DISCLAIMER: I am not suggesting that Bhutto is a US puppet – i leave it to the political analysts to decide that.
27th December – One Benazir Bhutto dies, and wow! It’s world headlines!
But wait a minute….what about the 140 people who died when she was rallying? And the hundreds more who’ve died for the Bhuttos over the years? Ah, I forgot. They didn’t have ‘Bhutto’ as a surname, did they? So they don’t matter. Period.
Anyways, the appoinment of 19-year old Bilawal Bhutto Zardari as PPP chairman, is feudal enough and since everyone with common sense can see why, i’m not gonna bother explaining it. If it really was for the party, and not the party’s leaders, then why not get Amin Fahim to be chair instead? He’s probably been in PPP since before Bilawal was born, and is echoing the party’s vision, isn’t he? If he isn’t, then he shouldn’t be in PPP.
Anyways, I’ve got to return to my medicine, so here are some REALLY good, highly readable articles relevant to this blog’s topic.
Brainbow – yeay! Now one can make sense of all those connections…but it is only available in transgenic organisms tho (that excludes humans), and it can only be viewed using flourescent miscroscopy, which costs a zillion!
But hey, who said magic was exclusive to Harry Potter only? It’s all around us!
Hmmm….so it is said that true love is timeless. And to die in the name of love – beautifully tragic. So noble, so pure.
Such is the message conveyed in several age-old classics – irrespective of culture – namely Romeo & Juliet (European), Heer Ranjha (Indian), Laila Majnu (Arab) etc etc.
The modern world does not wish to be left behind. New love stories are spun all the time, adopting new names, but all with the same message – to die in love is the height of chahat (liking). Here is a clip from the movie Devdas, released in 2002:
In Devdas, the main character (Devdas played by Shah Rukh Khan) is a law graduate who returns to India after attending boarding school in England. It is still the rule of the British Raj. Devdas meets up with his childhood sweetheart Paro, who has waited for him all these years, and the two rekindle a love which even the mist of the yesteryears couldn’t extinguish. This love soon turns into a raging fire, and when Devdas’s family opposes the marriage, Devdas, in a moment of ‘weakness’, asks Paro to forget him and just abide the family’s wishes. He soon regrets his words, but alas, it is too late. Paro has married someone else, and Devdas, in his despair, takes to drinking in order to drown his sorrows. He ruins himself, and finally dies on Paro’s doorstep, pining for a glimpse of her.
Devdas is considered a classic, the epitome of love. The audience sympathises with the character, who dies waiting for his beloved, whom he has already lost due to circumstances. We are touched by the depth of Paro and Devdas’ love for each other, which begins in childhood, and continued right up to Devdas’ tragic, despondent death.
Personally, I think it’s a great love story. However, being the cynic I am, I would like to raise a point.
Is it not selfish to destroy yourself, and all your talents, just because you can’t get who you want? Do you have a responsibility towards your own beloved only? Should you not also consider your responsibility towards the rest of the world, who is in need of your talents (and contribution) in order to make it a better place for everyone?
Yes, Devdas did love Paro deeply. But should he not have loved his country too? Did Devdas not owe something to his country, and the world in general? It was the time of the Raj, and his poorer fellow Indians were being oppressed. Being a law graduate from England, he could have used his degree and education to fight for better rights for his people. Improved lives, saved futures. Instead of drowning in self-pity, he should have donned the armour of zeal, and fought for justice, alongside characters such as Bhagat Singh and Shaheed Uddham Singh (both freedom fighters).
Personally, I think Devdas was an unintentionally selfish character, one who only seeked self-gratification. He failed to look beyond his own needs and wants. Please do not perceive me as a person who is unsympathetic, or unappreciative of true love. Devdas was a great lover. However, he failed to realise that it is not just Paro who had a claim to his love. His countrymen did too. But he failed to fulfill them both.
In this world, we must remember that we live not just for ourselves. There are several other lives which are linked to ours, and which can be affected by our actions. It is crucial that we always remember our roles as citizens of the world, and try to use the talents God has given us in order to improve the world. We have no right to waste them just for our own sorrows, because these talents were given to us not just for our benefit, but for the benefit of our fellow human beings in general.
Here’s a poem by Pakistani poet Faiz-Ahmad Faiz which I came across a few days ago. It speaks of this theme:
And Allah knows best. May He guide and protect us always, Ameen.
Here’s the beginning of what I hope will be a compilation of my favourite-est Quranic quotes. May Allah bless us all, and grant us peace and tranquility, Ameen.
Fav 1:
“Whoever keeps his duty to Allah (has taqwa), He ordains a way out for him and gives him sustenance from where he imagines not. And whoever trusts in Allah, He is sufficient for him. Surely Allah attains His purpose. Allah has appointed a measure for everything.” (65:2)
A flail chest occurs when a segment of the thoracic wall becomes unattached from the rest of the chest wall. This most typically occurs when ribs are fractured in two places, allowing that segment of the thoracic wall to “float” independently of the rest of the chest wall. Flail chest can also occur when ribs are fractured proximally in conjunction with disarticulation of costochondral cartilages distally.
“Paradoxical chest wall motion” best describes a flail chest.
A portion of the chest will bulge out/cave in during inspiration/expiration.
“the only thing we care about is that he is not in pain.”
“…is being treated aggressively for his discomfort”
Such were the lines concerning medical treatment given to Barbaro, written on my Yahoo! homepage.
Who is Barbaro?
Not a child. Nor a man. A horse. A race horse.
It’s good that the world (or horse race addicts, at least) have enough compassion to spend huge amounts treating race horses. Such is everyone’s concern until even a setback in Barbaro’s recovery makes it to the Yahoo headlines. But surprisingly, there was no mention of the 52 Somalian civilians killed in the latest US Air Raids on Somalia.
I’m not against giving medical treatment to animals – animals have a right to live too.
But are human beings less important than race horses? No one has mentioned the supply of medical aid to injured Somalian civilians. Or compensation for their deaths. Instead, the BBC news headline read ‘War on Terror extends to Somalia’. The article went on to details of the operation, mentioning that the 1998 terror suspect who bombed US embassies in Africa is believed dead. So the air-strikes were useful after all, the article implies.
Only in the end does BBC mention the death of 52 civilians. At least, BBC does so. In the Yahoo! article I read yesterday, no mention of civilian deaths was made.
After all, they are not American deaths, so who cares?
After receiving a rather threatening comment from Sarah, i thought i’d better update my blog.
Yesterday was the coldest day of my life yet, with temperatures plummeting to -3.
And i was exposed, defenceless, to this temperature. Why?
CAMBRIDGE BLACKED OUT.
At least, the street where i live (Trumpington) blacked out. no streetlamps, no shop-lights. and worse-no radiators!
I was a tat bit annoyed. I mean, i have LOADS of anatomy to do!!!
Armoured in pyjamas and slippers (ineffective against the Scandinavian wind), i went to the plodge, only to discover that the poor porter is pretty lost himself. Being home alone, i thought it best to remain in the plodge. The porter left. The plodge became dark.
“No point staying,” i thought. And retreated, wounded, to my humble dwelling.
I spent the next hour prowling the corridors, shivering with cold. With that hateful beeper beeping incessantly.
Her Royal Excellency, the Electricity of Cam made her comeback after an hour.
Her faithful subject, I welcomed her joyously.
When Tolkien wrote ‘Lord of the Rings’, he had the battling nations of WWII in mind. The ‘ring’ is a symbol of power – one which gives its bearer the ability to do anything, and yet consumes him in the process.
In short, people don’t gain power. Power gains people.
Decades later, Tolkien’s analogy is still applicable to ‘middle earth’ (our world today). This time, the ‘ring’ takes the form of veto power.
In the video, the ring shifts from one party to another – just like how veto power has been exchanging hands (subtlely) over the years. Initially, the five permanent members of the Security Council had quite an equal say in veto power application. then slowly, one by one, the other giant nations fell, due to their own political rivalry. Only Uncle Sam is left standing – the sole owner of the ring.
Middle Earth was never safe as long as the ring remained in one party’s possession. similarly, the world will not be safe as long as only one nation holds veto power.
Perhaps, like the ring, veto power should be destroyed.
Recent Comments