For someone who repeatedly and enthusiastically portrays the pursuit of happiness as the most important and perhaps the only purpose of life, almost to the point of libertarianism, I sure as hell am far from my lone self-appointed goal at the moment.
An account of personal sorrows and woes is, at best, useless gossip material, and hence will be excluded. Suffice to say that I have never before found myself in this extraordinary melting pot of so many different kinds of shit thrown together. Timing, like with most things, has a huge role to play here too. The sublimity and the profound depth of this bout of sadness has done one good thing though: it has given me a renewed will to pursue my goal, even if at a cost higher than I was previously willing to afford.
What was highly amusing though, is that two people who know me better than all else, and who hardly know each other, had something scarily similar to say about my woeful countenance. They both observed that it is in my very nature to be unhappy, and I have been that way for a few years now. Hera (she is still Hera, though my Zeus license has been revoked now) said that I keep finding something or the other to be unhappy about, and my father opined there is nothing that makes me happy for more than the blink of an eye.
Do they know more about me than I know about myself? Am I deluding myself by this rhetoric of the pursuit of happiness, when it is actually the blues I relentlessly chase? Have I been hypocritical all this time in dispensing random advice to friends? Is happiness truly the chief purpose of my life? Troubling questions all, but none of them would have arisen if it weren't for my present state of mind. So work on state of mind and the questions go away. Beautiful inversion of logical progress from A to B.
Either way, at least I still get amused easily. A sign on a traffic post here in Bangalore tells you happily: All jams are good for health except traffic jams.
Saturday, April 11, 2009
Wednesday, April 08, 2009
The not-so-strange
Muntader al-Zaidi has found at least three imitators in four months since the journalist chucked his shoes at George Bush Jr; there was the German student hurling his footwear at the visiting Chinese PM Wen Jiabao in Cambridge who is awaiting his trial now, there was some unidentified Iranian who threw his shoes at his own President after Ahmedinejad's motorcade apparently hit some old guy in the crowd, and the latest is the Sardar journalist here in India lobbing his Reebok at the Home Minister.
What amuses me is the way all these four men did what essentially amounts to the same thing - chucking a shoe - and its consequence. The first was the bravest of the lot, and with all the luck of the brave, finds himself in prison for two years. The second was the stupider of the lot, considering he should have learnt a lesson or two from his predecessor about throwing things at visting heads of states. The third was the cleverest of the bunch, for he has remained forever unidentified in a country where it is perhaps best to remain that way. And then comes the Sardar, about whom all I can say is, well, he is the Sardar of the lot. I mean, come on! He had removed his shoe well before throwing it, and after missing his target sitting barely 10 feet away from him, he calmly sat back down almost like the shoe had been a part of his question for the Home Minister. And he got let off after some questioning. What kind of questions does one ask at a time like this? "Why did you sit down calmly?", "Why do you wear Reebok?" or maybe "How long is your turban?"
But strangeness is nothing new to the world. Take the case of Adam Leon, a Canadian student who stole an aeroplane and flew it in to United States and was chased by military aircraft for a few hours, before being forced to land because of running out of fuel. So why did he do it? Because he had been feeling depressed and figured this was a good way to go. You know, get shot down by a fighter jet. I mean, get a gun and shoot myself? How droll!
What amuses me is the way all these four men did what essentially amounts to the same thing - chucking a shoe - and its consequence. The first was the bravest of the lot, and with all the luck of the brave, finds himself in prison for two years. The second was the stupider of the lot, considering he should have learnt a lesson or two from his predecessor about throwing things at visting heads of states. The third was the cleverest of the bunch, for he has remained forever unidentified in a country where it is perhaps best to remain that way. And then comes the Sardar, about whom all I can say is, well, he is the Sardar of the lot. I mean, come on! He had removed his shoe well before throwing it, and after missing his target sitting barely 10 feet away from him, he calmly sat back down almost like the shoe had been a part of his question for the Home Minister. And he got let off after some questioning. What kind of questions does one ask at a time like this? "Why did you sit down calmly?", "Why do you wear Reebok?" or maybe "How long is your turban?"
But strangeness is nothing new to the world. Take the case of Adam Leon, a Canadian student who stole an aeroplane and flew it in to United States and was chased by military aircraft for a few hours, before being forced to land because of running out of fuel. So why did he do it? Because he had been feeling depressed and figured this was a good way to go. You know, get shot down by a fighter jet. I mean, get a gun and shoot myself? How droll!
Saturday, April 04, 2009
The ilk of Fritzls
They seem to have crawled out of the woodwork, or cellars, or the proverbial closet, whatever you may want to call it. But ever since Mr Fritzl had his incestuous barbarity exposed, cases of the sort seem to be a dime a dozen. There was the British man who did a tad worse than Fritzl (the fact that the British media covered that incident significantly lesser than the case of the Austrian has as many explanations as you care to come up with). And in the last couple of months I have been in India, I have already read of a few reports of some father or the other abusing the daughter, sometimes in active collusion with the mother, or even worse.
And today, I read about a mother in USA who drugged her 13-year old daughter so that her own 40-year old boyfriend could impregnate her own daughter. All because she herself couldn't have children anymore. Interesting.
Brutality notwithstanding, is it that incest has become more commonplace? Or is it that it has come to be more widely reported and publicised? Or has it become a lot more taboo than it was before and hence the increased aversion to it? I mean, Oedipus is as famous as they come, and if not, there exist counterparts in almost all mythologies. And in certain parts of the world, marriages within the family, albeit extended, is more the norm than the exception.
In the case of Fritzl, fellow Austrian Mr Freud would have certainly had a thing or two to say, and would have used it as an example of some theory or the other of his. You know, how it all somehow relates to some element of the id, or maybe even the ego. And how they triumphed over the super-ego, crushing the 'normal' morality that imposes itself on most peoples' instincts. But in the case of this North American mother, he might have to add or deduct a few analytical thoughts, seeing as it extends to the realm of maternity too, almost to seeing the girl-child as an extension of the womb (literally).
Ah, I wish someone would give me a stethoscope and the quintessential white coat and leave me in a room full of these real life people who make news every other day by defying what we call normal. I would happily plod along listening to their tales till they decide to lynch me. And oh, someone get it all on camera please. It will certainly make for excellent reality TV.
And today, I read about a mother in USA who drugged her 13-year old daughter so that her own 40-year old boyfriend could impregnate her own daughter. All because she herself couldn't have children anymore. Interesting.
Brutality notwithstanding, is it that incest has become more commonplace? Or is it that it has come to be more widely reported and publicised? Or has it become a lot more taboo than it was before and hence the increased aversion to it? I mean, Oedipus is as famous as they come, and if not, there exist counterparts in almost all mythologies. And in certain parts of the world, marriages within the family, albeit extended, is more the norm than the exception.
In the case of Fritzl, fellow Austrian Mr Freud would have certainly had a thing or two to say, and would have used it as an example of some theory or the other of his. You know, how it all somehow relates to some element of the id, or maybe even the ego. And how they triumphed over the super-ego, crushing the 'normal' morality that imposes itself on most peoples' instincts. But in the case of this North American mother, he might have to add or deduct a few analytical thoughts, seeing as it extends to the realm of maternity too, almost to seeing the girl-child as an extension of the womb (literally).
Ah, I wish someone would give me a stethoscope and the quintessential white coat and leave me in a room full of these real life people who make news every other day by defying what we call normal. I would happily plod along listening to their tales till they decide to lynch me. And oh, someone get it all on camera please. It will certainly make for excellent reality TV.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
