Thursday, December 07, 2006
Young Lady, You Are Grounded!
Now write five hundred times on the board: I will not light a match on the plane to cover the odor of my flatulence. That may have still been a cruel punishment for a woman who performed the above act but grounding her was a little extreme (http://www.cnn.com/2006/TRAVEL/12/06/plane.passing.gas.ap/index.html). She obviously was no danger to the flight (only to the olfactory aesthetics of the crew and passengers).
Wednesday, December 06, 2006
Is Division so Bad
The borders for most countries in the Middle East and East thereof were drawn rather arbitrarily by the British, many times not taking into account the terrain or the indiginous population. Iraq is one such structure. The British got hold of this land after the Ottomans were defeated in The Great War. They drew some lines on a map and appointed a Hashmite Royal over three very different peoples. This is a further justification for creating three autonomous regions in Iraq (see http://voiceandview.blogspot.com/2006/09/way-forward-on-march-24-2006-i-wrote.html) if the on going civil war is not considered an adequate one.
The problem, for the US, is that this strategy makes Iran's presence stronger in the shi'ite region. It also makes Turkey, a staunch NATO member during the cold war still an outcast from the EU after many of the Soviet sattelites are a part of it, now more worried about its eastern flank. However, It is probably best for the people who live in Iraq but are increasingly not Iraqis anymore.
The borders for most countries in the Middle East and East thereof were drawn rather arbitrarily by the British, many times not taking into account the terrain or the indiginous population. Iraq is one such structure. The British got hold of this land after the Ottomans were defeated in The Great War. They drew some lines on a map and appointed a Hashmite Royal over three very different peoples. This is a further justification for creating three autonomous regions in Iraq (see http://voiceandview.blogspot.com/2006/09/way-forward-on-march-24-2006-i-wrote.html) if the on going civil war is not considered an adequate one.
The problem, for the US, is that this strategy makes Iran's presence stronger in the shi'ite region. It also makes Turkey, a staunch NATO member during the cold war still an outcast from the EU after many of the Soviet sattelites are a part of it, now more worried about its eastern flank. However, It is probably best for the people who live in Iraq but are increasingly not Iraqis anymore.
Diuretics and Nandrolone for All (Er I Mean None)
ICC, WADA and the National boards need to come up with a consistent policy on how to deal with drugs in cricket. As the Warne case earlier and the Shoaib and Asif case now have shown that the basic use of drugs in cricket may not be to enhance performance but reduce injury times. After all the drugs may help the fast bowlers a little with speed but they are not going to increase the amount of swing and spin you can put on the ball or make your timing immaculate. As the players become more sophisticated in the use of drugs (as they are in cycling and athletics) it will become harder to catch them during tournaments. What is needed is random year round testing and better testing methods. Also the methods should be fair in the sense that all players are subjected to them equally so that the playing field is fair. For now Shoaib Akhtar may not have to go through the to do list (http://voiceandview.blogspot.com/2006/11/my-advice-to-shoaib-there-is-lot-of.html) I posted earlier. He, and Asif, will have to wait and see how the ICC and WADA respond.
ICC, WADA and the National boards need to come up with a consistent policy on how to deal with drugs in cricket. As the Warne case earlier and the Shoaib and Asif case now have shown that the basic use of drugs in cricket may not be to enhance performance but reduce injury times. After all the drugs may help the fast bowlers a little with speed but they are not going to increase the amount of swing and spin you can put on the ball or make your timing immaculate. As the players become more sophisticated in the use of drugs (as they are in cycling and athletics) it will become harder to catch them during tournaments. What is needed is random year round testing and better testing methods. Also the methods should be fair in the sense that all players are subjected to them equally so that the playing field is fair. For now Shoaib Akhtar may not have to go through the to do list (http://voiceandview.blogspot.com/2006/11/my-advice-to-shoaib-there-is-lot-of.html) I posted earlier. He, and Asif, will have to wait and see how the ICC and WADA respond.
Parental Rights
The case of Misbah Rana has been hailed as another confrontation between the East and the West(http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/highlands_and_islands/6201354.stm). It is nothing more than a straight custody fight. Well a nasty custody fight. Yes it is true that one parent comes from Pakistan and the other from the UK but this case has as much to do with the clash of civilizations as the O.J. case had to do with race. The invective and the drama hurled by each side is no better and no worse than that hurled in thousands of custodial fights every year. Should she have been taken out of the country while the mother had the custody? No. Should the mother's side have raised the spectre of child marriage? No. Should the media have presented the sides as they did? No. Why must it be so easy to believe for so many people that the reason must surely be child marriage? Does it happen? Yes. This is a world issue. Right now there is a case in the US going on about a cult leader involved not only in child marriages but polygamy. Yet no one would seriously consider that a child taken to the US was taken there for that purpose. It may happen but is an unlikely event.
The custodial fight has become a phenomenon in itself. Who should have the custody? While the law in many western countries says that the rights of parents are equal, in practice they are anything but. Most decisions go in favor of the mother because in the mind of the society and the judges (who are a product of the society) there is a proclivity to side with the mother.
The current setup needs to be revisited. It is more dysfunctional than the dysfunctional family (ex-family?) it is designed for, essentially concentrating almost all authority in the hands of one parent while making the other one financially responsible. If the two parents hate each others guts then who do you think comes out on top and how does it make the other party feel. If fathers abandon responsibility they are labelled deadbeats, if mothers give up their children for adoption because they feel unable to take care of their children they are hailed as responsible. The answer is to have equal custodial rights. The argument that one parent's control is better for the child is fatuous. It is not if the parents are feuding and making the child choose sides. The only way both parents can feel some sense of fairness is when they have equal access and equal rights to the child. This may even mellow out some of the bitterness (don't count on it though). If the feuding sides cannot agree on how to share (and let's face it that's why they are in the courts) then the courts must do it but they must do so with equality and justice for all sides.
The case of Misbah Rana has been hailed as another confrontation between the East and the West(http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/highlands_and_islands/6201354.stm). It is nothing more than a straight custody fight. Well a nasty custody fight. Yes it is true that one parent comes from Pakistan and the other from the UK but this case has as much to do with the clash of civilizations as the O.J. case had to do with race. The invective and the drama hurled by each side is no better and no worse than that hurled in thousands of custodial fights every year. Should she have been taken out of the country while the mother had the custody? No. Should the mother's side have raised the spectre of child marriage? No. Should the media have presented the sides as they did? No. Why must it be so easy to believe for so many people that the reason must surely be child marriage? Does it happen? Yes. This is a world issue. Right now there is a case in the US going on about a cult leader involved not only in child marriages but polygamy. Yet no one would seriously consider that a child taken to the US was taken there for that purpose. It may happen but is an unlikely event.
The custodial fight has become a phenomenon in itself. Who should have the custody? While the law in many western countries says that the rights of parents are equal, in practice they are anything but. Most decisions go in favor of the mother because in the mind of the society and the judges (who are a product of the society) there is a proclivity to side with the mother.
The current setup needs to be revisited. It is more dysfunctional than the dysfunctional family (ex-family?) it is designed for, essentially concentrating almost all authority in the hands of one parent while making the other one financially responsible. If the two parents hate each others guts then who do you think comes out on top and how does it make the other party feel. If fathers abandon responsibility they are labelled deadbeats, if mothers give up their children for adoption because they feel unable to take care of their children they are hailed as responsible. The answer is to have equal custodial rights. The argument that one parent's control is better for the child is fatuous. It is not if the parents are feuding and making the child choose sides. The only way both parents can feel some sense of fairness is when they have equal access and equal rights to the child. This may even mellow out some of the bitterness (don't count on it though). If the feuding sides cannot agree on how to share (and let's face it that's why they are in the courts) then the courts must do it but they must do so with equality and justice for all sides.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
