Secular press agencies goof up

A seemingly confident 'secular' journalist clearly misunderstands the little flub during Obama's swearing-in ceremony, and conjures up a completely inaccurate report based on his limited understanding.  

"But at one point early on, Obama paused, as if grasping for the next words. Roberts helped him over the brief awkward moment, repeating a few words to get Obama back on track. He was then the first to congratulate Obama on his new job."

And then his overconfidence does him in.

"The smile-evoking assistance could be the precursor to many important interactions between the two men who rose to their positions of power quickly and who have some background similarities, but whose politics differ."

A typical case of putting your foot in mouth, you would agree. The upstart secularist prevailed upon himself, refusing to cross-check his account with what actually went on. Here's a Slate report that accurately jots down the real happenings. It was Obama who tried to help the Chief Justice, and not the other way round. 

P.S. The secular newspaper has pushed this erroneous report in the background and published a correct one on their front page instead. Meanwhile, Obama is readministered the oath by CJ John Roberts. 

Barackha Omama

She might be the ultimate 'secular' redeemer. A downtrodden dalit christian handicapped housemaid, married to an illegal Bangladeshi muslim dabbawala, she will salvage 'secular' glory for India and deliver us the moral equivalence we sorely seek today with America by sweeping...sorry, getting appointed, after the general election, by Priyanka Gandhi's grandson, who will be the then Congress chairperson. 

First as tragedy, second time as farce.

Thus, they say, history repeats itself. 

A superpower never gets mired in a farcical charade with its puny neighbors. A wannabe power doesn't either. Courtesy Sonia Gandhi's govt. what's our status then, huh? 

"Pak may seek Samjhauta suspects if India wants 26/11 accused."

But the PM has other things on his mind. 

"PM gives up VVIP privilege. Goes to RTO, to renew his license."

On Sunday, mind well. Accounting the cost of overtime for the usually lethargic, and super-corrupt RTO employees, plus distraction from other national concerns, how costly to the national exchequer do you think was his trip? And this guy supposedly possesses economics doctorate,  or so we're told.

Mr. Singh, please do the job you've been appointed for, and excuse me, but please don't indulge your righteousness at taxpayer's expense.

Bush will be missed

The comics, the late-night stars et al. might miss President Bush for mundane reasons, but for India, and Indians his absence will be deeply felt. And for more serious concerns than seem apparent now!

Bush was good for India for the same reason that the liberals hate him: his certitude in conducting the much maligned war on terror. 

Today, Swapan Dasgupta prods us with this premonition: 

"Implicit is the advice to India to engage with terror than confront it. Yet, Miliband would have strengthened his case by specifying the values that bind the three democracies with those who idolise Osama bin Laden. Is it democracy? Religious freedom? Gender equity? Human rights?

If this is a foretaste of the Obama order, India will have reason to mourn the passing of the Bush era."

Pakistan might be the world's "migraine," but the coming Obama and Hillary administration (assuming Hillary for '16)  might very well be ours. It does not bode well for the real world in which we face Islamic terror. Declare victory and go home policy of the Obamaites is inevitably going to hurt us. Who do you think are the Islamists going to target after taming another superpower? 

As if that isn't nightmarish enough, the increasing feeling of a potential 'secular' triumph in the coming general elections keeps me up no end. Only time will tell what's stored for us since Naipaul's "area of darkness" seems destined to embrace the age of darkness. May Gods help us.

Wanted: A Universal Remote app for iPhone

It is extremely frustrating to juggle between gazillion remotes for every piece of gadget you might have, and it is equally undesirable to add one more to your already burgeoning, and chaotic, cache by adding yet one more, in the name of universal remote.

Nor is it my suggestion to look for the ultimate universal remote that Adam Sandler got his hands on. I mean the movie sucked (which of his doesn't anyway?) but you got to hand him that those  features are universally coveted, at least by men all over the world. Okay, maybe the Taliban types won't need certain features since they treat women so nicely, and are famous for their chivalry as any Outlook hack will swear, but you get my point. :-)

Anyway, the current Logitech line looks good and has some decent reviews, but I really don't wish to fork out more bucks for every fancy thing called 'remote' that they bring out each year. Hopefully someone will design a cheaper and lean alternative for the iPhone, since that's something we might carry with us for a good while, than the one that already exists. 

Where are the hackers when you need them? Seriously. 

P.S. Suggestions welcome.

'Secular' theater of absurd

"India may snap business, transport links with Pakistan: Chidambaram" (emphasis mine)

Clearly, the train has left the station, and it's too little too late to commence such retaliatory action. 

Meanwhile, the Pakistani PM is making a mockery of our position. As if the attacks were not enough, he rubs it in further by questioning the "noise" level over Mumbai terrorist attacks, directly cashing in on the world's "disproportionate" preoccupation with Israel.

Fact is, strategically, India's options are limited. The Great Powers game works to Pakistan's advantage, and it has two of them courting her. Besides, 'secular' politics handicaps the maneuvering room afforded to our policy establishment. Risk-averse politicians will not venture out further untill they see electoral gains from such measures, which translates into Indians voting out decisively one way or the other rather than throwing in mixed mandate every so often.

There doesn't seem to be any endgame in sight for now barring the wilting of two superpowers or a sudden rise in India's power status, followed by election of a strong national leader. Both seem equally unlikely at this moment, and, sadly, in the forseeable future. 

A worthy precedent?

Imagine one of India's friendly neighbors has a problem. Now imagine a whole lot of peaceful aam-aadmi type refugees trying to pour into India across the border. And now imagine Indian govt. refusing to admit them. Further imagine that these would-be refugees belong to a 'certain community.' How many barrels of secular tears do you think will sip into newsreel?

It's a rhetorical question of course, and I'm not looking for any answer. Hazarding an answer is no different from guessing the specifics of the Rajus Satyam scandal, or hairsplitting over the day UPA might act against "non-state elements." 

As it happens every so often, the Arab street is in rage over the treatment, or 'mistreatment,' of Palestinians. No matter how tempting it is to suggest that Hamas brought it upon themselves, and the Palestinians, it is politically incorrect to voice such an adomination amidst an informed concerned citizenry. 

But despite the chorus of anti-Israeli tirade growing shriller by day, an Arab country's Arab despot has pulled the impossible. 

Egypt has so far refused to admit the Palestinian hordes splashing on its border checkposts.  Of course Hosni Mubarak, the Arab chap who sits in Cairo (or Alexandria), isn't feeling giddy about his sordid deed. :-) He is doing so out of "enlightened self-interest" in Acornspeak. Hamas is the ideological offspring of Islamic Brotherhood, the fundamentalist Islamic terrorist movement that has beleagured Egyptian state for several decades. In the words of a saintly human rights activist, Hisham Kassem, the report cites, "Mubarak cannot have an Islamic terrorist emirate on his border." (emphasis mine. Btw, aren't human right activists supposed to not link religion and terrorism?)

This is of course true. In nutshell, "enlightened self-interest" has prompted a Muslim, an Arab, ruler/despot/tyrant/emir, to throw fellow Muslims under the bus. Although don't bet on A.G.Noorani ever suggesting to follow this worthy precedent. Count on him to scour obscure European treaties to create a pretext for secession of Muslim dominated Kashmir.

The PM himself is not sure of his evidence

Well, Pakistan is not going to be convinced by any amount of evidence. It will simply see the evidence-mongering of UPA govt. as typical girly whining. The only evidence that will ever convince them is the thud of Indian Army boots flag marching on the streets of Lahore and Peshawar. That doesn't seem to be happening anytime soon, at least till the sadbhavna expresswalas are in business.

But how do you blame the Pakistanis when even dear Prime Minister hedges his words in his official  statement:

"There is enough evidence to show that, given the sophistication and military precision of the attack, it must have had the support of some official agencies in Pakistan," said Singh.

Note, he still cannot muster courage to say that "it did have the support of official agencies in Pakistan." There is no certainty, no certitude in his "evidence," mind well.

Do you think the world doesn't see through his lack of confidence? 

P.S. I think it is the 'secular' conditioning that makes these eminencies congenitally dish out circumlocution as some sort of transcendent reasoning. Of course, it is easy to talk down from the monopolized perches of license-raj editorialdom. What they don't quite get is that 'secular' tricks are only for dhimmi Indian kids.  

Peaceniks come out of the woodwork, again

Where were they when Hamas was pounding rockets on Israel, all in all more than 1200 over the past twelve months?

The guy in front is perhaps ashamed of his own lie, which may be why he is covering his face with his sign.

And since when is a terrorist organization like Hamas innocent?

Another observation: whenever seculars and Islamists protest post terrorist attacks on India, the turnouts are usually low, their signs lame and the protests very quiet. 

But when it comes to protesting against Iraq war or defensive actions against Palestinian terrorists, Muslim and seculars' protests feature high turnout, are extremely vocal and most often violent (remember the mullahs protesting during Bush's India visit and destroying property at the same time?) 

The hedgehog knows one big thing

Since Isaiah Berlin's essay, Hedgehog and the Fox, this old fable has gained greater publicity. Bret Stephens of WSJ recalls the tale, " The fox, said the greek poet Archilocus, knows many things, while the hedgehog knows one big thing." 

This parable is often mentioned while eulogizing Ronald Reagan's anti-Communist focus. But, Bret Stephens sees the terrorist organization Hamas as the hedgehog. 

He accurately puts his finger to the problem, "It is merely to point out that no ingenious conceit can disguise the fact that war offers no outcome other than victory or defeat."

Hamas knows that. Lashkar-e-Taibba knows that. Naxalwadis know that. Maoists know that. We don't. Ever wondered why the assorted leftists and seculars ever exhort Indians(read Hindus) alone to give, give, and then give some more? Yes, because they know it, too. 

The Lashkar types scored a major win in the recent terrorists attacks on Mumbai. They have not suffered any worthwhile consequence so far. One only has to guess that their fury will only increase as they start seeing their goal in sight. The seculars have already raised a white-flag as far as Kashmir is concerned. Who knows what's next in the line? Perhaps Mumbai. Hey, don't be surprised if they sell out their mothers for "peace" and "sadbhavna." What you and I call motherland is "real estate" for them.