Desi In Toronto

Well, I have joined the world of “Four Eyes”. I got my prescription eye glasses yesterday and have to use them daily at all times!! Man, never realised that I would one day be wearing glasses. But then again, I hadalways imagined that at 35 I would be a rock god. Oh, well.

Well, Stephen Harper is in and Paul Martin is out…..way, way out as he resigns from his Liberal leadership position as well.

What does the new political position augur for Canada?

1. Well, for one, relations with right wing America will definitely improve as the Conservatives are always kissing their ass.
2. Religious issue like same sex marriage are going to be put to vote in the parliament although I am quite sure that it will be defeated. It will be interesting to see how Harper brings up the issue as majority of the Liberals, NDP and the Bloc are opposed to tabling the issue on the parliament. The not withstanding clause is definitely going to play out here. I expect that the Reform Act (abortion rights) will also be thrown into the air from the far right but it will probably raise a lot of controversy without really amounting to much.
3. Expect big proposals like a health care privatisation plan, defense budgets plans and cuts for businesses. Also expect Liberals and NDP oppose each of these stands. I don’t expect that there will be any cuts on GST (something that Harper had been harping throughout the campaign) which in any case, to me, was a bad idea. A lot of social plans would have been hit.
4. Canada’s commitment to Kyoto will be revamped in one form or another. Canada was never going to meet it’s cuts but pulling out of Kyoto proposal (which is what Harper wants to do just like his pal, Bush) is going to be a moral blow to the Kyoto plan.
5. Gun crime in Toronto will receive little attention now that the election is over. Conservatives made a lot of noise about gun crime during election and now that they have been completely shut out of south Ontario, they will probably payback by ignoring Toronto.
6. Manufacturing sector is going to continue to be hit. The governments have little control (apart from giving tax incentives) over the manufacturing sector even though they are perceived as having a say in the business decisions. It’s a shame that this sector is unraveling just as Conservatives take over. They are going to be blamed for all the ills faced by employees of the sector.

On the whole, I expect Harper to toe the ‘centrist’ line without really straying too much just like he has been advocating for the last 3 years. He is the prime minister but only just. Without the extra 20 - 25 seats that would have given him a comfortable lead he has to govern by consensus and not in a brazen fashion like his pal down south.

Ivan Lendl. The Czech-turned-US citizen was one the most hard working tennis players that the world has ever seen. To be able to reach 19 grand slam finals (and to win 8 of them) is truly an outstanding feat. His play was power, power and more power. I can see him right now play that backhand of his which I thought was one of the best in the game. He had an explosive serve; a short swing but it generated awesome power. He was a great tennis player but his pursuit of a Wimbledon title undid him at the fag end of his career. He put his heart and soul into the pursuit and came up lacking. Another thing that I always thought was that he was a great player but he lacked a flair that Jimmy Connors or Bjorn Borg or John McEnroe had. I know this is a very subjective statement but I truly hold it against him. He introduced a scientific approach to the game which is now the norm in the game but I think it has taken away some of the soul that existed. It had to happen one day but I will not forget that it was Ivan Lendl who introduced this concept.

Pete Sampras. Droopy shoulders, tongue hanging out, as he walks up to the base line getting ready to serve, it seems like he is ready to fall and then BOOOOOM a serve that clocks up to 120 mph barely touching the lines. A forehand that rips apart the opponent’s defense. A backhand that cannot be answered. A volley that is just out of reach. A smash that utterly demoralises the opponent. Reflexes that defy intuition. That was Pete Sampras. The first time I saw him play was in the final of US open against Andre Aggasi. No one knew this guy and it was a foregone conclusion that Aggasi would win (even though Sampras had beaten Lendl and McEnroe in the run up to the final, they were deemed to be past their prime). After he won, each of my friends and I were aping his style of play. A delightful player to watch, his attacking style of play was one of the best in the 90s and he inspired a slew of young players to ape it. In the end he won 14 grand slam titles, the most by any male player ever. This record took almost 25 years to break. But (you knew there was a “but” coming) he never did well on clay courts. Like all the attacking players, the slow clay courts negate whatever edge the attacking style might have on the opponent. This is just a small mark on Sampras’s career. Which is also why he is not the best tennis player.

Whenever I think of Aggasi, the Billy Idol song “Rebel Yell” comes to mind. I call him the Madonna of tennis. He’s had numerous incarnations in the 18 years or so of his career from the rebel years to the sober years to the mature years. He is the perfect athlete. Even long after his heydays, he can outrun all but a few top players in the game. He is also one of the very few modern players to have won all the grand slams. So why have I not chosen him to be the best player? Because he never really could outrun Sampras and other top most players. It always seemed that he had to dig in deep with all
the top players and fight to finish the match. Never did he seem the outright favourite.

I have not included Roger Federer in this list as most critics tend to do at the moment. The reason is quite simple, he is still playing. And he has a long, long way to go before he can fall under the champions category and anything could happen on the way. No one expected Monica Seles to fall, who was definitely on her way to super stardom, before she was knifed on court. To be concluded in the next post……

Chris Evert. The darling of the media and the crowds in her heydays. She was and remains one of the most good looking champion that tennis has ever seen. Don’t let her good looks fool you, her powerful forehand can knock the teeth out of you. That powerful forehand helped her win 18 grand slams. I have seen her play a few times (mostly at the fag end of her career) and the thing I noticed about her was that she never ever gave up and she rarely showed emotion. The “Bjorn Borg” of women’s tennis. Her grip on the French Open is well remembered to this day and will probably be equaled after a long, long time. The reason why I did not choose her as the best tennis player is that as soon as Martina Navratilova came into the picture, she was always a step behind her. In the 14 finals that the two met, she lost to Navratilova 10 times!! She was a champion but not the best.

Martina Navratilova. I had to think long and hard before choosing Graf over Navratilova as the best player. Martina is the one player who did more for women’s tennis than anyone before (she carried the torch from Billy Jean King) or ever since. She was one of the few top ranked athletes from sports who came out of the closet in the 70s. To this day the repercussion of that decision reverberate in not only tennis but all sports. It must have been a very brave decision for Martina who chose to be a true person rather than a very rich person (the decision cost her millions of dollars in sponsorship). Her style of play was serve and volley and she did this with grace and flair which has been surpassed only by Graf and no other. She shed the sexuality aura that surrounded all women players and played as any other player. She loudly proclaimed “I am a tennis player and not a woman tennis player”. She has championed women’s rights in the game which saw the prize money rise as fast as the prize money for men and the women’s tournaments gained in respect especially her with regards to her rivalry with Chris Evert. She won on all the courts. A total of 18 grand slam titles prove that she is one of the best players of all time. So, why did I not choose her over Graf? I can’t think of any quality that Martina lacked : Grit, ability, mental strength, physical ability she had plenty of. It’s just that I think Steffi
Graf had more. And in the end the Grand Slam record did go to Steffi even though Martina’s singles and double records were hopelessly our of reach for Steffi. Further more Martina is still playing professionally (she won the doubles titles in Australia and Wimbledon in 2003). But bear with me and let me explain to you why I think Steffi is the best.

Back to our regular broadcast……

Bjorn Borg is truly one the best tennis players. He was the one who showed the world that his style of play, powerful shots from the baseline, could be put to good use. He did have to change his game for the Wimbledon but by and large his game depended on his baseline play. He had won the 11 Grand Slams (the grand slam tournaments are : The Australian Open, The French Open, The Wimbledon & The US Open) , the most before Pete Sampras won 12 in 2000. But his main problem was that he was not as good on the hard courts. That is quite a misleading statement because he did reach 4 US open finals (he participated in the Australian Open just once), but if you include the ATP tour then it’s fairly obvious that he never did perform as well on the hard courts. That is the only blight on an impeccable career.

His main rival at the middle and fag end of his career was John McEnroe. The fiery American, who was one of the most unconventional players I have ever seen, was one of the best to come out of America. His rivalry against Bjorn Borg is legendary and although I did not see the famous 1980 final live, I have seen the recordings. Man, the match is something out of this world. The sheer intensity of the 4th set, even on a recording, is to be seen to be believed. The best part of McEnroe’s game was his attacking style of play. Everything that approached him had to be dispatched with force. But he too had a weakness : clay. His style of play never really suited the surface. He did reach the French Open final once and never performed well on the clay leg of the ATP tour. I am not going to let go of this rant without mentioning his temper and his famous “You Cannot Be Serious” quote. Everyone considers his temper a bad thing but the truth is that his verbal outbursts helped him and threw his opponent off. It was part and parcel of his game and what everyone also ignores how much this attracted new audiences (and Ad money). Of course, this is all in hindsight, at that point everyone wanted to throw the book at McEnroe.

Then there was Jimmy Connors. The never-ever-give-up tennis player. I saw one of his biographies and the thing that stands out immediately is his ability to come back from almost being beaten to take the match. I have seen him play a few times and his ability to play on any surface is supreme. He had this uncanny ability to play a little better than his opponent when it mattered the most. He is also one of the few I can say who had no “weak” surfaces. He played the hard courts, grass courts and clay courts with consummate ease. So why have I not chosen him as the best tennis player? Because he was erratic. The ups and downs in his career are too numerous to count. Now I know that’s a good thing and it says a lot about what kind of a player and a person he was. But it’s not the hallmark of the best tennis player.

To be continued…..

Ok. So I promised to explain why Steffi Graf is the Greatest Tennis Player in this post. But that post is in the works and I wanted to write about the political situation in Canada right now.

As of today, it seems that Conservatives are set to form the next Canadian government. I think you know from my previous posts that I do not have much love the Conservatives. Apart from their ridiculous ideologies, I do not appreciate their stand on health care (they want to allow privatisation), their stand on deferring capital gain tax (companies gain while the government (and subsequently the taxpayer looses)) and their stand on foreign policy (which is “bend over and let America f*ck you”).

Having said that, Liberals are not so hot either. Their leadership is severly lacking; Their policies are ignorant of the “street” situation; Their gun control policies for Canada have no direction at all; Corruption seems to permeate every pore of their party; Their stand on foreign policy (which is “let’s not say anything about the problems and they will go away”).

So what’s the solution?

Ensure that neither party has the majority.

To reign in these two major parties of Canada, you (the voter) has to make sure that there is not too much power in the hands of only one party.

“And how’s that possible?” you ask.

Vote for either the NDP or the Green Party (or the Bloc if you are residing in Quebec).

It’s as simple as that. Make sure that the Conservatives and the Liberals have to take these parties into account before forming their governments and their policies. I am not sure why the Liberals could not work with NDP in the past year or so, but the collapse of the Liberal government showed that they could not run away with crappy policies and corruption without giving the voters a chance to put in their two cents.

So, if I could vote (my citizenship is still in process), I would have voted for the Green Party. Who will you vote for?

I have been avoiding this question for a long time now but it’s time to take the plunge.

Who is the Greatest Tennis Player of all time?

The problem is that my interest in tennis started sometime in 1980 while watching my dad play in Zambia. At that point the only tournament that was aired on the national Zambian TV was the Wimbledon and that too just the semi-finals and finals. So my exposure to the game was quite limited. My dad used to make me sit with him while he would give a running commentary on the play. I think he was disappointed that I never really asked him that manyquestions on the game.

I remember a player who would, after winning the match, would jump all around the court pointing to all the spectators. That was Jimmy Connors. He was my favourite in those days. And there was the fiery John McEnroe whom my father loved…..more for his antics than his game, I am sure. And then there was Borg. What can one say about Borg? Connor pumping his fist all the
time, McEnroe lashing at everyone and Borg would not bat an eyelid except at the end of the match when he would go down on his knees.

In those days the games between women players never really appealed to me. It could be that the matches were actually quite boring or my pre-teen “girl hating” days were still in full swing. Either way, I never really paid muchattention to ladies matches until 1987.

In 1982 once I joined the boarding school (Punjab Public School - PPS) I was asked if there is any game I want to focus on. I chose tennis. I was never really good at playing tennis (am still quite below average) but I loved to chase the ball like Jimmy Connors and try and smash it over the net. The game was not taught with any vigour in the school. We were told to buy racquets and balls were given to us (which we were told to hold on to for the next month or so) and whack the balls around. No nuances of the game were told to us. We did not know what a top spin shot was; we did not know what a back hand slice was and serve? Just chuck the ball over the net, it’s
acceptable. Over the vacations, my dad would teach me everything I knew but he would loose patience with me quickly.

Anyway, I digress.

It would be unfair of me to not include players throughout the history of tennis but the truth is that I have no idea about how the players played before 1980. I can go the books and find out but it’s just not the same. I have no idea what kind of forehand they used, I have no idea what kind of serve they served, I have no idea how they reacted to pressure, I have no idea how they handled themselves on court. So, I will amend the question to:-

Who is the Greatest Tennis Players in the modern era (1980 onwards)?

That’s better.

I am going to say it right away. The greatest tennis player in the history of tennis is : Steffi Graf.

“WHAAAAAT? Steffi? You did not even make a case for her.” you would say.

Well, I will make my argument in the next post. But trust me, the best tennis player that the world has ever seen is Steffi Graf.

Haloscan commenting and trackback have been added to this blog. Hope some people use this!!

When I read this article on infanticide in India, I knew it to be very true.

I come from a small town in India called Patiala in North Indian state called Punjab. I and a lot of my peers have long left Patiala to look for “Greener Pastures” but our folks still live there. My mom, who visited us last year here in Canada, told us of an incident that happened immediately after my daughter was born. When my mom and my dad went to visit my grandmother (paternal) over the weekend like they have done once a month for the last 25 years, they told her of the good news. After hearing the news my grandmother lamented

“What!!?! What ever am I going to do with all the sweets I had brought?”

It’s easy to say that this is a common preception among the old but, unfortunately, the opposite is true. Among the poor and the middle class, it’s a common belief that a son a preferable to a daughter (despite contrary evidence).

And it shows.

My mom told me that the 2nd to 6th grade that she teaches at a local school has boys out-numbering the girl 3 to 1!! It is a real problem in India. In another 2 decades or so, the problem is going to hit India hard.

By the way, after my grandmother made that comment, my father blew a fuse and gave her a piece of his mind!!

It’s 5:00 am on a Saturday. I am in the kitchen and waiting for the coffee to finish brewing. I am impatiently looking at the clock and watch the seconds tick away. It’s now 5:02 am. I quickly pour my coffee into a cup and thank god that I do not like milk or cream in my coffee as it would eat away a few precious seconds. I quickly tip toe in front of Rhea’s room into the guest room, let out a deep sigh and log onto the BLOG SPHERE!! And for the next three hours or so before my wife and daughter wake up, I am in pure blissful world of politics, satire and ideas (with the occasional naughty site *wink *wink). And then throughout the weekend, whenever I find a few minutes, I surf to various blogs.

Whenever Charu brings up this question : Why are you so obsessed with blogs?

I can never answer with any clarity. Why this obsession? I know I am not the only one who has this obsession with blogs. I read such peoples’ blogs everyday (Atrios and Amit Varma to name just 2 who specialise in linking to stuff that are usually new to me if not thousands others). Their obsession seems to be leap years ahead of me.

To even broach the subject I think we need to define what a blog is.

“A blog is a online diary?” you would promptly reply.

NO.

That is one of frequent misconceptions of a blog perpetuated by the mass media. A blog is much more than just an online “dear diary”. It’s a reflection of one person on his/her outlook to life for everyone to view. That I think is the key difference here. A journal is usually “for your eyes only” but a blog is for the world to view. This difference prompts the blogger to put across his/her views that show not only his/her knowledge of the subject being discussed but to make it interesting enough for reader to come back again and again. It’s this push to get the ideas forth that really appeals to me. For example, David Neiwertt of the Orcinus blog puts in thought to his post and his post to date have never ever disappointed. Ok, he focuses mostly on racism and hate from the Right, but he does with such finesse that it just hooks you in. And then there is Juan Cole whose focus on Middle East politics is incisive and to the persuasive. Or try Atanu Dey’s blog. He gives extraordinary insights to what should be the policies that India should follow.

These immensely talented people out there whose posts are outstanding in many respects have the words, the stories, the comments and the opinions that are un-comparable in the history of information. The fact that I can catch a piece of news somewhere and then go to my favourite blogs to read about their opinions, then agree or disagree with them and tell them so, who then reply back (sometimes) refuting my comments and so on and so forth is extremely stimulating and never disappoints. These features are what pulled me first into the world of blogs and keep me coming back.

Black is on the Time’s top ten list of movies of 2005 This is quite good news for the director, Sanjay L. Bhansali who after the superhit superficial Devdas chose to produce a “low key” movie about a deaf-blind-dumb girl who manages to achieve stability in her life with the help of her teacher who is later diagonsed with Alzheimer disease and is helped by his ex-student to cope with the disease. Most of the critics swore that the movie would bomb at the box office but it did quite well.

I think that movie was far better than the average bollywood movie. The movie had a great cinematography and a great supporting cast. And that’s about it. The movie had one motive and one motive only. To make you cry as much and as quickly as possible. Rani Mukharjee gave a great anti-glamorous performance but sometimes stretched it too much. Amitabh Bachchan also gave a little over the top performance in the beginning of the movie. It was in the later half when he was diagnosed with the debilitating disease when he showed why he is one of the best actors in the world.

That said it was truly refreshing to see a hindi movie which was an antithesis of a typical bollywood movie. It also shows that directors now cater to their art rather than the audience. That I think had been lacking in bollywood. Well done Mr. Bhansali!!