| Swayam's profileSwayzoneBlogListsNetwork |  Tools  Help |
Swayzone12/13/2006 "Then was the time":Instantaneous decisions, Eternal repercussions... Consider this hypothetical scenario: A guy is along his path. He comes across to many as another of their kind. But not to a group of people who seem interested in his ring, backpocket and the cellphone in his hand. I catch these people measuring him... waiting to pounce upon when given the opportunity. I know they'll mug him and i want to help. But these are too many to even consider fighting. And they sure aren't going to back off even if i join him and walk along with him. (i could explain it to him later) Now is THE time. They'll attack any moment and i have only a fraction of a second tor react. "cops... ill call the cops" No time left.... try something else.. "Should i confront them??? " Surely not... "Just play the peace-maker and try and divert their minds.. That way i'd hurt no-one.." But if you fail, you'll end up with one hell of a bloody nose and they'll do their job anyhow. "Should i even be bothered?" Time's up...Game over... I stood there still thinking, and they were on him... And i wasn't there... In fact i was heading for the opposite direction. Had i intervened, i could have saved him, i could have not. But at least there was a chance... Leaving him at the mercy of the muggers was possibly the worst thing i could have done. But it wasn't my inability to fight... din put up any.... never tried. It was my indecision... Had i immediately decided to help the guy and go for it, i could have had a chance. I may end up with a ruined face. But i would be able to face myself. Now, i am just another fool recalling what could have been... what if i actually HAD intervened?? What if they get too aggravated to not bother murder?? (i dunno when one of 'the ones' i know and trust turn up against me.. what abt this unknown bunch of aggressive maniacs) Did i do the ryt thing then?? The answer can surely not be found out. I'll never know what were the chances of me saving him... of me hurting myself in the process... of us being able to 'shoo' them away. However, one thing i did learn was "Next time i am in an instance of this kind, ill go for it..." I know it's the right-and-hard choice.. But i'd rather jump in and try to distract them than watch them successful. MAybe i'll start walking with him.. Broken limbs is not what i want. So if they don't quite retard, well... i don't have any option but to run... But at least the victim wont be surprised when attacked... He'll have time to get away too.... Well that was one issue that i have solved for myself... But can we really figure out a way through all such spur-of-the-moment decisions... well in advance?? And what about those where we can't... Then your whole life stands before you (future included) and you realize what's at stake... Bad idea, i cannot jibe the situations i assume to those i face... The point i am trying to make is, whatever the situation, take a stand... Being diplomatic may not always be the right thing. I could have said "Atleast i thought of saving him"... sounds escapist... but am I wrong? Either turn away, or jump in... Whats to be done then, what happens next... well... face it... But don't be ashamed... That was 'your' decision; you stood by it, and that is the most important thing... Lose face to yourself and you'll find nothing worse than life. However, (well life has many 'howevers') not always do you have time to make decisions (i think the responses made then are reflex actions??) What about those?? I personally believe to stand by my 'reflex' decisions too... I did what i thought was good for me at the time and i wont entertain further doubts in me... I may take time to come to a final decision, but once the execution is done, i don't look back at what i could have done. Now is not the time. I may get to know whether i was right or wrong later. But i m not goig to spend time thinking "What could have been?" 10/13/2006 Line of ClassificationEver wondered why we call someone a loser? Ya... many answers in your mind:
"Because he hasn't won anything" : This is THE classic definition..
"He hasn't been famous or among the favorites"
"He pests me a lot" "He's too sincere.."Plenty! I guess some of you have might already have the I-may-fit-into -one-of-these-for-a-particular-set-of-people doubt. Ever tried telling someone he is a loser? Observe his reaction. If he's too full of himself, or confident or as-they-say bold, he will shrug you off. Little does he know that he's just being a jerk. Just like you are, when you label him so. He suffers from a sense of insecurity. He is not at fault if he compares himself with the "ideal loser" at the back of his mind for years, and tries to hide the inner self from the outer world. Once again doubts are raised in him. He may fake, but he sure knows.. On the other side, if the guy you have labeled, is coy and nervous, he'll doubt himself. He'll keep on asking, "Is that so??" and that too not in a direct obvious way... His mind now is deep within himself retrospecting every moment where he was embarrassed. "Do all these events sum up to me being a loser?" He's just weak to hide these moments and is visibly shaky. And sure enough, doubts are raised.
There is no ideal response to being termed a loser. In fact being termed one, itself doesn't fall in the 'ideal' category. (Sure enough, who wants to be called a loser?) But is labeling someone justified? I have been with people who are looked up to as Gods and those who have been disregarded at the same time.... in the same room. Why is it that the latter category has developed so? and what about the former deities? Even more importantly, what about the middlemen who make up the third category? Is anything going in the right direction?? Aren't these people a subset of something?? something bigger and more general??
The so-called geniuses may have natty brains. People hail them and why not?? They have worked hard and deserve every compl i/e ment they receive. People tend to believe that these are born winners. But were these guys always so? The passive snubbed ones... well they're quarantined (make no mistake, even computer viruses aren't meted out that handling) And even more certainly when the environment around them changes, so does their reputation... The world is big and some pack may well treat this guy like we treat the geniuses...
Get any linearity?? What am i trying to prove here?
Sure there's an infinite line of classification... similar to the number line we've studied in Math but only vertical, and the people around us aren't at the terminal ends (Infinity does not exist, right?). You'll always find someone better than you in all aspects! And i am talking on both ends. Up and Down! So, where should you be? Intermediate may seem the safest option. But is it the right one? People crave for success. And for optimum success, intermediate is surely not the optimal choice. A positive extreme sounds the right one: be adulated by your comrades, people respect you and success is there for you. It should be noted that these people who recommend you are the ones who are in the intermediate zone, or better put, below you! (Some ego trip huh?) So basically you need someone below you to lift you up. (The topic might tread through 'gravity' as well.. try applying it!)... Mind you i am only being relative. You might 'appear' above a certain section but that pertains your reference frame... Change the frame and the line changes... significantly! The third kind, i.e. the other extreme.. the passive snubbed losers whose existence should be barred? Are they, again, born losers? Wait a minute, change the frame of reference! Now, are they even losers? Someone horrible at studies might be excellent at sports or music! Someone who isn't as street-smart as you expect might have better thinking power than you! Once again, the line changes! Still dare to look down upon someone?
Ill only state the classic known examples: Galileo belonged to the third kind during his time. Sure he was a scientist, but his sanity was questioned. And with the time dimension changing, he is one who is looked up to as the father of astronomy. Who is more successful? The people during his time, who were above him in the line (or so they thought), or he himself???
MK Gandhi was thrown off a train by the people who thought they were above him in the line of classification. But with the reference changing, he is one of the topmost people in the other line for people. Once again, who is better known? Those who threw him or the Father of the nation himself?
Again, i am not comparing the scenarios w.r.t fame alone. Someone might be on a higher post in the line when it comes to fame. But when it comes to knowledge/success (sometimes success and fame don't go hand in hand)... the same guy wont be visible near the top! Again, these are relative positions on the line. The greats mentioned above were considered losers by those who felt they were highly placed. This applies even to you. The person, you feel is a complete goner may have the potential more than you could ever dream of. The line of classification is never constant and people can leapfrog you in a jiffy. What will you do now? There's darkness below and scorning faces above you.
7/11/2006 100 minutes - Zinedine ZidaneThe infamous head-butt by the French Talisman Zinedine Yazid Zidane aimed at Marco Matterazzi's ribs will, in future as in present, be reflected as a moment of madness by the (not many people know this) VOLATILE master... But Zizou, i feel, must be given a chance... no, not to explain his actions... but a chance to be understood... You may wonder why a cool mind, subject to so many verbal tortures in his career, be given any time after his horrendous action. True some feel that is only a blemish on a glittering career and forget it. But a man, who so coolly slotted in from the spot just a 100 minutes ago turns into a monster ramming ribs!!! Something is definitely wrong.... No, it is not the adrenaline or the aggression earned during those 100 minutes. I refuse to believe... I believe this is exactly the time when FIFA steps up to provide us with "Sledging Rules". It is clear from the videos he was provoked... Zidane's team-mate William Gallas claims Matterazzi called him a "Terrorist". To some, it is a joke... To others, it is another way of Sledging... But for Zidane, it was something much deeper... worse than a racist comment.
History:We all know Zidane has roots in Algeria. The European colonialism in the 19th century saw France take up Algeria as a colony and what was worse.. exploit the Muslims there. Only the non-Muslims were given French citizenship ('colons'). Algeria, being a battleground during the two World Wars, was discontent and revolted. Some Algerians even began Armed revolutions. And after independence, the colons returned to France where, it is alleged, they were not accepted by the natives and had to resort to armed means.
I am not supportive of the terrorist means of the colons. Neither do i approve of, the armed revolution of the Islamic Algerians. You can call them TERRORISTS. But Zinedine, who is a descendant of one of them, has no case to answer. The man toils hard for the unprivileged. He has organized beneficiary matches. He has gone tours during seasons to propagate welfare. A thorough gentleman, he is a boon to mankind. Welfare of his fellow-beings has been his motive throughout his life... Imagine such a man being termed a TERRORIST...
Zizou is a human being after all... He may ignore verbal abuses. But to touch him at the sweetest spot in his heart is something nobody appreciates. This is where FIFA should stamp down its authority (and not on how a player should celebrate his goal). Cricket Australia has certain sledging rules: You may swear. But no personal/racial abuse.... Mr. Blatter could take a leaf out of CAB's book and impose a rule on sledging in football as well. KICK RACISM OUT OF FOOTBALL campaign can be complemented with this... A suitable ban (red card, 2match ban and the like) on any personal comment would help. Thus we can draw a much broader line between gamesmanship (putting your opponent off-track) and abuse.
I must compliment Matterazzi's knowledge of history though he could do with a lesson of using it at the right time.. 113th minute of extra time is definitely not the time to discuss history.. Also, it'd be better for a guy from Mussolini's country to stay shut when the past is being discussed... |
||||
Send a private message
Subscribe to RSS feed
Tell a friend
Add to My MSN
Add to your network
Sign up for alerts
|
|
