Go, find excuse!

I came across this card which was sent from a daughter to her father on conjunction with Fathers' Day. Not a flattering message, I should say. Looks like the daughter seem to be blaming her failures in life and the recurrent wrong choices in choosing partners squarely on her father, the contributor of half of her chromosomes. Just because her father did not mollycoddle her but instead showed her the reality of life, she looks at it as an abhorrent. She must be thinking that real dads are like the TV sitcom dads who would take all the tantrums of the young ones and also apologise for their own shortcomings. Dream on. Adults in real life have too much ego and have an important role to play nurturing them through the hard knocks of life unlike their tinseltown dads who play their 30 minute role, smiling all the way to the bank.
You say you came to learn that someone who hurts is same who loves through your fathers actions. You sound like a smart girl - able to appreciate the finer subtleties of the language and poetry. You are probably smart because of the way paved by your father who ensured daughters are no second class citizens. They also have the right to education just like his son, your brother. Now, you are big and strong and smart, you are smart enough to bounce off all the misgivings of life on this man.
Didn't the man act hard on you to correct you, to put you back on track, because you almost went astray? Is it because of his guidance that you able to maturely assess your failures and analyse of your own shortfalls? May it not be his drilling that made you still standing tall despite the calamities that you had to encounter in your short life?

It is easy to find fault. Anyway, there is never a cookbook recipe for parenting. He may have done what he thought was best for you. Perhaps that made him the man he is, able to provide and care for you and your family. For every 10 bad points you identify about your father, there must be 20 more of the contrary.

Remember, when you point your accusing index finger at others, invariably your last three fingers would point at your good self. The thumb may point to ground (nature) or up (sky, God)!

All in the name of money!

They shoot horses, don't they? (1969)
Director: Sydney Pollack
This movie was supposed to be made by Charlie Chaplin but was abandoned. During the McCarthy era, Chaplin was accused to be a communist and was barred to return after he went for a holiday in UK.
What a funny name, you think? It is actually a social satire looking at the antics of people who would go to all lengths just to lay their hands on money; the poor do not mind being humiliated for money and the rich would not bat an eyelid to exploit the situation to benefit and enrich themselves further.
Set in the impoverished times of the Depression, a marathon dancing programme is arranged. The last of the couple who would be up and dancing after all the other contestants had fallen would win $1500, a princely sum for that era.
A motley crew of people with different backgrounds and desperate need for the elusive dream of wealth gather for the event. The main characters here are Robert and Julia (Jane Fonda); others include an aspiring blonde actress, an ageing sailor and a pregnant mother! The organiser, Rocky, tries to tease the crowd's attention for their contribution and their sponsorship. All contestant had a sad story to justify their attempt at stardom. With the coveted prize money on their minds, they stoop low to take a jibe at each, be at each other's neck and even drag a seriously sick elderly with a heart ailment to his death just for the loot.
The organisers, on the other hand, had no qualms in dragging them like livestock just to stir the interest of the audience. These weary souls who had danced on for 1000 over hours were forced to run in circles just to eliminate more dancers.
Just as Julia reaches almost towards the end of the contest, she is made to realise that her winning may not be much as almost all her winnings would be deducted for expenses! The couple drop out. A heartbroken Julia, who throughout the movie had been a sulky bad tampered frustrated lady, actually decides to end her life for her repeated failures in life. The hesitant Julia get the help of Robert to put the trigger!
Why did Robert do it, to pull the trigger to end a suffering soul? That is because of his childhood experience where he saw an injured racing horse was relieved of his misery by putting a bullet into him. So his justification for his actions, "they shoot horses, don't they?"

No winners, only losers!

Dawn of the Planet of the Apes (2014)
The saga of clash between the human and their supposedly inferior evolutionary cousins, the primates, which started in the late 60s continue in the times of our children. My son, DA, had been pestering me to view this 8th offering of this franchise even before its release. And there I was enjoying the advancement of cinematography and make up of a 21st century film. What started as philosophical movie in 1968 with Charlton Heston had slowly evolved to impress the masses.
At a time in the future, the world as we know is almost annihilated of its inhabitants after an viral epidermic befalls mankind. Man quickly succumbs to this ailment in mammoth proportions. The world looks a scene from a Discovery Channel's "50 years after Man". Roads are abandoned, public amenities are left to rot and the world is an empty place (almost).
We are brought to a thick lush jungle where a large colony of apes and other primates swing from tree to tree without a care in the world. The tranquility in peaceful shangri-la is disturbed one day by a man.
You see, after the epidemic, the number of surviving had dwindled tremendously. A small group of immune individuals survived the viral onslaught and congregated in small area of the country surviving on their meagre supply of food, ammunition and source of energy. As the energy resources dwindled, Man remembered that there was a disused hydroelectric dam that they could get going again to generate power. Hence, the visit to the jungle enroute to the dam.
At the spur of the moment in a state of shock, the visitor shoots an ape.
Like the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand that started the WW1, this event was the catalyst that started the avalanche of other events. The leader, Caesar, who had had spent time with human long time ago comes to fore and speaks the first spoken word, GO!, scuffling man back to his hiding.
The leader of the expedition, Malcolm, returns with an olive branch to get permission to get to the dam. They agreed on a deal where Caesar's wife with puerperal sepsis gets treatment and human put away their weapons. Both parties are wary of each other. Caesar's second in command, Koba had had an extremely traumatic as a laboratory animal.
Long story short, sceptics on both sides of the divide incite violence turning the once humble abode of both parties into living hell.
As the apes gain victory, word comes in that reinforcement was coming for the side of man. To be continued....
At one look it looks a man versus ape movie. There is actually more than meets the eye.
By and large, apes are portrayed here as highly intellectual beings who are wary of their actions and its effect. The humans, on the other hand, look like Neanderthals and nincompoops. They seem to be contented with their self proclaimed superiority in hierarchy, their booze, their lackadaisical attitude and the ability to gunpowder everything within their sight to smithereens.
It is also not easy to control strong opposition a community especially when violence is an option. Any being, be it ape or human, are easily influenced by the seed of uncertainty or fear of being fooled. No matter how good a leadership is, peaceful symbiosis does not seem to an option for nature.
Life on Earth is a constant struggle. History has shown that biology and survival of species is no pleasure cruise. It is a violent struggle between and within species to ensure survival of the fittest with the hope of continuation of species.
So, after the movie, I asked DA what he had learnt from the movie? He, excitedly waiting for its sequel, replied, "..that war does not bring good!" To that I told him, "In fact many years ago, Lao Tze, a Chinese philosopher had told 'There are no winners in war, only losers!' "

Just another day in real life!

A Brazilian soccer fan cries as she watches her team 

get beat during a live telecast of the semifinals

 World Cup soccer match between Brazil and Germany, 

in Belo Horizonte, Brazil, Tuesday, July 08, 2014

Now that the nights are spent in slumber land, the eyes are becoming less congested and the mush in the brain is slowly clearing up, I can write. It is amazing how a game, after all a game, can exert so much effect on events around the world. Perhaps, it was meant to be thus. Average Joe being side-tracked by events that are clearly not going to determine the fate of mankind, as, they, the capitalists create a sense of urgency and fascination amongst the lay people and laugh all the way to the bank. If not, how would you expect a supposedly non profit organisation like FIFA to have 5 billion USD in their account, leaving a trail of heartaches as they count their loot. And the money is development of world football, really?

Soccer is just another tool for the powers that be to achieve their agenda. Back in the 1930s as Brazil was developing as a nation as the white masters, black slaves and the mullattos start to develop the nation, the powers that be decided football would be the unifying cement something like how ANC used rugby to unify a young post apartheid South Africa. Brazil became all excited with the young mullattos and their fancy footwork. They were initially a second tier team following the shadows of great teams like Uruguay and Italy. With lot of hope, they hosted the 1950 World Cup. With their high scoring games in the initial games, they were set to win the Cup easily then. In fact, the papers on 15th July 1950 printed pictures of the Brazilian team with the caption 'Tomorrow's World Champion'!

What followed shook the nation for years to come. 

Brazil lose 2-1 against Uruguay in the1950 World Cup

final held in the Maracanã Stadium, Brazil. 

Photograph: Popperfoto/Getty

Brazil lost the game to Uruguay in the final game 2-1 to a devastating crowd who were prostrating in grief. The Maracanã went completely silent when Uruguay hoisted the cup! The ghost of 1950 Uruguay had started. The players were ostracised for years to come. Some went into depression. Mention of the ill-fated game angered many citizens. The ghost was finally buried in 1958 Sweden final with the new kid of the block, Pele. It then went on to 5 World Cups and have the bragging rights of being the only country to win outside their continent.

The prelude of this World Cup (2014) included massive demonstrations by the poor homeless as the disparity between the haves and have nots escalated over the years. Grandiose commercially non sustainable projects like the Manaus Stadium angered them further. The Government was thinking of hoodwinking the public by giving the 'feel good' euphoria showcasing their samba hospitality to the world. They thought this would nicely fit in as the country was due to move into a fresh set of elections.

Looks like history had repeated itself. If the 1950 loss to Uruguay 1-2 was a national tragedy, how would the ghost of 2014 be exorcised? The team, which has a long following the world over, hailing from a land where football is a religion, were humiliated by Germany 1-7 in a highly emotional semi finals. It took 8 years in 1950 before they turned themselves around. Now, how?

As the World Cup comes to an end, the nation has to pick up the pieces, feel the emptiness left after a month's high of activities and pacify the forlorn nation who has to sort out the bread and butter issues too. The politicians are also seeing stars. Are the people going to return to their seats of is it time for them to pick up their money and run?

The lesson the lay person would learn would be, 'Cows may come and cows may go but the bull here stays forever'! The guests would have returned. It is time to clean up, get back to life and get back to reality.

This is what happen after so many years!

Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? (1966)

This film will actually blow your mind away. With all of its only 4 casts getting Oscar nominations and winning 5 of the 13 categories that it was nominated for, it must be one of its kind.
The main characters, George and Martha (Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor), sets the gold standard of how chemistry between characters should be. The dialogue is quite heavy and incisive. At the time, it was considered unsuitable for general public consumption, so much so that, it became the first American movie with the 'For Mature Audiences Only' tag.
Phew! That's how I would label this flick. Watching it and digesting the dialogue is quite emotionally draining. The interplay with words, word play, cursing, abuse, flirting, heckling, insinuations, teasing and quarrelling is simply heavy with emotions.

The whole scenario happened in the wee hours of the early morning after a party in the Martha's father's place. Tipsy, George and Martha saunter back to their home. After a few minutes of meaningless conversation, George wants to retire for the night but Martha tells him that she had invited someone from the party to their home for some drinks.
What follows later is a solid 2 hours of ventilation of emotions and outpourings of deep seated sorrow between two couples. George, living a unfulfilled life, living under the scrutiny of his father-in-law who is also a History Professor under whom he is an Associate Professor. His wife is a foul mouth bossy drunk and a flirt. She is a persistent whiner who is forever not satisfied with her husband. She feels that George is a slob and an underachiever. Along the way, I gather that she must have snapped, needing psychiatric assistance.
George is embarrassed with his wife's broadcasting of personal problems and is ashamed of their childlessness. Martha, as we later find out, makes up a fictitious son who was turning 16 the next day.
The guest, Nick and Honey, has their own set of problems. Nick is a young lecturer who married his timid 'mousy' wife as he thought that she was pregnant. It turned out to be a pseudo-pregnancy. Honey, the young naive wife, has nothing to contribute intellectually that night except to be drunk and puke.
Layer by layer, all the uncertainties are teased out over the night. Even though 20 years of problems cannot be solved in a single night, George managed to convince Martha that there is no son and their 'cat and mouse' reaches a sober end.


The film's title refers to Virginia Woolf (1882-1941), an influential British feminist writer who pioneered the 'stream of consciousness' literary style while examining the psychological and emotional motives of her characters. [Perhaps the 'fear' of VW refers to the film's characters who are suffering marital discord in the emotionally-draining film, and who may have 'known' that she suffered from mental illness and ultimately went insane and committed suicide.] The title is also a parody of 'Who's Afraid of the Big Bad Wolf?', a tune sung in Disney's Three Little Pigs (1933) animated short film. [Wikipedia]

Fascinating facts

26 Fascinating Facts About Our History and World.

It simply never fail to amaze me how incredible our world is. Just how many unbelievable and ridiculous events our history has! I am sure you will find something on this list that is new to you. Some of them may actually shock you. These fascinating bits of knowledge are proof that the world we live in is indeed strange.

No, thank you!

Maybe I am becoming a grouchy old man looking at negativity rather than the brighter side of things. Perhaps I have a sour puss face face with a perpetual frown that turns people off. Could it be that I am a nag? Or maybe my appearance and demeanour do not warrant salutations.
You do your transactions, you pay your bills and what do you get? Silence. You end up thanking them for fleecing you off your hard earned money. You pay them and thank them. How did it come to this? Whatever happened to mutual respect and social etiquette?
You may wonder why do I keep on going to this same outlet in spite of their lethargic treatment of customers. I should just take their business elsewhere. It is not that their spread and splendour of their delicacies outweigh any shortcomings on their part. Neither am I performing a social experiment to determine the number of visits they need to reciprocate wishes. It is by mere convenience that I often land up grabbing a bite or two when I am on the go.
This is what happens when our people refuse to break their back but instead sublet their business to foreigners who bring their style of communications, hygiene and standards to our land. Some countries bring in helping hands to help around but set the standards that they want from the outset.
Here, nothing like that happens. Everything happens on autopilot. Instead of bring the country one notch higher than the backwaters that our ancestors who found this place, we seem to be content seeing our country spiral back to the standards left by people from the lands of volcano spirit, shamans and have more passports with their photos than they can count. Each passport has a different name so much so that they cannot remember their parents' given name anymore.
We are still waiting for that someone to whip everything back to its place. Superman, where are you when we need for you. What we have are many Suparmans only!