Sunday, March 30, 2008

Soulja Boy off the rails again

John McCain, recently returned from a visit to Iraq, had this to say:
"For the first time, I have seen Osama bin Laden and General (David) Petraeus in agreement, and, that is, a central battleground in the battle against al-Qaida is in Iraq today. And my Democrat opponents who want to pull out of Iraq refuse to understand what's being said and what's happening — and that is the central battleground is Iraq in this struggle against radical Islamic extremism."
Cannot argue with that. But, Mr McCain, would you agree that Islamic extremism had no foothold in Saddam's Iraq and it was the American invasion that expressly opened the doors for it? And that you were one of those who cheer-led the invasion?

Sunday, March 23, 2008

RealCinema: Taare Zameen Par

When it comes to Bollywood cinema, I admit that I tend to throw the baby out with the bath water, to avoid the corny juvenility that marks most of the industry's products. It is with regret though, for I realize that a chunk of "adult-oriented" well-made cinema goes unseen too. Seriously, I wish Hindi movies with level-headed themes came with a "7+" label on their DVD jackets (to indicate that they have been written/created by someone with better-developed sensibilities than a 7-year old) so they could be picked easily.

It is ironic then, that my latest adult-oriented pick, Taare Zameen Par, is actually a story about, and mostly performed by, a child. Here is its RealCinema rating (click here if you dont know what RealCinema is).

Taare Zameen Par

Overall RealRating™: 8/10

Locations: 9/10
Casting: 8/10
Language: 9/10
Detailing: 9/10

Endnote: I found it somewhat unfair to rate Taare Zameen Par with the same index used to rate Omkara. The former is set in a domestic urban setting, and I concede that Bollywood filmmakers have long mastered the art of portraying this setting with much more accuracy - even in fanciful movies like Rangeela or Dil Se, for example - than rural or period settings.

Sunday, March 16, 2008

Are all marriages unconstitutional?

Following the ongoing hearings in the California Supreme Court regarding gay marriages has sent me down some interesting thought-trains about the case in particular and the institution of marriage in general. The lawsuit has been brought by same-sex couples and the City of San Francisco demanding that the state of California recognize same-sex marriage.

Do note that California already recognizes "civil unions" between same-sex couples and affords them all rights except the title of marriage. On that basis, many have argued that gay couples should suck it up and live without the right to marry while enjoying other legal and economic benefits of domestic partnership, till the time comes that public thought on same-sex marriage evolves.

For a long time, my thoughts on the issue were similar - since marriages have historically been endorsed by religious institutions, and since the religious establishment universally is far less understanding of homosexuality than society in general, gay marriage is simply not a reality as of today. Indeed, most opposition to gay marriage is on the basis of religious convention.

However this very connection between marriage and religion has made me rethink my stance over the past few days.

If marriage is essentially a product of religious convention, then what right does the government have of endorsing or rejecting marriage between two individuals in a nation with a constitutionally coded separation of religion and state? An extension of the same argument is that it is unconstitutional for the government to endorse marriage even between couples of the opposite sex. As far as the state is concerned, civil union should be for all and marriage for none. Needless to say, religious institutions being independent bodies have complete right to marry people as per their respective charters, but the state has no right or obligation to accept those contracts.

On the other hand, if marriage is not an institution with a religious basis as I thought it was, then the issue seems to reduce, again, to a cut-and-dry question of constitutionality, unclouded by social convention or majority opinion. And since the US constitution says nothing about marriage, the question is simply whether the state has a right to give or take away a privilege based solely on discrimination of gender. My guess is that the answer is no.

NB: Read an excellent summary of the affair here.

Saturday, March 08, 2008

Farmers' loan waiver

One of the most discussed aspect of the 2008 budget is Chidambaram's Rs.60,000 crore waiver of small farm loans, which has attracted a great deal of criticism (Gurcharan Das calls the waiver "immoral"). It wont be hard to find arguments for or against the waiver on various grounds, but what most commentators wont bother to present is a state-level perspective of the proposed sop.

Avinash has a short but insightful note on why the waiver wont bring much to Bihar, and what it tells about Bihar's financial infrastructure. Check out why Bihar Misses the Boat.
free html hit counter