Sarah Palin curries favour with the Indians

"Ooh look! There's India"

Sarah Palin has left Alaska to visit India, a place she definitely can't  see from her kitchen window. She's been chatting up the high and mighty at dinners, galas and conclaves. The Indians seem mightily impressed, but then they are not given to rubbishing people they don't know. Mrs Palin is giving them her cookie charm offensive with such lines as "There is so much in common between India and the US" and "Our ties and bonds are deep. They are driven by free people and free markets and not just by political summits". I doubt if many Americans sit up each morning in bed and think that Uncle Sam has deep ties with India. As for free people and free markets, the vast majority of Indian people scrape by without being driven anywhere.

She loftily tells her audience, "Relations between India and the US are key to our world relations, regardless of who is president". They are expected to interpret this as putting them on the top table. But in reality it's all rather gauche. In fact, it's totally erroneous. The United States isn't going to consult India on everything. It is not key to realpolitik at all. No, far more realeconomik. But she may have thought this too crude a political step to take.

"America has long been famous for (its) rags-to-riches story. Today, India too has the same story. India is no longer a struggling economy." It's true in parts. But mostly untrue. But it sounds great, doesn't it? America has been a mixed bag of a story as has India. Certainly there were a few in rags but most Americans, whether of the colonial sort or the republican sort, have managed quite well. Indians on the other hand have two economies. One for the well-to-do, with many millionaires and the other, much larger, for the rest. Dolly Parton likes to say "we were dirt poor" and she probably exemplifies Palin's comments, but Parton is in the tiny minority. Even the Pilgrim Fathers had more going for them than rags to walk about in.

Sarah Palin means a lot to a lot of people, but does she really mean what she says, says what she means or just says it anyway because she thinks it is so? If she ever did win the presidency I can't think she would make a great president. More a homespun one with ready quip for every eventuality.

Mrs Dikshit condemns 'racist' remarks by New Zealand TV host

I thought New Zealand was full of politically correct trained persons now. A new broom had swept across the country and it was no longer to be seen as a backward looking former part of the Empire. They even produce most of the lamb now as halal. New Zealand definitely prided itself on being a big jewel in the modern world.

They missed out on one person, though! TVNZ breakfast show host Paul Henry, who has gone into a self-centered schoolboy type routine on an Indian woman's name. Sheila Dikshit's name sent him into some sort of kiwi cackle. The video here shows how dire his performance was.



But his real crime was not sniggering at the name. No, it was saying that Ms Dikshit's name was "appropriate because she's Indian". Now that's derogatory and, I think, racist. It's a put down. Not nice, Mr.Henry.

However, that said, I can never understand why a name transliterated should be given the worst possible spelling. If Sheila's name in English sounds more like "Dixit" why not spell it like that. Name's can be very distressing for the bearer. The late great Diana Dors had the real name of Fluck. She decided to change it, much to the annoyance of her father. Her reply was simple. "When I'm famous and my name goes up in lights, I don't want the bulb behind the "L" going out!".

Maybe Sheila Dikshit could fixit to be Ms Dixit?

Sub-continental circumcision row!

This is a crazy world indeed. We are fighting a war in Afghanistan, euphemistically called a campaign by the government, and we are told categorically that the enemy is a terrorist organisation hell bent on exporting its beastliness to the streets of London and other western capitals.

Unfortunately, the people we are trying to help by extending democracy and civilisation as we know it do not know who the enemy is. Much debate is currently taking place on Pakistani internet forums about who is exactly who in terrorist circles. It has been "documented" that some Taliban fighters were not Muslims but Indians or other such. Uncircumcised males have been spotted in the numbers of corpses. So that concludes the Indians are up to their tricks. But hold on a minute, some people, like the Times of India are keen to point out this is not proof at all. "Pak blame fails Waziristan circumcision test!" trumpets this article. I like the term "Pak". Try using that in the Times of London! Many Waziris are so poor they can't afford to travel to a hospital or get a barber (ouch!) to do the operation for their boys.

So we don't really know who is who unless we get these Taliban types to drop their trousers! Maybe this is what General Stanley McChrystal should be doing if he wants to succeed in turning away from a "likely result in failure"?

http://www.pakdef.info/forum/showthread.php?t=9570&page=77

http://forum.pakistanidefence.com/index.php?showtopic=83146

A tale of two cities - Bombay and Bangkok

I was struck by the happenings in two cities of Asia and how different they the appear. The first was the taking of the airport in Bangkok by demonstrators fed up with the shenanigans of the Thai government. These people wore yellow headbands and clothing to show that they were peaceful people. They were just stating that they wanted real democracy in their country. Apparently all flight passengers were treated well and got on with their "captors" who gave them food and sustinence. As one Brit said "It's the airlines who are telling us nothing!".

Contrast this with Bombay, now renamed Mumbai and described by the BBC as "The Indian city of Mumbai" as if we don't know where it is! "Mumbai? It's Bombay, mate! Ah!" is a typical snippet of conversation you might hear down the pub. I'm still waiting for the BBC to speak of The Italian city of Firenze, but I'm not hopeful. Anyway back to Bombay. Here we have automoton terrorists trying to destabilise a democracy by attempting to round up American and British citizens whilst scaring the living daylights out the city as a whole.

Democracy is worth fighting for. Not with weapons or warfare but with words and wisdom. The Bangkok demonstrators have left their mark by being firm but fair with their cause. Al Queda is neither firm or fair. They have a self-righteous narrow view of life based on hatred and the desire to hurt in order to control. In this they should be resisted absolutely.

The Indian government is handling the situation well it seems. However the US and British governments should not be tempted to intervene. The Indian authorities are quite capable of flushing out these terrorists and bringing matters to a satisfactory conclusion.


PS. This film is nicely titled - Bombay to Bangkok! One up to the Bollywood producers.