Here Charitable Individualism is the key!… nothing less.


Two great sports events took place on 14/07/2019, where the Doctrine of Notice was the only legal principle which was used to trump the Idea of Fairness.

Let me deal with the more gentlemanly game of Tennis before I deal with Cricket. Roger did not lose his serve and concede a serve of his opponent Djokovic consecutively, which is a sure recipe for losing a set, in gentleman’s tennis. This principle of the advantage of a server should be broken for anyone to claim a set. This was modified and only in the fifth set in the Grand slam events, that this principle was made applicable. Therefore, in the first, second, third and fourth sets upon each player getting six games, tie breaker is set in motion, by which a diluted principle of having to break at least one serve was instituted instead of having to break two points of the server to win a game, and the first person to reach 7 points with a difference of 2 points is awarded the set.

Roger lost in two tie break sets but had comprehensively won the other two sets, thereby taking the finalists to the last set.

The new rules modified the old rule of awarding the set to a person who took six games or above only if it was with a difference of two games. To truncate the match, the rule was amended to the extent that if both the players were to reach 12 each, then it revived the old tiebreak mechanism of awarding the set to the player reaching 7 points with a difference of two points.

This is not fair and revolts against my sense of fairness. The safeguard in this principle is that, if one were to be a Roscoe Tanner type of server, he should not have the advantage of winning a tournament merely because he wouldn’t drop a set. He has to have the skill to break the other person’s serve to win each set. Okay, as the equipments and skills and endurance improved the matches became epics and had to be curtailed. Therefore, if in the first four sets if the players were 6 each tie break was instituted, which I think is ‘fair’.

But when some player has the strength of serve and had already taken two sets, and is equal in four sets, to allow the match to be won and lost in the fifth set by a margin of two, would be fair. It would be a rarest of rare occasion. We are not going to see this happen in another Wimbledon finals in which a loser took 36 games and still lost. Worse still is that the winner Novak Djokovic took only 32 games‼️

Just because it was notified even before – that in the fifth set, once both players reach 12 games each tiebreaker would kick in – the rule may not be fair, as the objective of Tennis as a game has not been to choose a winner with not only a strong serve but also an additional ability of having the skill to break the opponent’s serve. That guiding principle, has been buried deep without a trace in Wimbledon 2019. No doubt, sports should entertain also, but allowing the fundamentals of the game to be buried without a trace merely because the same rule applied to both the players and had been notified prior to the start of the tournament, it would not and I assert that it is not a fair principle. Extreme examples at the time of formulation of such rules would have been laughed at, but now, the winner of Wimbledon is one who never broke and held his own serve consecutively in the final set; the winner won the tournament only with three tiebreakers though the match went to five sets. All these facts would have sounded stranger than fiction if one had raised it at the time of formulating and accepting those rules, but now we have a Wimbledon winner who looks ludicrous.

World Cup- 2019 Cricket:

In the next issue of the World Cup at the Lord’s, strange facts happened which again showed the principles adopted in poor light.

Who made the decision and on what grounds that a winner is to be chosen based on the number of boundaries scored, if the scores were even at the end of the Super Over?

If a boundary included a six as well as a four, would they be equated?

If a team scored two sixes and the other team scored three boundaries what principle could be applied?

Now that technologically our facts have improved through our review mechanism, our sense of ‘fairness’ and ‘logic’ seem to have deteriorated. Is it because we cannot have JOINT WINNERS? Is it like not being able to keep two swords in one scabbard?

Time to move on – when countries have CO-CHAIRS in UN meetings, is it not a food idea to have two on the top. Why not Dvaidha?

Two great sports events took place on 14/07/2019, where the Doctrine of Notice was the only legal principle which was used to trump the Idea of Fairness.

Let me deal with the more gentlemanly game of Tennis before I deal with Cricket. Roger did not lose his serve and concede a serve of his opponent Djokovic consecutively, which is a sure recipe for losing a set, in gentleman’s tennis. This principle of the advantage of a server should be broken for anyone to claim a set. This was modified and only in the fifth set in the Grand slam events, that this principle was made applicable. Therefore, in the first, second, third and fourth sets upon each player getting six games, tie breaker is set in motion, by which a diluted principle of having to break at least one serve was instituted instead of having to break two points of the server to win a game, and the first person to reach 7 points with a difference of 2 points is awarded the set.

Roger lost in two tie break sets but had comprehensively won the other two sets, thereby taking the finalists to the last set.

The new rules modified the old rule of awarding the set to a person who took six games or above only if it was with a difference of two games. To truncate the match, the rule was amended to the extent that if both the players were to reach 12 each, then it revived the old tiebreak mechanism of awarding the set to the player reaching 7 points with a difference of two points.

This is not fair and revolts against my sense of fairness. The safeguard in this principle is that, if one were to be a Roscoe Tanner type of server, he should not have the advantage of winning a tournament merely because he wouldn’t drop a set. He has to have the skill to break the other person’s serve to win each set. Okay, as the equipments and skills and endurance improved the matches became epics and had to be curtailed. Therefore, if in the first four sets if the players were 6 each tie break was instituted, which I think is ‘fair’.

But when some player has the strength of serve and had already taken two sets, and is equal in four sets, to allow the match to be won and lost in the fifth set by a margin of two, would be fair. It would be a rarest of rare occasion. We are not going to see this happen in another Wimbledon finals in which a loser took 36 games and still lost. Worse still is that the winner Novak Djokovic took only 32 games‼️

Just because it was notified even before – that in the fifth set, once both players reach 12 games each tiebreaker would kick in – the rule may not be fair, as the objective of Tennis as a game has not been to choose a winner with not only a strong serve but also an additional ability of having the skill to break the opponent’s serve. That guiding principle, has been buried deep without a trace in Wimbledon 2019. No doubt, sports should entertain also, but allowing the fundamentals of the game to be buried without a trace merely because the same rule applied to both the players and had been notified prior to the start of the tournament, it would not and I assert that it is not a fair principle. Extreme examples at the time of formulation of such rules would have been laughed at, but now, the winner of Wimbledon is one who never broke and held his own serve consecutively in the final set; the winner won the tournament only with three tiebreakers though the match went to five sets. All these facts would have sounded stranger than fiction if one had raised it at the time of formulating and accepting those rules, but now we have a Wimbledon winner who looks ludicrous.

World Cup- 2019 Cricket:

In the next issue of the World Cup at the Lord’s, strange facts happened which again showed the principles adopted in poor light.

Who made the decision and on what grounds that a winner is to be chosen based on the number of boundaries scored, if the scores were even at the end of the Super Over?

If a boundary included a six as well as a four, would they be equated?

If a team scored two sixes and the other team scored three boundaries what principle could be applied?

Now that technologically our facts have improved through our review mechanism, our sense of ‘fairness’ and ‘logic’ seem to have deteriorated. Is it because we cannot have JOINT WINNERS? Is it like not being able to keep two swords in one scabbard?

Time to move on – when countries have CO-CHAIRS in UN meetings, is it not a food idea to have two on the top. Why not Dvaidha?


There comes a time in the life of every cygnet, classified by the peers of ducklings, as ‘ugly’ – having been endowed with features like long necks and bills and significantly different from its peers.

But the cygnet itself doesn’t know that a long neck is functionally needed when it would take flight. But till it takes flight, it needs to be schooled in socialism of having to live with those waterfowls bound for the slushy ponds.

It is that inner voice, indelibly marked in its genes, which withstands those cackles and suffers its cohabitation and feeding on the same fish and worms.

One day – the day of its initiation as a swan – it watches a bevy of swans in flight and aspires to join them. The grown up swan still beset with those cygnet experiences wondered if it could ever be a part of the bevy in flight.

But this swan was unable to realise its ‘being’ – having been caught up with the inanities of the ducklings, ducks and drakes. Finally like that ‘Ugly Duckling’ throwing itself at the bevy of swans, the cygnet which threw itself among the swans made him realise that he himself was one of their breed.

A realisation which dawns when he sees his own reflection on the lake. When he discovers that he is similar to those birds which he had aspired to become; and having been warmly welcomed by the herd, he becomes one of those.

The newly aware swan had left his limited habitat of his barn-stuck siblings, though with much travails for not having conformed to the standards of those barn animals as a cygnet.

There are and will be ducks, geese, pigs, sheep and other barn animals which would resent the ‘good fortune’ of the ugly duckling, little realising that it was the ‘good fortune’ of those barn animals to have had the opportunity of sharing time with a swan – a breed meant only for fresh water, high skies and winged for long haul flights.

The swan has no time to hold grudges on those barn animals and birds. They would become a matter of memory – a distant & laughable one – where randomness had taken him to sojourn with, in his fledgling years.

The swan also realised that mortality would strike both the barn birds and the flight birds alike, yet the thought was gratifying that he had been to variegated geographical locations and wouldn’t be sure of where his last resting place. But he had the assurance that he would not rot among those barn animals and become fertiliser to the plants and trees chosen by those scrubby farmhands!

Live with dignity & Die in Liberty.


So they were matched up for a race.

The tortoise asked the umpire: Why should I run? I am secure the way I am. If I feel threatened I just withdraw into my shell. God has given me the heavy shell, which I carry for my protection always. So forget it.

The hare which heard this, which had prided all along on his swiftness mused to himself, for the first time: Yeah, the tortoise is right. Why should they set up a race between us? Disparate as we are, I realise that I’ve been given those nimble paws and strong legs to save myself when threatened by predators. Who matched us up?

Now that both the hare and the tortoise had gone beyond the disparate rat race, set as a spectacle by the Sponsoring intellectuals, for their own amusement and for the philosophically minded, to draw some moral, like Jacques sucking out moral pithy sayings out of random events and generalising those for mankind to labour in darkness of the soul for decades; the sponsors were disconcerted.

It was not the unionising of the Hare and the Tortoise, but a sudden deep realisation by the contestants that the liability of each had been compensated well by the Almighty and the special skills, if any, was also, not one to be displayed and prided in but also granted by the Almighty, for it’s own safety from mischievous predators.

But there is a lurking idle set of human minds which either sets up a contest between these elements, debases the talented by putting it to sleep in the middle of the race and garlands the relentless plodder while the talented is relaxing; or the other set, which sits on the sidelines and writes the glorious nonsense “slow & steady wins the race”- and feel smug at such an intellectual discovery.

Do not make contests for your own glory; the person with a liability, in him carrying his liability stands protected; and the skilled, through his skill has merely been granted survival skills.

Make no mockery of the Maker. Live AT Peace.


She is called Missy,

Mixed in breed

& bred in clandestine ways.

Her master had embellished her with brass buckled collar.

Neat & respectable.

He walks Missy

Morning & evening-

Without fail.

In the nights she’s let loose.

Till midnight she guards her home.

By an hour to midnight she

Winds down her duties.

At the stroke of midnight

Missy lifts with her snout

The unhinged slat of the ledge.

Missy makes her way out

When her master is fast asleep.

She joins the pyes,

Which self arrogatedly guard the street.

I can see her from my balcony in 7th floor.

Missy has admirers galore

But the biggest and the meanest pyedog guards her.

Missy has a collar,

The one that distinguishes her from the pyedogs.

She has a owner.

She is cared for.

Other dogs envy her.

They see Missy

Walk like a bride in the morning & evening.

But Missy spares no fun that the pyedogs have.

Yet Missy’s collar

Gives respectability & envy.

There is none like Missy

In our street.

Cared for, yet with Liberty

On the sly.

All because she has a brass buckled collar.


 

Gideon’s purpose was approved by God and supported by his father Joash. None, mind you, NONE even from his own tribe of Manasseh believed in the method or the purpose which he undertook on his own and when God recognised him as a ‘thou mighty man of valour’ – he did not bask in the certificate of the angel of God, yet when he had to engage with his enemies, Gideon took an ASSURANCE from God. An Assurance through two impossible signs.

 

There are three signs Gideon takes before he embarks on a fight against the Midianites, the Amalekites and the children of the East.

 

First, when the angel of the Lord appeared to Gideon while he was stealthily threshing wheat, and told him “Go in this thy might, and thou shalt save Israel from the hand of the Midianites: have not I sent thee?” The sign Gideon received was that when the Angel of the Lord, who sat under an oak in Abiezer, touched the offering poured out on the rock and touched it by his staff, the whole offering was consumed.

 

Experience had taught Gideon that he should not only have an assurance but an assurance from the Lord who could do great things.

When the Pharisees asked for a sign from Jesus, they were not seeking for a sign to believe, but to debunk the sign and rely on their own Unbelief in Christ and rightly Jesus says : no sign would be given (Gospel of Mark) except for the sign of Jonah ( Gospels of Matthew & Luke). Jesus calls such seeking of signs by His contemporaneous generation as “wicked & adulterous”.

Wickedness could be defined as a ‘wilful choice of the evil’ and Adulterous means ‘not faithful to the choice made and showing waywardness in accepting favours, protection or resources by succumbing to the enticements and show of power by someone other than the God to whom one has chosen to stay committed’.

 

A sign is a prediction of the outcome. A prediction about the events to come in the future without the person seeking a sign not having made up his mind. A sign could turn out to be like Chananah’s son Zedekiah’s prediction before Ahab and Jehoshaphat, regarding the battle which they had undertaken to pursue on a prediction of positive outcome.

The difference between Gideon seeking a sign and Ahab or the Pharisees seeking a sign is VAST. Gideon had already embarked on the path of confronting the Midianites, the Amalekites and the children of the East. He was NOT asking which way the wind would blow. He wanted the wind to blow his way and he wanted an assurance from the Creator of the wind to blow his way.

If one understands the difference, it would be exhilarating. Gideon was finding a way to win. He wanted God to be on his side, whereas Ahab and the Pharisees had not hoisted their sails nor would till they were told through a sign that they would obtain a particular result. Otherwise, they were willing to desist and altogether abandon their embarking on the battle or their course.

Gideon had chosen his path, his request for a sign was a prayer for sanctification of the path already embarked by him.

Gideon places the fleece and requests God, truly humbly, that the fleece should be drenched with dew whereas the outside of the fleece should be without dew. Gideon does not request for a human possibility – except through fraud. When Gideon finds that God had made it happen, he once again humbly requests God to perform the reverse of his earlier ‘sign’- which by hindsight is even more humanly impossible – the fleece should be dry but the area surrounding the fleece should be wet with dew. God makes it happen, AGAIN.

God’s eyes which run to and fro have found Gideon – a mighty man of valour – willing to stand as a single man and resist the Midianites. Even God wants to convince Gideon to go to take the Midianites head on. God gives Gideon an unsolicited third party assurance- an enemy soldier dreams and another soldier interprets that dream reassuring an eavesdropping Gideon. An event not ‘intended’ but an independent assurance that Gideon would win.

Sure enough he wins.

Even after victory, he faces humiliation from the twin tribe of Manasseh – Ephraim. The Ephraimites chide Gideon the Manassehite as to why he did not involve the tribe of Ephraim.

None from the Ephraim could have imagined the nocturnal threshing that Gideon was doing to shore up the merge resources left unplundered by the marauding Midianites. Yet he comes up with two classic statements to assure the Ephraimites of their putative superiority over the tribe of Manasseh.

One is that he gives the Ephraimites the credit for killing the Princes Zeeb and Oreb. In fact the tribe of Naphtali and Asher, sniffed a deliverer in Gideon and joined Gideon in the pursuit of the Midianites, but the Ephraimites waited for an invitation and possibly the scent of victory before they took the Midianites at Bethbarah and Jordan. Yet Gideon ascribes the victory to the Ephraimites. Gideon kills it when he draws an imagery of the grapes thus:

“Is not the gleaning of the grapes of Ephraim better than the vintage of Abiezer?”

 

This victory for freedom effervescent in the blood of Gideon was able to overlook the fact as to who contributed more to the victory over the Midianites. It was not mere generosity of the soul of Gideon; nor was it the political acumen to harness the dominant tribe of Ephraim, I see it as the fulfilment of the thirst of Liberty which was willing to forgo credit for the freedom achieved.

Gideon ranks in my list as next only to Moses as the Greatest Liberator.

 

We as individuals are all labouring under some Midianite or Amalekite force trampling and swindling our resources and livelihood, yet we eke out our meagre existence with a fervent Hope that one day we may be called as ‘mighty man of valour’ – while threshing our own wheat sheaves in our own backyard in the dark of the night‼️


The putative father of Louis XIV was Louis XIII, the reality was that Louis XIII failed to produce an heir to the throne of France through many women besides his Queen, which was a cause of concern not only for Louis XIII, his Queen and, most of all, the Pope.

The temporal head had to find means to beget an heir and a deus ex machina was invented. A Duke was interpolated into the conjugal bed of the King and Queen. Voila, two sons were born out of that unholy union. The elder one became Louis XIV and the second one became the Duke of Orleans.

The Pope, which means the Church, was fully in the know of this. The biological father’s functions were well performed and over. Therefore, this nameless Duke Sullun, was masked and detained in the high security dungeons- now called prisons.

In the Fifth year of Louis XIV, the King dies and Louis XIV being the Dauphin, is crowned the king. However, in view of his minority, his mother was made the Regent, who continued to rule France with the aid of a Cardinal ( I suppose). This arrangement continued for close to ten years and thereafter Louis assumes kingship and shifts his capital to Versailles.

The fact that his biological father was still alive was neither known nor suspected by Louis XIV.

When the Church manoeuvred to play the legitimacy card to keep the king in check, serendipitously he stumbles upon how his mother had, in satisfaction of her queenly duties, begotten him and his brother Philippe.

Louis, was a man who smelt a threat where such possibilities merely existed.

Upon discovery, he along with his brother poisoned their father and killed that Possibility from emerging as a Fact to threaten the good life they both had got used to.

This brutal act by Louis XIV doesn’t get highlighted in history, all because of the cardinal reason THE WINNER WRITES HISTORY – the loser’s version never gets the publicity.

I love to read this legitimisation of the illegalities of imposters and how they by doing good deeds perpetuate their names like Louis Le Grand‼️

History repeats itself constantly, only that the contemporaneous events do not have the feel of the exaltation of History.


Never ever wake up from that feminine lap of luxury with false memories of strength. With the locks go the strength too, but awareness came much later. Tell not the woman the reasons for your strength. If the locks are your strength, give her no clue. Else she’ll monetise that knowledge with the lurking Philistines.

Keep your locks in order. Philistines always lurk behind those laps of luxury. The luxury invested with those silver coins by the Philistines. When you see luxury in a woman, not financed by you or her father, dream not of pillowing your head in that lap. It is not a lap of luxury, it is the snare for disempowerment. Many a Samson has awoken to realise that by groping in the dark – that darkness created by Philistines with your gouged out eyeballs in their hands.

Philistines entice never ever directly, but by bringing those things before you with an unexpected surrender the things which you once furtively ached for.

Run son, Run.

Blindness awaits those who lean on those laps of luxury. Those laps make you reveal through feminine persistence and importunity.

David was not wiser than the ancients because he Trusted only the Lord, he helped himself by learning to scold the very same Michal for whom he once risked his own life for two hundred foreskins, and esteemed being the son-in-law of Saul too high for him.

Foolish Michal thought David returned her love. That Love he managed from the more devoted and unprincessly Abigail and Bathsheba, both of whose husbands propitiously for David died the day after each of those women met him‼️

Michal was only a means for David to sup with the king on the new moon days and other feast days. Foolish Michal scolds a King who was then in the very throne of her father. She forgot that David was not just a skilled sniping slinger but Michal’s King.

Michal went without kids, why so? David must have been particular not to bring forth kids from those imperious womb and made her a babysitter for her sister Mehrab’s kids. Mehrab, who was David’s denied trophy had to hand over her kids or was Mehrab alive at all at that point?

If David’s logic of informing Ishbosheth that Michal’s bride price was paid for in double by David and therefore his claim didn’t abate; how much more right he did have to claim Mehrab on the grounds that she was on the public block for decimating Goliath.

Methinks, David got her too but fortunately for him, was not discovered like in the case of Bathsheba.

In life neither are all men Samsons nor Davids. Each makes his own life – and be not like Esau who sold his birthright for colourful pottage.

Philistines come in different forms, some as Sauls, enticing you to fight for a princess; and some Philistines straight get to the woman through threats and incentives.

Beware of the Philistines, not the woman.

Tag Cloud