Tuesday, October 21, 2008

Bachelors Recipe - 2 - Barbecue Flavored Aloo Bhindis


a) Step 1 Find a suitable recipe invoving aloo and bhindi using google. Bonus points for entries with terms like 'no recipes that require a lot of effort and hardwork' (http://thelaidbackcook.wordpress.com/2007/06/05/aloo-bhindi/)
b) Follow the steps in the recipe to the letter except use less oil and a slightly screwed up non stick pan.
c) Keep cooking till a thick black layer forms at the bottom. This will give the Bhindi its smoky barbecue flavor.
Enjoy!

Sunday, September 07, 2008

Reviews

For a change the movies I have watched and the books that i have bought and read have turned out to be surprisingly very good beginning with

Mumbai Meri Jaan : A typical slice of life movie woven around the serial train blasts in Mumbai. Typical characters , cliched even but not completely typical or cliched. Sickeningly sweet in bits , the movie is still acted out very well and has a semi realistic story. And of course to hear at the end yeh hain BOMBAY meri jaan still pleases me.

Rock On : A movie that tries very hard to be Dil Chahta hain and doesn't succeed but is still very watchable and has a new look cast which has acted decently. Completely predictable but a polished execution and a friends apart coming back together for a competition story keeps your attention. Th music with its silly lyrics(kyon aasman hain neela , paani kyon lagta hain gila??) has a very authentic feel to it and you cant help but sing along. And it looks like Farhan Akhtar is always associated with quality products (I also just saw Positive on youtube).
Oh and I almost forgot , a first in Hindi movies(well except for Ardh Satya), there is a character who is named Shetty and who isn't a gangster. Will wonders never cease?

Star Trek : The Original Series : Season 1 : I remember Star Trek as this action packed , ultra cool sci fi adventure series that we eagerly looked to watch every week on doordarshan. It comes as a surprise then to see almost no action, William Shatner hamming all the time, great special effects which consist of tilting the camera to show the enterprise shaking, and a toy model of the starship every time it goes through space. Spock is not Spock yet. But the episodes are still charming and I still love seeing them because it's still better than the stuff that gets put out these days.

Jon Stewart on Comedy Central : It is a statement about America, that the best political reporting is coming out on a humor show. Watch Jon Stewart demolish Karl Rove, Bill O 'Reilly among other republican partisans and also the reformed maverick John McCain. And wonder why these aren't Democratric ad's on TV.

Hitman/ JLA : I remember reading the first Hitman / Bloodlines event and it being ho hum , till Hitman got his own series , and we got a copy of the first hitman collection through vicky. And oh wow, it was simply great. I picked up the other collections when I could and Garth Ennis easily tops Preacher in Hitman. And he returns to Hitman in this two parter and it has Action/Humor/Sentiment and all done very very well. What can I say , except , Tommy was here too!.

Sunday, August 17, 2008

Married SuperMen

There is a storyline that just finished in the SpiderMan book's where they ret conned his entire marriage , as part of his attempt to save his aunt, Peter Parker cuts a deal with the devil of the marvel universe and is no longer married to M.J. and does not know that he was ever married to her(yes , some comics are still that silly). Anyway some of the fans were in uproar and since this seemed to be an editorial driven story, Joe Quesada said he doesnt like the concept of married super heroes, and that there is no story he can tell with a married superhero that he can't tell with an unmarried one, but there are plenty of stories he can tell with an unmarried superhero that he can't with a married one.
And I think , that he is ofcourse talking rubbish. When Clark Kent married Lois Lane, i had to get Craig's mother , then on a cruise, to stop at a port and buy me the wedding of Superman comic book , and it was too good. It was sentimental, mushy , it had all the writers and artists of the comic book present at the wedding , and it was fun. And now it is tough to imagine an unmarried Superman, and the stories havent suffered much (though there are still bad superman stories as there always were). And if you ever read Whatever happened to the man of tomorrow story, that really is a perfect send off for superman, the way superman should end, and what do you know, in the end he is married to Lois Lane with kids. Some things are just meant to be.
Batman though is a different character. You would never expect or want to see him married and settled down with kids. Batman is an obsessive character and remove the obsession and he no longer is the same character. Batman is the loner.
And so it's not a question of how many different types of stories you can tell (someone has said there are only 7 seven types of unique stories in the word and everything else is a mixture of the 7 in varying degrees) , but it is how well you can tell them. Keith giffen and J.M. de matteis used humour to depict The elongated man and Sue dibny and it worked, till Brad Meltzer , for reason's best known to him killed off Sue. But if you read the next mini by Keith and J.M. written after Identity Crisis but placed before Identity Crisis timewise (yes comics are still that confusing) where you as a reader know that Sue will die but the characters themselves don't , it was both funny and touching and bittersweet , and how many stories can claim to be all of those?
And if you read 52, with a suicidal Ralph, who is finally reunited with Sue, oh wow, what an end , and a new beginning,try telling that story , Mr Quesada, with an unmarried superhero.
the problem with the comics though is that they run for a long long time. and just like any soap opera that has outlived its welcome, the writers try to find new (old) ways to shock the audience and get them interested again. And unfortunately all are cliches (infidelity. misunderstandings over infidelity, death, divorce, memory loss, etc etc.) and all of these solutions taint the characters. Can you imagine clark kent divorcing his wife? No? how about we kill her off then? get a new romantic interest and a new wedding? would sure boost up sales!
and I guess that's why Vertigo with it's mostly finite in time stories which have a beginning middle and end , turn out to be written so much better than the unlimited batman/superman.

Saturday, August 02, 2008

Kingdom Come

For those who have read Kingdom Come and marvelled(!) at the art , only to realise on subsequent readings that what made this book great was not (just) the artwork , but the writing and the story, here's a tale for us
http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=17538

Expect this article to make sense only after you've read Kingdom Come.

Saturday, July 12, 2008

Identity

We had a conversation a few days back, all the desi's about a certain gentleman , born and raised in America, to Indian parents who disliked being mistaken for an Indian. Anecdotes were recounted when people thought him to be Indian , and they were brusquely put into their place. He wears his Americanism on his sleeve , or should we say he wears his star's and striped chaddis!. And then we wondered why this is so. Various explanations were given. For us who have lived the first part of their life in India, we probably never will give that up even if some take up American citizenship. But for those born here its different? Perhaps its the parents fault , they force their child to experience Indian culture whatever it means. Children grow up to be confused - ABCD's. Perhaps its the fact that being Indian has a negative image here (poverty, dirty, illiteracy, corruption, etc.) Perhaps its the fact that your peers shun you as different. Even children are sometimes surprisingly cruel (perhaps unintentionally) to children who differ from them. Who knows. And one guy went so far as to say , that we are discussing this about someone , one day it will be our kid who is like this or if not perhaps our grandchildren. I laughed and said that I'm like this guy if anyone asks me from where i am , I always say Bombay! and if they say your manglorean , I always say nah my parents are from there, I'm from Bombay!
But I wonder about this culture thing. What is one's culture? Where do you draw the line ? 1 generation? A 100 years? Like everything else ( ideals, values, ethics) , people are selective about what they perceive as their culture. Things they want to do or they want the their children to do , culture. Things they don't , well times were backward and we've progressed now, what to do times are like that only any reason will do , any excuse. Reminds me of traditional day in college, people wearing clothes a couple of generations old and asking me why I'm still in jeans an formal shirt. Always said , that's always been my tradition, if i go back far enough to find out what my ancestors wore traditionally , I wont be able to wear anything. but that always got me the this guys so weird look.
And whats Identity? Why do we identify ourselves as Indian, American or whatever?
Does the place in the infinite universe where I was born due to pure luck define my identity?
Does being an Indian define me? or my views or my values? I doubt it. Or only to the extent the environment around you influences you. Why is it that people see nationalism as a good thing?
It isn't and you only have to see , that like religion and race, nationality can be used to justify any sin, any violent activity, any war. Your nation is at war , you have to support your soldier's everything else is secondary. Right and wrong? who cares.
What comprises identity? And why isn't it sufficient to say my views, my values, my ideals , my deeds? Why do we have to add my gender , or my race, or my religion or my country or my sexual orientation?

As a side note this is the signature from an email from an American(heh)
'In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American,and nothing but an American...There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also,isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language... and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.'Theodore Roosevelt 1907
And it is tempting to ask , why did you'll not practise what you'll preached? I'm sure the native American would have appreciated it!. And it's funny to see the definition of an American.
The flag, the language and the loyalty.
Maybe some day we will understand that the earth is far bigger than a country and the universe is far bigger than the earth. And all of this , culture, country is far too small for beings with imagination.

Saturday, June 28, 2008

On writing

I finished reading Fables , The Good Prince and like all the fables volumes so far , what an amazing read. After reading the story about the tragic Christmas gift given to the Frog Prince, what a followup. The story has this underlying sorrow running through it, you know things are not going to end well, but there will be a brief period of sunshine and everything about this tale is done correctly , and that includes the ending as well. And it makes me think what makes a story great? Or rather what about a story's telling makes it great? If i look at frog prince lets see , A good guy's family is tragically killed and he embarks on a quest to make it right, his way (and no , fable's is not an Arnold Schwarzenegger movie). Seen this multiple times and in various ways, but fable's rises above all of them. I guess it is the ability of the writer to make us care about the characters. And I think the best guys are able to no matter what character they write. Bill Willingham did it in Fables. Mike Carey is another writer who was able to make the readers care about Lucifer , while not changing the character in any way at all. And Carey is able to do it , no matter what characters he writes. Whether its Frankie in my Faith in Frankie, Or Jen in Re-gifters or Tash in Confessions of a Blabbermouth or Constantine in Hellblazer, when you read the story you care about them (Did I just admit to liking the lead characters in two chic-lits?)
Greg Rucka is another such writer, i can't remember ever bothering about wonder woman , except when Rucka was doing the writing. Same character , same powers, but when Rucka writes you care. Surprisingly If I take a look back at the previous buy on sight Author's (Moore, Gaiman, Miller) they don't share this quality as much. Gaiman and Moore both wrote interesting concepts and idea's which were new/original. Miller was always tough guys being tough, which gets a bit old after a while. I wonder if my reading tastes are changing to preferring character driven stories instead of plot driven?
But anyway this was meant to be about writing. Oh and I would so like to write characters that people would care about , but I think I can't, because I can't invent any, I usually have to base them on people I know (An elf named ... !). At which time it is difficult to change their personality, because that would be in some ways cheating . I think it was Moore who said that you should always write what you would like to read, because that way you are at least guaranteed one satisfied reader. which reminds me I have to complete a story , well not complete, update!

Thursday, June 26, 2008

A religious anecdote

From A History of God
There is a story that in Auschwitz(during the Holocaust) a group of jews enacted out a trial, accusing God of cruelty and betrayal. They found no consolation in the normal explanations of pain and suffering. They found no extenuating circumstances for God and so they found him guilty and sentenced him to death. The Rabbi pronounced the verdict, then looked up and said the trial was over : It was time for the evening prayer.
I wonder what would differ in the lessons people(religious v/s non religious) would learn from this anecdote.

Tuesday, April 22, 2008

Top things you dont want to hear while in a dentist's chair

Top things you dont want to hear while in a dentist's chair

  • OOOH that cavity is bigger than it looks
  • It looks like I'll have to drill another surface because the decay has spread
  • We'll see if you have two or three cavities (Hint : choose the greater number always)
  • Here you can hold the mirror and I'll show you the decay
  • See you next week

(all from the current visit instead of all of mine, otherwise I could have had an encyclopedia instead of a top 5 list)

Monday, April 21, 2008

Doing the right thing

I like testing out my morality / ethics against current issues (especially because one of the arguments for religion is that we get our morality from it - though someone like me would rephrase it as 'inspite of' instead of from).
So take the case of the Texas polygamist sect where supposedly children (especially female) are taught from their birth to obey without questioning, are told polygamy is right, and are told that their chief function in life is to breed. They are provided no alternatives, they are kept cut off from the rest of the world and indeed probably aren't aware that there are other ways to live one's life. When they are old enough they are married off, in some cases to an old @#%#$%$ with a handful of wives.
Claiming that some of the girls were underage when they were married and indeed pregnant , the Texas state has taken the children into custody. Their parents argue that they treat the children well, that they should be allowed to live their lives as per their beliefs and that the girls are given the choice and can reject any prospective partner.
It is however no choice at all as the children have been bought up to believe that they will go to hell for disobeying their parents, that there is nothing wrong in being the n'th wife of someone and breeding as much as you can. They aren't shown alternate views and they aren't allowed to see the world to find out for themselves. As every religion knows , the best way to get children to follow your footsteps is to teach it to them from a very young age where belief in the parents authority is absolute and the difficult questions are less. Once the religion becomes a habit , the child doesn't question it as is evident from the grown women of the sect vehemently defending their way of life even when the people most disadvantaged are themselves. Its similar to the Indian women being in the forefront of those against the girl child. Once you have been brainwashed , the beliefs come naturally and it is what you will practise on your own children
It is also probably true that separating the older children from their parents may have serious psychological repercussions on the children.
On the face of it this is a simple moral decision, the parents should be in jail and the children taken care. But this causes a problem, 'When is it OK for the state to interfere with how a parent brings up a child'. When a child is subjected to physical abuse? Certainly. Easy enough to prove and easy enough to convict. But psychological damage? Who knows? If we say in this case that the teachings are too extreme for children to be subjected to it where do we draw the line?
People like Richard Dawkin and Christopher Hitchens already believe that teaching a child about religion constitutes some sort of abuse . They are referring to stating that a child will burn in hell if he sin's but the view is still extreme enough and is not right other. Parents do have the right to teach their children their views. Is it then only question of how extreme the views are? Is the polygamist sect any different say from a Muslim parent teaching his child that if they leave Islam they should be put to death?
I think the problem is not in the views themselves but in the fact that the children are kept from discovering other ways of thinking. The parents are welcome to believe what they want and they can tell their children what they believe but they should not be able to prevent their children from seeing the world, seeing what else is there, from reading. The girls should be able to interact with other girls and women who can tell them that if polygamy is fine , why not polyandry? That women do achieve a lot in this world and their sole purpose in life is not breeding.
The exclusion of other views and other people is evident even in the not so extreme religions. Marriage is preferably within your own religion. Schools are created for followers of a religion only. Public places of prayer to hang out with 'like minded' people. Youth groups for .. you guessed it 'like minded' people.
The more I think of it , the more I'm convinced , our tendencies to hang out with people who believe the same things we do, or are from the same country as we are from, or speak the same language, or have the same skin color is one of the biggest ill's that our society faces and it this that we must prevent.
And we come down to what is the right thing to do in this case? Any child who has been made to marry at a young age , the husband and parent's should be put in jail. The parent's are free to teach their children anything , but they should not be able to raise them in seclusion. The children should have access to all the information that a normal child has and is appropriate for his age. Any parent preventing or actively hindering his child from doing so should be reprimanded / punished.

Thursday, April 10, 2008

The Best of Science

I came across http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7432173082287948210&q=zaytuna
and since I have read Sam Harris "Letters..." and will probably read The God delusion sometime, I can't help but comment on it.
Note Yusuf Hamza is articulate and seems reasonably intelligent, but his argument that the anti - religion/God books compare the Best of Science with the worst of Religion is a childish argument.
Science is a tool neither good nor bad , it depends on the who uses it. However the principles on which science is based, are sound. The principles of scientific curiosity, verification by experimentation, continuous evaluation of results by peers, having to give up beliefs which are proven wrong (e.g. the sun revolves round the earth), continuous improvement, no 100% absolute certainty - 'you might be wrong tomorrow attitudes', are all good and can be followed even in other aspects of life.
Religion too can be used for good or bad depending on who uses it. But the principles on which religion is based? well some are definitely bad. i.e. belief without evidence (or at least insufficient evidence - Carl Sagan's said extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence), the absolute certainty in the rightness of itself, the attitude of we the followers are superior/better/more favored than those who don't follow, are all principles which are bad and which would cause trouble if followed in any other aspect of life. We don't have an Indian science and an American Science and we certainly don't believe that those who understand e=mc^2 are superior to those who don't.
So the Best of Religion is certainly way inferior to the Best of Science. And the worst of science? quite simply it's the worst of humanity. But the worst of religion is not restricted to the worst of humanity as it does quite well(!) by itself.
Yusuf says the wars of the 20Th century were caused by fascism, nationalism and communism (unlike the wars of yesteryear's). Leaving aside the numerous conflicts in which religion has played a part, I'm not sure what he intends to prove by this. Certainly I find it hard to differentiate between a rabid nationalist and a religious fundamentalist (We are superior, We can go to war and kill people who are not like us, Even though our birth (and hence in most cases our nationality and religion) is a random chance event we believe we are better than the others and this was our destiny, The other's are always spoiling our way of life , we need some way to stop them, Every one of 'us' is better than one of 'them', We need to stick together with other's like us - Each of this statement can be made by the nationalist of the fundamentalist.). Religion , like nationalism or regionalism, or race, or gender is just one more way humans use to separate 'us' and 'them'. We can look around and see how useful these classifications are for humanity as a whole

Speaking of religions that should be banned , the fundamentalist break away Mormon sect certainly should. The only thing is that, nothing is going to bring back the lost innocence of the children, though I hope I'm wrong.
The discussion though did bring up a point in favor of polygamy. Most rational people are against polygamy. However we (yes I consider myself rational) would also be against any form of legislative action against say single people who sleep around with multiple partner's though we may frown at it. So here's the problem with having the above two attitudes. What we are essentially saying is that its OK for someone to sleep around with multiple partners, its OK for them to have kids, its OK for them to dump their partners and kids (OK in the sense that we wouldn't say put them in prison!) but as soon as that someone decides to marry his/her partners and give some sort of legal protection to them , we say put him/her in prison! Clearly we are hypocrites.
I'm just wondering which is the lesser of the two evils . I'd probably choose giving legal protection should be given to anyone with or without marriage.
Speaking of which I wonder if any religion other than Hinduism has a No Comments against polyandry(my only evidence for this is the Mahabharata - a tale in which we firmly believe you can find all the sin's humans can commit)? Certainly the Abrahamanic religions with their skewed definitions of Adultery wouldn't approve !

Thursday, February 14, 2008

News Round up

Mike Huckabee says quite proudly, He didnt major in mathematics , he majored in miracles in the college. The few absolute truths in our universe are all related to mathematics or physics. In two dimensional space dividing the circumference of a circle by its diameter gives PI. An unbelievable even miraculous number. There is a beauty and elegance to maths. There is an undiscriminating nature in maths (It doesnt matter if the measurement was done by a Hindu or a Muslim). I'd say that the fact that Mike Huckabee is quite happy that he majored in miracles instead of mathematics should automatically disqualify him , not only from politics but also from religion , he can't even see truth when its in front of his nose. Its quite nice to see that he wont be the nominee.
Speaking of which I wonder which excuse Ms Coulter will use to support McCain once the nominations are done(after she said she'd campaign for Hillary if McCain is chosen). "I was joking. Can't you recognise satire. I was misquoted. I have footnotes"?
Reading The Colorado Catholic Herald. it seems the church in colorado is concerned with a bill. Said bill would "create an unlimited statute of limitations for civil claims of sexual abuse on a child"it seems public organisations are less liable than private). Now pay attention carefully. The reason the church is concerned is because they feel this bill is "targetting churches particularly the catholic church". Draw your own conclusions.
And what is it about countries that people forget common sense? Look at
http://blogs.cricinfo.com/pakspin/archives/2008/02/a_letter_to_australians.php and specifically "Benazir Bhutto's death was a tragedy but a political assassination has no significance for Australians." Of course it does.
India's team looks good. The best bit about Ishant sharma is not that he bowls fast, but that he bowls with the same courage even after he has been hit. Something a lot of our bowlers like Harbhajan and Sreesanth arent able to do. And we lose to Sri Lanka after beating Australia, but atleast while we batted we fought and a reduced over game is always a lottery. Lets hope we qualify for the finals.
Dwain Chambers. Should he be given a second chance? One commenter did comment The problem with giving a second chance is that there will always be a first. I'm not so sure.

An Original Joke

Courtesy of Sanjay
We were discussing George W Bush and the topic turned around to how Bush has a DUI. And someone helpfully added that Bush used to drink a lot , before Laura Bush gave him an ultimatum which was "Either me or the drink" after which George cleaned up his act and gave up alcohol. To which Sanjay responded (with a typical mallu accent). Oh you know, George Bush is known for making wrong decisions!

Tuesday, January 29, 2008

If you believe in truth , fairness, balance, objectivity , there's nothing here for you, move on. Ms Coulter has written one long hysterical rant, for a set audience (rabid conservatives) and if you dont fall in that category , you wont like this book. According to Ms Coulter

1) The Republicans have all enacted successful policies, the Democrats have screwed up everything, and where they haven't its because they inherited the good work of the republicans and where the republicans screwed up is because of democratic policies previously enacted(e.g. 9/11 happened because Bill Clinton didn't act on the evidence he had).

2)Ms Coulter goes after the people the Democrats put up to state their case who cant be touched or criticized. e.g. The widows of the people who died in 9/11. The mothers of soldiers who have died in the war. She then proceeds to accuse these women of all sorts of things(like they did it for the publicity, they did it for the money, they took so much pleasure grieving for their husbands deaths) while repeating that nobody is allowed to criticise them. Leading to the obvious inference Ann Coulter = nobody.

3) Onwards to teachers who according to her are above criticism and nobody is allowed to criticise them or public schools either. So nobody i.e. Ms Coulter, than proceeds to do exactly that criticise public schools, bring out statistics to number of children abused by school teachers v/s number of children abused by priests. I'm not sure what she wanted to prove there.

4) Ms Coulter attacks evolution and brings up fact after fact that evolution cant explain. She evidently is of the school of thought that believes that attacking Evolution proves that Intelligent design or Creationism must be correct(a false dichotomy). She repeats her contradictory statement that Darwin made that shows that evolution can never be disapproved and how theories that cant be disapproved aren't science and then proceeds to write four chapters trying to disprove evolution. Which is it Ms Coulter?

The sad bit is , this book is a bestseller.

Tuesday, January 08, 2008

A Bachelors Recipe

If Recipes were written by single (albeit committed) bachelors then I guess they would look like the following
Moong Curry
Ingredients
Sprouted Moong (Mandatory) as much as you feel you can eat * number of times you want to eat it, Coconut(optional), Dhania Jeera powder(optional), Red chilli powder (or green chillies or red chilly whole), Turmeric powder(optional), 1 small onion (optional), salt(mandatory), curry leaves (optional), mustard seeds(optional), hing(optional),oil(mandatory)
Also a mixer and othere cooking utensils

Steps
1. Confirm recipe from mom.
2. Cross check with recipe site(e.g. food.sify.com)
3. Add the moong and salt to pressure cooker, and add enough water. Hint If the salt is less you can add more later, if the salt is too much you have to order from Pizza Hut.
4. Cover and cook for 2 whistles (slight hard) or 3 whistles(mush)
5. Simultaneously grind to fine paste scraped coconut(or frozen and defrosted ) , chopped onion, dhania jeera, red chilli powder and turmeric powder.
5. If in hurry cool the cooker under water else wait till the steam goes away. Ignore mom's tip that the skin of the moong will now be floating as a. It isnt and b. It is too much work.
6. Now heat oil in a pan (use in inverse proportion to your health consciousness). Add the paste (the coconut , not the overdone moong) and heat till you run out of patience (or till it starts sticking to the pan and makes you spend half an hour cleaning it later). Add the tamarind water. Damn forgot the tamarind. Quickly heat water and tamarind microwave till warm, squeeze out the water and add the tamarind water to pan.
7. Now add the moong(with the water it was boiled in). Keep stirring sometime , taste.
8. Separately heat oil , add mustard till crackle, curry leaves and a pinch of hing
9 Add to the moong , stir.

Monday, January 07, 2008

Cricket

India lose a match that they could have drawn and should have drawn but it wasn't to be. Australia go on to equal the world record and its a pity because they didnt deserve it. The Indians have no one but themselves to blame. But But But Australia didnt deserve it. It wasn't only the umpire's aiding and abetting some really poor decisions , but Ganguly being declared out is the worst. Why did the umpire ask Ponting? And why did Ponting ask Clarke? He has to say he didn't see it not that my player says he caught it.
It ironical to see how the word monkey is thought racist in western culture though it is an everyday insult(and sometimes even a god) in Indian culture. Having said that if harbhajan did call Symonds that he was probably using it in the racist sense. But the time that he said it , India were doing well. Its far more likely that the Australians needled him (as they always do when a batsman actually does well against them) and he responded. And it is a sad state for cricket that Harbhajan could probably have called symonds a f***er or an A$$0 or said he sleeps with symonds wife or fathered symonds children and got away with it (which the Aussies do all the time and such comments are even treated as classics - hows your wife, hows my children) but he can't call symonds a monkey. But ultimately its a matter of evidence. Its Symond's word against Harbhajan and whether or not you believe Harbhajan guilty , you need to show proof. Otherwise what the match referee is saying is I believe Symonds over Harbhajan which isn't a fair decision. By all means ban Harbhajan if proven guilty but share the evidence please.
And even more hypocritical is Mike Proctor hasnt banned Ponting for claiming a dubious catch http://www.rediff.com/cricket/2008/jan/07prem.htm while doing the same for Rashid Latif. Heck here's racism.
Oh and bye bye Mr Bucknor.
The only problem is that australia will win test number 17 and test number 18. Justice demands that they not win the next one , but as we have seen from this test , Justice is blind - even when there is a third umpire.