on being urged..."bhajji is cleared. write a post"...i do so
well what's there to say? is this evidence of BCCI arm-twisting? or was he actually innocent?
i think the marginal gain from banning bhajji would have been much less than the marginal cost of doing so. because if cricket is to fight racism, i'm sure there are better ways to do it. and if harbhajan was docked, it would have been hell. the BCCI would have made sure of this.
oh economics! i love those marginal decisions!
I amuse myself here; Your amusement is intended but boundedly so
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Friday, January 18, 2008
Sad Statue
"you and me
will all go down in history
with the sad statue of liberty
and a generation that didn't agree"
My roommate claims he'd vote for George Bush a third time around, because democracy is very important to Americans, so forcing it upon whichever part of the world the president chooses to do so is all right.
I suppose it isn't so for the other people of the world.
Perhaps this is all cultural differences?
My lease for the flat expires this june.
will all go down in history
with the sad statue of liberty
and a generation that didn't agree"
My roommate claims he'd vote for George Bush a third time around, because democracy is very important to Americans, so forcing it upon whichever part of the world the president chooses to do so is all right.
I suppose it isn't so for the other people of the world.
Perhaps this is all cultural differences?
My lease for the flat expires this june.
Sunday, January 13, 2008
The Harbhajan Incident a la Monty Python
"Your honour, aila, he did not use the word monkey, it's a hindi word, in india we worship monkeys, aila, that is why all those mumbai-wallahs were screaming monkey monkey, because you know they love symonds, really this is all about friendship."
"I dunno what he's talking about, he called me a big monkey and that's that. We told him not to say it and he said it. Hindi-schmindi. A line has been crossed."
whisper-that-turns-louder "It appears the Indians are labouring under the mis-apprehension that monkey is not a racist abuse."
"Your honour, really, he did not say monkey. He said, "maa ki", which means "your mothers". It is a sort of short form for mother-f*er. So he was only abusing his mother, that is all. That is allowed isn't it?"
"Yes, but how do I know he said or didn't say "maa ki"...
"Mate, you're a repeat offender, get it! Enough of this, come on, what did you tell me? "Abey maaki" or "A Big Monkey?"
*monetary pause*
"Aila, bhajji, that does sound the same. Aila I say."
"In the eyes of the court, the defendent is found guilty, warts and all."
"But, but, you can't...I mean...think about the cultural differences."
Judge, incredulous, "Cultural differences? What do you mean?"
"Look here, if you carry on with this tomfoolery, we'll be forced to quit playing."
random voice "Bastard!"; answering random voice "Monkey!" *sounds of scuffle*
"Order! Order! There shall be no culturally offensive abuse in the court. Only sexist, deeply personal abuse dealing primarily with either sex or suffering wives to be uttered!"
*We now interrupt this program to bring you something completely different. It is reported that the kettle has called the pot black. Over to our special reporter*
"Yes, yes, I'll bring the beer...what's that?...I'm on television...oh right. *adjusts tie* At around 11.25 am today, witnesses claim they saw the kettle calling the pot black. When questioned as to what could have provoked such an astonishing announcement, the kettle said it was cultural differences. The pot, according to sources, has gone a bit off the boil. Back to you, studio guy."
"I dunno what he's talking about, he called me a big monkey and that's that. We told him not to say it and he said it. Hindi-schmindi. A line has been crossed."
whisper-that-turns-louder "It appears the Indians are labouring under the mis-apprehension that monkey is not a racist abuse."
"Your honour, really, he did not say monkey. He said, "maa ki", which means "your mothers". It is a sort of short form for mother-f*er. So he was only abusing his mother, that is all. That is allowed isn't it?"
"Yes, but how do I know he said or didn't say "maa ki"...
"Mate, you're a repeat offender, get it! Enough of this, come on, what did you tell me? "Abey maaki" or "A Big Monkey?"
*monetary pause*
"Aila, bhajji, that does sound the same. Aila I say."
"In the eyes of the court, the defendent is found guilty, warts and all."
"But, but, you can't...I mean...think about the cultural differences."
Judge, incredulous, "Cultural differences? What do you mean?"
"Look here, if you carry on with this tomfoolery, we'll be forced to quit playing."
random voice "Bastard!"; answering random voice "Monkey!" *sounds of scuffle*
"Order! Order! There shall be no culturally offensive abuse in the court. Only sexist, deeply personal abuse dealing primarily with either sex or suffering wives to be uttered!"
*We now interrupt this program to bring you something completely different. It is reported that the kettle has called the pot black. Over to our special reporter*
"Yes, yes, I'll bring the beer...what's that?...I'm on television...oh right. *adjusts tie* At around 11.25 am today, witnesses claim they saw the kettle calling the pot black. When questioned as to what could have provoked such an astonishing announcement, the kettle said it was cultural differences. The pot, according to sources, has gone a bit off the boil. Back to you, studio guy."
Saturday, January 12, 2008
Five Easy Pieces
If anyone wishes to see Jack Nicholson before he became Jack Nicholson, they should check out Five easy pieces.
This is the kind of film I wish more were made like. That's a clumsy sentence, isn't it...? Telling the "story" of a burnt out drifter, it is a curious film because it really tells you nothing nor does it pretend to. If anything, it is almost an inherently selfish film, and I can see why Nicholson was chosen to play the lead character.
Nicholson plays a once-upon-a-time classical piano player who in the beginning of the movie is working on an oil rig. As is usual with Nicholson characters, you get the impression that this is one smart guy. Unlike Nicholson characters, this one is not aware of it. Kind of like Bono before 1985. As the film advances, you're brought closer and closer to the character. The closer you go, the farther you want to be.
It's definitely one of the strangest movies I've seen, and there is nothing outwardly strange about it. As more of the interplay takes place between Nicholson and his girlfriend, the more I kept thinking "what in the world do the two see each other?". Perhaps that's the message of the field. Two people with nothing in common hanging on to each other.
Well, not quite. The woman is left at the end of the film in an underhanded manner - she wants to pull over at a diner, and Nicholson goes to the toilet and out of her life - but he gives her his wallet and leaves his car for her. It's this paradox - that a person can be so caring and so disinterested at the same time - that is puzzling and satisfying.
It's really difficult to describe the movie. At the end when our man attempts one last way to retribution it is doomed from the beginning itself, you want to slap yourself and say what the hells wrong with the guy, but you know within that this is more truthful than it is possible to admit.
Watch it!
This is the kind of film I wish more were made like. That's a clumsy sentence, isn't it...? Telling the "story" of a burnt out drifter, it is a curious film because it really tells you nothing nor does it pretend to. If anything, it is almost an inherently selfish film, and I can see why Nicholson was chosen to play the lead character.
Nicholson plays a once-upon-a-time classical piano player who in the beginning of the movie is working on an oil rig. As is usual with Nicholson characters, you get the impression that this is one smart guy. Unlike Nicholson characters, this one is not aware of it. Kind of like Bono before 1985. As the film advances, you're brought closer and closer to the character. The closer you go, the farther you want to be.
It's definitely one of the strangest movies I've seen, and there is nothing outwardly strange about it. As more of the interplay takes place between Nicholson and his girlfriend, the more I kept thinking "what in the world do the two see each other?". Perhaps that's the message of the field. Two people with nothing in common hanging on to each other.
Well, not quite. The woman is left at the end of the film in an underhanded manner - she wants to pull over at a diner, and Nicholson goes to the toilet and out of her life - but he gives her his wallet and leaves his car for her. It's this paradox - that a person can be so caring and so disinterested at the same time - that is puzzling and satisfying.
It's really difficult to describe the movie. At the end when our man attempts one last way to retribution it is doomed from the beginning itself, you want to slap yourself and say what the hells wrong with the guy, but you know within that this is more truthful than it is possible to admit.
Watch it!
Friday, January 11, 2008
Raincoat
I've forgotten what the film Raincoat, which starred Ajay Devgan and Aishwarya Rai, was all about. I vaguely recall it being about guy meeting (by accident) girl after she has been married, and the two have a bit of a history, and they recall the time they were together.
What is more important is that the music for the film, to me, is one tiny masterpiece, a study in love and loss, the likes of which are rarely touched upon by Bollywood. The entire album is suffused with a gentle melancholy, the kind that sweeps over you on a sunday afternoon, when you recall some incident which was only a couple of years ago but seems like it belonged to someone else, some other lifetime. A feeling that slowly grips me as I listen to this is a longing for something/someone but more importantly a time that will never return, and you realize that nothing will make you as happy or content as you once were.
I could take or leave that sole male-sung song, or in fact even the Shubha Mudgal counterpart to the same, but from track#4 onwards it's just...words fail me...powerful, powerful stuff. Shubha Mudgal pours out her heart and soul in a gut-wrenching display of sheer talent and control. Control? Yes, control. There are subtle pauses, a sudden soaring of a note followed by an as sudden near-silence. There isn't any need to understand the words - I can barely follow half of it anyway - to appreciate the quality of the stuff being played.
Music truly knows no language.
The words are beautiful, when I can follow them. I won't be tedious with lyrics, if interested, any one can look them up through google or whatever.
What really drives the point home though are the last three songs. Ostensibly wedding songs, they are sung in chorus. Ordinarily, this should make for a happy sort of ending. But, no. In what must certainly rank as an outstanding achievement, some trick - I don't really know what, and I don't want to figure it out - gives these songs, which is supposed to be about happy ever after, an almost desperate air. Like, the woman getting married is preparing for a less than satisfactory life, and knows it but is trying to hide it.
It is difficult to put out music with so much emotion in it, and it is even rarer to have it being delivered through a vehicle populated by bollywood stars. Raincoat's soundtrack must rank as one of the best accidents ever.
"Was it the wind that shook that photograph, now dust ridden and yellowed with age?"
What is more important is that the music for the film, to me, is one tiny masterpiece, a study in love and loss, the likes of which are rarely touched upon by Bollywood. The entire album is suffused with a gentle melancholy, the kind that sweeps over you on a sunday afternoon, when you recall some incident which was only a couple of years ago but seems like it belonged to someone else, some other lifetime. A feeling that slowly grips me as I listen to this is a longing for something/someone but more importantly a time that will never return, and you realize that nothing will make you as happy or content as you once were.
I could take or leave that sole male-sung song, or in fact even the Shubha Mudgal counterpart to the same, but from track#4 onwards it's just...words fail me...powerful, powerful stuff. Shubha Mudgal pours out her heart and soul in a gut-wrenching display of sheer talent and control. Control? Yes, control. There are subtle pauses, a sudden soaring of a note followed by an as sudden near-silence. There isn't any need to understand the words - I can barely follow half of it anyway - to appreciate the quality of the stuff being played.
Music truly knows no language.
The words are beautiful, when I can follow them. I won't be tedious with lyrics, if interested, any one can look them up through google or whatever.
What really drives the point home though are the last three songs. Ostensibly wedding songs, they are sung in chorus. Ordinarily, this should make for a happy sort of ending. But, no. In what must certainly rank as an outstanding achievement, some trick - I don't really know what, and I don't want to figure it out - gives these songs, which is supposed to be about happy ever after, an almost desperate air. Like, the woman getting married is preparing for a less than satisfactory life, and knows it but is trying to hide it.
It is difficult to put out music with so much emotion in it, and it is even rarer to have it being delivered through a vehicle populated by bollywood stars. Raincoat's soundtrack must rank as one of the best accidents ever.
"Was it the wind that shook that photograph, now dust ridden and yellowed with age?"
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
How many cricket players does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
How many Indian cricket players does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
One to lower the cieling, one to call the lightbulb a monkey, ten to offer their ways to screw it in, ultimately a couple manage to figure out how to screw it in, except that it still doesn't fit properly but another comes along and says if this lightbulb is considered not screwed in then we will cut the power.
How many Australian players does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
Any one could do it except that they start harassing the indians who are trying desperately for the last hour, ultimately everyone forgets what the whole point of this was, and one comes along and fixes it underarm.
One to lower the cieling, one to call the lightbulb a monkey, ten to offer their ways to screw it in, ultimately a couple manage to figure out how to screw it in, except that it still doesn't fit properly but another comes along and says if this lightbulb is considered not screwed in then we will cut the power.
How many Australian players does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
Any one could do it except that they start harassing the indians who are trying desperately for the last hour, ultimately everyone forgets what the whole point of this was, and one comes along and fixes it underarm.
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
Oh my god
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lxS83nO90wE&feature=user
Heaven help us, who does Ricky Ponting think he is?
Incidentally has anyone noticed the way Australians take catches? They have this thing of taking the ball and tend throwing it up in the air as soon as possible, Clarke is doing the same thing after he grounded the catch, I mean....WHAT THE....if this is not cheating I have no idea what to call it.
This is why I'd stopped watching cricket...
Ugh. I hate how the sport I once loved has become so ugly. I hate the Australians for doing this. I do not have much love either for the Indian Board throwing its weight around threatening to cancel the tour.
Ponting went on to say that canceling the tour for a "little thing" is a "bit extreme". He's not very bright.
Heaven help us, who does Ricky Ponting think he is?
Incidentally has anyone noticed the way Australians take catches? They have this thing of taking the ball and tend throwing it up in the air as soon as possible, Clarke is doing the same thing after he grounded the catch, I mean....WHAT THE....if this is not cheating I have no idea what to call it.
This is why I'd stopped watching cricket...
Ugh. I hate how the sport I once loved has become so ugly. I hate the Australians for doing this. I do not have much love either for the Indian Board throwing its weight around threatening to cancel the tour.
Ponting went on to say that canceling the tour for a "little thing" is a "bit extreme". He's not very bright.
The Harbhajan Incident II
After taking a look at the footage showing the Bombay crowd chanting "Monkey" when Symonds came on to bat, I see how monkey becomes a racial slur...
This is pretty disgusting frankly. Why was the Indian board sleeping over the issue? Why was the ICC not doing something about this last year?
The situation wasn't handled at all, and now you have this whole bizarre incident.
The Aussies like to make things hot for the other team, clearly now they've been burnt too.
This is pretty disgusting frankly. Why was the Indian board sleeping over the issue? Why was the ICC not doing something about this last year?
The situation wasn't handled at all, and now you have this whole bizarre incident.
The Aussies like to make things hot for the other team, clearly now they've been burnt too.
Monday, January 7, 2008
bookends
There are times when I'm filled with a yearning fulfillment...a desire for things to return back to how they used to be.
It's a vague sort of nostalgia, like going back to a place you grew up in, and suddenly a flash of recollection pops in front of your eyes.
Is the past ever what we make it to be?
It seems the older I get, the younger I seem to feel. There is no great security in living on your own, in being able to pay for keeping yourself alive from day to day, in doing what you love.
People would often tell me that I need to live on my own, and goodness knows this country adheres to this philosophy, because it will teach me a thing or two. Living on your own, it isn't the greatest thing alive, people! I suspected this but never said anything but hell, it's been 6 months now, and I can assure any young little mind that is striving against what the world tells it to be that 99% of what anyone tells you is complete crap.
I feel the security of a home living with people who love you and who you love, friends who drop by un-announced, a really good meal, a neat bit of logic, this is all there is to strive for. Who knows if I'll get it or not? Being famous could only make you more insecure about staying famous. I don't wanna be no paranoid geek!
What the hell is all this about anyway? I don't know. My mind sometimes forgets the rules.
It's a vague sort of nostalgia, like going back to a place you grew up in, and suddenly a flash of recollection pops in front of your eyes.
Is the past ever what we make it to be?
It seems the older I get, the younger I seem to feel. There is no great security in living on your own, in being able to pay for keeping yourself alive from day to day, in doing what you love.
People would often tell me that I need to live on my own, and goodness knows this country adheres to this philosophy, because it will teach me a thing or two. Living on your own, it isn't the greatest thing alive, people! I suspected this but never said anything but hell, it's been 6 months now, and I can assure any young little mind that is striving against what the world tells it to be that 99% of what anyone tells you is complete crap.
I feel the security of a home living with people who love you and who you love, friends who drop by un-announced, a really good meal, a neat bit of logic, this is all there is to strive for. Who knows if I'll get it or not? Being famous could only make you more insecure about staying famous. I don't wanna be no paranoid geek!
What the hell is all this about anyway? I don't know. My mind sometimes forgets the rules.
India v Australia - January 7th, 2008: the Harbhajan Incident
I've a bit of a bone to pick.
As you may have guessed from the title this post deals with the second test match between India and Australia. I didn't watch the match, so it's hard to comment on that.
What I have seen however are endless articles dealing with how Australia sulked about Harbhajan Singh (in the Indian side) calling (allegedly) Andrew Symonds a "monkey". This, they feel, was a racial slur; they accused Harbhajan of racism; and the match referee through a court proceeding found Harbhajan guilty of racism and has banned him from 3 test matches.
First, calling someone a "monkey" is offensive, not racist.
Second, the umpires didn't hear anything, no Indian player heard this - and Tendulkar did testify as well, and he's a bit old-fashioned when it comes to telling the truth - and no recording was found of this comment/slur. It was solely the testimony of the Australian players that was used as evidence. So, when Procter (the match referee) says that his decision was not a case of the Australian players' statement versus the Indians' he is either
(a) an idiot, and does not understand how a logical thought is constructed
or ( b) is lying, trying to protect his decision.
Third, no one is asking why Procter made his decision. People go on and on about how the Australian team has started behaving like a "pack of wild dogs" (Peter Roebuck), but why did the referee take what appears to be an illogical decision? Apparently, the Australians made a case saying that Harbhajan was a "repeat offender".
Well.
If someone is making racist remarks, and you do not respond to the first (or second, or third, whatever the case may be), but you do make a fuss about it eventually, it can only mean that the abuse does not really strike you as racist, or that you've received so many racist remarks that this particular one does not matter.
Given the Australians' enthusiasm for abuse and/or "sledging" as they like to (dishonestly) put it, I find it hard to believe they are continually abused with racist slurs. And if they were, then they really should have complained earlier.
If a racist comment is made, and it is felt that this is out of hand, it should be communicated immediately. If Harbhajan has been calling people monkeys, it is irresponsible of Ricky Ponting and co to have let it slip.
Fourth, as to whether the Australians played the game in the right spirit. Ponting and McGrath believe they did, pretty much the rest of the world does not. Ponting did deny he had a clean catch in the first inning, which is what the pro-Aussie lobby keeps bringing up, but of course they forget Clarke's standing of ground when he knew he was out.
To be fair, a batman does not have to walk.
Also, Ponting did claim a catch that wasn't clean, but it's fairly possible that he believed he did hold it clean. From whatever little personal experience I have, it is hard sometimes to tell if you catch a ball cleanly or not.
Which brings me to my next point.
What in the name of all that is cricket were the umpires doing, asking a member of an opposing team in a tight match whether a catch is clean or not? THERE ARE VIDEO REPLAYS!!! Poor leg before's I can understand, not relaying stumpings I can understand, but really this is just stupid.
Finally, the obvious point - it is more than a touch hypocritical of the Aussies to start sulking about "sledging", considering they defend it so much.
Awright, it was a "racist" remark.
Now, who believes calling someone a monkey amounts to racial abuse? Procter states he's from South Africa, and thus "knows" what racism is about. Perhaps, but Mr Referee, whatever this is, aparthied it certainly isn't. Harbhajan Singh wasn't part of a ruling political power trying to maintain his control by introducing a false division.
And if he knows what racism is all about, (this statement itself smacks of so much arrogance it's crazy!) he should explain how calling someone a monkey is a racist remark.
No, I do NOT believe Harbhajan was making a racist jibe at Andrew Symonds. Oh of course he was provoked, there is no doubt about it. Ricky Ponting feels mighty pleased with his method of mental intimidation as part of a strategy of victory, and we know this is not cricket, but it's all left on the field isn't it?
Clearly, the Australians were targetting Harbhajan through whatever means they could. They supplied the bait, Harbhajan bit, and wowee let's catch the bugger wriggling out of this one eh!! Ozzie Ozzie Ozzie....
Calling in a subject like racism into what was a heated argument between to players, the Australian team has taken a clear, and what can be seen as a slightly scary, step. That is, using whatever means - on or off the field or in a court - to keep the opposition angry, contained (now that Harbhajan has been banned, catch any player saying anything to the Australian team), and self destructive. This isn't a new tactic, but it has certainly been taken to a whole new level.
Clap clap Ricky. Well done.
Whatever happens, it is clear that the Aussies have used a flimsy excuse to deal with Harbhajan - but one which carries enormous weight. Racism is a subject that is not to be dealt with lightly, and by using it as a strategy, the Green and the Gold have done just that.
For that, they should be ashamed of themselves.
Oh and the ICC sucks balls.
Incidentally, does anyone feel Harbhajan is racist? I'm pretty sure that Ponting doesn't believe that, irrespective of his suddenly taking on the moral high ground. And to accuse someone of a prejudice you know in your mind to be untrue is terribly immoral.
Update - it appears that Harbhajan has called Symonds a monkey in the past, and Symonds spoke to Harbhajan after that particular match, and everything was sorted out. This only makes it even clearer that the Aussies were out to get Harbhajan. I'm sure they feel pretty happy about it. Ooh boy! You can admire this kind of thing, though it is not very nice.
As you may have guessed from the title this post deals with the second test match between India and Australia. I didn't watch the match, so it's hard to comment on that.
What I have seen however are endless articles dealing with how Australia sulked about Harbhajan Singh (in the Indian side) calling (allegedly) Andrew Symonds a "monkey". This, they feel, was a racial slur; they accused Harbhajan of racism; and the match referee through a court proceeding found Harbhajan guilty of racism and has banned him from 3 test matches.
First, calling someone a "monkey" is offensive, not racist.
Second, the umpires didn't hear anything, no Indian player heard this - and Tendulkar did testify as well, and he's a bit old-fashioned when it comes to telling the truth - and no recording was found of this comment/slur. It was solely the testimony of the Australian players that was used as evidence. So, when Procter (the match referee) says that his decision was not a case of the Australian players' statement versus the Indians' he is either
(a) an idiot, and does not understand how a logical thought is constructed
or ( b) is lying, trying to protect his decision.
Third, no one is asking why Procter made his decision. People go on and on about how the Australian team has started behaving like a "pack of wild dogs" (Peter Roebuck), but why did the referee take what appears to be an illogical decision? Apparently, the Australians made a case saying that Harbhajan was a "repeat offender".
Well.
If someone is making racist remarks, and you do not respond to the first (or second, or third, whatever the case may be), but you do make a fuss about it eventually, it can only mean that the abuse does not really strike you as racist, or that you've received so many racist remarks that this particular one does not matter.
Given the Australians' enthusiasm for abuse and/or "sledging" as they like to (dishonestly) put it, I find it hard to believe they are continually abused with racist slurs. And if they were, then they really should have complained earlier.
If a racist comment is made, and it is felt that this is out of hand, it should be communicated immediately. If Harbhajan has been calling people monkeys, it is irresponsible of Ricky Ponting and co to have let it slip.
Fourth, as to whether the Australians played the game in the right spirit. Ponting and McGrath believe they did, pretty much the rest of the world does not. Ponting did deny he had a clean catch in the first inning, which is what the pro-Aussie lobby keeps bringing up, but of course they forget Clarke's standing of ground when he knew he was out.
To be fair, a batman does not have to walk.
Also, Ponting did claim a catch that wasn't clean, but it's fairly possible that he believed he did hold it clean. From whatever little personal experience I have, it is hard sometimes to tell if you catch a ball cleanly or not.
Which brings me to my next point.
What in the name of all that is cricket were the umpires doing, asking a member of an opposing team in a tight match whether a catch is clean or not? THERE ARE VIDEO REPLAYS!!! Poor leg before's I can understand, not relaying stumpings I can understand, but really this is just stupid.
Finally, the obvious point - it is more than a touch hypocritical of the Aussies to start sulking about "sledging", considering they defend it so much.
Awright, it was a "racist" remark.
Now, who believes calling someone a monkey amounts to racial abuse? Procter states he's from South Africa, and thus "knows" what racism is about. Perhaps, but Mr Referee, whatever this is, aparthied it certainly isn't. Harbhajan Singh wasn't part of a ruling political power trying to maintain his control by introducing a false division.
And if he knows what racism is all about, (this statement itself smacks of so much arrogance it's crazy!) he should explain how calling someone a monkey is a racist remark.
No, I do NOT believe Harbhajan was making a racist jibe at Andrew Symonds. Oh of course he was provoked, there is no doubt about it. Ricky Ponting feels mighty pleased with his method of mental intimidation as part of a strategy of victory, and we know this is not cricket, but it's all left on the field isn't it?
Clearly, the Australians were targetting Harbhajan through whatever means they could. They supplied the bait, Harbhajan bit, and wowee let's catch the bugger wriggling out of this one eh!! Ozzie Ozzie Ozzie....
Calling in a subject like racism into what was a heated argument between to players, the Australian team has taken a clear, and what can be seen as a slightly scary, step. That is, using whatever means - on or off the field or in a court - to keep the opposition angry, contained (now that Harbhajan has been banned, catch any player saying anything to the Australian team), and self destructive. This isn't a new tactic, but it has certainly been taken to a whole new level.
Clap clap Ricky. Well done.
Whatever happens, it is clear that the Aussies have used a flimsy excuse to deal with Harbhajan - but one which carries enormous weight. Racism is a subject that is not to be dealt with lightly, and by using it as a strategy, the Green and the Gold have done just that.
For that, they should be ashamed of themselves.
Oh and the ICC sucks balls.
Incidentally, does anyone feel Harbhajan is racist? I'm pretty sure that Ponting doesn't believe that, irrespective of his suddenly taking on the moral high ground. And to accuse someone of a prejudice you know in your mind to be untrue is terribly immoral.
Update - it appears that Harbhajan has called Symonds a monkey in the past, and Symonds spoke to Harbhajan after that particular match, and everything was sorted out. This only makes it even clearer that the Aussies were out to get Harbhajan. I'm sure they feel pretty happy about it. Ooh boy! You can admire this kind of thing, though it is not very nice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)