One one things

Long time back I watched a movie called Legal Eagles. Like many movies that I enjoyed, I only remember the fact that i liked it a lot, and precious few further details. After watching it I got hooked on the idea of becoming a lawyer, and even encouraged my friend’s elder brother who was doing his O/Ls then to watch it bc he was keen on law (at the time I was about 6, and he was about 16. About 15 years later the two of us became colleagues in the same research institute, tiny tiny Colombo). Anyhow, I was determined to defend the innocent and damn the guilty, it all sounded very glamorous. But my family was critical of the idea, and effectively quelled my tender hopes. Aachchi would frown and shake her head saying lawyers are “boru karayas” who are out to get your wallet, others would tell me that being a lawyer makes it difficult to sleep at night. I didn’t quite understand this, and firmly believed that there was nothing that couldn’t be solved by some Piriton and musawada. Nonetheless the idea drifted away and became one with many other faded dreams (see The Job Hunt).

A couple of years ago I was thinking about career options and law crossed my mind bc one of my favourite teachers had done the same undergrad course as I, and then did a law conversion degree and is now a hotshot London lawyer. The profession seemed very appealing again, I’ve always enjoyed logical argument and i’d imagine it to be an excellent intellectual challenge. You’d have to construct a watertight logical argument, and defend it against another man’s own effort at the same. May the best man/woman win. It’s like a sport, a battle almost, sounds excellent. Throw in the bonus of helping those wrongly accused and handing out justice to those who deserve punishment. Of course this refers mainly to criminal law, I guess other forms of law won’t be as exciting.

Unfortunately there’s a hitch. The problem would arise when you have to defend somebody that you know is guilty. Everybody deserves a fair trial, that includes those who are guilty. Say for instance a rapist asks for your services, do you defend him wholeheartedly with the possibility of getting him back on the streets on a legal loophole, or do you not give it your best and thereby not allow him a fair trial? It’s a dilemma. I was at a dinner once where a doctor asked a lawyer how he can bring himself to defend a man who he knows to be guilty. The lawyer replied, “machan, if your worst enemy comes to you in terrible pain, would you not try to cure him?” That makes sense I think. For the legal system to work you need to have lawyers defending the guilty, if there was no assurance of a fair trial for both parties the legal system would lose its validity. Some might argue that those who are guilty of such offences do not deserve a free trial. But, how can we be sure they are guilty unless they go through a legal process and all evidence is put forward clearly? Innocent until proven guilty. And you cannot prove their guilt without due legal process. Due legal process requires a fair trial, therefore everyone deserves a fair trial.

Being a criminal lawyer is a morally difficult thing to do, but someone’s got to do it. I don’t think I have the moral courage to do it. I don’t think I could sleep at night knowing I have helped a killer/rapist/thief get back on the streets to do his thing. And I don’t know whether I should be in awe of those who do defend these ppl or whether I should lose all respect for them.

For all the joys London has to offer, the best is the Westend. One of the few shortcomings of Colombo is the lack of regular high quality theatrical and musical productions. You get the odd good show from time to time, but nowhere enough to do justice to the talent that I am confident is abundant in Sri Lanka. So the Westend to me was a whole new world. I got my first taste of it in July last year when I watched Phantom at her Majesty’s theater when I was here on holiday. I spent much of the time gaping like a goldfish at the splendor of the set. I was hooked. I knew that one thing I had to do over the course of this academic year was to catch as many of the Westend shows as budget and time allowed. I’ve done a fairly good job so far, the following is a taste of what I’ve seen.

Phantom of the Opera - I saw this last year with my mother before I started university. Phantom is a classic. It combines an amazing set (make that several amazing sets, starting with the breathtaking elephant scene, the falling chandelier, the sublime boat scene, the amazing costumes in the masquerade and many many others), top notch opera and a quite decent story. Everything about Phantom is larger than life, everything is so glamorous. I’m not a big fan of Opera myself, but unlike most operas i’ve been to, the story in Phantom is easy to follow. The musical score is excellent, and the musicians did it justice on the night. Songs like Angel of Music, Music of the Night and the Phantom of the Opera are brilliant. I can’t think of too many criticisms, except that it possibly ran 15 mins too long. Phantom is one of those must sees, I’m really glad it was the first of the Westends that I saw, bc it’s a great introduction.

Stomp - My westend partner in crime is my housemate, and our first target was Guys and Dolls, which she really wanted to see. Unfortunately the show was sold out so we hopped a tube from Picadilly circus to the Strand to see if Chicago had any vacant seats. Apparently not. Close by another show called Stomp was showing, and I had heard it was unique and fun so we thought what the hell. The trick with the Westend is to go an hour before the show and in most theaters they will give you the best seats available for under half the usual price, if you are a student (or particularly old). This is a good thing bc otherwise tickets are fairly pricey, the decent seats are upward of 35 quid. So Stomp, managed to get ok seats and settled down to expect the unexpected. It’s difficult to classify Stomp, it’s certainly not a musical, it’s not a play and it’s not comedy. I guess the only way to describe it is performance. There’s no story in Stomp, what they try to do is to make music out of everyday objects from brooms to pencils to dustbins to sinks, and throw in some athletic dancing and drama. There’s a group of about 8 performers who do this over several scenes from the work place. Some of them are real characters who without speech manage to create humour using mime, a bit of slapstick (not too much) and general comic timing. Timing. That’s the key to Stomp, everything is beautifully choreographed, the performers work together beautifully and all in all pull off a show out of pretty much nothing. That’s what is most impressive about Stomp, they use very limited props and create “music”, rhythm, dance and a show. The most memorable scenes were the emptying sinks and the massive drum fest at the end. The only criticism is that sometimes the noise gets slightly too loud and you might get a bit of a headache. But in general great fun, great rhythm and great entertainment. And utterly unique.

Lion King - We caught Lion King on another failed attempt to see Guys and Dolls. This time hopped the tube to Covent Garden at 7.20 to catch the 7.30 show, we got £45 tickets for £17.50, a superb deal in any book. Squeezed in at 7.30 for the opening scene, The Circle of life. I don’t think i stopped smiling from that moment. The stage and the set is massive and elaborately done, the music excellent (loved the drummers on the sides) the costumes are brilliant, the little baby elephant is probably the cutest thing you’d see at the Westend (the hyena costumes were slightly dodge though).The nice thing about Lion king is that most ppl know the music already so you can sing along to yourself (if like me your voice is best limited to the shower) and the music is really really nice. I was a bit apprehensive about it at first bc I had a feeling it might be slightly kiddish. And though much of it would appeal to kids, there’s plenty in there for the older ppl too. The one thing that was not too flash about Lion king was some of the acting, not to say that it was bad, but it wasn’t stand out as such. In summary, Lion King: Costumes, set, music and fun.

The Woman in Black - Went to watch this pretty much bc of a deal on lastminute.com. Got £30 tickets for a tenner. The web is another ok place to buy tickets, specially lastminute’s website has good stuff and some decent deals on something or the other at some point. Another way to get tickets cheap is to go to Leicester sq or Covent garden on the day of the show and buy from one of the many places selling theater tickets (it’s hard to miss, they’re well advertised). (But then I know ppl who’ve lived in London for 1.5 years but don’t know how to find China Town in Leicester sq). That said, Women in Black was a real dark horse (pardon the pun), very pleasantly surprised at the end of the show. The story is a quite basic ghost story, and one would expect a rather elaborate set and special effects in order to pull off an appropriately chilling theatrical horror. But no, Woman in Black was probably the most minimalist production of the ones I saw. It involves very basic props, just 2 actors who play all the roles, and one ghost. The story is chilling enough, but what really makes the show tick is the acting. It’s quite simply very high class suspense acting and good use of sound effects. It isn’t as scary as they make it out to be, but it’s scary enough. It would however have been even better if the final twist was a bit more subtle, most ppl guessed it half way through the show.

The Producers - An outstanding musical comedy. Again went to this based on some good reviews and recommendations without knowing what it’s all about. It’s a Mel Brookes production and originally starred Matthew Broderick and Nathan Lane (found this out yesterday). A very brief synopsis is as follows. A fallen from grace Broadway producer realises that productions that flop can be used to quietly embezzle cash since the money boys don’t pay much attention to them. So he goes about trying to assemble the worst possible production, the worst play (Springtime for Hitler), the worst actors and the worst director. The story follows this production process and culminates in the actual play itself which is simply hilarious. There’s a bit of slapstick (again not too much), a bit of profanity, a lot of potentially insulting innuendos but all very classily amalgamated into a fine performance. I laughed pretty much non-stop, though the second half dragged ever so slightly (the prison scenes were out of place). My favourites were within the performace of Springtime for Hitler, including the Swastika scene, the girls in the tanks and Hitler’s brilliant emergence. The score is witty and original, the set is again impressive and plenty of humourous detail obviously went into the costumes. Overall, extremely funny, and a must see for anyone with a sense of humour.

Chicago - Chicago is all about the music. They have a quite brilliant band which takes an unusual position on the stage itself reflecting their critical role in the production. The conductor himself is quite a character, he jumps around, and really knows how to work the crowd. The story isn’t remarkable, nor are the costumes, the set isn’t elaborate but they make excellent use of the available space and props. But I can’t reiterate enough the significance of the music. I strongly recommend having a listen to the songs prior to watching it bc you can then sing-a-long and enjoy it all the more. I particularly loved the songs All that Jazz, Mr. Cellophane, Razzle Dazzle, The Cell Block Tango and We Both Reached for the Gun. The voice of the guy playing Mr. Flynn is amazing, Roxie and Velma are both impressive singers though they didn’t quite look the part. But maybe I’m expecting too much after Mrs. Zeta-Jones. For me the jazz band stole the show comprehensively, they really bring the performance to life, helped by a brilliantly written score in most places. It’s also a really good idea to buy the CD of the official London recordings, though it’s a bit pricey at £15, it’s certainly worth it. Anybody who likes jazz, big bands, swing music, or just girls in tight see through clothes, go watch Chicago at the Strand.

That’s all I’ve seen so far. I’m very keen on watching Les Miserables and Guys and Dolls, and I’m likely to end up watching Mamma Mia, Sinatra (coming Tuesday if all goes according to plan) and maybe Billy Elliot. Will post on these in due time. Until then, check out The London Theater Guide for a gateway to the Westend.

It’s incredibly hard to wake up in the morning in England bc of the cold and gloom, and the better part of the tube journey towards central London is in that zone between being awake and being asleep. Rush hour tube journeys are not fun, almost always a tight squeeze, much like Colombo buses, minus the dust. But, when the tube stops at my station the voice recording says “This is Holborn” and everyone steps off the tube and walks in unison down the corridors, earplugs in place, Metro’s under arms, I feel awake and alive. It’s as if we’re the blood flowing through the veins of London as she wakes up and begins another day. There’s this irresistable pulse of the city, everyone has a place to be, someone to meet and something to do. I’m quite a chill person but even when there’s nothing to do i’m automatically drawn into this rhythm and end up running up and down escalators and walking real fast. As night falls the same rhythm and buzz can be felt as London gets ready to let her hair down. Walking around Leicester square or Covent Garden you again feel part of a greater picture, a piece in a puzzle. There’s an incessant buzz of hundreds of ppl talking, music playing, laughter and ladies’ heals clicking.

I never thought i’d like the “rush” of a big city, in fact the first time I came to London was an utter nightmare. In my first year of undergrad I was due to meet a friend at Clapham junction station, and my coach got late by a couple of hours due to some motorway incident. Unfortunately I didn’t have a mobile phone at the time, and nor did my friend. So when I got to Victoria I was quite lost, it was around 9pm and I had no idea how to make my way to clapham junc. Completely disorientated and struggling to find my way through the mad rush of the crowd, I finally found a ticket counter. I got to Clapham almost 3 hours late and was certain my friend wouldn’t have waited. I planned to sleep in some shop in the station bc I had no idea where he or anyone else in London was staying. After walking around the station a bit, and gradually losing my grip on things, I saw someone sitting on the staircase, head in hands, looking almost as despondant as myself. Happily enough it was my friend, and to this day I’ve not been happier to see him. We celebrated with some String hoppers and kottu at some Sri Lankan joint in that area. Made it all better. This other time I had to get to London to do some graduate entrance exam somewhere in Oxford street. I didnt know where the exact by-road was so I kept asking ppl but nobody knew, which was very surprising bc I knew Colombo like the back of my hand (btw, that is a strange phrase, if the back of my hand was in a parade with other backs of hands I would have no chance of picking it) and expected ppl to know their own city too. Obviously underestimated the vastness of London at the time. I felt lost and intimidated by the size of London, and I far preferred the smaller cities and towns I had lived and studied in.

The early experiences made me weary of London and it took a good deal convincing to make me apply here for postgrad. Having lived here for 5 months now, my opinion has completely changed. I’ve learned to love the buzz and the big city feel. I love the fact that at almost every tube stop you can find a different experience. There’s an incredible array of food, theater, music, markets, galleries, museums and other forms of entertainment. Also there’s an amazing variety of ppl in this city. I mean, just on one tube carriage alone you can hear so many different languages spoken. To take an example, in my trade class out of the 12 ppl there’s just one Englishman; there are South Africans, Aussies, Kiwis, Brazilians, Spaniards, an American Lankan, Nigerian, Chinese, American Indian (not red indian) and more. Most of all I love the fact that the city seems to have a life of its own, it’s always on the go, always awake, always buzzing. Despite being a very temporary resident in this city I feel like i have become part of it, as the ads on the tube say, 7 Million Londoners, One London.

I was listening to some Ben Harper on a chill sunday night and came across this gem. It’s called Burn one down and it’s available on the Fight for your mind (1995) album. Ben Harper is fabulous if you like chilled out, melodic, folky sort of music. If you liked this also have a listen to Oppression, Fight for your mind, Excuse me mister, Mama’s got a girlfriend now and Walk away. I like this particular song bc it echoes some of my views on individual freedom. The recent ban on smoking in public areas in the UK is in my opinion an overdue act, and some have opposed it based on the grounds of it abusing individual freedom. This is not correct bc smoking affects third parties in the form of passive smoking, particularly the ppl working in the public place in question. If you want to smoke you ought to do it in private without adversely affecting the health of others. The strange thing is that smoking in public places has been allowed for an age but other substances like cannabis are looked upon in a far less favourable light under the law even when consumed in private. In Burn one down Harper makes a case for the legalization of the private consumption of ganja.

Burn One Down

Let us burn one from end to end,
And pass it over to me my friend.
Burn it long, we’ll burn it slow,
To light me up before I go.

If you don’t like my fire, then don’t come around,
‘cause I’m gonna burn one down.
Yes, I’m gonna burn one down.

My choice is what I choose to do,
And if I’m causing no harm, it shouldn’t bother you.

Your choice is who you choose to be,
And if you’re causin’ no harm, then you’re alright with me.

If you don’t like my fire, then don’t come around,
‘cause I’m gonna burn one down.
Yes, I’m gonna burn one down.

Herb the gift from the earth,
And what’s from the earth is of the greatest worth.
So before you knock it try it first,
Oh, you’ll see it’s a blessing and not a curse.

If you don’t like my fire, then don’t come around,
‘cause I’m gonna burn one down.
Yes, I’m gonna burn one, oohhh.

My friend to whom I referred in my last post has been unable to post her own response bc the spaminator was convinced she’s trying to abuse me. That said, I am of the opinion that she is fairly harmless, so this is her post.

Ok “ddm” This is going to be a looong rant. Prepare yourself. First; I’m thrilled that our topic of conversation the other day got you thinking. Clearly I am making YOU a better person and you are just polluting my mind with your racist jokes.

Second:

“if I can make people laugh, surely that’s a good thing?”

Not necessarily true, I’m sure there are those that find the abuse of Iraqi prisoners absolutely hilarious — does it mean that it’s funny? Not to burst your bubble, but I think that the fact that ppl find your ‘N’ word jokes funny, is a reflection of the ppl that are laughing, not necessarily the joke.

Third; nothing you’ve said has made me change my mind & I stand by what I said the other day. One of your arguments was about having no black friends, but I dont think that is necessarily true. I also have no black friends (this is circumstance, not choice) — that right there tells you something about the british private school system & the uni we both attended and discrimination, but that’s a whole another story! — yet I would never ever use the N word or the Sa ‘K’ word to describe a black person.

I didn’t study slavery in school/civil rights movement in school, but to me, the N word spoken by any non-black just is entirely unnecessary. White slave owners used to rape, torture and beat their slaves, torch the schools of black children and generally do pretty crappy things and THEY are the ppl who used this word, if anything (imo) I think THAT’s a reason right there not to use it.

I’m not entirely sure about the cultural argument, because I would never use a word that is derogatory to Tamils, despite not knowing any (again, circumstance not choice).

Re; the ‘they use it so why can’t we’. I’d go with the mother argument, it’s ok for you to insult your own mother in front of me — but you’re not looking for me to agree with you. Similar thing. Second, it doesn’t matter if they use it. It’s not for us, as non-blacks to question the equality of the ‘rule’. If it offends them, it IS offensive. End of story.

Thing is “ddm” racist words are simply not in my vocab, so I cannot comprehend any of your “arguments”. They are rude and vile, whether or not someone of that race is within earshot or not.

I think it’s fair to reach two conclusions at this point a) I am clearly a better human being than you. b) YOUR JOKES ARE NOT FUNNY! - Racist or otherwise. Hah!

That is all for now. On another note, hope you’re feeling better now.

Your die-hard fan (stalker), you are an inspiration to us all and we all aspire to be more like you. Ohm Ohm.

A

And that’s it, none of this was edited except the ohm ohm part.

I recently had a debate with a friend about the use of racially derogatory language. We couldn’t come to any mutual agreement after several sessions, and there’s a lot of interesting points that came up. It started with me sharing some rather harsh and racist jokes with her and she getting offended (despite being the same race and religion as I). She was particularly peeved about the use of the word nigger in humour. It should be said that she’s a Brit Lankan (SL parents but born and bred in the UK) and that i’m a Lankan lankan (SL parents born and bred in SL).

The word nigger is rather harsh, and I would never use it in front of a black person bc whether or not it offends them, it’s not very respectful. As my friend pointed out, it has very deep and unpleasant roots, touching on slavery and oppression. I have no issues about using that word, and other potentially insulting racial caricatures as long as it is in good humour and nobody of that race is within earshot and as long as nobody else gets offended by such usage. If my intention is not to harm anyone, and nobody does get harmed by my use of such language, I do not see it as a problem. Also if it can make some ppl laugh, surely that’s a good thing? I wouldn’t really have a problem if somebody took the piss out of me as long as I didn’t get to hear about it (and as long as those ppl aren’t my friends or some ppl that I care about).

So why did my saying nigger in a joke bother her so much? Her argument was that it’s a matter of cultural difference. Back in SL the word nigger doesn’t really carry as much historical baggage as it does in England, and it carries less baggage in England than it does in the Southern USA. Over here ppl have friends, colleagues etc. who are black, and therefore the word nigger carries more personal implications. I guess it makes sense, in that I don’t use words that are derogatory to Tamils, and that’s probably influenced by the fact that I have several Tamil friends. And maybe if i had more black friends i’d be somehow more averse to the word nigger. But, again i don’t have a problem about jokes being made about the Sinhalese be it about laziness or any other caricatures that exist. The aversion to the word nigger could also be the result of a guilty conscience, not that my friend or her ancestors had any part in slavery and black oppression, but Western society in general will carry that weight for some time. Any reminder/reference to that time would be frowned upon.

The interesting thing is that black ppl tend to use the word nigger quite liberaly amongst themselves, and so what makes it so bad for others to use it? (not on other blacks but amongst themselves). As I just mentioned, I often poke fun at Sinhalese laziness. She suggested that this could be an attempt to desentisize the word, but I didn’t buy that, at least it seems unlikely that it is a conscious effort in this regard.

The question is, why involve race in humour anyway? I guess the world would be better off with less racially centered humour, I mean, there’s still plenty of less umm crude things to chuckle at. Having said that, I don’t think it’s such a big deal. It’s not like my (and all other non-blacks) not saying the word nigger is going to eradicate the word from the English language, just get a 50cent CD and there’ll be enough of it to make up for all of us. I’d argue that if I’m willing to enjoy some humour out of Sinhalese caricatures, there’s no reason that others can’t do the same. Similarly, if black ppl happily say the word nigger there’s no reason for others to consider it utterly taboo.

But the obvious caveat is the intention of the use of the language. I would not want to say anything racially charged to offend somebody. As long as one’s intention is for humour, and not to intentionally demean another person, then it’s alrite. Racist jokes are just caricatures, it’s not that every jew is stingy, or that every sinhalese is lazy or that every irishman is slightly dim, it’s just an excuse for a giggle. I mean, I know only 2 Irishman, both of whom are fairly smart, and yet i’d say irish jokes bc they’re funny, not bc I think Irish ppl are stupid. But, one ought to be sensitive and not say Irish jokes in front of an Irishman. (Or if you really have to, be sure to say it real slow). I kid.

A couple of days late, but these days everybody seems to be dissing Valentines day. And that’s a shame. I know it’s all commercialized and got a bit silly, but I think it should be seen as an excuse to have a nice time. Forget the chocolates and flowers and things, but it’s a great excuse to go out, have a nice meal and do something fun with your partner or just your friends even. It’s like Christmas, i’m not Christian but it’s nice to put a tree and exchange presents and eat some rich food. What the hell, any excuse for a party no? Just jump on the bandwagon and have some fun.

P.s. What do you call a black man flying a plane? A pilot! You racist, what were you thinking? (Thanks to S)

It’s been an excellent morning. Sri Lanka just thrashed the aussies in the first VB series final with Dilshan making the aussies’ running look like confused lemmings. If we bat first in Sydney on Sunday we’d have more than a decent chance of taking the trophy home. This is a good thing, a sizeable section of the Aussie crowds have been less than disgraceful this summer and they deserve to have their rather foul mouths clamped shut. Generalization has its ills, but the Aussies do have a rather poor record when it comes to treatment of touring teams. The crowds shout no-ball when Murali bowls 11 years after he was first cleared, Sri Lankan supporters have been referred to as “black cheats”, South Africans called “Kaffirs” and even the good PM’s tact (or lack thereof) is only just beaten by the Duke of Edinburgh. But it’s not just the crowds and the PM, the Aussie players are no better. The infamous Ian Healy “black monkey” jibe at Mahanama and Darren Lehmann’s “black cunts” slur directed at the Sri Lankan dressing room are just a couple of examples. The Aussies claim to be the chief proponents of sledging, but hurling racial abuse really isn’t the way to go about it. They ought to take a lesson from Kumar Sangakkara.

Cricinfo gives an excellent coverage of the cricket, but what I miss is seeing the verbal exchanges between the players. The odd witty verbal exchange certainly has a place in the game, I mean it’s not 22 machines playing out there, it’s 22 human beings charged with emotion. Blatant swearing, racial and religious abuse on the other hand is best left for bar room brawls. Historically the Sri Lankans have turned the other cheek when it comes to verbal exchange, but since the turn of the Century there has been a marked change, and Kumar Sangakkara can claim a good deal of credit for that.

I think the real turning point was in South Africa in 2002 where SA was about to scrape past SL in a real dog-fight in Centurion. The Proteas had given the Lankans a verbal hiding and in the final innings of the series the Lankans hit back. Sangakkara led the way. As Andrew Hall walked into bat Sanga said; “Where’s the attitude now? Where’s the arrogance and the attitude now, huh? Are you guys rattled now? Eh? Doubting yourself, man? Self-doubt, man, eh?” and to Ashwell Prince “Ashwell’s become the scapegoat of the side, man. Why don’t they like you Ashwell, huh? What did you do?” and finally he saved the best for last when Polly the captain came in; “We don’t complain when we lose away, man. We don’t cry like in Morocco (ODI tournament in August, when Sri Lanka beat South Africa in the final) and say (whingy voice) ‘this not our conditions, this is not our conditions’ and go to the press conference and say the same. Fucking joke. If you win, be gracious in both, man. Otherwise it’s (inaudible) shit. Graceful, man, graceful Shaun. Learn it.” (Thanks to Rediff). Sri Lanka went on to lose the game but most of the players will tell you that the team came back from that tour a hell of a lot mentally tougher. Later on in the World cup (2003) semi-final where Sri Lanka tied with SA in the rain affected D/L game, Sanga gave Polly more stick. As Polly walked into bat Sanga said; “Oh, here comes the skipper! He’s looking nervous. Lots of pressure now. Oh, the weight of expectation! The weight of expectation! How’s he going to cope?” (Thanks to the Spin Guardian). As SKY turned the stump mikes off Sanga continued in his merry way and later on that evening Polly made a fatal miscalculation which saw SA knocked out of the World Cup. Another time Sanga was keeping wicket with Alec Stewart on strike and he kept padding up to Murali, during this time the football world cup was being held in Japan and Sanga tells Alec “Come on Alec you ought to buy a ticket to Japan at this rate.” When Harbhajan Singh was batting for India with his short sleeved shirt Sanga asked him “How come you bowl with long sleeves but bat with short sleeves? Short sleeves look good on you.” The same game when Yuvraj Singh came in to bat Sanga called out, “Come on! Let’s get the superstar!”. When England last toured Sri Lanka Gareth Batty was chosen as off spinner ahead of the far better rated (at the time) Robert Croft. When Batty came into bat Sanga said “Hmm where’s England’s number 1 off spinner?” In the same game Nasser Hussein called Murali a “Fucking cheat”. Clever and witty vs mundane and ignorant.

Sledging of the Sanga school has been around for years and should not be curtailed, it brings a bit of character into the great game. Kudos to Sanga for leading Sri Lanka’s verbal fightback and I can’t wait for the day he becomes captain. The following is a list of rather famous sledging incidents.

Australian fast bowler Glenn McGrath chided West Indian batsman Ramnaresh Sarwan “so, what does Brian Lara’s dick taste like?” Sarwan replied “I don’t know, ask your wife”. McGrath lost his temper and yelled “If you ever fucking mention my wife again, I will fucking rip your fucking throat out!”

Mark Waugh to Jimmy Ormond coming out to bat in an Ashes match: “Mate, what are you doing out here, there’s no way you’re good enough to play for England.” Ormond: “Maybe not, but at least I’m the best player in my family.”

Glenn McGrath to Zimbabwean Eddo Brandes after Brandes had played and missed at a McGrath delivery: “Oi, Brandes, why are you so fat?” to which Brandes replied: “Cos every time I fuck your wife she gives me a biscuit!” Apparently even the Australian slips were in hysterics.

County bowler to Viv Richards after Viv missed a couple of deliveries; “It’s round and red and weighs about 5 and a half ounces in case you were wondering.” Viv sauntered back to the crease and smashes the next ball out of the park and says “You know what it looks like, now go fetch it.”

Classic stuff. Good luck to the boys on Sunday, win the toss and bat. And a word of advice to the Aussie crowds, instead of shouting “n0-ball” shout “no run!”

Sittingnut has provided an interesting libertarian take on the prophetic cartoons. I agree with him to a certain extent but feel there are a few issues that need further exploration.

Freedom is probably the most valuable thing a human being could enjoy, and so to curtail it is rather bad. But naturally the freedom of one can infringe the freedom of another. For instance, my freedom of action can infringe another’s freedom from pain if i were to go and assault him. So, freedom must be limited in some instances. This is a thin line which is very easy to cross. We’d all probably accept that physical harm is a no no, but what about mental and emotional harm? The case of the prophet’s pictures would have caused emotional distress to many ppl, both muslims and non-muslims. If physical harm is not allowed, why do we allow mental harm? I think the answer is that physical harm is more definable than mental harm, so it’s easier to legislate upon. It’s very tough to ban emotional harm bc it’s difficult to define and any little thing can be deemed as emotionally harmful by someone and legislation of it can lead to unacceptably widespread censorship. But physical pain and assault is more universal in that physical pain for me is very similar to physical pain to you, and is therefore easier to define. For instance you claiming that my touching your eyebrow is painful is unlikely to get very far. Therefore it is probably a safer bet to stay away from legislation when it comes to mental pain, but this is purely in terms of practical considerations.

At a moral level, causing emotional distress is just as harmful and morally wrong as causing physical distress. I do have a moral right for free speech, but as long as my exercising this right does not harm others. It is not my moral right to cause you emotional pain, just as it is not my right to cause you physical pain. But it is not the place of the state to determine what constitutes emotional pain, and therefore it can’t set out a threshold beyond which freedom of speech can be curtailed. Therefore for purely practical reasons freedom of speech will have to trump the right to emotional peace of mind.

So how is it best to respond to such mental “assaults”? I’d agree that carrying out demonstrations and using your own freedom of speech to get your point across (though the competition for holocaust cartoons is rather childish) is the way to go. In my opinion whoever who decided to print these cartoons of the prophet is a bit silly and is abusing freedom of the press by so blatantly insulting more than 1/6ths of the world’s population. In no way should the state attempt to ban such journalism, but it is very irresponsible and insensitive on the part of the newspaper to make such taunts and they deserve moral sanction through the rest of the media. I’m sure Al-Jazeera is on the case.

I just put a comment on electra’s page about fox hunting. That’s a topic that has created loads of debate in England, and there are several sides to the story and quite frankly I don’t know enough about it to make a sound argument either way. What I do know is that fox hunting involves taking pleasure in the killing of an animal, and that is just gruesome. It’s one thing to slaughter animals for flesh but it’s quite another to take pleasure in the whole process. (wait, the fox isn’t eaten, it’s just chased and chased and as Dhana aptly put it, “torn apart by hounds”) It’s twisted. I have a couple of rather unconventional views with regard to the treatment of animals.

I think fishing as a sport is a mean thing to do. To see why, you need to put yourself in the fish’s shoes fins. It is effectively somebody coming along one day, sticking a hook in your throat, and whilst you struggle for breath the person would show you off and others would admire his great skill. Happily enough you’ll be released and allowed to frolic along. But, that doesn’t sound like much fun, to me at least. Ppl tend to defend fishing by arguing that fish don’t have feelings. What cock. Have you ever poked your finger at a fish tank? The fish dash away right? That’s called fear. Imagine how terrified and in pain that bugger would be as he’s thrashing at the end of the rod? Not fun. But then is it ok to catch fish for food? Again I think it’s morally wrong, but it’s at least mildly defensible in the name of proteins and omega oils, but fishing for sport is, I think, completely indefensible.

The other thing is zoos. I think zoos are quite mean too. Again, you’ll need to exchange footwear with a multitude of animals (one hopes you don’t have to look at the world through the eyes of a millipede) (that is the first time i’ve ever written down the word millipede and i most probably spelt it wrong). So, it is effectively being put in prison for no fault of your own so that a bunch of ppl can come and gawk at you. However nice and spacious a zoo is, it can never come even close to creating an environment that most of the animals are used to. Lions and Cheetahs are used to having territories spanning miles upon miles, and in zoos they’re confined to a cage, taken away from their homes and families. It’s very naughty. The standard excuse for having zoos is that they spread knowledge and awareness and may well contribute to the wellbeing of animals in general if ppl know about them. That may have applied 50 years ago, but now we have discovery channel, national geographic and animal planet. Sure it’s nice to see a Jaguar close up, but I don’t think it’s fair on the Jag’s part that he has to go through life in prison for our viewing pleasure. Zoos where endangered species are bred are on the otherhand justifiable.

The same argument applies to keeping birds and fish in cages and tanks at home. It does not apply to all pets in general. Dogs and cats for instance are domesticated, a home is their new natural environment as a result of several years of evolution. But birds need to fly, fish need to swim. If you throw a dog out of the house he’ll most probably sit outside whimpering and will struggle to survive outdoors. At least my bugger will be like that. (btw keeping dogs in cages is also not very nice, if you can’t let the fellow roam around freely bc of issues like cleanliness, just don’t get a dog in the first place). Freedom is so important for humans, so many of us are willing to die for it, so who are we to say that animals don’t value it too?

If you would like to contribute to animal welfare, please send a cheque to ddm c/o Dr. Doolittle, Colombo, SL. (Minimum donation 50 grand, every little bit counts).

I bummed around for most of first term and as a result have been heaped with work at the start of this term. I was due to hand in two essays by the end of last term and foolishly my tutors said not to worry about the deadline and to give it in by the end of 2005. Naturally I hadn’t done either of them 3 weeks into this term, and last week my tutor confronted me.

Tutor: “I haven’t had an essay from you have I?”
Me: wide eyed, the horror of accusation.. “Me? I thought I e-mailed it to you in mid December. Maybe you didn’t receive it.”
Tutor: “You are Pathiraja right?”
Me: “Nono”
Tutor: “Ah, sorry, I did receive your paper, but I couldn’t open the attachment bc there was a virus. Could you send it again? I’m very sorry about that.”
Me: “Oh no problem at all, could have happened to any of us.”

Things usually work out for me like that, I’m a lucky bugger, though by the law of averages i’m due some unfortunate incident one of these days. Untouchwood. In other good news I finally said goodbye to my laptop. For four and a half years i’ve put up with thoroughly uncalled for and totally random shutdowns, sudden freezes and the odd total meltdown. But my compaq and I stuck together till last week when the better part of the keyboard refused to work. So I went online and ordered a Dell, it arrived a couple of days later and i quite like it. So as a first post on Ab-dell, I’m going to say something about men, women and equality.

I used to find feminists very annoying, mostly bc the feminists I knew didn’t really know anything about feminism and had never come across the interesting arguments that make up feminist politics. All they did was generalize about men and say silly things with little base. But feminism itself has some very interesting arguments, and they mainly center around power, this is one of my favourites. According to nature (women have useful nipples, men have rather useless nipples) and tradition women are supposed to stay at home and look after the kids whilst men go out and win the bread butter and jam. So with control over the wealth of the household, the man has the greater share of power in the household. The work carried out by the woman, ie. the cooking, cleaning etc. is not renumerated and is therefore technically undervalued. The man, unfairly, has a greater share of power. Now a lot of men will be decent and treat the woman as an equal partner, but I’m quite confident in saying that the majority of men in this world will abuse that position of power and assume the role of decision maker. And this is unjust. So the feminists do have a point. Education has changed this a hell of a lot and that’s an excellent thing, but the story is far from over. How many women politicians are members of the Sri Lankan parliament? One might argue that the low number is bc politics is not a woman’s game. The Greeks, the fathers of democracy, certainly thought that women weren’t fit to play that game. So why do ppl like Mrs. Thatcher and CBK succeed in politics (succeed in the sense get to the top of the game)? well, without meaning any insult, they have the characteristics of men. They’re tough and thick skinned. Does that show that it is only ppl with these characteristics are suited for politics? Or does it mean that politics as we know it was framed to suit masculine characteristics? Some feminists argue that the latter is true, and that politics should be changed to bring in a more feminine perspective. I don’t exactly know how this could be done, but i’m guessing it would mean a bit less objective reason and a bit more subjective emotion into it. This is hard to imagine, but who knows, it may work out ok. There’s a new Peugeot advert where a car is being driven in a world of women, the coppers, the fire(wo)men, the builders are all females, and the assumption is that the driver of the car is a man. Wouldn’t mind living in a world like that, but it would be a tad soththi to play cricket with girls and talk about girls with other girls. But i’m sure there’d be plenty to make up for it.

One thing I don’t quite understand is that women can ask to be treated as equals in some respects, but as different in other respects. Women expect the same rates of pay, the same opportunities at getting jobs, and other perfectly fair things. But, at the same time they expect the boy to pay when they’re taken out for dinner. Wtf. Now I have no objections to this, i mean, i wouldn’t try to get out of paying or something, but I don’t see the point. It’s almost schizophrenic, asking for night and day at the same time. I never understood why boys had to hold doors open for girls, why you have to pull the chair out before they sit and many other odd odd things, I mean not like doors are particularly difficult to open. So, after a few years of boycotting this sort of chivalrous behaviour I got told off by girls and I thought to myself “Bad form, nobody will like me if i do this, so better go with the flow.” And so I did, and so too do a lot of other boys, or so I suspect.

But recently I was thinking, girls go through a lot of shit. I mean, periods, that doesn’t sound too fun. And child birth, even less fun. Almost every woman in the world will go through a lot of sacrifice to bring about the lives of us buggers. Our mothers did, our wives will do the same for our kids. So it’s only fair we be a bit grateful and try to be nice to them as and when we can. Not like opening a door is too much trouble anyway no?