I Wonder...

...if writing a blog is really just a way of fooling people into thinking you're a writer and not high/delusional/a little bipolar. Because you're really just sitting in a corner talking to yourself quite eloquently.

Ta-Da.

I have decided to...drum roll...reclaim this blog. I'm not entirely certain what has brought on this sudden relapse into another prematurely orphaned project of mine. Two possible reasons: One, I am finally re-inspired. Two, I am soon to be unemployed. Might as well have a vent handy.

Step 1: Change the name of this blog. It is not cool anymore to name a blog after yourself. Working on it.

Really, Shahbaz Sharif?

A few days ago, the chief minister of the Punjab province came into the limelight, for a strange, ill-advised commentary on the Taliban's recent attacks in Lahore (see Dawn's unusually strong-worded editorial about it here).

Sharif was also chief minister, Pubjab in 1999 when his brother, then PM Nawaz Sharif, was ousted by Parvez Musharraf during a bloodless military coup. The Sharif brothers were briefly imprisoned, and then exiled to Saudi Arabia, which lobbied to the Pakistani army for their release given its longtime cordial relations with the Sharif family. They eventually moved to London from where they re-entered Pakistani politics (Pakistani politicians have a history of holding political court from overseas).

Now, Musharraf is gone, and the Sharifs are back in power--sort of. While Shahbaz, once again, holds the coveted post of chief minister of the most powerful province in the country, his brother is continuing to dream of reclaiming the 'throne' he once occupied. BB's assassination and the subsequent rise of PPP to power have put that one on hold for now.

So anyway, here's the riveting piece of wisdom Shahbaz Sharif delivered at a gathering in Lahore, following the March 12 bomb blasts:

"General Musharraf planned a bloodbath of innocent Muslims at the behest of others only to prolong his rule, but we in the PML-N opposed his policies and rejected dictation from abroad, and if the Taliban are also fighting for the same cause then they should not carry out acts of terror in (PML-ruled) Punjab."

One would think that at this crucial time in the country's history, with the ongoing battle with the poisonous Taliban, and given how long he's been in politics, he'd have mastered the art of thinking before he speaks. It's hard to imagine he could actually think this speech Wouldn't be misconstrued by Pakistanis being slaughtered across the country by the Taliban. In a country already torn by enough ethnic hatred, comes this man stating why the Taliban shouldn't be carrying out acts of terrorism in his province (not Pakistan, but just the province he's ruling right now because his ass is on the line). Why? Because his party hated Musharraf just as much as they do.

Does any Pakistani really believe if Musharraf hadn't taken 'dictation' from the US post 9/11, Pakistan would have survived the explosion of American fury in Afghanistan and Iraq? Despite being the training ground for Al-Qaeda? I'm no fan of military rules and Musharraf may have made many other colossal mistakes in his decade-long tenure, but that wasn't one of them.

Shahbaz Sharif is a massive idiot. And unfortunately for Pakistanis in Punjab and elsewhere, he's an idiot still in charge.

(Photo courtesy www. apakistannews.com)

My Oscar Rant

On a lighter note, Sunday's Oscar ceremony was typically boring and overlong, which is fine and expected, but there was something especially annoying about it this time.

Apparently, some genius gave them the idea that broadcasting Barbara Walteresque testimonials by actor friends of the nominees would keep those flighty audiences rooted in their seats.

Well, here's what it came off as. Not that the overly patronizing, condescending and self-congratulatory world of Hollywood will ever get a clue about this, but must giving someone an award for best acting also entail proving that they have the purest of hearts as well? Tom Shales of the Post was right on when he played down the nauseating and rambling tributes to the 'great humanitarians' and the 'best fathers and husbands' of our times. No talk of the acting skill involved, the preparation, the labor of love that a well-acted role is, or the character they were nominated for. We do, however, know now that Julianne Moore truly loves Colin Firth and Morgan Freeman is bad with names. And Vera Farmiga's mom thinks George Clooney is a dish.

Who.the.hell.cares about whether Oscar nominees have a forty year old marriage or gave a million or two to Haiti or are oh-so-lovable? Were they nominated for the goodness of their hearts, or their general cuddliness? Heck no! They were nominated for doing their job, and as someone should tell the producers of Oscars too: DO YOUR JOB. Respect your own award.

The bitter pill called Aafia Siddiqui

Three days ago, Washington Post reported that that U.S. investigators have formally concluded the late Bruce Ivins, a government scientist, to have acted alone in the 2001 anthrax attacks that killed five people and sickened 17 others.

Bruce Ivins' actions bear testimony to a complicated fact: brilliant minds are more than capable of causing mindless, even inexplicable terror. Most of us will nod our heads to that. This isn't the first time someone seemingly normal and well-adjusted and ridiculously accomplished committed an awful crime. But here's another example of a ridiculously accomplished overachiever going bonkers. For my Pakistani friends, this should be easy.

The case of Aafia Siddiqui has baffled educated, urban Pakistanis for several years now. They have found Aafia's mysterious disappearance and arrest understandably hard to grapple with, given her stellar academic record, and most of all, her middle-class, genteel upbringing in the metropolis of Karachi. Even I, admittedly, reacted with disbelief when I first came across her strange story and tried hard to find answers that, due to the secrecy surrounding the entire case, did not come easy.

There is still so much that's unexplained. Yet, in the past few years, with a patchy yet telling unfolding of her circumstances and her subsequent court appearances, there are certain things that I've concluded.

Firstly, Siddiqui's recent conviction in a Manhattan court has to do with attempted murder of her interrogators, not terrorism. So without a terrorism conviction, nobody can brand her innocent or guilty of terrorism. Yet, if there is anyone deserving of the term 'shady' in the current slew of persons implicated in terrorism, it is she. While we do not know what the extent of her involvement was, Aafia Siddiqui was involved. In some way, in some capacity, she was. That's a forgone conclusion at this point. And while her family has steadfastly stood behind her, she cannot be fully exonerated from jeopardizing their lives, and her unfortunate children's lives to no point of return when she did become involved. I think it is safe to assume that an MIT educated scientist would be at least sufficiently conscious of what she was doing to have been caught as a complete innocente in the lethal ring of extremist terrorism as she did. It is unfathomable to let her off as simply a victim of her circumstances or associations--which is what most Pakistanis still believe.

There are two categories among those believers. One comprises of folks who feel Siddiqui doesn't deserve punishment even if she were guilty of the crimes she has been charged with. She was just doing what any good Muslim would do.

That category's bit of a lost cause.

My focus is the second group. These are educated, relatively more informed Pakistanis living in cities like the one where Siddiqui grew up, the people who refuse to admit the thought that Siddiqui could, in fact, be guilty in the first place given her background. It's important to at least try and reason with this particular group of her supporters, given the recent series of protests against the American court that tried her (a privilege not given to many others like her, something that deserves protesting about).

These Pakistanis need to come to terms with a bitter possibility about Aafia Siddiqui.

They need to open their minds, without jumping to conclusions, about unlikely participants in extremist-driven terrorism. Extremism does not always fit a bill and a certain profile. Just because she was a woman, just because she was a mother, or just because she went to MIT does not mean much, for people are complicated. And preconceived notions often fall flat. And brilliant people do not always make brilliant choices.

Obviously, Aafia Siddiqui made some unlikely choices along the way. If her case progresses beyond the recent conviction, we as Pakistanis need to prepare ourselves to hear unsavory truths. I have a feeling they are inevitable.

And time yet for a hundred indecisions

Since I have nothing original to say, I will let T.S. Eliot speak for me this sunny, wintry Saturday.

My favorite excerpts from the very tedious, and very beautiful, Love Song of J.Alfred Prufrock.

--
Let us go then, you and I,
When the evening is spread out against the sky
Like a patient etherised upon a table;
Let us go, through certain half-deserted streets,
The muttering retreats
Of restless nights in one-night cheap hotels
And sawdust restaurants with oyster-shells:
Streets that follow like a tedious argument
Of insidious intent
To lead you to an overwhelming question …
Oh, do not ask, “What is it?”
Let us go and make our visit.

In the room the women come and go
Talking of Michelangelo.
---

There will be time, there will be time
To prepare a face to meet the faces that you meet;
There will be time to murder and create,
And time for all the works and days of hands
That lift and drop a question on your plate;
Time for you and time for me,
And time yet for a hundred indecisions,
And for a hundred visions and revisions,
Before the taking of a toast and tea.

In the room the women come and go
Talking of Michelangelo.
--

Shall I part my hair behind? Do I dare to eat a peach?
I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach.
I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each.

I do not think that they will sing to me.
--

Shopping for a cause...

For the last year, I've been involved in starting a Washington DC chapter of The Citizens Foundation USA (http://www.tcfusa.org/), my favorite charity (and once employer) that builds schools in underprivileged communities throughout Pakistan. My fellow members and I recently chose a particular school project to support through our fundraising efforts (information about the project at the bottom of this post).

We're starting a fantastic new fundraising program to support our project, one that allows just about anyone in North America to support TCF while shopping at a very interesting new website, jasmere.com.

Jasmere.com is a new “social shopping” website that sells unique items at great discounts. Once you sign up, each weekday you'll get an email from them offering a different, unique product from a specialty web retailer--normally one that hasn't gotten a lot of press yet. Jasmere will offer this product for sale at a heavily discounted price for a limited period, and the price decreases further as more people buy it.

Jasmere offers a range of novel and beautiful (or delicious) products, such as gorgeous purses made in Cambodia, children’s toys made of organic alpaca from Peru, letterpress cards made on an 1870s press, and even chocolate chip cookies or fresh oranges from Florida! You have 24 hours to act on each day’s offer, except for Fridays, when you have the weekend as well. For more information see this. Check out a list of the products they've offered since starting last month here.

And here's how you can help TCF: Each time you buy something on jasmere.com in the next month (starting today), enter the code "TCF" in the gift code box at check-out. At the end of the month-long period, jasmere.com will give us $5 for each time the code was entered!

So do check out jasmere.com today...even better, right now. Just sign up for their daily emails, and then shop while supporting education for children in Pakistan.

And now a bit about our project:

We're raising funds to cover the annual operating costs of a school in a village in the Bagh district, in the Azad Kashmir (the Pakistan-governed Kashmir region). The Umm Dardah Campus, named after a female Muslim scholar, is a primary school located in a village that was destroyed in the earthquake of 2005. Construction of the school, which is earthquake-proof, is 90% complete and will start operations in April 2010. Like all TCF schools, the Umm Dardah Campus will include open, airy classrooms as well as a play area, a library, and an art room.

Sustaining the school for one year costs $13,800, which covers utilities, salaries for teachers and other staff, teachers’ transportation to and from school, administrative overheads as well as and books and uniforms for the children. These items are provided at highly subsidized rates to kids who can afford them, and free of cost to those who can't.

Thanks to fundraisers held last fall, we're well on our way to achieving our goal--but we have to get all the way there by April! So every little bit helps.

Happy shopping.

Up in the Air - A review

Note: Spoiler Alert

I had been very excited to see Up in the Air. The trailer showed a classic Hollywood recipe for success: George Clooney, a cynical, impossibly handsome vagabond who's bit of a prick, and passes cynical and adorably unashamed judgment on every facet of life until he has a change of heart, meets his perfect match, and is redeemed. Oh and there’s that side story involving his obsession with airports and a career that entails firing people in a terrible economy.

Side story, ha. If there’s anything that should be relegated to the side in this film, it is the seemingly soulless relationship between Ryan (Clooney) and his equally suave en-route squeeze, played by Vera Farmiga. And all that American Airlines' product placement. And a very predictable storyline involving Ryan's sister’s wedding to a surprisingly tame Danny McBride. Oh, Ryan is redeemed alright, that much was coming from the start. What I didn’t see coming was the movie’s incredibly sad, and real, portrayal of a thankless, cruel process of ego-stripping that is repeated daily, in massive numbers in the present American economy. The subject of corporate layoffs, that life-shattering gift of recession, grabs center stage in this film. Perhaps unwittingly on director Jason Reitman’s behalf, the multiple images of just-fired employees (two of them played by the wonderful Zach Galifianakis and J.K.Simmons) outshine every bit of funny dialogue shared by Clooney, Farmiga and Anna Kendrick. All others are simply props that ultimately fail to take away any of the grim ugliness from the movie’s chosen backdrop.

Yes, the director did try to soften the bleak ending by playing interview clips of three of the fired employees, in which they quietly concede that getting fired is not, after all, akin to death like one character stated earlier in the film. They each recount things that give them hope and comfort in their lives and save them from going over the edge like one woman actually does, jumping off a bridge. And then there is Ryan's change of heart, of course, as he recognizes the importance of being 'grounded'. However, for me at least, all these failed to replace one lasting image the movie left me with: a burly, macho-looking fifty eight year old man in Detroit, who sits in his chair unabashedly weeping for a good several minutes in front of the video conference that had just communicated to him that he was let go. The epitome of the broken American dream.

I did try to push away these images and focus on the movie’s actual protagonists, and care more about what happened to them in particular, but I failed. Mainly because the movie isn't long enough to develop its characters more sharply, to give us a little bit more history. In a short hour and a half there are too many different elements at work simultaneously--the firings and the airports and the frequent flier miles and the casual sex and all those teachable moments, first for Natalie and then for Ryan. Thankfully though, Reitman saves the movie from banality by delivering a twist at the end that nobody saw coming. The sheer cynicism that we associate with Ryan in the beginning of the movie hits us with a bang from another character. We only suspect it at the very end, so it’s brutal. So brutal in fact that it leaves absolutely no room to feel anything remotely resembling comfort or joy from the overall film.

It's safe to say then, that while giving us another very good--if not his best--film, Reitman doesn't deliver as many laughs as pensive thoughts in this one, compared to Juno and the brilliant Thank You for Smoking. In fact I feel sometimes the effort to keep things light is forced, especially around the middle. It hits the nail on the head in more ways than one, but Up in the Air is definitely not up for laughs.

OCD

You’re stuck indefinitely in a bubble of soap and antiseptic liquid, the overpowering scent of alcohol compounds that promise to exfoliate you of the insurmountable…dirt. What an inadequate word to describe an object of a lifetime of inexplicable and inconvenient fear.

But it's not just that. There are the ticks. Nobody wants to know what lurks behind that slightly fidgety, but still apparently normal exterior; fearful they’d see that borderline crazed part of themselves they try to bury every morning before they walk out into the world. They graciously ignore, and discount your ‘quirks’. Because that nervous tick in the forehead is actually familiar to some; as is that compulsive adjusting and readjusting of the left shoulder. They’ve been through that multiple hand washing phase, at one point or the other. It happens, and they indulge you.

Yet what they do not know is that for you, it’s not just a cute phase. It is as permanent as the DNA running in your veins. It is not just a small, borderline crazed part of yourself that you shed when walking into public, and resume in privacy. It’s running through your body, every second of every conversation, and it is exhausting. Well-intentioned but clueless words of advice follow you--self control, self discipline, self control. You can do it, you're told, like empty good luck wishes before a competition you know you're going to lose.

Self control. If only.

Why Legalizing Marijuana Won't Destroy America (or Anyone Else)

LA Times states that in a Zogby International poll taken earlier this year, 44% of Americans said marijuana should be taxed and legally regulated like alcohol and cigarettes. Here's probably why:

Annual American Deaths Caused by Drugs:

Tobacco: 400,000
Alcohol: 100,000
All Legal Drugs: 20,000
ALL Illegal Drugs: 15,000
Caffeine: 2,000
Aspirin: 500
Marijuana: 0

(National Institute of Drug Abuse)

Yet, it doesn't surprise me when someone (most often of my own gender) proclaims 'that pothead' to be the spawn of evil. This is what we've been raised to believe: pot is scandalous; potheads, lawless lowlifes. But like so many other societal traditions and myths that we have also been raised to believe, this one's no less of baloney. And its believers, as usual, have no idea what they're talking about.

Take it from someone who used to be that believer only a few years ago. Also take it from someone who has absolutely nothing to gain from giving up that belief--I don't smoke. Anything. Yet, I now look back ruefully at all the times I equated marijuana smokers with scandalous, lawless perpetrators of evil and think: what an utterly tiresome waste of time.

What instigated this post however is not that realization, but an interesting exchange I had with a friend one afternoon. Like 56% of misguided Americans, my friend draws an 'absolute' line at smoking pot and those who do it. Total disdain (no Harolds and Kumars in her circle!). It got me thinking: how exactly does that whole 'drinking is plain good fun but marijuana we draw a line at' argument work? Considering that drunk drivers kill thousands each year, alcohol poisoning kills, excessive drinking damages the liver, and the general profile of a drunk is that of a miserably unhappy and violent menace to society, how does smoking pot compare?

1) People killed in road accidents by non-drunk pot smokers: 0
2) Number of rowdy bar fights: 0
3) Number of godawful rants about their childhood/mother/ex-wife recounted to complete strangers (with tears): 0
4) Tears: 0

On the other hand, marijuana users are routinely found to be excessively happy and hungry, traits that haven't to date killed any of them. But kudos to the Alcohol industry on fooling an entire civilization so superbly for so long. And as for all you Mexican pot smugglers, you have obviously no marketing skills whatsoever, precisely why you need to be replaced by legal marijuana trading channels--the kind that pay their taxes.

There is no doubt that like anything else in the world (including Skittles and High Fructose Corn Syrup), Marijuana is subject to abuse. Its frequent overuse can induce lethargic behavior (commonly known as laziness). It can also cause short-term memory loss, but only while under the influence and does not impair long-term memory. Contrary to another myth, marijuana also does not lead to harder drugs. People who want to do hard drugs, need not use marijuana as a gateway--Cocaine, Heroine and other hard drugs have nothing in common with marijuana. Unlike them, marijuana does not cause brain damage or damage the immune system, or kill brain cells and induce violent behavior like alcohol does. Continuous long-term smoking of marijuana can cause bronchitis, for the same reason that Cigarettes can cause bronchitis: inhaling smoke. But chances of bronchitis from casual marijuana smoking are tiny, and if only marijuana was legal and marketed through legal means, people would know that respiratory health hazards can be totally eliminated by consuming it through non-smoking methods, such as vaporizers or baked foods.

What annoys me the most about the entire debate surrounding marijuana is the hypocrisy found on the other end of the argument. Tobacco and Alcohol industries pour billions of dollars into marketing and lobbying their products as cool, stylish, and socially acceptable recreational products. Yet it is universally accepted that both have harmful side-effects on health. But the brouhaha surrounding marijuana and its users is so powerful, so ingrained, that without knowing the least bit about cannabis and its effects, society lumps it together with The Drugs. Hard drugs are dangerous, seriously detrimental to health, addictive. Marijuana is neither. And yet, this faulty, pointless debate keeps thriving based on self-righteous and ignorant assumptions.

What's ironic is that many of our ancestors were brighter than that. The elders of South Asia mixed 'Ma'ajoon' (a form of powdered cannabis) into herbal medicine for those in pain. Sufis used it to help them meditate. If only these scandalous evilmongers knew their Ma'ajoon will become such a huge, annoying deal one day...