Horseracing

My view of arranged marriage is that you pick a horse and then you show it to me and say "Is this one ok?". My problem with this arrangement is that I have no context to evaluate if it is. I have never ever been to a race and no clue about horses. I just don't know. One says yes because you like the colour of the horse or it has a funny name or it doesn't snort and balk when you go near it. It is based on intuition more than anything else.

Of course with a love marriage (I am not a big fan of this terminology because the opposite of a love marriage is then a love-less marriage) the choosing is not restrictive to a yes or no. The beauty of this analogy is that at the end of the day, no matter how you choose, it is still a gamble. You win some, you lose some. And you can never be 100% certain of your choice.

Extending the analogy, one of the reasons "western" marriages seem such a failure is because they don't think that it is necessary to bet everything you own to play the race. Some relationships are built for the long haul and some aren't. Changing horses mid-race is bad but gambling everything on one race is a bit reckless, don't u think? You don't want your life completely ruined if you lose a race.

One is absolutely free to believe in arranged marriages. Sure, let's say that it is the greatest bestest system. Or at least no worse than any other system. But please let's not pretend that someone is going to make an informed choice based on a few email exchanges. A trained psychologist wouldn't know anything about a person from these initial emails. Do you agree? So, let's just call the game what it is - it is a gamble. You are betting on a horse. And as a player, given the high stakes, all you can do is take as many variables as possible in to consideration.

Character assassination, Times style

Are you the kind of person who wonders what would a "hit-piece" on someone a.k.a "hatchet-job" look like? Well! wonder no more. I present to you the best of the best - the equivalent of a Gayle century and Mishra hat-trick and Dhoni captaincy (gratuitous cricket reference) rolled in to a single 1084 word article. Really read it and savour the subtle flavours of the Merlot and the scents of peach and plum with its earthy texture and hint of vanilla.

First some background. Glenn Greenwald is a Guardian columnist who broke the story on massive NSA surveillance of electronic communications of American citizens. The surveillance is more or less completely illegal, except that the government has its interpretations of some laws (like Patriot act and FISA amendments act) that allow it to circumvent pesky limits on its powers. The Obama administration claims a. That it is legal, limited and has sufficient congressional oversight and b. It is necessary to keep Americans safe. Because 9/11. There is also c. This program is classified and how did you find out about it and I am going to put you in prison, but that part is classified.

Senators Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkley have been warning for some time that there has not been significant congressional oversight and that the program is not a targeted-surveillance (and the head of NSA testified in front of the Intelligence subcommittee that they have not wittingly collected data on millions of American citizens, as if one could slip on a banana and end up with a database of all phone and electronic communications of millions).  Notwithstanding that and the fact that President Bush got into a lot of trouble for a similar warrantless wiretapping program way back when that was evil and even assuming that this program is necessary and the only thing standing between terrorists and Americans, one would suppose that it is still not out of line for journalists to shed some light on government policies that impacts the lives of so many citizens. How can democracy be democracy without an informed citizenry?

This, in summary is the playground in which the match will be played. Greenwald is a lawyer and writer on civil liberty issues. He is an author of several books including 'How would a Patriot act?'. He has been a columnist for The Guardian for almost a year and before that, he was a columnist with Salon.com. He is involved with the Electronic Frontier Foundation and has been a supporter of both Wikileaks and Bradley Manning. Like him or not, there was a national conversation about the power of government agencies to data-mine the shit out of everything after he broke the news on NSA surveillance. Also about how maybe, just maybe it was a bad thing to live in an Orwellian dystopia (Yes, the usage of 'Orwellian' went over the roof and search for 'Big brother' hit the biggest comeback since the infamous nipslip in Season 3).

And enter, NewYork Times. Noam Cohen and Leslie Kaufman wrote the brilliantest blatantest hit-piece since Pete Clemenza took care of Paulie. First, the Hors d'oeuvre. The title of the article is "Blogger, With Focus on Surveillance, Is at Center of a Debate" which appears to be an edit since the link to the article is the more spicy, "anti-surveillance-activist-is-at-center-of-new-leak". Remember it is not "Guardian columnist blows the lid on surveillance". No sire. That would make it a legitimate act of you-know scare quotes journalism. Activist sounds bad but it seems to be the flavour of the season. Better to call him "blogger". Doesn't the term immediately conjure the image of a Cheetos-eating slacker who lives in his mother's basement? You can almost visualise it, can't you? That is how good writing works. So, Thomas Friedman who can charitably be described a clown is a NYTimes columnist but Greenwald is a blogger. His work with The Guardian is for the fine-print, an afterthought. And that ladies and gentlemen, is how one discredits a person. As if painting GG as an un-serious blogger wasn't enough, the writers would like to help you with a ladle of  'He obsesses over government surveillance' in the very first line. Now, GG is a Cheetos-eating basement dwelling nutcase with a tinfoil hat.

Don't fill yourself on the appetizers. There is more. The main course include, 'He is gay', 'He lives in Brazil', 'He is a diva - didn't have an editor', 'He supports Manning' and finally for dessert 'He is an apologist for anti-Americanism', 'He is naive and couldn't run the country'. Muuuuah! That is some serious Crème brûlée of anti-Americanism. And because this is the liberal rag (allegedly), throw in 'worked for corporate clients' in the list of Greenwald's yuckiness. Call it the salad siding for that one vegan person who crashed your party.

To anyone who claims that the article was balanced, contrast this. The person quoted as calling him an apologist for anti-Americanism is Gabriel Schoenfeld. We are assured that this guy knows what it is all about. He is a national security expert and senior fellow at the Hudson Institute. The person speaking for Greenwald is Ms. Jennifer Bailey. She shared a tiny apartment with him when they were students. Who are you going to believe - national security expert or Will and Grace.

The only thing missing from the article is that that he is a leper with AIDS and a plague-ridden rat for a pet and he smells funny and did you see the shoes he was wearing. NewYork Times, you have done it again. Plumbed depths deeper than James Cameron's submersible.