Monday, January 21, 2008
Skiing
I had tried skiing once, last year. I ended up rolling down the slopes, more than skiing down the slopes. I was lucky to avoid injuries, but was beaten up pretty bad. My son is two years old now, and will be ready to take skiing lessons next season. I really want to be able to ski with him, rather than just hand him off to an instructor. So, I decided to give it another shot last week. To my own surprise, I had much better control this time and did very well, though on an easier slope. I was encouraged enough to buy my own set of gear on my way back. I return to the slopes tomorrow, hoping to go on to an intermediate slope!
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
Sydney Cricket Test
Everyone and his brother is writing/calling/discussing about the Sydney cricket test (and the aftermath). I have strong feelings about many aspects of that game. I spent a lot of time last night reading up many blogs and articles about it. I will just link some of the articles where I found the author's opinion coincided with mine, instead of typing up all my frustrations! However, I felt I wanted to describe the following couple of points:
1. Mike Procter's "judgment"
Mike went ahead and pronounced Harbhajan Singh guilty of racism. And there has been a tremendous amount of pressure on him to explain the basis of his decision. He has not been able to show any thread of evidence, whatsoever, beyond a couple of "witnesses". And these witnesses are the same blokes whose overall credibility has a big asterisk next to it. He also had a couple of Indian players saying exactly the opposite. And one of these Indians (Tendulkar) is respected worldwide for his integrity. Let us keep the asterisks and the respect aside for a minute. Aussies were the accusers in this case and the Indians were the accused. When there was absolutely no evidence (at least none that has been disclosed so far), how can the judge just believe the accuser and rule the accused guilty? And after all this, he dares to say that he was "convinced beyond reasonable doubts" that Harbhajan Singh was guilty. What happened to the concept of "innocent until proven guilty"?
2. Umpiring
Pretty much everyone would agree that Geoffrey Boycott's granny would have done a much better job than Steve Bucknor and Mark Benson (combined) in this match. Aussie public has been gracious in acknowledging it. There has been a generous outpour of support and sympathy for the Indian team. Aussies have also been gracious enough to deplore their own team and their own captain for their behavior throughout (and at the end of) the match. However, a small section of them have said that umpiring in the Indian sub-continent used to be biased 20 years back, and hence Indians should not really cry when decisions go against them. I agree that umpires used to be biased in that age. However, can you punish the current generation because of what their grand dads did?! Given that racism used to be prevalent in Australia a few generations back, can racism be justified now against them? Can we use the same logic and call the whole "Bhajji episode" a non-issue and move on?
Here are links to a few articles that coincided with my line of thinking. There were more, but I cannot find them now!
Why Ricky Ponting should be banned - I really like this!
Justice, not world domination
Open your eyes, Ricky
1. Mike Procter's "judgment"
Mike went ahead and pronounced Harbhajan Singh guilty of racism. And there has been a tremendous amount of pressure on him to explain the basis of his decision. He has not been able to show any thread of evidence, whatsoever, beyond a couple of "witnesses". And these witnesses are the same blokes whose overall credibility has a big asterisk next to it. He also had a couple of Indian players saying exactly the opposite. And one of these Indians (Tendulkar) is respected worldwide for his integrity. Let us keep the asterisks and the respect aside for a minute. Aussies were the accusers in this case and the Indians were the accused. When there was absolutely no evidence (at least none that has been disclosed so far), how can the judge just believe the accuser and rule the accused guilty? And after all this, he dares to say that he was "convinced beyond reasonable doubts" that Harbhajan Singh was guilty. What happened to the concept of "innocent until proven guilty"?
2. Umpiring
Pretty much everyone would agree that Geoffrey Boycott's granny would have done a much better job than Steve Bucknor and Mark Benson (combined) in this match. Aussie public has been gracious in acknowledging it. There has been a generous outpour of support and sympathy for the Indian team. Aussies have also been gracious enough to deplore their own team and their own captain for their behavior throughout (and at the end of) the match. However, a small section of them have said that umpiring in the Indian sub-continent used to be biased 20 years back, and hence Indians should not really cry when decisions go against them. I agree that umpires used to be biased in that age. However, can you punish the current generation because of what their grand dads did?! Given that racism used to be prevalent in Australia a few generations back, can racism be justified now against them? Can we use the same logic and call the whole "Bhajji episode" a non-issue and move on?
Here are links to a few articles that coincided with my line of thinking. There were more, but I cannot find them now!
Why Ricky Ponting should be banned - I really like this!
Justice, not world domination
Open your eyes, Ricky
Starbucks
Starbucks market cap has tumbled by about 50% over the last year. Their chairman came back to take up the CEO position in an attempt to reverse the trend. I am surprised that they cannot figure out the reasons for the lack of sales. Their prices have been steadily going up over the last few years. It costs five bucks now to get a good coffee there! And you have to explicitly ask for no-foam coffee to get a decent volume of Latte. If not, you get half cup of Latte topped with half cup of foam! Call me a penny-pincher, but I hate to pay for foam!
Having said that, I have always loved their coffee. They just worked themselves into a brand image where they come across as unaffordable for the majority of masses. On the other hand, Dunkin' Donuts has been growing steadily and is expanding beyond its northeast stronghold. Dunkin' coffee is decent enough and the prices are much lower than those of Starbucks. I guess I have grown to like the Dunkin' flavor over the last couple of years. Or, maybe I am just getting used to the life in New England!
Having said that, I have always loved their coffee. They just worked themselves into a brand image where they come across as unaffordable for the majority of masses. On the other hand, Dunkin' Donuts has been growing steadily and is expanding beyond its northeast stronghold. Dunkin' coffee is decent enough and the prices are much lower than those of Starbucks. I guess I have grown to like the Dunkin' flavor over the last couple of years. Or, maybe I am just getting used to the life in New England!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)