Saturday, January 14, 2006

Watch the taint

Y'know Suze, it sure is easy.

There's a poll for best Indiblog. First things first, there's a jury selected. A certain man with a widely read blog volunteers for the job.

Not a prob, babe, not at all. The prob, hey, that comes later. Watch.

Then the man nominates his own blog for the award. Yep, it's pretty darned sure he would get nominated anyway, seeing as how he runs a popular blog. (And someone else did nominate him). But check the 2005-12-20 entry here: the man was the first to nominate his own blog, just two days after nominations began.

I'm like, how desperate does a man get? I'm like, should a juror not have the sense not to nominate himself to a list he judges?

(I'm like, should a blogger who won the thing last year not withdraw anyway?)

And then he actually tells his readers, not once but twice, vote for me, give me some of that love back. (Just as he did last year).

And I'm like, hey, is it any surprise that this man -- the one-time winner who lacks the grace to withdraw, the juror who nominates himself, the man who must go about asking for votes -- is it any surprise that he wins?

Such a thing as the spirit of a contest, Suze. Oooh yeah.

Thursday, December 29, 2005

Nominate yerself. Boo-boo?

It's IndiBloggies time, laeez-en-gennelmen! Nominations just closed, which is a deadline I was waiting for. Now we can go vote for 'em!

Way-ell, first we gotta wait for the jury to make their selections from the nominations. But never mind - as I've been known to say, that's jes' the chili on the con carne! I can't wait, lemme say that again, I can't wait, to go read lots of interesting blogs and then vote!

But I'm writing this 'ere post for another reason. Some of the jurors' own blogs have copped nominations. And that's allrite with me, even if they get through the jury scrutiny to the final shortlist. Some of them have some great blogs, I kid you not. I mean that. They should be candidates.

But some jurors have themselves nominated their blogs. Check these out, Suze:
  • The second entry here.
  • The fifth entry here.

There may be others, I dunno. I'm like, there's too many to check

Its allrite with me if people nominate their own blogs - hey, the IndiBloggies rules advise that at #5 here. And #7 also says "Jurors can also nominate their own blog/site but they are not allowed to “rate” it."

It's allowed, o-kay. But what kind of juror would nominate himself? Why would he put his fellow jurors in an embarrassing position like this, hmm?

And I'm like, it ain't as if these blogs won't cop nominations at all. They are known and respected, know whut I mean? Second one I listed has even got a nomination that's not his own.

There any other awards in the world where jurors nominate themselves for the awards?

Thursday, November 24, 2005

Just snide, that's all

Y'know what? ("Whut?" I can hear you saying) I've had people telling me what's up on me pages here sometimes comes across as snide. I'm like, that's the way it goes. I knew when I started this that some people'd get sort of mad. Which of us likes being criticised?

But if I come across as snide, I'm going, what's the word for this cotton-picker? (Relax, that's a term of endearment from my dorm days).

I mean, in this post, he seems to want to say only this much - "you died, Manju? Too-oo bad, mun! Use your head next time!"

I've always been like, spare me the "speak no evil of the dead" balderoo. But this is just empty-headed snideness for the sake of being snide.

And y'know what, cotton-picker? Find something snide to say 'bout me now. Go on, do it! I knoooooow you can, big boy!

Monday, November 14, 2005

Independent and pioneering boo-boo

I'll be honest 's I can, promise. This guy who runs India Uncut is a master of sly double-dealing, know what I mean? 'Member my first real post here? About how the man tried to pose in an AWSJ article as if he had been on the streets of Mumbai during the floods, falling down a manhole. Whereas by his own writing the falling down had actually happened several years before! Slick one, that.

I now have two more such episodes to offer, and hold the anchovies, OK boys?

One, he rates a mention in the insipid Outlook article on blogging/IIPM/etc (unfortunately, now behind a subscription firewall, ladies'n'gennelmen - but it's the issue dated October 31). It says of him that his "independent coverage of the tsunami was considered a pioneering effort in India."

Did you actually tell Outlook that, Verma? Yee-ha and whoops-a-daisy! Almost a year later, of course you don't expect anyone to remember that you didn't go "independent" to cover the tsunami, you went with someone else. (Hey wait, didja forget that yourself?). And "pioneering" is hardly the word, because that someone else was also there, blogging with you. (Hey wait, didja forget that yourself as well?)

(Aside: here's my post about that someone else's recent boo-boo).

Two, here's the same man writing in the new "We, the Media" blog. A post so content-free that you know all it is really designed to do is tell you, without seeming to do so, that India Uncut gets thousands of readers every day. (Yeah, Suze, I remember content-free!) Check it out.

Thursday, October 20, 2005

Penis Boo-boo

Ah, well, I know I got your attention with that title!

But y'know what, I cain't hardly believe my eyes. There's this self-important (note how he never, but nevvvver, refers to the Times as anything but the Slimes) dude called Sandeep. And there's this post by the dude. And I'm reading it, and I get that reaction like Thelma's husband in "Thelma and Louise" -- you know, where he gets this phone call from her and all he can say is "Whuuut? Whuuut?"

Yeah, I read this post and I'm like, "Whuut?" You mean t'say, Sandeep, that you actually saw a penis there? A penis? In that innocuous photograph?

Talk about penis envy! Really. What's with this guy, Maisie?

Thursday, October 13, 2005

Not In A Hurry, Oooh My Stubbed Toes!

My very heartfelt apologies go to TTG, dude I just couldn't get to your hat-tip about Deeshaa. Y'know, as I said in an earlier post, I underestimated just how bizzzzy I've gotten since I started this blog. So I haven't checked here in ages, and what do I find? Your tip. But hold your hosses, I'll be following those links soon.

In the meantime, I mean woddhafuk, who in the blog-uh-oh-sphere could have missed the ongoing IIPM ControVersy (hey, it Deserves Caps in UneXpected Places)? I've found sooo much in it that I wanna talk about here. But for now, this young chiquitita has time for only one quote. It ain't no boo-boo. But it's from a guy who's getting to be my fave, as far as material for this here blog-o-rama goes. Yeah, none other than Amit Verma!

And he's here this time because of this post on the IIPM ContrOversY. Because in that post, I stubbed me pretty little toes on these lines -
    I spoke to him yesterday, when his choices became clear, and asked him what he would do. As a friend concerned for his well-being, I wanted to advise him to not do anything in a hurry.

Yeah! You Go Dude! Isn't that just what friends are for, telling people not to do anything in a hurry? Canny advice, Amit! Especially "when his choices became clear"! Whoo! What perspicacity and insight!

I'm shaking, really I am!

Sunday, September 25, 2005

"Verbal violence", dinja know?

In this comment on Indian Economy, a usually rational Primary Red - responding to someone else's use of the phrase "platitudinous rubbish" - makes this poky barb: Verbal violence seldom smothers common sense. Regretfully, that’s seemingly the only way the left tends to debate these days.

And like before, I'm like "Huh?" Got the mojo again, eh PR?

Hey guy, I made a random sweep through your own blog, Secular Right. Here's just a sample of the language you yourself use.

    "ridiculous perspective by an author seemingly grasping for cheap publicity"
    "anti-nationalists"
    "this horrible columnist a perch to spew his nonsense from."
    "these naive terror-apologists"
    "offensive argument"
    "antediluvian prudery on this matter is simultaneously pathetic and amusing."
    " ridiculous accusation"
    " nauseatingly liberal editorial page"
    "profoundly subversive act"

There's more, Primary Red. So I just gotta ask, this ain't "verbal violence"? Or are you part of the left?

And I'm also like, what is the difference between "platitudinous rubbish" and, to choose one, "antediluvian prudery"? Or to choose a second, "nauseatingly liberal"?

Saturday, September 24, 2005

Fifteen crore boo-boo

Simply cra-zee! Ever since I started this here little blog (bl-aaah-g, as Suze would say, right Suze?), I have been swept up in travel, relatives, meetings, all sorts of things. So dang, this young lady hasn't posted here as often as she hoped she would. But I'm like, there's always tuh-morra! Always hope that I'll get from "seldom" to "often" very soooooon!

But a quick boo-boo for the moment. In this post, Dilip D'Souza repeats the story the New Indian Express first reported, that cheques worth Rs 15 crore donated after the tsunami bounced.

I'm going, hey DD, you should have been just a teensy-weensy bit suspicious of a number like that! Because y'know what? The Hindu reported later that it wuz only cheques worth Rs 404,901 (yeah, and who sent in that one rupee, I wanna know?). Not Rs 15 crore.

Fact checking, DD! And even more, question the gargantuan numbers!

Wednesday, September 14, 2005

Comments, in another way

Just one word. Unbelievable.

I'm like, as always, the post's out there. Judge for yourselves.

Tuesday, September 06, 2005

What a boo-boo is ... NOT!

Finally have a few mo's to post here! This week has been like, girl, let's wind you up and see how long you can go!

This post, I'll just make a swift response to what this blog has generated over recent days. Look, I didn't start this thinking EVERYONE's gonna agree with me. Nor did I think this would be all peachy-coo with the guys whose posts I pick out. So I'm fine with those reax.

But what I'm totally like "Whaaat?" about is this demand that I better define what a "boo-boo" is! I have no reading skills! I'm dishonest! Maybe I'm a man! Or I don't exist! (All this from guys like these: 1, 2, 3, 4).

Hell-oo, guys! What's the ticket, hmm? I toldja, this is a space where I will point out things that make me go "Huh?" That's it! I'm not saying others hafta go "Huh?" about them too! I'm not saying you can't go "Huh?" about my little pieces - you can, and you're welcome to tell me so anytime in my Comments, okay?

But if you tell me I'm "dishonest" (and all the other gravy) 'coz I do this, I'm like, hey, the post's are out there. Yours'n'mine. People can decide. A boo-boo's a whatchamacallit that I call a boo-boo. And that's all I'll say on this. Back to the regular beat, here on out.

Thursday, August 25, 2005

Comment boo-boo

Hey hey, I just couldn't resist! Given who this comes from! Commenting on my previous post Representation boo-boo, Ravikiran, who *must* be the man behind one of my favourite blogs The Examined Life, asks me - Can you please learn to distinguish between a "difference of opinion" and a "boo boo"?.

I'm going, what? Youre telling me there's some laid-down-in-rock Oxford-Dictionary meaning of "boo-boo" and I violated it in that post? I'm like, ohhh yeah.

Larger and more populous states get an unfair advantage in the representation process is mistaken. IOW, fits my definition of "boo-boo".

Hafta run now, y'all! Back to more usual get-up in a few days.

Wednesday, August 24, 2005

Representation boo-boo

And now for a boo-boo from Nilu of Recursive Hypocrisy. You know what? I like this kind of thing - you're reading along, the thing seems reasonable and well-argued, and then wham! You're like, "Eh? Whawazzat?"

In Lok/Rajya Sabha and their Futility, Nilu makes this statement: larger and more populous states get an unfair advantage in the representation process.

Whoa, whoa, Nilu! Take two things about the statewise representation -

a) The states' populations have grown very differently since the last time they decided on the number of seats per state (maybe 25 years ago? I dunno). So guess what? now a state like Tamilnadu actually has more representatives than its population justifies, because it's population grew more slowly than, say, UP. (i.e., UP could make out that TN has an unfair advantage). So if a new redistricting comes up, TN would lose seats in comparison to UP.

b) But here's the rub - redistricting like that means that you penalize states who have worked to reduce their population growth, and reward states who have not. Not on! This whole puzzle maybe why the representation numbers have been frozen.

But none of this supports your claim that larger and more populous states get an unfair advantage in the representation process. More people need more representatives, and nothing is unfair with that per se! e.g. take TN and Karnataka, with similar populations, but I think TN has slightly more Lok Sabha seats. Assume for now, 39 vs 35 seats. Does TN have "an unfair advantage in the representation process"?

Let's be careful out there, gennelmen! Careful with those claims!

Tuesday, August 23, 2005

Double whammy

Two boo-boos in one post! (Well all righty, one's in the comments section).

TTG is in hand-wringing mode as he welcomes Mumbai's new airport terminal. I get my "Huh?" reax when I see posts like this, because I go, why should a man confuse two completely different things? It is possible to appreciate the new Mumbai terminal - and I will do it myself within the next 5 or 6 months. It is also possible to be dismayed at - to pick only one example from all of TTG's allusions - the Sikh-riot issue. India is large enough to handle both emotions and plenty more.

The feel-good types don't want any mention of bad news. The feel-bad types don't want any mention of good news. And I'm like, get over it, cats, all of ya! Repeat mode: India is large enough to handle both emotions and plenty more.

The second boo-boo today is this comment from Vulturo to this TTG post. Vulturo responded to my earlier Vulturo boo-boo post by saying the boo-boo was mere sarcasm which I didn't catch. I'm like, whatever - the post's out there, people can judge.

But now Vulturo himself is blind to TTG's sarcasm! (See next comment by TTG, where he explains for Vulturo's benefit).

Saturday, August 20, 2005

No political goals?

The second post about terrorism in a row!

In responding to the Bangladeshi bombings, Primary Red makes a very strange claim:

terrorists seek no political goals.

I'm like, "What are you talking about, Primary Red?"

I mean, what was the IRA fighting for? - They wanted independence for Northern Ireland. What about the LTTE? - a Tamil homeland. And the Palestinian suicide bombers? - Palestinian self-rule. The massacre men of
Gujarat? - Some idea of "revenge", that then turned into election victory. And the Chechens? - Independence for Chechenya.

Every one of these is a political goal, Primary Red! For a commentator as seasoned as you to gloss this over is amazing. It's like, if anyone underestimates the political goals of terrorism, you make the terrorists stronger. and harder to fight.

Thursday, August 18, 2005

Vulturo boo-boo

Today we have a boo-boo from Mr Vulturo. In his post Don't Take the Metro, he says -

It is very easy to identify terrorists on the London tube, but not on the Delhi tube. Reason - In London, they are all brown.

Oh yeah. I'm like, Come on! Have you never heard of the organisation that London-ers still remember most as terrorists, the IRA? Also, when I (and I'm brown) travel on the London tube, am I going to be "very easily" identified as a terrorist?

Wednesday, August 17, 2005

Two Boo-boos

Two well-known bloggers' boo-boos to begin. One post was made in January, the other last month. (Entries after this will be about more recent blog postings).

First, check Atanu Dey of Deeshaa writing The Hunger Banquet (or How to Fix the System for Good). In an excellent analysis he slips this in, connected with nothing else in the article -

Thus sang Cat Stevens. (That is before he converted to Islam and became known as Yusuf Islam, and in keeping with his adopted creed, decided that murdering people was the best way to effect change in the world.)

I'm like, what am I reading here? Firstly, what was the need for this uncalled for dig at a whole religion; secondly, what's the connection to "The Hunger Banquet", Atanu?

Atanu, you can hang on to your prejudices if you want, no prob. But don't stick them in where they make little sense.

Second, check Amit Varma of IndiaUncut writing, first of all, a vivid post about the Mumbai rainstorm called Streets Like Rivers. You will read this -

And yes, I also slipped into a manhole many years ago near Chembur station. Wading through thigh-deep water, I suddenly felt no ground beneath my feet, and found myself slipping.

Then read the even better article he wrote later for the Asian WSJ, When it Pours. He writes this line -

Like the men who pulled me out of a manhole that almost sucked me in when I was wading through thigh-deep water.

When I saw that, I went, "Wait a minute, Amit! You yourself told us this manhole event happened many years ago!" But his article is written after this storm, but it very quietly offers readers of the Asian Wall Street Journal the impression that it was during this storm that Amit almost fell into the manhole.

Not on, Amit!

An intro

Strolling thru the blogworld, I often run into things where I'm like, "Huh? What was that again?"

So just to keep bloggers alert - and we should all remember that some of them are journalists - this blog will be a space for occasionally highlighting some of these "Huh?" things.