Bobby Jindal's mockery blows up

Governor Bobby Jindal was replying to President's speech and mocked the use of funds to 'monitor volcanic activity'. So much for that.

Well a volcano erupted(repeatedly) in Alaska, causing a fair amount of difficulty to residents in its shadow, but Gov Jindal was nowhere to be seen when asked for comment.

This is such a PR disaster for someone with the calibre to lead the GOP. With this debacle Gov has shot himself in the foot pretty badly. This episode will definitely come back to haunt him. Not to mention his bad reply-speech to the President.

A common man's President

And so, the President of the United States went on a late night talk show to pitch to the average American guy.

It took a moment for me to realise the gravity of the situation: Jay Leno's guest chairs are frequented by actors, celebrities and the odd interesting guy. Essentially, Obama had the guts to go 'so low'. It doesn't show that he's cheap. It shows that he is willing to meet the average Joe, damn the naysayer.

The show did not disappoint. Obama gave the best stripped down explanation of why AIG and the banking sector as a whole is in a mess. All of what he said any person could understand; Leno did well by asking a few sharp questions like the tax-the-hated one. It isn't Leno's character to ask rough questions, moreover it is the news media's failure if they let Leno ask those type of questions.

What was achieved in this conversation? President told the nation what the problem was with AIG, what happened to it, where to head hereafter and that everyone should not freakout. Clearly seeing President on a normal show really showed what a humble person is. It gives a reassurance that President hasn't forgotten the common man, and isn't all that high-and-mighty as his position suggests.

Oh Mr. President, can't you stop putting your foot in your mouth? Your joke about the Special Olympics and Nancy Reagan's seances would work in personal circles but however good they are, please, stop them. They're a waste of time.

Image via; used under fair use of Clause 5a of Terms and Conditions.

All networks need a Jon Stewart

The smackdown of the year clearly highlights a bunch of things:

1. Jon Stewart has a hunger to call out the rotten apples in the basket
2. Only Jon Stewart has the courage to take on an entire network
3. All other news organisations are reluctant to point their finger in fear of repudiation.

As Jon said I feel sorry for Cramer who seems to have been 'thrown under the bus' by CNBC. It is unfortunate that he is taking most of the heat while it should be CNBC as a whole. I agree with a lot of what Jon said: CNBC was short on journalism when it was needed most.

Cramer was short of words, cornered, made to eat his own words, - helpless, to summarize. If you ask me, Cramer made a mistake by even trying to take on Jon when the former was highlighted on the show.

In this country it is an open secret that for news youngsters rely mostly on late night shows, including Jay Leno and of course The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. Reverse analogy works beautifully: why would people watch Jon Stewart if what he does(the news analysis) is shown on a major network?

In retrospect, all Jon Stewart does is splice a few clips interspersed with a couple of holy words and unfunny funny faces. It is obvious that he needs material for a memorable show, however he hides behind the facade that he is just a comedian whenever he is criticised for being too soft on guests or boldly identifying farced situations.

Actually, that is where the problem lies: Jon Stewart makes fun of the media, of which all these anchors are part of and will not be willing to dirty their spotless coats.

In my honest opinion the sharpest commentators are Jon, Colbert, Leno, Letterman, Craig Ferguson and to an extent Bill Maher. The stuff they mention in their monologues is seldom talked about in a news channel. Is it any coincidence that all of them are... comedians?
At the height of the Palin debacle and the run up to the election - suddenly all the media were not fact checkers but peddlers with a crowd mentality.

Stewart has everyone's attention. It is a clarion call: call out nonsense, you will be a hero. It's happening everywhere. The Madoff whistleblower, the Stanford whistleblower.. Truth can be hidden. It can't be denied.

Sort-of-New-Year resolution: Expense logging

Manju's standard reply every year is 1024 x 768. Which I adapt after I have seen his.

Otherwise, I think I can make this my New Year resolution: logging every expense on an Excel sheet.

I've been doing it since the mid of Jan, and you won't see it until you feel it. There are multiple entries, but none so costly requiring a 'cut' in expenses. Yet the month end balance is large.

I try to be as deep in details as possible: every receipt is reproduced, with items' weight/volume and price noted, ensuring a price per weight column helping to compare similar products from two retailers.

Just looking at one month's total is scary enough. I highly recommend it for anyone. No point of complaining of lack of time: it's just a matter of remembering to enter all expenses, you can do it while say watching a movie.

This is not exactly a budget excel sheet: it is just an expense sheet for comparisons. The expenses can always be tallied with a credit card statement or a bank statement, but if you are thorough it won't be necessary.

In fact, I challenge you. Keep it for atleast one month: each and every paisa or penny spent, note it in Excel and add it up for the month. It is the middle of the month, doesn't matter at all.

I can tell you one thing: You will quiver in your feet. It also helps compare prices over time: I have noticed that some items have decreased in price dramatically, while others have increased a bit. This will prove to be a brilliant historical archive too - 5 years down the line you can track inflation on your own or brag about the intricate pricings of a bygone era.

There are several online expense tracking sites, but they do not ensure privacy. Maintain a simple Excel sheet.

Leave a comment about your trials.

We could have lost all the Sri Lankan players

The night it happened, the reports were scarce, I assumed it was a random group of gunmen trying to create a commotion by shooting at the bus.

The next day, things were much darker. The 'terrorists' shot at the tyres of the bus, tried to kill the driver and everyone(managed to kill the driver in the 2nd bus).

It is chilling to even imagine the situation of losing an entire sports team. Call it sheer luck, no one was critically injured. One of the umpires wasn't so lucky, with a collapsed lung and damaged liver.

The assailants killed policemen escorting the convoy and supposedly wanted to hijack the bus and hold them in exchange for jailed militants - an even worse situation.

Charges have been flying about a conspiracy to strand the convoy - vehemently denied - but yet, that the terrorists managed to ambush the bus a short distance from the stadium where SL won the World Cup shows that it was an elaborate plan to ensure maximum damage.

I shudder everytime I think of what might have happened if things had gone slightly differently - we could have lost an entire team of players.

Pakistan now essentially has had armed attacks on high profile targets both outside and inside its borders and seems to be losing grip over the state of affairs.

A peaceful Pakistan is essential for the a peaceful India. US involvement in the coming days will shape a lot of internal affairs now.