunches tended to pay off time and time again," Wiseman writes. "In contrast, unlucky people often ignore their intuition and regret their decision." In survival, this kind of instinct can make all the difference.
Third, lucky people persevere in the face of failure and have an uncanny knack for making their wishes come true. They're convinced that life's most unpredictable events will "consistently work out for them." Their world is "bright and rosy," Wiseman writes, while unlucky people expect that things will always go wrong. Their world is "bleak and black." When Wiseman gives lucky and unlucky people a puzzle that is actually impossible to solve, the reactions are very telling. "More than 60 percent of unlucky people said that they thought the puzzle was impossible, compared to just 30 percent of lucky people. As in so many areas of their lives, the unlucky people gave up before they even started."
Fourth, lucky people have a special ability to turn bad luck into good fortune. Of all four defining factors involved in luck, Wiseman believes this one plays the most important role in survival. Wiseman's conclusion echoes the work of Dr. Al Siebert, one of America's foremost authorities on survival psychology. After more than 40 years investigating what he calls "the survivor personality," Siebert believes, "life's best survivors not only cope well, they often turn potential disaster into a lucky development."
So in the end, what does it take to survive life's inevitable challenges? Clearly, no single theory can encompass every situation. No common denominator applies to every person or struggle. In some cases, the cosmic coin toss determines everything. Alzheimer's patients don't pick their DNA. Trauma victims don't choose the drunk drivers careening through the streets. Still, survival isn't entirely out of your hands. In fact, you control much more of your destiny than you may imagine. Above all, your mindset makes the difference. You can take care of yourself, pay attention to your surroundings and even count the rows to the emergency exit on an airplane. You can make your own luck in the worst situations. You can pray, too, if it suits you. There are as many ways into the Survivors Club as there are personalities.


Sherwood is a journalist, author and executive director of TheSurvivorsClub.org. This article is adapted from his new book, The Survivors Club: The Secrets and Science That Could Save Your Life (Grand Central Publishing, January 2009).

Saturday, December 06, 2008

Why I'd rather die than visit Dubai

By Sathnam Sanghera, The Times, London

There are certain places that I would like to visit before I die, Tokyo, Mumbai and Havana among them. But, like grilled cheese sandwiches, I don't travel very well and there are many more places that I would rather die than visit. And, for many years, the city that has topped this list has been Dubai.

I know it is popular - it has set itself the target of achieving 15 million tourists by 2015. But whenever residents and tourists start banging on about the great shopping it offers, I can't help thinking that you can also shop very well in Birmingham; when they rave about the climate, I can't help thinking that 48C is too hot; and when they gush about all the plush restaurants to dine out at, I can't help thinking that London has quite a few of those, too.

Given that its one remaining attraction - beach life - holds little appeal to a man who can't swim and doesn't need to work on his tan, I would rather go on a cycling tour of Sunderland than spend a week in Dubai. And I was saying just that to a friend last week after a conversation about the Gulf city's property boom - which has fuelled double-digit growth for five years, but is now showing signs of turning to bust - when I was accused, not for the first time, of ignorance and prejudice.

So last week I spent an entire day reading newspaper articles and travel guides about Dubai and am now much better informed. And whereas before I would have suggested that people who went there on holiday had absolutely no imagination, and Britons who emigrated there did so because they had essentially failed in their home country, I would now say that British tourists and emigrants to Dubai also:

1. Have no taste. The briefest of flicks through any tourist guide to the city reveals that the £1.5billion Atlantis, The Palm resort, the launch of which was recently marked with a £13 million party, and the owners of which reportedly hauled 24 live dolphins 30 hours by air from the Solomon Islands to entertain guests in the new water park (despite protestations from environmental groups), is actually an establishment of considerable sobriety and dignity compared with many other attractions in the city. These include: Dubailand, a £13 billion theme park and entertainment complex three times the size of Manhattan; “The Mall of Emirates”, which, despite the desert climate, has a ski slope attached to it, is kept chilled to minus 2C at night and minus 8C when the snow is being manufactured; and the QE2, which is to be permanently moored on Palm Island to serve as an hotel and events centre, having gone through the kind of makeover that MTV's Pimp My Ride normally reserves for VW Golfs. Frankly, Dubai makes Blackpool look classy.

2. Are deeply uncultured. It seems to me that the purpose of the city's many shopping malls, resorts and skyscrapers is to distract visitors from the fact that there is actually little to do or see there. The desert, most travel writers concede, is featureless, the Gulf waters simply do not compare with the Mediterranean or the Red Sea, and the city lacks the historical intrigue of such destinations as Egypt, Italy and Greece. Essentially it is Las Vegas without the sex and the gambling, which is Las Vegas without a point.

3. Are unethical. Fans of Dubai often witter on about the lack of crime and the affordable luxury but this comes at a heavy price. The economy - which may turn out to have been literally and metaphorically built on sand - has been propped up by imported labourers who work six or six and a half days a week on 12-hour shifts, toiling in the desert sun for a daily wage that often amounts to no more than the cost of a pint of beer. The city also has no elections and no political parties. And in the UAE it is quite acceptable for employers to specify the preferred nationality or gender of applicants in job advertisements and for Europeans to be paid more than Filipinos or Indians who are doing the same work. All this should leave the piña coladas sipped by the tourists on the balconies of seven-star luxury hotels with a rather bitter aftertaste.

4. Are deluding themselves about the city's tolerance. Dubai is often held up as an example of how modern it is possible for Islamic society to be. But case history suggests that it has some way to go before it is challenging Amsterdam for liberalness. The British couple recently convicted of having sex on a beach in Dubai may have been freed and deported to the UK after their three-month prison sentence was suspended, but others haven't been so lucky. According to the Lonely Planet guide to the city, one British tourist was arrested at Dubai airport and sentenced to four years in prison after 0.03g of cannabis - an amount “smaller than a grain of sugar and invisible to the human eye” - was found on the stub of a cigarette stuck to the sole of his shoe. Meanwhile, a Swiss man was reportedly imprisoned after customs officers found three poppy seeds on his clothes (they had fallen off a bread roll he had eaten at Heathrow), and a British woman was held in custody for two months before customs officers conceded that the codeine that she was using for her back problems had been prescribed by a doctor.

Indeed, I couldn't help noticing in last week's coverage of the grand opening of the hideous Atlantis resort - which is built on a man-made island - that the singer Lily Allen, the model Agyness Deyn and her boyfriend, Albert Hammond Jr, were all subjected to a strip search on the way there. Deyn remarked afterwards, “It was really traumatic”, adding: “It wasn't the best experience in the world, but it is their culture and you just have to respect it.”

She's right - you have to respect it. If you go. But you don't have to go.

Friday, October 24, 2008

If you are like I......

Yanks Thump Sox
Prime rate to remain stable, Bernanke says


By Gene Weingarten
Sunday, June 22, 2008; Page W32
If you are like I, you are pretty sick of reading articles about how the financially-troubled newspaper industry is making desperation budget cutting moves: Downsizing its products, laying off staff, buying prostitutes for advertisers, and so forth. But believe me, you'd be even sicker of it if you were INSIDE a typical American newsroom these days, where it's sometimes hard to hear over the 200 decibel background drone of human whining.
One frequent newsroom complaint is that they are cutting back drastically in the use of copyeditors. It's true, but I for one am not complaining. I say good riddance.
The era of the copy editor is gone. Copyeditors were once an important part of the journalism process, back when journalists weren't as educated as they are now. Back then, your typical reporter was named 'Scoop" and he was a semi-literate cigar-smoking, fannie-pinching drunk with bad teeth in a wrinkled suit and a card that said PRESS stuck in the hat-band of his fedora, and they'd generate their stories by bribing sources, pistol-whipping people into talking, eavesdropping from inside closets, etc. A reporter was hired for cheek and muscle, not their writing skill, so you needed an extra layer of editing.
Copy editors were fine-tuners, fixing basic but important things that a first line of editing might'nt catch: Typos, errors in facts, spelling, syntax, punctuation, clarity, word usage, style, parallelism, and not letting sentences run on. They would also bear principle responsibility for headlines, photo captions, story jump lines, as well as catching the occasional, inadvertent cultural insensitivity. Because the job requires patience, maturity, intelligence, attention to detail, and an extremely sedentary workday, fat old Jewish ladies have often made good copyeditors.

But nowadays, things have changed. "Scoop" is gone. Young reporters are all named "P. Laurence Butterfield Jr." and they arrive at their first newspaper job fresh-faced and competent, straight from New Haven, Conn., with their high-faluting Princeton educations. They don't need copyeditors.
This is a true fact: I'm writing this column the very week after dozens of copy editors left my newspaper through an early retirement buyout, and I have noticed no difference at all whatsoever in the quality, accuracy
CONTINUED ON PAGE 17
or readability of the product.
The inessentialness of copy editors is underscored by the advent of sophisticated spellchecking systems which have introduced a hole new level of error-free proofreading. No longer can we say that the editor's penis mightier than the sword. The sword's main foe is a computer now, and the computer is up to to the task.
But nowadays, things have changed. "Scoop" is gone. Young reporters are all named "P. Laurence Butterfield Jr." and they arrive at their first newspaper jobs fresh-faced and competent, straight from New Haven, Conn., with their high-faluting Princeton educations. They don't need copyeditors.
Truth to tell, I feel badly for all copy editors whom, I'm afraid, will suddenly find themselves out of a job. Time has past them by, however, efeated the Red Sox 6-5 in extra innings and it doesn't make sense for us to weep for copyeditors anymore than it makes sense for us to lament the replacement of bank tellers with automated ATM machines.
So to all my former copyediting colleagues, I wish them a soft landing. Finally, I'd like to give particular shoutouts to my friends Pat Meyers and Bill O'Brien, two longtime copyeditors for the Washington Post who took the early retirement: We'll miss ya, guys, even if we didn't need you all that muck.
How good a copy editor would you be? See how many of the 57 errors of fact, grammar, syntax and style in this column you can catch, and then read the corrections below.
Gene Weingarten can be reached at weingarten@washpost.com.

CORRECTIONS

Here are the errors in fact, grammar, syntax and style that a good copy editor would have caught.
Paragraph One: Six errors.
Opening line should begin "if you are like me," not "like I."
No hyphen in "financially troubled."
"Downsizing" should be lower case.
"Budget-cutting" should have a hyphen.
Syntax requires moving "desperation" after "budget-cutting."
"200-decibel" should have a hyphen.
Paragraph Two: Four errors.
"They" has no antecedent; should read "publishers."
"Copy editors" is two words.
The phrase "I, for one," needs two added commas.
Paragraph Three: Eleven errors.
"Copy editors" should be two words.
"Scoop" has an incorrect open quotation mark.
Comma needed after Scoop.
"Semiliterate" has no hyphen.
Comma needed after "semiliterate."
Should be "and wearing a wrinkled suit" to correct impression that it's his teeth in the suit.
It's "fanny," not "fannie."
"Hatband" has no hyphen.
HE would generate HIS stories, not "they" and "their."
"His" writing skills, not "their."
Paragraph Four: Six errors
"Mightn't," not "might'nt."
"Typos" should be lowercase.
"And not letting sentences run on" is bad parallelism."
"Principal," not "principle."
"Copy editors," not "copyeditors."
Grotesque cultural insensitivity in the line about Jewish women.
Paragraph Five: Four errors.
A comma is needed after "Jr."
It's "highfalutin," not high faluting.
Yale is in New Haven, not Princeton.
Copy editors is two words.
Paragraph Six: Two errors
"True fact" is redundant.
"At all whatsoever" is redundant.
"Continued" line is an error: One error.
Paragraph Seven: Six errors.
"Inessentialness" is not a word.
"Spell-checking" is hyphenated.
"That" have introduced, not "which."
"Whole," not "hole."
"Pen is" not "penis."
There is an extra "to" in the last sentence.
Paragraph Eight: One error.
The entire paragraph is repeated from above. Since it will not be individually copyedited again, this counts as one error only.
Paragraph Nine: Nine errors.
"Badly" should be "bad."
"Who," not "whom."
"Jobs," not "job."
"Passed," not "past."
There is errant baseball type included.
"Copy editors" are two words.
"Any more" should be two words.
"Automated" and "machines" are both redundancies.
Paragraph Ten: One error.
It is upside-down.
Paragraph Eleven: Eight errors.
"Copy editing" is two words.
Wish "you" a soft landing, not "them."
"Shout-outs" has a hyphen.
"Myers," not "Meyers."
"O'Brian," not "O'Brien."
"Copy editors" is two words.
"The" Washington Post, not "the."
"Much," not "muck."
The Headline: One error.
So, we get the 59 errors enumerated above, plus one more, to total 60: The final error is that we said there were only 57 errors.

Monday, October 20, 2008

Indian Vice President Ansari Asks Muslims to join India's Growth Story

Aligarh, October 18: : Asking Muslims to ‘seek equity, not concessions’ from government, Vice-President Hamid Ansari on Saturday said the community should introspect as a failure to participate in India's ‘growth story’ will lead to its marginalisation.

Addressing a gathering of over 500 Aligarh Muslim University alumni from as many as 20 countries, Ansari said the Muslim community should adapt to changing requirements of time and pointed out the need to draw every segment including women into the sphere of education.

This, he said, was the only way out if the Muslim community is to partake in India's historic growth story.

"We as a community have failed to appreciate the need for education for all sections. Our illiteracy levels continue to remain above the national level and we continue to lag behind in ensuring education at the primary level and for women," the Vice-President said.

Muslim Matrimonial1000s of Muslim Matrimony Profiles
Jeevansathi.com/Muslim
Fly To The US For Rs27000Great Deals For A Short Time Only
KLM.com
Muslims MarriageYour Prospective Life Partner Is
BharatMatrimony.Com/Register-Fre
Ads By Google
Rejecting the growing clamour for 'quotas' in educational institutions and jobs, Ansari said the community should ‘seek equity not concessions’ as ‘seeking specific dispensation will not take us too far’.

"Let us candidly admit that we have failed to conceptualise the demands of a changing environment and failed to understand that education cannot be sectional," Ansari told the first 'World Summit of AMU Alumni'.

He said Muslims should learn to emulate other communities in adapting to changing requirements of time and utilising the opportunities and sops provided by government.

"Our failure to participate in India's growth story will lead us to marginalisation," a candid Ansari, who is himself an alumnus of AMU and also a former Vice-Chancellor, warned.

Coinciding with the birth anniversary of its founder Sir Syed Ahmad Khan, the two-day meet deliberated on the need to streamline resources for making the university a world class institution in the next 20 years.

Ansari, who passed out from the varsity in 1959, reminded the delegates of the founder's purpose for establishing the over 100-year-old institution in Aligarh, asking them to revert back to the message of Syed Ahmad.

"This is time to do cost accountancy and time to introspect. The institution was instituted in 1875 in response to a specific need to impart modern education to Muslims and inculcate in them a spirit of rational thinking," the ex-diplomat said.

"We need to revert to the message of Syed Ahmed Khan," he said, pointing to the need of philanthropic efforts to draw the marginalised sections towards education and channelise incomes for setting up more institutions.

Monday, October 13, 2008

The cookie is crumbling for Kumble

By John Cheeran
So relief all around in the Indian dressing room as Sachin Tendulkar and VVS Laxman ensured that the first Test ended in draw.
But the all round patchy show, especially from batsmen, does not give Indian cricket much hope.
The inconsistent show from stalwarts such as Tendulkar, Rahul Dravid and VVS Laxman should make Chairman Krishnamachari Srikkanth and his co-selectors think hard. And as for Sourav Ganguly (47 and 26), the denouement has been already spelt out.
Of course as skipper, Anil Kumble must be a worried man by the ineffectual show of his batsmen. But honestly, can Kumble now command a place in the side purely on his wicket-taking abilities?
This is not the first time Kumble has gone wicket-less in a Test, but at this juncture, India’s senior pro, should justify his presence being useful to the side.
How much more should we invest in this fading stock? It is true that Kumble was hampered by injury, and that was evident from the low key role, he played in Australia’s second innings, coming in as the fifth bowler and restricting himself to eight overs. This is a long and hard series against cricket world’s fiercest rivals; and captain should lead by example to inspire his teammates.
If Ganguly could be given VRS by the Board of Control fro Cricket in India, why not others?
But changing your captain during the middle of a home series, for reasons other than injury, would be a hard blow for Indian cricket to take in. Mohali, Delhi and Nagpur are waiting and this slow burn should not be allowed to continue any longer.

Saturday, October 11, 2008

Ganguly and Gun!

From The Australian

SOURAV Ganguly has laid bare the staggeringly selfish nature of Indian cricket by launching a tirade against his team-mates.
Already at the centre of a circus after claiming he will retire at the end of this four-Test series against Australia, the former captain claimed some Indian players changed their hairstyle more often than they made runs.
"I have played 400 matches for India (110 Tests and 311 one-day games). I have played badly in only one series, yet every Tom, Dick and Harry is playing in the team," Ganguly told a local Bengali newspaper.
"There are players who haven't scored in the last three series for India, even for the last one year. There are some who have changed their hairstyle more than they have scored for India."
Ganguly, 36, did not mention his fielding, which was typically dreadful during the second day of the first Test here yesterday.
The tensions his criticisms will create can only be magnified should India do badly in this Test and series, given the pressure on the senior players following a surprise 2-1 Test series loss to Sri Lanka in August.
Captain Anil Kumble, who turns 38 this month, will certainly be feeling it after going to lunch yesterday with figures of 0-103. He has now conceded 100 runs in an innings 56 times, more than any other bowler in Test history.
Ganguly claimed he wanted to continue playing next year.
"Maybe seven more Tests. For that I was not prepared to take any more humiliation," he said.
"I was tired of being humiliated again and again. I don't want to play cricket at the mercy of others."
Ganguly's humiliation stems from being left out of last month's Rest of India side in the Irani Trophy match against reigning Ranji Trophy title-holder Delhi, which was essentially a warm-up match for this Test series.
A fading Ganguly was first dropped by Greg Chappell early in 2006 when the Australian was coach and wanted to renew an ageing team.
Ganguly made a strong return late that year and had played well since, but two of his last three series have been poor, averaging 29 in Australia and, most recently, 16 in Sri Lanka.
"When Greg dropped me, TP Singh (who is now playing in the rebel Indian Cricket League) was my replacement. Where is he now?" Ganguly said.
Ganguly claimed being dropped for the Irani Trophy was worse than being dropped by Chappell.
"I couldn't imagine being dropped for that. That's when I said, 'not again'," he said.
It is only a new selection committee, under former Test batsman Kris Srikkanth, which has revived Ganguly's career.
"I am bound to feel bad. I had to fight with my heart," Ganguly said. "If there is a gun to your head all the time, how long can you bear this?
"I thought a lot before reaching this decision. I have also thought about my plans for the next one year.
"If this (selection) committee had come three years earlier, the situation would have been slightly better for me."

India's brittle batting gives Ponting room for hope

So my fears came true but when Harbhajan Singh did his bhangra at the batting crease, things perked up a little for a beleaguered India.
India lost wickets while looking for quick runs, and except for that bright opening from Virender Sehwag and Gautam Gambhir, the home side was without a master builder.
So no wonder then that the cavalier Singh emerged as the king, not with the ball, but with the bat. The Fab Five must be chastened by the fact that Harbhajan emerged as the top scorer for India with 54. Only a patient half-century from Rahul Dravid came closer at 51. Yes, Sourav Ganguly hung in there, again proving a point that he is still better than many in Indian cricket. It was an innings under pressure again, but when you consider the struggles of Sachin Tendulkar (13) VVS Laxman (0) and MS Dhoni (9) at the crease, you can make your own judgments about the state of Indian batting.
So where is this Test heading?
Australia definitely enjoyed the upper hand when they saw the back of Ganguly at 232/7, but Indian tail or rather Harbhajan has spoiled Ricky Ponting’s push for victory. India is still behind Australia by 117 runs. If Indian spinners fail to tease and torment Aussies in their second innings, the last day of the match could see India caught between victory and defeat while chasing an almost 400 target.
Thus it is all about managing the contradictions. You got to attack but only knowing well where your weaknesses are.
Anil Kumble, going wicket-less in the first innings, has a cross to bear tomorrow both at the batting and bowling creases.

Friday, October 10, 2008

Watchout for the cracks in the wall, cracks in the pitch

By John Cheeran
The intent mattered.
India has taken up the Aussie gauntlet and is now looking to overcome Australian first innings total in the fastest way possible. They should score quickly, and for now, Virender Sehwag and Gautam Gambhir, have done just that.
More than the mere run rate, after all it is just 18 overs, India’s positive attitude signals that they are here to win the Test and seize the initiative in the series.
In the remaining three days, Anil Kumble has a tough task to accomplish. India is left with not many options, but to bat through day three and day four and let the pitch take care of Ponting and mates on the final day. But cruising at a fast mode would naturally mean that at some stage Indian innings would crack under the contradictions of getting quick runs and keeping wickets intact. That’s the challenge for the Indian batting in this Test.
There is nothing surprising the way Sehwag and Gambhir have begun the Indian riposte. Both are aggressive batsmen by nature.
The wicket still plays true and hard. And down the order you could expect some suicidal brilliance from Sourav Ganguly especially after his “Every Tom Dick and Harry” interview to AajKal on the eve of the match.
It was no wonder that Ganguly, again, cut a lonely figure on the field. He was the last one to join the huddle when a wicket fell; he was the last one to troop out when the team took the field.
But given Ganguly’s Fuck You All attitude, it might trigger another blazing innings from the man, though his form has not been the best in the recent past.
Whatever, expect quite a few twists and turns in the next three days.

Aussies Hussey, Hussey

By John Cheeran
By posting 430 in the first innings, Australia has achieved their immediate objective. Of course, skipper Ricky Ponting would have liked to see another 70 runs on board to his side’s first innings total, but by giving the hosts only less than a session on the second day to bat, he should be extremely happy. Now, Australia has enjoyed batting without hurry during the major part of the first two days, but India must bat with a sense of urgency to have a real chance to win this Test, where spinners will have an increasingly important role to play as the days go by.
Australia did not set out to dominate Indian bowling on the second day too. They were, in fact, playing it neat and straight. Michael Hussey was willing to be the anchor instead of the aggressor, and he held the latter half of Aussie innings with aplomb and authority. Despite losing Shane Waston early in the day, Hussey held on and gathered runs with the clean conscience of a solitary reaper. May be Hussey could have taken a little more freedom against Kumble and Harbhajan. With pitch playing true and fast, Indian spinners were wheeling away, more in hope than with a real sense of wickedness.
The kind of percentage cricket that Australians played during the first two days should be a pointer for Indian batsmen. Patience pays off eventually. Hussey showed everyone how much he prizes his wicket and the way he anchored the second half of the Aussie innings should be a lesson, in case any aspiring cricketers were watching at the M Chinnaswamy Stadium.
In fact, most were surprised, in the end, the sudden fall of wickets that sealed the Australian innings at 430. Zaheer Khan, ignored throughout the day by skipper Kumble after the pacer failed to control his line and length, finally redeemed himself by capturing three wickets in the space of seven balls sent down by the bowler.
Zaheer bowled Hussey (146) to end a huge innings and complete an enticing haul of five wickets, but if one should pick an Indian bowler for his qualitative contribution, I would vote for Ishant Sharma. For much of the second day, it was Ishant who ran in with a sense of purpose, and put a few breaks, when Aussies were walking on.

123...for Ponting and Australia in Bangalore

By John Cheeran
Australia has put aside bravado for the time being. Skipper Ricky Ponting first called 123 at the toss on Thursday at the M Chinnaswamy Stadium in Bangalore and a few minutes later walked in to compile a polished 123 to thwart India’s designs of winning the first Test of the three Test Border-Gavaskar series.
On Thursday, everyone was disappointed at the guarded approach of Australians. 256 for four in a day is, not what you have come to expect from the Aussies. But Greg Chappell or Nielsen, Ponting has understood the meaning of playing well in the early hours of a series and the importance of playing the first innings big and proper, especially after winning the toss.
It is true that India’s aging spinners, skipper Anil Kumble and Harbhajan Singh, did not have the best conditions to confound the Aussie batsmen. It would be largely incredulous to expect these two lead the likes of Ponting and Simon Katich astray.
You cannot deny that India had begun well in the series when Zaheer Khan sent back opener Matthew Hayden without a run on the board. And what a deceiving moment that turned out to be. Only in the final few minutes of the day India could salvage some pride by taking the wickets of centurion Ponting and Michael Clarke.
But by then Australia had achieved their basic objective. They had some runs, and denied the first use of batting crease to hosts, and there by, managed to pile the pressure on the home side.
Aussies could not go wrong much from this stage, unless India produce some very, very special efforts in the remains of the Test.

Tuesday, October 07, 2008

Can newspapers survive?

By Michael Gawenda
There is incessant chatter about the need for a new model for newspapers in the digital age, which might be true, but in the meantime, profitable newspapers are being butchered. Talk of a new model is nothing but empty words.
The editorial cuts announced by Fairfax, publisher of the Herald, in response to a fall in advertising revenue, were chilling. The economic slowdown is the immediate cause, but this was coming for at least a decade. It is a failure of imagination and commitment, a result of a lack of experience and knowledge and love of newspapers. I am not opposed to cuts in editorial staff as a matter of principle. Not every job has to be preserved and protected. I am not saying the Herald and The Age cannot be great newspapers with fewer journalists. They can. And they have to change.
But for real change, courage is needed, as are vision and risk-taking and, above all, a commitment to newspapers and journalism that, frankly, I do not see at the moment.
Young people embarking on a career in journalism should not despair. Things change, often in unexpected and unforeseeable ways. Newspapers can do some things no other medium can match - not television, not radio, not the internet.
One of the great mistakes newspapers have made in recent years is trying to address their weaknesses rather than build on their strengths. So we have shorter stories, bigger headlines, more graphics, more bells and whistles, more tricked-up, overblown pages, more pages meant to look visually rich but which, in the main, look desperate and garish.
This attempt to ape the internet in print is being driven by middle-aged people who, in truth, have no real feel for the net and therefore no real understanding of its strengths and weaknesses. The next generation of journalists, who have grown up in the digital age, are much more likely to understand what newspapers can offer that digitally delivered journalism cannot.
Only newspapers can build a community of readers. What builds that community? Well, for a start, a shared sense of what the newspaper is about, what it considers important, interesting, entertaining and thought-provoking. A shared sense of the city, the country, even the world. That's about telling stories - stories from our courts and police force and local councils and businesses and governments and hospitals. No web news site will ever tell such stories.
Is this investigative journalism? Of course it is. How many newspaper articles do you consider compelling and revelatory, articles that only a reporter, going out there and doing the reporting work, could have brought you? Newspapers need to be in the business of news, but they need to report news that only a newspaper can do well.
The rest, reports of news conferences, PR-driven events, announcements - all of that can go online. Newspapers need to get smaller, clearer in their focus.
Most of the lifestyle sections should migrate to online. That doesn't mean newspapers should stop writing about food, for instance, but think, when was the last time you read a truly well-reported story about food? The reviews and the listings - and entertainment and television guides - are much better done online.
Unlike some people, I believe the future for newspapers is not in commentary and analysis. The internet is awash with commentary. You can read the columnists on every major - and minor - paper in Australia and around the world on the net, and a number of sites aggregate this stuff.
Newspapers should not abandon commentary and analysis, but it should really be just another form of reporting - tell me something I have not thought about. That can be done only by people who know more about a given subject than I know. Too many columnists actually know less than their readers.
Newspapers need to build on their strengths: Forget big headlines and huge and often meaningless graphics. Instead, arresting photography, great illustrations and wonderful editorial cartoons. And stories, well-written and compelling stories, well-edited and with smart and entertaining headlines, if possible, without lousy puns.
Will this sort of newspaper, half the size of most of the papers we produce today, succeed?
Can newspapers have smaller circulations and fewer readers, a premium cover price, no lifestyle sections, no special circulation deals - which basically involve giving the paper away - and be profitable? I think so.
What size staff is required to produce such a newspaper? I suspect a smaller staff than those producing today's papers. I am sure the newspaper and online sites of the newspaper need to be brought together because without that sort of integration, neither will succeed.
Do newspapers have a future? And how long is that future? Well, I ask you to imagine Melbourne without The Age and the Herald Sun or Sydney without the Herald and The Daily Telegraph. Imagine Australia without The Australian.
If you can imagine such a future, in my view, that's in part because of our failure to produce newspapers that attract the sort of fierce and lifelong loyalty they once attracted.
Michael Gawenda is a former editor-in-chief of The Age. This is an extract from his A.N. Smith Lecture in Journalism to be delivered tonight in Melbourne.

Thursday, September 11, 2008

Playing in India, not playing for India, matters for Ganguly

By John Cheeran
Sourav Ganguly is out of the Rest of India squad, and vast sections of India are discussing the injustice done against the Bengali icon and one of India’s prominent batsmen since 1996.
Australians are coming.
So an omission from the Rest of India squad could be interpreted as an end of the road signal. The omission would not have mattered much if not for Ganguly’s exasperating form during the Sri Lankan Test tour. Always considered as a good one-day batsman, Ganguly was left out of the Indian one-day team that defeated Sri Lanka immediately after the follies of Tests. That should have rung alarm bells for worshippers of Ganguly.
Any discussion about Ganguly will not be complete without pointing towards former Indian captain Rahul Dravid.
The selection committee, led by former Test cricketer Dilip Vengsarkar, had cast aside Dravid long ago from the one-day excursions.
Dravid, the quintessential Test batsman, survives the axe mainly thanks to a few gritty innings that he played on the Sri Lankan tour. Willingness to fight it out in the middle was there in quite contrast to the belligerent escapism that Ganguly brought to the batting crease. Now it may be ironic that Ganguly has been told to pack his bags after his most successful season as a Test batsman (does anyone remember the double century he scored against an harried Pakistan) in international cricket.
Reports say that coach Gary Kirsten and Test team skipper Anil Kumble did not bat for Ganguly when selectors sat together to finalise the squad.
How they could have?
Dravid, despite his low key performance in recent times, has been performing a crucial role for India batting at the critical slot of No.3. In terms of sheer utility value Ganguly is no match for Dravid. And Ganguly never cared for his fielding.
Ganguly knows by experience that silence is golden.
Why react when others are dusting up his obituary.
What if the Rest of India falters against the Australian attack? That will open the doors of Indian team to him again. Just sit at the boundary.
And even of you are not playing for India does it matter any more in the age of Indian Premier League?
Playing in India is what matters now you have Kolkata Knight Riders to dream of. IPL must be figuring prominently in Ganguly’s thoughts and that must be delaying an official declaration of the end.

Wednesday, September 03, 2008

Jeet Thayil / Malayalam's Ghazal

Editor's note: Jeet Thayil was born in Kerala, India, and educated in Hong Kong, New York and Bombay. His poetry collections include Gemini 2 and, English and Apocalypso. My most remembered and favourite lines of Jeet are below.
"where they (my lips) touched your skin, there would be constellations in your face, and world upon world in your absent body."


Malayalam’s Ghazal
Listen! Someone’s saying a prayer in Malayalam.
He says there’s no word for ‘despair’ in Malayalam.

Sometimes at daybreak you sing a Gujarati garba.
At night you open your hair in Malayalam.

To understand symmetry, understand Kerala.
The longest palindrome is there, in Malayalam.

When you’ve been too long in the rooms of English,
Open your windows to the fresh air of Malayalam.

Visitors are welcome in The School of Lost Tongues.
Someone’s endowed a high chair in Malayalam.

I greet you my ancestors, O scholars and linguists.
My father who recites Baudelaire in Malayalam.

Jeet, such drama with the scraps you know.
Write a couplet, if you dare, in Malayalam.

Thursday, August 28, 2008

Satyajit Ray vs Raj Kapoor

Bollywood: A History mentions the spat between Satyajit Ray and Raj Kapoor.

Film director Shyam Benegal tells author Mihir Bose

“The Bombay film industry always thought Ray (Satyajit) was not doing right by India. Raj Kapoor and he had a big spat once. Raj Kapoor’s film Jagte Raho, directed by Shambu Mitra, a famous Bengali theatre director who had the same stature as Ray in cinema. Shambu made the film and it won Raj Kapoor an ward in the 1964 Karlovy Vary film festival, the same year that Aparajito won the Golden Lion in Venice. They met up at some meeting where both were being felicitated.

So Ray said it was a great recognition for Bengali cinema.

Raj Kapoor said, “ Why Bengali, are you not an Indian? Why do you say you are a Bengali film maker?

Ray said, “I am a Bengali film maker.

Raj Kapoor said, “ Why can’t you say you are an Indian film maker? For god’s sake.”
ജാലകം
 
John Cheeran at Blogged