Posts
Any person watching some of the fringe news channels(read Times Now, Headlines Today) will be convinced that an Indian landing in Australia will be immediately put in a sack, beaten and then let out. It is just Australia's bad luck that publicity they could have treated differently got out of hand and before they reacted sufficiently, the damage had been done.
The blaze of 'Indian pride' and how Indians should exert themselves more sure induce patriotism. But the ground reality is very different.
Ask any American or Australian, he too will tell you that venturing out at odd hours is a very risky, for fear of mugging and robbery. I read a good number of blogs and several Americans themselves are victims of a mugging. I know of people who have been targeted for money.
Blankly stating that racism takes place is also a drop in the ocean. There were riots recently where Aborigines protested their economic and social status.
What I am trying to say is it happens to EVERYONE; that Asians, ladies, black, white. Singling out one incident and crying foul is so childish. The problem here is not racism; it is unemployed youth looking for a for easy money. I am sure these are definitely not groups of persons moving around looking specifically for an Asian victim.
It makes me wonder: if 'white' people target 'coloured' people, it is racism. What is it if 'coloured' people target 'white' people, like tourists,? what is it if 'white' people attack other 'white' people? How does motive change suddenly from
To anyone reading this post and prostrating over an Australian admit, I would suggest that you take it. The situation I am sure is not as bad as it seems. If anything, it has worsened after the mountain of a molehill by some sections of the Indian media.
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
If you didn't know: Jay Leno
Jay Leno moves to make space for a fresh face, Conan, for the revered late night brand, The Tonight Show. That is just the last page in the voluminous book documenting the high-stakes talk show. Some of the following, you will find interesting if you watched Leno, including the censored and delayed version on Zee Cafe.
Pre-1992, The Tonight Show was hosted by Johnny Carson, who was absolute king, beating all his competitors by the mile. David Letterman hosted the hour after this show, called Late Night. Jay Leno was a frequent guest host for Johny and a frequent guest on David's show.
Such was the charisma of Johnny and the then Tonight Show that everyone wanted to emulate him, and obviously succeed him. Letterman thought he was the rightful heir; Jay too wanted that job. Now NBC, the owner of both Tonight Show and Late Night, didn't want to lose both Leno and Letterman to a rival broadcaster. Apparently Leno had better clout with NBC, giving him the job, even hiding in a cupboard to listen in on a meeting of executives.
Obviously Letterman agreed to move to CBS, where he had a higher rating till 1995. That was when Leno welcomed a guest with a very embarassing crimesheet, the ink just drying up. Ever since Leno has been the leader, straight for 14 years. That is no small feat.
History repeats itself: in 2004, Conan gets good offers from other broadcasters; NBC guarantees he will get to succeed Leno in 2009. At the time Leno didn't know what 5 years would do to his prime standing, and then as time came near to hand over the baton, NBC was yet again in the same spot: if they let Leno out, other networks, like ABC, would definitely put him against Conan at the same time slot. They wanted to keep both in the network, so the solution was to put Leno in some other time slot, to which he agreed.
The announcement of new show which Leno will do shook the foundations of broadcast networks, because the 10 pm slot is 'primetime' which drama-based high-voltage shows occupied. The 'justification' provided by NBC for replacing drama based shows, which attract higher audiences and more revenues, is that for the cost of one drama episode, 5 Leno shows can be made, thereby reducing the stakes for the required advertising and the ratings.
The biggest loser in all of this is undoubtedly Conan, for now. For 16 years he followed Leno's show; now too, he will have to follow Leno's 10 pm show with his starting at 11.35 pm. Maybe people will not watch his show because it might have a similar monologue and a similar show. The biggest winner, in my opinion, is Leno, because he wins in all ways: he still remains the attention getter with a prime time slot.
Many say Leno is not as popular on the coasts as Letterman, who is more snarky, but I staunchly like Leno for his intelligent jokes while the other can be at times silly. Leno's jokes are highly observational - so election times are real fun, non-news days can be really boring.
Leno, or rather his writers, very accurately reflect the pop culture in the country, which is one of the reasons he still is so popular. Leno's style relies much on language, while Conan has based his show on skits and mannerisms. I prefer the clever Leno to the others(oh, about Craig Ferguson, that is another story altogether).
I never liked Conan, Leno at 10 pm won't make much of a difference for those who don't have a TV, but the bar is so low that any good ratings will be claimed as a victory.
Will be very interesting to watch how Leno fares at 10pm. Good luck to this highly respected selfless man.
Pre-1992, The Tonight Show was hosted by Johnny Carson, who was absolute king, beating all his competitors by the mile. David Letterman hosted the hour after this show, called Late Night. Jay Leno was a frequent guest host for Johny and a frequent guest on David's show.
Such was the charisma of Johnny and the then Tonight Show that everyone wanted to emulate him, and obviously succeed him. Letterman thought he was the rightful heir; Jay too wanted that job. Now NBC, the owner of both Tonight Show and Late Night, didn't want to lose both Leno and Letterman to a rival broadcaster. Apparently Leno had better clout with NBC, giving him the job, even hiding in a cupboard to listen in on a meeting of executives.
Obviously Letterman agreed to move to CBS, where he had a higher rating till 1995. That was when Leno welcomed a guest with a very embarassing crimesheet, the ink just drying up. Ever since Leno has been the leader, straight for 14 years. That is no small feat.
History repeats itself: in 2004, Conan gets good offers from other broadcasters; NBC guarantees he will get to succeed Leno in 2009. At the time Leno didn't know what 5 years would do to his prime standing, and then as time came near to hand over the baton, NBC was yet again in the same spot: if they let Leno out, other networks, like ABC, would definitely put him against Conan at the same time slot. They wanted to keep both in the network, so the solution was to put Leno in some other time slot, to which he agreed.
The announcement of new show which Leno will do shook the foundations of broadcast networks, because the 10 pm slot is 'primetime' which drama-based high-voltage shows occupied. The 'justification' provided by NBC for replacing drama based shows, which attract higher audiences and more revenues, is that for the cost of one drama episode, 5 Leno shows can be made, thereby reducing the stakes for the required advertising and the ratings.
The biggest loser in all of this is undoubtedly Conan, for now. For 16 years he followed Leno's show; now too, he will have to follow Leno's 10 pm show with his starting at 11.35 pm. Maybe people will not watch his show because it might have a similar monologue and a similar show. The biggest winner, in my opinion, is Leno, because he wins in all ways: he still remains the attention getter with a prime time slot.
Many say Leno is not as popular on the coasts as Letterman, who is more snarky, but I staunchly like Leno for his intelligent jokes while the other can be at times silly. Leno's jokes are highly observational - so election times are real fun, non-news days can be really boring.
Leno, or rather his writers, very accurately reflect the pop culture in the country, which is one of the reasons he still is so popular. Leno's style relies much on language, while Conan has based his show on skits and mannerisms. I prefer the clever Leno to the others(oh, about Craig Ferguson, that is another story altogether).
I never liked Conan, Leno at 10 pm won't make much of a difference for those who don't have a TV, but the bar is so low that any good ratings will be claimed as a victory.
Will be very interesting to watch how Leno fares at 10pm. Good luck to this highly respected selfless man.
Information overload: Facebook, Twitter
With the advent of an all-consuming Facebook, later with undeserving media darling Twitter, hiterto unknown, and sometimes unnecessary details about our lives are being displayed on a universal noticeboard, ready for anyone to misuse or judge inappropriately.
Earlier any grudges would be discussed with friends over the phone or would be swallowed in teeth clenches. Sitting in the privacy of our room or cubicle or lab with noone looking over our shoulder gives us the fake sense of security to put all sorts of silly stuff which we wouldn't dare speak about to our closest friends. And our friends take the time to read even reply to that.
Facebook is hugely popular because of what you can do, like develop an accurate profile and pronounce yourself better and find a virtual soulmate through groups and apps. I do not like Facebook because it gives you very little room to actually control your profile. By the time I could sufficiently suppress my skeleton profile, I was fed up with the depth I had to go to. Any change I made was notified to all. Why?
Many will argue that Facebook offers more 'privacy' than Orkut because you can determine more specifically what to display to whom. But what is gained in such privacy is lost in information given out to friends which they could have done without. For example you wrote on someone's wall at 2.15 am. So? It only says that you did not sleep till that late, and spent more time on it than on other work, and could explain your lethargic appearnce in the morning.
Earlier it was the MySpace mania; then the Facebook rush; now it is Twitter's turn. History clearly shows that online followings are short lived. However Facebook is growing, it is tempting to say it will disappear soon. It has already happened to AOL, Lycos, Yahoo, Friendster....
And so we come to Twitter. I try my best to share information in a mini-blog fashion, which will be of some use to me as well as to those who follow me. Some rant about work, some rant without reason, some share a few redundant links and some joblessly document each second of their life. Which will be useful if you were in a reality television serial or wanted some criminal to replicate your life right down to what you ate on the night of May 19 2009.
Essentially, we are sharing more than what should be, and are trying to grasp more than what is required. Will we remember what X felt like at 6 pm the day of the exam? Will we even bother to read our own scrapbook/wall all through from beginning to end? If you have a rival or a person of the opposite sex, and have loads of time to bide away, Facebook is for you. Like retirees and elders rediscovering school friends. Each new social media user account is another distraction which has to be tended to regularly. Being prudent here is key; or, even better, don't use them at all.
Earlier any grudges would be discussed with friends over the phone or would be swallowed in teeth clenches. Sitting in the privacy of our room or cubicle or lab with noone looking over our shoulder gives us the fake sense of security to put all sorts of silly stuff which we wouldn't dare speak about to our closest friends. And our friends take the time to read even reply to that.
Facebook is hugely popular because of what you can do, like develop an accurate profile and pronounce yourself better and find a virtual soulmate through groups and apps. I do not like Facebook because it gives you very little room to actually control your profile. By the time I could sufficiently suppress my skeleton profile, I was fed up with the depth I had to go to. Any change I made was notified to all. Why?
Many will argue that Facebook offers more 'privacy' than Orkut because you can determine more specifically what to display to whom. But what is gained in such privacy is lost in information given out to friends which they could have done without. For example you wrote on someone's wall at 2.15 am. So? It only says that you did not sleep till that late, and spent more time on it than on other work, and could explain your lethargic appearnce in the morning.
Earlier it was the MySpace mania; then the Facebook rush; now it is Twitter's turn. History clearly shows that online followings are short lived. However Facebook is growing, it is tempting to say it will disappear soon. It has already happened to AOL, Lycos, Yahoo, Friendster....
And so we come to Twitter. I try my best to share information in a mini-blog fashion, which will be of some use to me as well as to those who follow me. Some rant about work, some rant without reason, some share a few redundant links and some joblessly document each second of their life. Which will be useful if you were in a reality television serial or wanted some criminal to replicate your life right down to what you ate on the night of May 19 2009.
Essentially, we are sharing more than what should be, and are trying to grasp more than what is required. Will we remember what X felt like at 6 pm the day of the exam? Will we even bother to read our own scrapbook/wall all through from beginning to end? If you have a rival or a person of the opposite sex, and have loads of time to bide away, Facebook is for you. Like retirees and elders rediscovering school friends. Each new social media user account is another distraction which has to be tended to regularly. Being prudent here is key; or, even better, don't use them at all.
Biting the hand that feeds: Taliban, Saddam...
Evil begets evil. Always. Examples abound from recent history relating to vested interests.
1980's: LTTE is funded by the Indian state, partly to offset the US influence in Sri Lanka and partly due to ethnic relations in that country. Things fall apart, LTTE decides India has done enough and assassinates a senior politician, India washes its hands clean of the issue till very recently.
Saddam Hussein: An ally to offset Iran, he recieves copious amounts of aid resulting in a long war. Saddam goes too far ahead and the US decide he has had enough: Gulf war restricts him.
Iran itself, is an example. 1953 the Shah is installed after a CIA coup to remove the anti-West government, with oil installations in mind. 1979 an Islamic revolution exiles the Shah, making conditions even worse for the West.
Al-Qaeda is one of the groups formed out of US support to Mujahideen fighters during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, then bin-Laden not liking the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia and bombing the Embassies in Africa.
Taliban are a group supported by both the Pakistani and the US military. Just now, the Taliban is retaliating against Pakistan itself, the Army is fighting to evict them from an occupied valley.
More examples welcome in the comments.
1980's: LTTE is funded by the Indian state, partly to offset the US influence in Sri Lanka and partly due to ethnic relations in that country. Things fall apart, LTTE decides India has done enough and assassinates a senior politician, India washes its hands clean of the issue till very recently.
Saddam Hussein: An ally to offset Iran, he recieves copious amounts of aid resulting in a long war. Saddam goes too far ahead and the US decide he has had enough: Gulf war restricts him.
Iran itself, is an example. 1953 the Shah is installed after a CIA coup to remove the anti-West government, with oil installations in mind. 1979 an Islamic revolution exiles the Shah, making conditions even worse for the West.
Al-Qaeda is one of the groups formed out of US support to Mujahideen fighters during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, then bin-Laden not liking the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia and bombing the Embassies in Africa.
Taliban are a group supported by both the Pakistani and the US military. Just now, the Taliban is retaliating against Pakistan itself, the Army is fighting to evict them from an occupied valley.
More examples welcome in the comments.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
