Wednesday, January 29, 2014

My "mythical" life!



People who live in the upper Midwest may relate more to this post than others.

I found a nice article on CNN on winter myths. A rare one because it did not try to convince me that I may have some dreadful disease that I have never heard of. :-)

Here are a few myths that bolster and shatter my winter self!


Myth: You lose most of your body heat through your head

Contrary to the findings from one 1950s Army study, most of your body heat doesn't escape through your noggin, according to Vreeman. "In the now-infamous study, volunteers visited the Arctic with their heads exposed. However, the rest of them was outfitted in gear designed to protect against the cold, so it's logical that they lost most of their body heat from their heads," she says.

If you go outside without gloves, you'll lose a disproportionate amount of heat through your hands.


So I wasn't "unnecessarily cheap" resisting buying an expensive winter hat all these years! On the other hand, my balding head is not why I feel colder :-(


Myth: Cold air can make you sick

Despite being called the common "cold," lower temperatures alone won't make you sick. In fact, the exact opposite is true. "Cells that fight infection in body actually increase if you go out into the cold," says Dr. Rachel C. Vreeman, MD, co-author of "Don't Swallow Your Gum! Myths, Half-Truths, and Outright Lies About Your Body and Health." It's your body's way of combating the stress of freezing temps.

Plus, according to the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, cold viruses grow best at about 91 degrees; if you're outside in the cold, your nostrils are surely colder than that.

That is a myth alright--I almost never fell sick walking to college in the dead of Minnesotan winters. Illinois on the other hand is a completely different story. Maybe a combination of cold air, kids with runny noses and sneezing students conspire to make you sick...

Myth: You shouldn't exercise in the cold

Get ready to crawl out from under your comforter and run into the great (and yes, cold) outdoors. According to research published in Medicine & Science in Sports and Exercise, in cold temperatures, race times are actually faster -- and quicker paces burn more calories in less time. Plus, that harder, faster workout can spike your endorphin levels -- which, according to a review in Environmental Science and Technology, are already increased just by you being outside.
One would need those endorphins badly should one slip on ice though...


Myth: You don't need sunscreen in the winter

Forget bathing suits. Department stores should stock sunscreen with the toboggan hats. "Because the Earth's surface is closer to the sun during the winter months, we are actually exposed to more harmful rays without even realizing it," says Dr. Robert Guida, a board-certified plastic surgeon in New York City.

What's more, snow and ice can both reflect up to 80% of harmful UV rays so that they can hit the skin twice.

Like always I'm going to pretend there is an evolutionary existential reason for my natural fur :-) Although nature does seem to think my head is well insulated and protected already...


Myth: Cold temps cause hair loss

Chilly weather might actually help you hold onto your hair. In one University Hospital of Zurich study, researchers followed 823 women for six years and found that they lost the most hair in the summer and the least in the winter.

It might be evolutionary -- just think how thick your dog's fur gets in the winter. Still, dry scalps grow unhealthy, brittle, and breakable hair, so if your head gets itchy on cold, dry days, you might need to invest in a scalp-protecting shampoo for the season, Vreeman says.


So WHAT is the reason for the untimely demise of my previous and naturally reshaping coiffure???

Myth: Drinking alcohol warms you up

Alcohol makes you feel toasty on the inside, but that's because it causes your blood to rush toward your rosy-red skin and away from your internal organs. That means your core body temperature actually drops post-sip, Vreeman says.

What's more, alcohol actually impairs your body's ability to shiver and create extra heat.


Aha! To all those Indian parents who take/provide a sip of brandy as a cure for cold! And to most of the upper Midwestern "casual drinkers"!




In other words, your geographical location, your little ones and your idle behind is making you sick, and alcohol won't help! I'm waiting with bated breath for the next polar vortex.

Wednesday, January 15, 2014

Judging a book by its cover...

Much has been said on TV and in print about the Devyani Khobragade case (the Indian diplomat who allegedly employed an Indian maid and did not pay her according to US labor laws, and the maid allegedly stole and extorted Ms. Khobragade). As usual it has been dissected by every news outlet and blog imaginable, but there seems to be one type of argument that is pervasive. It goes something like this: "X did it, so what? Y did this and nobody said anything. And there are millions of X's that do the same thing, and nobody says anything. What about A,B,C,...". Replace the letters with the actors in this case (amazingly it fits no matter which side of the debate you are on!)

I'm sure that this line of argument is pandemic, but personally I have heard it when some ill in society has to be justified. Let's take a few examples: bribery, piracy, cheating on exams (everybody does it, why should I lose out/be punished? Please pay attention to the other much bigger social crimes), etc. So in this case fingers have been pointed at the injustices committed by the US justice system, the caste of Ms. Khobragade, the holier-than-thou attitude of diplomats, the audacity of the maid to complain when millions of maids in India accept the same living conditions, ...the list goes on.

Here is my one-sentence rebuttal: carefully read the law. Let me paraphrase in my own words how the law against stealing (just to pick a random offence) may sound:

"Any offence where goods of value are taken from the owner(s) without prior consent or official transaction is considered stealing, and the offender is liable ..."

It is NOT as below:

"Any offence where goods of value are taken from the owner(s) without prior consent or official transaction is considered stealing, its severity being inversely proportional to its frequency of occurrence and apparent social acceptance, and the offender is liable..."

I do not care how many other criminals have gone scot-free.   I do not care if the offender's offence is justifiable by prior wrongdoings against him/her. I do not care if this offender is somehow a  product created autonomously by other societal factors. Let us talk about this offence now. Judge a book by its cover, not by the covers of surrounding books and the reputation of the publication company.

For there is a very simple reason why: the same players/commentators would parrot the exactly opposite tune if they were the victim instead of the perpetrator. A cheater is seldom as good at justifying cheating when he/she is cheated. Bribing becomes instantaneously outrageous when you are on the losing end of the bribe-tainted transaction.

I do not know which side in this case is at fault. But judging from the debates and commentary, that never mattered...

Thursday, December 12, 2013

I wish facebook was real!


I wish facebook, much like Harry Potter and Hogwarts School of Magic, was as real as it is alluring. Here is why I would be a completely changed man because of it!

--------------------
I: Today I did this ,
Friend 1: Like
Friend 2: Like
Friend 3: This is wonderful! Keep it up!
Friend 4: Like
Friend 5: Share with other friends
....

If I had so much pro-active positive reinforcement in actual life, I wouldn't have been so socially awkward! Who doesn't like surrounding themselves with friends who not only agree with you, but like you 90% of the times!

--------------------
Day 1:

Friend 1: Today I found this
I: I don't agree, that shouldn't happen
Friend 2: Why shouldn't it happen? ...
I: Oh come on, are you out of your mind?
Friend 1: Anybody who agrees must not have brains of their own!
Friend 3: What's the big deal?
I: It is a big deal, how can you be so &^%$^?
Friend 1,2,3: Quit being such a ^%*&%#


Day 2:
---
I: Today I did this ,
Friend 1: Like
Friend 2: Like
Friend 3: This is wonderful! Keep it up!
Friend 4: Like
Friend 5: Share with other friends
....

Facebook must be either adding 10 layers of thick skin, or triggering amnesia. Either way, aren't these exactly the kinds of friends you'd want?

--------------------

I: Happy birthday
Friend 1: Thank you!
Friend 2: Happy birthday
....
Friend 1: Thank you all for your good wishes!

(what actually happened: I logged on facebook, it reminded me so I posted on the wall).



Can you imagine if I had a reminder on my actual calendar to wish my wife "Happy anniversary"? Enough said.

--------------------

Day 1:  I open a facebook account, add 2 friends
Day 2: Facebook asks "do you know these people? I say "yes", now I have 4 friends.
Day 3: Facebook asks "do you know these people? I say "yes", now I have 13 friends.
...
Day 10:
Friend 1: Happy birthday!
..
Day 10.5:
I have 83 birthday wishes from people who all like me.

...
My real life experience is similar but ongoing, and "day" should be "year". And a simple "yes" didn't win me a single friend even in kindergarten.

--------------------

I: (Pasted from hallmark.com or a forward) I love you . You are the most wonderful thing that ever happened to me. I wouldn't be here without you, and I wish we are together till eternity.
Friend 1: Like
Friend 2: Oh, that's so sweet! Keep it up!
Friend 3: Sahi
Friend 4: Best of luck! Very nice!
Friend 5: How romantic!
I: Thank you everybody!
...

Real life:
I (reading in a dramatic voice from a card I brought) : I love you . You are...

The room bursts into giggles and laughter... and there are only 4 other people! I smile sheepishly and hand her the card, vowing never to try being romantic again.
--------------------

Friend 1: I did this today
I: Oh how wonderful (sarcastically)
Friend 1:
I: (Delete comment)

...
Really, our tongues and brains should evolve into having an undo button!

--------------------
Friend 1: X celebrity is marrying Y!
I: That's wonderful!
Friend 2: I'm jealous!
Friend 3: Oh, I thought Y was with Z?
Friend 1: Yes, but Z was seen with A...


Real life:
I: Did you know X celebrity is marrying Y!
Friend: Hehehehe, you read page 3!

--------------------

I: Vacation on the beach!
Friend 1: Keep it up!
Wife/girlfriend: Thank you! it was so much fun!
Friend 2: Great, I'm jealous.
Friend 3: You should try X next, we went there last year and had a blast!

Real life:
I: This is a great photo, I'm going to put it up on my office door.
Wife/girlfriend: Are you crazy?!
Friend : So, how was the vacation? Wink, wink


--------------------


And for those reasons folks, you will rarely catch me on Facebook! I'm not very social, but I'm not a closet socialite either :-)













Friday, September 27, 2013

The headless chickens

I love Andaz Apna Apna! Amar (Aamir Khan) is the one who has the ideas, constantly changing his tune and plot to woo Raveena (played by Raveena Tandon, who pretends she is Raveena but is actually Karishma). Prem (Salman Khan) on the other hand mostly improvises and mimics what Amar does, first to outdo him and later to support him. Somehow he loses to Amar's tactics and yet ends up winning the race to Raveena (played by Karishma Kapoor who pretends she is Karishma). The climax is especially funny: Amar acts as the diabolical villain who planned the whole thing, until Prem reveals sheepishly that the revolver is empty. They then beat each other before beating everybody else, much to the audience's delight!

If you did not follow the above hackneyed plot or if you enjoyed it, it may be playing out in real life! And that makes the plot both funny and sad at the same time.

The Prem in real-life is the Congress party. It runs around, plotting something and then changing its plot, both for reasons and objectives unknown (they, like Prem, are also very bad actors). Somehow they end up winning elections in the end, much like Amar-Prem, because they have no competition in stupidity. Amar in real-life is Rahul Baba, morphing between the clueless, refreshingly smart and stereotyped. In the latest climax of this story, the Congress party did a U-turn on its stand on the ordinance, after "Rahul Baba" came out vociferously against it.

The fun probably won't stop here, but it didn't start here either.

The ordinance itself is a template of shamelessness. "For political reasons" the Congress party decided that it is not OK to ban convicted people from holding seats in power. The party had the epiphany of making public and official what was always a tacit practice. Like a group of misguided school children, they then proceeded to attack the opposition saying "everybody does it! Why are you opposing it?" They devoted their entire media machine selling this, acknowledging that it is both against what the Supreme Court said, and any argument of logic and morals.

Then came the dissent, culminating in the revered Rahul Baba coming out against it. Within minutes, the entire party reversed its stand saying "its probably not a good idea". Even headless chickens may be more nuanced at navigating!

The whole thing is so mind-numbing and stupid, it almost looks staged. Much like the plot of Andaz Apna Apna-- "we will kidnap Ram Gopal Bajaj, and then we will rescue him becoming heroes in his eyes!", this may well be an exercise in showing the world how sane and fair Rahul Gandhi is. First commit a gaffe, then have Rahul Baba come out favoring morals over party, and then take it back.

Reason and logic tells me that a person can be extremely self-centered, cunning and even sociopathic, but personal pride trumps all. Which is why I am confounded about how our Prime Minister and the Congress party spokesman must be living with themselves. How loyal does one have to be to label oneself as #$@%! on national tv and print media? At least our poor PM has mastered the act of being mum most of the times with occasional flashes of pathetic platitudes. The spokesperson on the other hand has the unenviable task of wearing a "gadha idhar hai" poster on his chest.

But who are Karishma and Raveena in this sad comedy? Unfortunately it is us voters. Who we are continuously confuses those who seek our votes (are we intelligent, are we so dumb that we will let anything pass, can we be distracted like babies so that they can get away with anything?). Before the election we are Raveena, the daughter of the filthy rich man, after the election we're Karishma, the munim's daughter worth nothing.

But the comparison doesn't end here! Guess who "Crime master Gogo" is? That role has to go to the BJP. For mysterious reasons the ruling party fears them. Gogo is after the same prize that everybody else is. Like the climax, Gogo, Amar, Prem and everybody else take potshots at each other while puzzled Raveena and Karishma look on...

Tuesday, September 24, 2013

News sources: please show and allow discretion

This morning with my son in my lap I briefly accessed my favorite news website. And was instantly disturbed by its main headline. Struggling to get it out of my mind...

I hope someone in the news media is reading this. Please show some discretion in what you put in your headline, or in the short blurb below it. Unsuspecting viewers like me who would never click on such disturbing news don't even get a chance to make that choice and walk away. Its right there staring us in the face...on websites that overall, we trust.

There are millions of viewers who would read such stuff and not be bothered by it. Many times its me too. Yet I'm not sure why this particular item disturbed me, which is the problem. My only choices are to live with the possibility that this may happen unpredictably, or wean myself off the website totally. I don't like either option: I'm sure the news media don't like them either.

We know advertising is important, and traffic is important to sustain it. But it is unbecoming of someone aiming to be a respectable source of news.

Friday, September 13, 2013

The doppleganger bhajans

Here it is...Raghupati Raghav Raja Ram "disco style". The newest song on the filmy block, from the movie Krissh 3. I just saw it yesterday.

This particular line of the bhajan has been morphed 3 ways in the last two decades.

1. The half-bhajan half rock song from Kuch Kuch Hota Hai.
2. The call for agitation version from Satyagraha.
3. The disco song from Krissh 3.

Its not so much religious or moral blasphemy as it is musical harakiri. I'm not outraged, I am just disappointed. It is like the concept of "Christian Yoga": one is outraged for what it stands for (supposed Hindu proselytization), and yet one uses it in name and spirit for marketing purposes (why else would you continue to call it yoga?)

I'm hoping the song actually has a viable context that justifies the use of "Raghupati Raghav Raja Ram", but I'm not waiting with bated breath. Why use the popular line of a song if one means to present it in a completely different context and tempo? I have nothing against dance music and thumping beats, and am awestruck once again at Hrithik Roshan's warp-speed dancing. But its difficult to find a reason other than cheap marketing that they used this line.

The reason I'm disappointed with this is the same reason I'm disappointed with most remixed songs. Similar to how we remember legendary tunes in their context, the remixed sounds become the new context. For some listeners, "Dum Maaro Dum" may now be the song that has the phrase "...potty pe baithe nanga", "Tumhi ho bandhu sakha tumhi" is a beach song.

But even those who don't know the bhajan, here is the new context to this line: the lyrics of this song from Krishh 3: http://www.lyricsmint.com/2013/09/raghupati-raghav-krrish-3.html.

Compare that to the lyrics from Satyagraha: http://www.lyricstaal.com/satyagraha-title-song-lyrics/

Both start from the same line: one morphs into a party song, the other into a call for agitation. Which context do you think is more faithful to the spirit of the original one? And why should we care about faithfulness? Because most listeners associate a song with the context set by its words, music and what they were doing when they heard it. "Mere Desh ki dharti" is an unabashedly patriotic song even though I have never worked in a field, "Airanichya deva tula..." is one of my favorite Marathi songs not because I was once an ironsmith, but because I heard that song most often and saw that movie at my grandparents' house.  Presenting an existing piece of music in a completely different context does more than making it accessible to the current generation. It renders that accessibility meaningless because the context is garbled.


Tuesday, July 09, 2013

Lootera: the review

Lootera is a story set in the 1950's, soon after India's independence. The main story is in two times, separated by a year and an intermission. It tells the story of a zamindar's daughter falling in love with an archeologist, how they fall in love before falling apart, only to run into each other again. The film is an adaptation of the Last Leaf, which thankfully the movie duly acknowledges in the end credits.

The film does a pretty good job of transporting the viewer into the 1950s. Every frame screams a simpler, quieter time set in rural India. The props, the makeup and the sets are all authentic, and a sight for sore eyes. The pace of the story matches the slowness of the time, but in a pleasant way.

The performances of Ranvir Singh and Sonakshi Sinha can be described as fairly decent, but not spectacular. This is the only movie of Ranvir Singh I have seen since Band Baja Baraat, so he had a reputation to live up to. This role is completely different from his earlier ones, and he does not disappoint. As I said, decent but not spectacular. He is yet another example of an Indian male actor who looks far better with shorter hair than with long tresses (I haven't found an exception yet). Sonakshi Sinha on the other hand, has a history of such low-ball movies that it is difficult not to meet that bar. Thanks to the role, the makeup and her performance, she finally shows some semblance of an acting spark in her. Her face is strangely suited more for frowns and grimaces than big grins (reminding me yet again of Reena Roy), which is why I think she suits this role more. It is definitely a step up for her, even if the slope is low.

The director and music composer deserve some special mention. Unlike the popular and critical opinions, I absolutely hated this director's last movie: Udaan. So this movie is to me, an improvement of his record. Udaan was just different, this one is different and for the most part, nice. He does a good job at going back in time and keeping us there. The music is quite hummable. My favourite song is Ankahee. The songs are not period-drama masterpieces like Lagaan and Jodha Akbar, but they are genuine and fit well with the story.

Where this film failed the most is its erroneous marketing. The name "Lootera" pretty much gives away most of the plot. To make matters worse, the promos of the movie eliminate any possibility of the title having a metaphorical meaning rather than a literal one. That it was an adaptation of the Last Leaf further minimized intrigue (I had not heard of this book before, but a simple google search spilled the beans about its plot). With all this, the only saving grace would have been an outstanding plot and superlative star-studded performances. Only then can a movie whose plot has nothing mysterious would still mystify the audience enough to go see it. And this movie has neither: the plot is decent but not groundbreaking, and so are the performances. Therefore it all averages out to an average movie rating from me.