An obituary for Iran

Always wanted to visit Iran. Yes, it's one of those countries than no civilised person should contemplate being anywhere near. That's part of the attraction for me. And "civilised" is a relative thing - we're talking of the world's first empire, the very first superpower, the first to articulate something like "human rights" (look up the Cyrus Cylinder).

Except that the world's latest superpower, and its lackeys, don't really see that side of things. They see what they want to see - the stern, bearded visage of Ayatollah Khomeini stamped over everything. Mad mullahs. And if nothing is done, mad mullahs with nukes. The horror!

So do they have nukes? No. Are they trying to build nukes? No one knows, is the right answer. The Iranians say no, thy only want "peaceful" nuclear power. "Yes" chorus the Yanks, they are making nukes, and once they have them, it'll be all over for the world. Or at least Israel. And that's the crux of the matter. America's 51st state can't stand to be deprived of their "only-nuclear-power-in-the-middle-east" status, because to be actually, credibly threatened with destruction might mean that they would have to start treating the Palestinians like humans. Can't be allowed, and those Palis are a "made-up people", anyway, if you listen to people like Newt Gingrich. Never trust people named after slimy amphibians.

Anyway, I digress. The point is, America's raring for a war with Iran - this showdown's been a long time coming, ever since 1971, when the ayatollah's took over, imprisoned some meddling US diplomats for over a year, and put US flags on places where people would have to trample them(Have to admit, the Iranian PR agency isn't great). The covert bit's already started - witness the killing of a young nuclear scientist last week, in a way that could only be described as an act of terror. So has the drumming - sanctions, accusations, the rallying of support. And significantly, the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, having completed a farce of a handover to the government of what is now a joke of a country. The nukes will be used as an excuse - just like Saddam's non-existent WMDs - to attack and destroy Iran. As will "human rights", while the Americans' Saudi friends violate them in far worse ways.

And destroyed Iran will be. Just like it's neighbours to the east (Afghanistan) and west (Iraq). The covered bazaars of Tehran, the bridges and blue-domed mosques of Shiraz and Isfahan, the earth castles of Qom. A nation that produces film-makers like Kiarostami, a nation that has 99% literacy, where female enrolment in higher education is proportionately greater than most western nations. A proud nation.

That last is probably what rankles the neocons the most. Iran refuses to roll over or jump through hoops at the command of those who would be masters of the Universe. It defies the US, and does it openly. And not just with regards to political manoeuvering, but they manage to thumb their noses at the "American Way Of Life", unlike the rest of the world, which is embracing it with open legs. That's another reason I'd like to vist Iran - just once, I'd like to see a place where McDonald's is not an indicator of development, where cities and neighbourhoods aren't dominated by garish advertising, where consumption is what keeps you alive, not what you stay alive for. And it still manages to have a standard of lving that compares favourably with most developed countries. Yes, their cars are all blocky Lada knock-offs, but they get you where you want to go - isn't that their purpose? How do fancier cars a better nation make?

I won't bother explaining about the oil - it's obvious. Oil greases the machinery of consumption. Iran has a lot of it. 'nuff said.

So that's it. Iran as we know it will be destroyed soon, unless some people see sense or chicken out. I'm not betting on either happening. I'd like to visit it now, before the brown stuff hits the fan, but there's many more places I'd like to visit, and I'm not sure what an Iranian visa in my passport would single me out for. Waterboarding? No? At the very least, being asked to step out of line at passport check and blacklisted on US-based airlines, I'm sure.

So here's hoping everything sorts itself out, and I get to visit when I'm older and not much wiser, and if not, here's a quote from my favourite Iranian of all time, Omar Khayyam, that those in power now might want to keep in mind - "How Sultan after Sultan with his Pomp / Abode his Hour or two, and went his way"

Corruption - Do it right!

If you've been keeping up to date on Indian affairs, you'll have seen the whole hullaballoo about corruption - the newspeople can't seem to get enough of it. First there was Anna Hazare, doing his Gandhi 2 thing. Now there's this Baba Ramdev character, sort of like Rasputin without the sexiness. He claims to be able to cure AIDS by breathing exercises or something of the sort. Surely, getting rid of corruption is child's play, then? Anyway, I'd love to see the government call their bluff - if you starve to death, we'll pass the anti-corruption bill. How's that for a bit of reverse blackmail?

What is corruption, though? At it's simplest, it's taking money to get something done. So how's that different from paying a plumber to unblock a drain? Because it's not stated up front. So maybe it should be stated up front. Think about it. Walk into a government office, and you'd see a tarriff of charges, for "special services", or "expedited delivery", to be paid "directly to functionary".

After all, that's how some governments deal with practices they don't like, but can't stamp out either - by legalising them. Like prostitution, in some countries. Can't beat 'em, so join 'em. And tax them, into the bargain. That way, everybody's happy. Of course, taking a cut from a prostitute's pay makes the government a pimp (or is it a madam?), but they've been called worse...

So let's legalise it. Everybody does it, might as well make it open, above board, and most importantly, taxable (let's avoid the issue of corrupt tax collectors for now...). Just imagine how much faster everything would move once everybody knows they need to pay a bribe to "expedite" matters. Companies could budget for it. Governent employees could set up bribe collection pools. Banks wwould have ATMs next to all government offices, dispensing cash briskly (and charge a premium for each withdrawal). Am I clever, or what?

And another thing - Why do countries like India always get a bad rap for corruption? I mean, I have to pay the telecom company here in the UK extra if I want faster broadband, although they advertise it like everybody's entitled to it. Or pay more to the parcel guys for "express delivery". Or pay more for a train ticket at the last minute, when I'm desperate to get somewhere. That's corruption too - taking advantage of someone's urgent need to pry some money out of them. The thing is, it's all institutionalised here in the west, with people working in an institutionally corrupt system. Whereas in countries like India, it's a cottage industry - every man for himself. And Indians are nothing if not entrepreneurs!

May The Farce Be With You!

This is just too good. South Asia in general is a farcical place, but the goings-on in Pakistan should be a high art form. It takes talent, and Pakistan has some extremely talented performers. I'm referring, in particular, to Interior Minister Rehman Malik. And this is what I'm referring to:
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/05/star-wars-terrorists-storm-pakistani-naval-base/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+WiredDangerRoom+(Blog+-+Danger+Room)

Seriously? People dressed as Star Wars characters? These are the TALIBAN, for crying out loud! But hey, let's go along with it; after all, who knows where fantasy ends and reality begins? Was OBL really inspired by Emperor Palpatine? And is Mullah Omar really Darth Vader? That would make Obama...Han Solo, I guess. Don't be surprised if the First Lady takes to wearing her hair in two weird buns. Let's not even go near the metal bikinis...

Come to think of it, didn't the first instalment of Star Wars release around the time of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan? We all know who the "Empire" was then...and OBL was trained by the CIA to fight them, before he went over to the Dark Side...

I am having such a field day - imagine Imperial storm-troopers marching into a Pakistani naval base...the Paks wouldn't stand a chance!

There's something wrong with the whole picture, though. In the movies, the evil Empire was gigantic, powerful beyond imagination, with world-destroying weapons and sophisticated technology. And had a Senate. While the good guys were a rag-tag bunch of rebels with an ideology hiding in remote places, emerging occasionally to strike at the empire.

Anybody see my problem?

Black Hawk Down 2 - The Hunt for Bin Laden

When do you think the movie'll be released? Some time next year, maybe. Right now, I'll bet there's turmoil in Hollywood, with producers busy looking for scripts, getting casting couches ready, and dealing with the delicate question of who is to play OBL.

Seriously, the whole thing has something of a movie about it. I can almost picture the marines on the raid blaring out the "Apocalypse Now" soundtrack on their way in. But when you look at the facts, or what are being passed out as facts, and the reactions to them, you don't know whether to laugh or cry. Let's have a look at all the players and scenarios, starting with taking the story as we hear it on TV as the gospel truth:

The United States: Had no clue for a decade as to the whereabouts of its Most Wanted man, in spite of possessing the most advanced war and espionage technology in the world. Hell, they've got satellites that can apparently photograph a postage stamp on a pavement. I'm willing to bet they could've taken pictures of every square inch of Pakistan and Afghanistan many times over. Google's done it. Maybe Osama just didn't happen to look up?

Pakistan: Apparently had no clue either. Despite the fact that the man had been living for years in a large compound a stone's throw from their elite military academy. I mean, if someone builds a home eight times larger than the average near a sensitive area, would you not check it out, even discreetly?

If these scenarios are the honest truth, like they're being made out to be, there are some extremely stupid people out there with their fingers on nuclear buttons. Nice.

However, maybe people aren't that stupid. Here's what I think:

Pakistan: Knew all along where OBL was. In fact, they probably built his damn "mansion". So why didn't they let on? Because he was worth more to them alive than dead. As long as he was still alive, the "War on Terror" would continue, and the generals would continue to line their pockets with money and all kinds of war toys. Maybe they've got enough money and toys now, and decided OBL wasn't worth putting up any more. Or maybe they could see the US "endgame" in Afghanistan approaching, and decided to let on his location, for one last, big payout before the Yanks left. So their military radars conveniently failed to work, and nobody went to investigate four helicopters hovering near their military academy, even though one crashed and the rest of the town heard and saw the huge explosions and gunfire (one guy even tweeted the whole thing live).

The United States: Knew where he was, but didn't want to kill him just yet - not before they had a) brought "democracy" to Afghanistan and b) finished testing all of their new weapons systems. But Afghans haven't yet taken to wearing T-shirts and drinking Bud Lite, and the weapons industry bosses need some time out to spend all the money they've made, so it's time to get out of A'stan. But, you know, them Talibs...they've kind of got the upper hand...and we don't want another Vietnam-type thing...so we gotta be able to say "mission accomplished"...bye bye OBL.

Or maybe, as a friend put it, five years of living indoors with three wives...OBL probably called the Marines himself.

Where Have All the Cowboys (and Girls) Gone?

Last night, I had to sit through "The Social Network". It was on TV, so it wasn't as bad as having had to watch it in a cinema. But it was dire, all the same. Apparently, it won dozens of Oscars. I steer well clear of any films that have won Oscars. These usually have someone talking incessantly through the film, or someone looking intensely into the camera, or doing both, at intervals. That's pretty much it. And the ability to do either is considered "good acting", apparently. The rest of the movie is incidental.

Anyway, to get back to "The Social Network". For those thankfully not in the know, the movie's about how Facebook came into being. How boring can you get? Couldn't the makers of the movie have found a patch of growing grass to film instead? Sure, I think Facebook's great, lets me catch up with old pals and announce to the world that I've sneezed thrice in a row, but come on...a movie about it? Have moviemakers run out of ideas, or do people actually like to watch this nonsense? This should've been a documentary on the Weird Crap channel or something. Basically, all that happened in the movie (and in reality) was someone set up a website in his college to get even with a girl, and the it got popular, and took off. Just like Google. Or ebay. Or a dozen others. And Facebook isn't even that revolutionary - lots of people had the same idea, long before them - Orkut, anybody? If you want to watch a movie where a bunch of geeks come out on top after being persecuted, try "Revenge of the Nerds". At least it's funny.

What happened to movies where people actually did things, went places, diced with death and managed not to come over all emotional? They seem to be going the way of the dodo. To be honest, there are some movies that came along once in a while that make me think there is some hope, but they're far overshadowed by tripe like "Social Network". Where are the Indiana Joneses, the spaghetti westerns, the Star Wars? I'll tell you what it is. We've just grown fond of gazing deeply into our own navels. Nothing to do with the outside, pioneers or action interests us as much as a depressed retard playing the piano (I made that up, but I'm sure there's a movie like that - if not, I'm claiming royalties from any producer reading this). Where once men were men, and women were beautiful, now you can't tell the difference. Or they're all geeks, which amounts to the same thing. No wonder this generation actually want to be accountants and computer weirdos.

It's not just movies, either. I'm a bit of a science fiction buff - I head straight for the sci-fi shelves whenever I see a bookshop - and this penchant for navel-gazing is apparent even in the sci-fi world. Where once the likes of Clarke and Asimov dominated, with their huge panoramas of Galactic Empire and the colonization of space, now it's mostly about individuals dealing with their angst in dystopic futures (or something equally pathetic). Pathetic is the word, actually. We're turning into a race of pathetic little people preoccupied with our pathetic little problems. The whole human race (the current generation, at least) needs a kick up the backside and a few weeks at boot camp.

Hell, who cares!

PS: Regarding my opinion of Oscar-winning movies, there's one honourably excepted category - Oscars for Special Effects. More movies like Jurassic Park, please!

Decisions, Decisions...

You can't get away from them, can you? Like deciding to write this post, for example. You make decisions every moment of every day, some consciously, others unconsciously. Even a decision to not decide is still a decision. I can't speak for everybody, but I am not fond of decisions - and I suspect quite a lot of us think the world would be a better place without the need for them (According to my extremely limited understanding of quantum physics, the world wouldn't exist without decisions being made - but that's another story).

These days, the amount of information we have, literally, at our fingertips is incredible, courtesy Google and its lesser brethren. You'd think with all that easily accessible data, making a decision would be a cinch. Think again. Earlier today, I decided I needed a simple article - a clear hard sheet of plastic. The obvious place to look was on the Internet, on ebay and Amazon. The moment I typed in my requirement, I was faced with page after page of results. All with slightly different specifications, and remarkably different prices. While the decision on what to pay was easy (my dad used to decide what to eat at a restaurant by looking at the right-hand side of the menu - you get the picture), I spent almost half an hour trying to picture the difference between a thickness of 2mm and one of 3mm, converting inches into centimetres and vice versa, and researching whether "perspex" was clear enough, hard enough or good enough for me.

The point is, there was a time (yes, I'm old enough to remember thepre-internet world) when all that information wasn't available. Decisions had to be made using whatever limited information there was - and made right. And guess what - I made the right decisions at least as often as I do now.

So - does more data necessarily mean better decisions? Logic would say so. And so would pretty much everybody tasked with making a decision. However, I suspect the one misleads and the other shirks. Think about it this way - for millions of years, before the light of intelligence dawned on us, our ancestors basically had one of two decisions to make - fight or flight. And those weren't decisions that could be made while scratching your head thoughtfully. Even afterwards, for most of our existence as humans, our lives usually depended on swift decisions using the evidence of our eyes and our intuitions. And given that we are the most successful species ever, that worked for us. In other words, we've evolved to make quick decisions based on limited data, and not conclusions based on lengthy logical analyses.

That isn't to say that there are no cases where decisions shouldn't be made painstakingly. After all, nuclear physics and libel laws didn't exist for most of mankind's history. But for everyday, non-life-or-death decisions, we're probably better off trusting our intuitive reactions to things, compounded perhaps with a little common sense. You'll know what I mean if you've ever bought a house or a car. Both are important decisions, among the most important you'll ever make. But no matter how much you list the pros and cons, research the neighbourhood or look on vehicle owner forums, you only really make the decision when you've set foot in the house and decided "it feels right" or taken that test drive and thrilled to that deep-throated growl when you floor the accelerator.

Have no doubt, you will regret some decisions. But you're as likely to regret an over-analysed decision as a rash one - so think about what you're about to do - but only a little. You're meant to spend your life benefiting from the decisions you made, not making them. And remember - some decisions only look bad when you compare them to those made by others - they may be the right decision on their own merit. It isn't about keeping up with the Joneses - it's about your own satisfaction.

E-revolutions, my a**e!

Talk about the domino effect. Or peer pressure. Or maybe keeping up with the Joneses. Whatever you term it, there's no doubt that the booting out of Tunisia's president has resulted in copycat demonstrations in Egypt, Yemen, Algeria and now Bahrain and Libya. There were a few muted reports about the Jordanians wanting in on the party, but no one paid them any attention. So far, only in Tunisia and Egypt have the protesters achieved their immediate objective, the ouster of their ossified presidents. What happens next is anybody's guess.


Honestly, I'm a bit sceptical about these "revolutions". Sceptical about both cause and effect. In other words, why and how they took place, and what they have achieved or aim to achieve. Take the fact that the catalyst in these protests was the Internet - or, more precisely, Facebook, Twitter and the like. Now, I love the Net - Google is the closest thing to divinity I know (just think omnipresence) - but I'm deeply suspicious of what I see, hear or read on it - even more so than newspapers and TV. At least other forms of media are sometimes brought to book for their sensationalism, or have their outright lies exposed and their intimate relationships with powers that be brought to light.


Not so the Internet. Just take Wikipedia. It can be a source of reliable, accurate information if you want to know all about the history of weather-vanes, or the mating habits of Madagascan twits or anything without a shred of controversy attached. But the moment you touch on anything that people have differing opinions about - all that noncomittal impartiality goes out of the window, and you have some truly skewed pieces of writing on there. It's supposed to be reviewed by ordinary individuals - and that's the scary part. Not just Wikipedia, but the whole Internet. People like you and me, with all our prejudices, petty grudges, commenting and writing about things they are eminently unqualified to do and have no business doing. Just like this blog - you'd be a fool to form an opinion about anything based on my meanderings here - but this is just the sort of thing fuelling the protests.


But to go back to the happenings in the Middle East, what triggered them off? Damned if I know. Nor does anyone else, no matter how much the breathless BBC or other reporters say that the people's frustrations have been building over the years. Frustrations about what? Standards of living? Gaddafi, in Libya, ensured every adult Libyan had thir own home and car. And Bahrain? Ask the Indians, Pakistanis and Filipinos who flock there in droves. The right to vote? Yeah, right. How many of you actually vote? I do, because my ballot papers are sent home for me to mark and put back in the post (postage paid). I've known plenty of people from countries that weren't democracies, and none of them were scarred by not participating in elections. In fact, the reverse is often true...


Here's a couple of facts about the people participating in the protests. They're all urban (usually, the only villagers in the whole mess were Bedouin tribesmen carted in by El Presidente's supporters). They're all young (look up the demographics for Arab countries - there's a huge bow wave of people in their teens and twenties). So what do you get when you have a young, urban population, starry-eyed and exposed to the internet? Jealousy, that's what. Of western lifestyles. Or their idea of it, at least. The average young Arab, like average young men everywhere, wants, deep down inside, a Ferrari and a blonde. Both of which are in short supply in Egypt, Tunisia and the others (note how the Gulf Arab states have not had a murmur of protests - both Ferraris and blondes are in ample evidence in those oil-drenched states).


Of course I'm being flippant, but you get the idea. Lots of young people with not much to do virtually guarantees some sort of unrest. China's leaders should pat themselves on the back for their one-child policy - more than their Great Firewall, that's why there's been not a peep out of there ever since Tiananmen. Another fact: all these protests are about the "next level" - that is, not about basic necessities like food, shelter and livelihoods, but about rights, lifestyles and choices. Don't let the fact that the trigger apparently was food prices fool you. Did any of those protesters on TV look like they were starving? That's all it was, just a trigger, an excuse. Real revolutions, like the ones in Russia (1917) and China (1949) were about far more basic needs. These ones are about greed, not need.


And what happens next? As I said before, no one has a clue, not even the protesters. Unlike the revolutionaries in Russia and China, or the freedom fighters in British India who had a specific agenda and an ideology they intended to govern by, these e-revolutionaries are the political equivalent of a flash mob - you know, one of those silly affairs where word is spread via Twitter or Facebook for people to assemble in a given spot at a given time, and then they all start to dance or something - completely aimless, unless it's a bit of publicity you want and have time on your hands. In Egypt, a rather bemused military has taken over, and seems to be looking for some direction ("Right, you've got rid of Hosni, but what exactly do you want now?"). I can take a few guesses as to what's next - the military continues to govern, while saying elections are to be held. When said elections are organised, the Muslim Brotherhood decides to contest - and due to the lack of experience, candidates, or organisation anywhere else, begins to look like a viable alternative - at which point the army puts its booted foot down and says that anything, even themselves, are better than the evil Brotherhood. And so it's back to square one (or should that be Tahrir Square?!) with an army strongman "reluctantly" taking the reins. Of course, I might be wrong, especially in the short term, but in the long term, wait and watch...