Abortion (to allow it. . . or not to)

Birth rights of sperms & eggs

The debate on abortion has moved away from the empowerment of women to cutting religious propaganda

Of course, all this is not happening for the first time. Since time immemorial, a woman’s body has been the theoretical and unembellished territory for societal and political war. From the theoretical, scientific and religious end, there are numerous logical stages that define the starting point where ‘human life’ begins. Many schools of thoughts believe that sperms and eggs have life; and put them at par with humans, thus considering them as preconceived life. Many don’t! But almost all blocks ranging from political to religious are in some or the other form discussing the issue of abortion – or as the critics call it, immoral killing of a life.

So what is the debate all about? That’s simple, as that rests on the analysis of the options a woman with unwanted pregnancy has, and those are: one, she can put up the child for adoption; two, she can accept the child; and three, she can abort the unborn child. And that is where the whole debate on abortion starts, with opposing philosophies promoted by two schools of thought: Pro-choice campaigners (who demand a mother be allowed to choose whichever of the three options she might wish to undertake), as opposed by pro-life campaigners (who generally argue in terms of foetal rights rather than reproductive rights). The pro-choice group believes that “a woman should have complete control over her fertility and the choice to continue or terminate a pregnancy,” and demand that a woman is given ‘the guarantee’ of reproductive rights – access to sexual education, fertility treatments, contraception, to safe and legal abortion, and even legal protection from forced abortion. The pro-life group’s philosophy revolves around the argument that “…human foetuses and embryos are persons, and therefore they have a right to live.” Thus, the movement is characterised by extreme wingers opposing sale and use of contraception, practise of death penalty, euthanasia, cloning, embryonic stem cell research et cetera.

Philosophers and writers have been key in this debate, saddling further complicated arguments. Mary Anne Warren, noted American writer and philosophy professor (cited in major publications like Peter Singer’s ‘The Moral of the Story: An Anthology of Ethics Through Literature’ and Bernard Gert’s ‘Bioethics: A Systematic Approach’) concludes that the foetus “satisfies only one criterion: consciousness (and this, only after it becomes susceptible to pain); the foetus is not a person and abortion is therefore morally permissible.” Using a scientific angle, a former President of the British Academy and current President of the Royal Institute of Philosophy, the well known Anthony J P Kenny believes that since division of the zygote into twins through the process of monozygotic twinning can occur until the 14th day of pregnancy, abortion should not be permissible after two weeks! Again, noted American moral philosopher and metaphysician Judith J Thomson states that even if the foetus has a right to life, abortion is still morally permissible because a woman has a right to control her own body. The concepts of pro-life versus prochoice are in general visible across the world, leading to starkly distanced abortion laws across the world – for example, if in Canada abortion is available ‘on demand’, then in a country like Nicaragua, abortions are illegal.

In history, under Roman law, abortion did occur and was allowed, though only sometimes. Under the common law in England and in the US, abortion was illegal after the movements of the foetus could first be felt by the mother to be. In the 19th century, many western countries began to use statutes to codify abortion.

Under Vladimir Lenin, the Soviet Union legalised all abortions in 1920, but this was fully reversed in 1936 by Stalin in order to increase population growth. Between 1930 to 1960, several countries like Poland, Turkey, Denmark, Sweden, Iceland and Mexico legalised abortion in some special cases. This was followed by legalisation of abortion in Japan, Yugoslavia, Soviet Union, Canada, United States, France, Austria, New Zealand, Italy, the Netherlands and Belgium. Since the last few decades, as per reports published by Guttmacher Institute, most of the decline in abortion rates occurred in countries where abortion had long been legal. Contemporarily, the highest rates of abortion have shifted to developing countries, which often have some of the most restrictive abortion laws. In countries like Thailand and Iran, after abortion restrictions were eased around 1997, unsafe abortions have slipped from 15 to 14 per 1,000 women, a big drop when seen demographically, given the fact that around 70,000 women – mostly in developing countries – die each year from unsafe abortions. Chile, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Malta and Vatican City ban the procedure entirely, but in Canada and the US, as we mentioned before, there are no restrictions on the provision of abortion. In the US, almost half of all pregnancies are unintended and thus four in ten of these end in abortions. The Bush administration had placed a ban on federal funding for international family planning programs that provide abortion information to clients. Obama, within a week of being sworn in, lifted the Bush administration’s ban. Obama further passed an executive order officially scrapping the Mexico City Policy (that ‘protected’ – or rather, restricted – taxpayers from involvement in overseas abortions for eight years). Kenya, India, Bangladesh, Spain, Mexico, all are nations where abortion is illegal (sometimes, after a few weeks of conception; like in India) but the governments are not able to control or deliberately overlook the illegal abortions (Mexico has over 900,000 illegal abortions every year). And this point is where religious groups, especially the Catholic communities, are lobbying very hard to stop abortions globally. In general, a majority of Catholic Christians are considered to be pro-life. We repeat, in general! While pro-life believers use scripture references to propagate their views, Roman Catholics in particular recognise that conception is the definitive start of what we know as human life; and therefore, abortion at any stage is immoral.

While Barack is now giving millions of dollars to groups that aggressively promote the pro-choice concept on a worldwide scale, he has been highly condemned by the Vatican along with pro-life leaders on this move. In the Dominican Republic, after the Dominican Catholic Church lobbied, the present laws ban abortion in all circumstances, even in cases of rape; in fact, even when the mother’s life is in danger. Abortion is banned in Catholic heavy Ireland, except in cases where the mother’s life is in danger. In Spain, though abortion is illegal, with the passage of gay rights the ban was expected to be removed. However, the Catholic Church has launched strong campaigns to prevent the reform from being passed. It’s clear that the issue of abortion can never escape the bloodying conflict between the political and religious spheres. The politician who attempts to go against the existing religious paradigm could well end up losing a huge base of voters – Obama knew that and still won. But then, is abortion right or wrong?

That, we truly believe, is for a nation and its people to decide. If the democratically elected legislature of a country – which promotes equal women’s rights – believes abortions should be allowed or banned, in whatever form or reason, then be that as it may! Unfortunately, not only is the majority of most global legislative assemblies almost always made up of men, these nations also suffer what we now know as the Roe Effect, which says that pro-choice parents have generally ended up having more abortions and hence fewer children over decades than the pro-life population; thus support for legal abortions has declined over time, and will decline further in the future. That, sadly, might be the way of things to be in the future...

 

 

United States of America: Transition history

A brief history of character!

On January 20, 2009, Barack Obama was sworn in as the President of the United States; a commentary...

With tectonic shifts in the US politics power play, the longstanding question of US competence seems to be resurfacing. Let us clarify. That Bush was incompetent is not a Nobel Prize winning theory. But will US be seen again as an intellectually social nation, is the question! Not only Americans, but the whole world is waiting for Democrats to come to true power and refurbish America’s tainted image. Let’s be honest, US, through decades, has built its reputation on genuine achievements that took years of some prim and somewhat improper planning. In contemporary history, it all started from the first nuclear weapon US gave to the world, through what is now known as the Manhattan project. Then came their Marshall plan in 1947 [officially the European Recovery Programme], which focussed on fortifying a stronger foundation for Western Europe, and warding off communism after the second World War. Beside these two war-oriented initiatives, the US also proved its competence in the field of science, technology and arts. This is evident by the number of Nobel Prizes that Americans grabbed – a jaw dropping 309 since 1906 [an average of 3 prizes per year] making it the top contestant in the race. America also developed remarkable institutions of higher learning [Harvard, MIT, Princeton, Yale] giving depth to what ivy league defined. Perchance the most appreciable move was the development of a society that redefined the meaning of melting pot. From the criminally racist days of Cassius Clay, most of US transformed uniquely to welcome all ethnic groups, religions and races. Today, however, the scenario seems different and of course bleak, and the growing acceptance is that nonfeasance is a major risk to America’s global image. The last ten years have been enough to vividly showcase the scars America has received and encouraged. The Iraq war and the much publicised absence of mass destructive weapons was the key. From the American initiative to use private security companies to protect Iraq’s oil infrastructure to the much hyped Iraq reconstruction projects [The Office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction reported frauds in the initiative and led to conviction of many top officials]; from the abuses at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo prisons, where the prisoners were subjected to unspeakable torture [Amnesty International’s 2005 report confirmed the same], to Sergeant Samuel Provance [who reported the sexual abuse of a 16-year-old girl by two interrogators]; from US Attorney Alberto Gonzalez [under his regime, the Justice Department and the FBI have illegally used the US Patriot Act to uncover personal information about US citizens] to Bernard Madoff [arrested oncharges of the biggest accounting fraud in history that led to investors losing $50 billion]; from all this to much more, US hasleft much to answer for its ‘achievements’ in the last eight years, be it the response to Hurricane Katrina, or Saddam Hussein’s structured execution, or America’s conspiratorial and deliberate support to promoting the recession, or the Wall Street melt down, and of course, Bush’s failure to capture Osama bin laden! But perhaps Bush is playing to the past, where previous Presidents have mirrored his lack of commitment to promises.

Woodrow Wilson promised to keep the US out of World War I; and ended up pushing the US into the same war. Then came Herbert Hoover’s 1928 famed pledge to end poverty – he gifted US ‘The Great Depression’. Franklin D. Roosevelt met with aplomb his 1932 pledge to maintain balanced budgets and to keep the US out of World War II. He ‘atom’ bombed Japan and his government’s spending increased from 8.0% of GNP to10.2%. The national debt doubled from 16% to 33.6%. Nixon promised resolutely in 1968 to ‘quickly’ resolve the Vietnam War. If not the war, he at least ended the drought of box office hits in Hollywood where innumerable movies kept on crapping about US heroism in Vietnam.

George H.W. Bush Senior promised in 1988, “Read my lips: No new taxes!” For records, he increased taxes and strangely parted with exclusions for high-income taxpayers. If John F. Kennedy had only Marilyn Monroe for company in history books, Ronald Reagan had Parkinson’s and Star Wars. Yes, William Jefferson Clinton is the most successful President in recent history on almost all parameters– economic [US deficits fell], social [crime rates fell too], global security [Arabs loved him; their wives too]. That he will be known more for Monica than for any of his achievements is the irony of the factor that Americans have lost almost completely, a factor called character.

One man caught on to the remnants of this almost dead factor in the deep emotions of Americans; one man who believed that if hope lived in Harriet Beecher Stowe, then character could live again in Americans; one man who beseeched America to change, radically, dramatically, emphatically to nurture back the character of a nation that once believed in humanity. Till now, he is only known for the colour of his skin. Somewhere in the future, when America redeems the depth in its character, and the character in its promises, this man will be known more for his achievements... “When his children will one day live in a nation, where they will not be judged by the colour of their skin, but by the content of their character.” That is the dream... That is the dream...

 

 

Historical endorsers

Think Different, Think Dead

Nostalgia sells. And from using living icons as brand ambassadors, Marketers are now stretching back to dip into history. Result: some iconic men & women are being brought back to life!

Can you spot the similarity between Hamburg-based penmaker Mont Blanc and Bollywood flick Lage Raho Munnabhai? Nah... no product placements by the former in the latter; instead, the fact, that both have used Mahatma Gandhi’s imagary – albeit in different ways – to attract eyeballs. Not only did Lage Raho Munnabhai’s promos actively prop up Gandhi’s images in the backdrop, even the storyline incorporated Gandhi and his non-violence credo to successfully ring in the moolah at the box office. This Munnabhai sequel was an instant hit. Similarly, to cosy up with the Indian audience, German pen maker Mont Blanc launched a gold nib plated pen costing a mind-boggling Rs.1.4 million on bapu’s 140th birth anniversary in 2009. The ostentatious effort was to commemorate Gandhi’s historic salt march, but market watchers claim that since Mahatma Gandhi has been also associated with literary achievements, the freedom fighter’s sheen will rub off on Mont Blanc and improve the luxury writing instrument’s standing among India’s discerning target segment. Reportedly, Gandhi’s great-grandson Tushar Gandhi has even endorsed the idea. As a thank you, Tushar’s charitable foundation has already received a donation of $145,000 from Mont Blanc and will receive between $200 and $1,000 for each pen sold. Aditi Agarwal of Ghalla Bhansali Stock Brokers (they’ve recently released a report titled ‘Marketing the Mahatma’), however, takes exception to such marketing moves. “It’s indeed ironical, that Mahatma Gandhi who was considered as an epitome of austerity is being misused by business barons to make money. Marketing and publicity is vital in today’s tough competition, but to what extent? All efforts need to be taken to protect the legacy that Gandhi has left behind,” she argues vehemently.

But, Mont Blanc and Munnabhai are not alone in having made use of Mahatma Gandhi’s name to sell their wares. The list is long. Be it Apple, Telecom Italia, Martin Luther King Jr., Raj Kumar Hirani, or even the American President Barack Obama, all have used Brand Gandhi to break the clutter and reach out to their respective target segments. Leaving aside the hullabaloo of shocked critics and their lengthy petitions to correct the trend, here’s the moot question. What sense does it make to bring back a popular icon from history? Does using the Mahatma as your brand endorsers work better or should marketers settle for current mass icons like Big B, Tendulkar or even couples like Pataudi & Sharmila Tagore?

Some marketers refer to using historical icons as a goodwill gesture (‘paying a tribute’) and if it serves the added purpose of raking in moolah and raising the brand stature, so be it. But the answer to that question could well range from being financially viable (in some cases) to harnessing the product values with the long lasting untarnished image of the endorser. On one thing though, marketers are unanimous viz. the immortal image of these historical ambassadors provides the requisite ‘X factor’ for their brands.

So it’s not only Brand Gandhi who has been used as a brand ambassador by marketers. Che Guevara, Charlie Chaplin or for that matter even Adolf Hitler, Stalin and Saddam Hussain (recently used in a German AIDS awareness campaign) are also right up there. But, Gandhi has by far been the clear favourite, when it comes to reaching the Indian masses. Remember the ‘Think Different’ campaign launched by Apple in 1997 – with Gandhi in his simple white loincloth and shawl? The image linked an ambassador of immense physical and mental strength to the brand – and helped them break the clutter. Even Italy’s largest telecom company, Telecom Italia used Gandhi in its 2005 campaign and went on to grab the ‘Mezzo Minuto D’oro’ (considered equivalent to the Oscars in the Italian ad-industry) award. Take the case of Luxor, which has consistently used historical figures to illustrate the usage of its highlighters. Their ads showcase usages of Luxor Highlighter by sketching images of Che Guevara, Adolf Hitler and Charlie Chaplin on their ads. Not only have the ads highlighted the historical heros but also the brand, transferring their heroic qualities to the brand. In the process, Luxor also managed to break and rise above the clutter in their segment. Similarly, Rasayana (the anti-stress tea) showed Adolf Hitler smelling a rose with a caption saying, ‘Make peace with the world. Anti-stress tea from Rasayana.’ The slogan simply made the world identify better with the nascent brand. Hitler’s face on the campaign made way for instant recognition among the target audience and made a simple product look smart and maybe, the brand promise even fuelled initial trial purchase.

Thanks to Cherry Shoe Polish, the image of Charlie Chaplin is still afresh in people’s mind. As a matter of fact, the two have become inseparable from each other. It goes without any saying that Charlie Chaplin is loved by everyone alike. His black-and-white persona and humor are evergreen and what better way to describe a black and white shoe polish than an iconic comedian from the black and white era? Charlie rightfully portrayed the idea of ‘enjoy polishing’. Says Alyque Padamsee (who helped create the first series of Cheery ads), “The focus then was on the “perfect gentleman” and the ‘perfect shine’ on his shoes.” The idea of using a black-and-white background has not occurred to Cherry Blossom alone. Apple came out with an ad featuring black and white video footage and print ads featuring legends like Albert Einstein and Pablo Picasso. The ad ended with the image of a young girl opening her eyes (as if)to see the possibilities before her. Everyday, the ad featured a different historic figure, with a small Apple logo and the ‘Think Different’ slogan. The idea was to convey that although the world may perceive these (historical icons) as rebels, troublemakers or crazy – Apple sees them as geniuses, because people who are crazy enough to think they can change the world, are the ones who do – just what Apple does in its labs. The campaign, completely in line with Apple’s brand positioning, was a hit. The idea of using historical icons as ambassadors is catching on fast in India. State Bank of India, the nation’s largest public sector bank, recently launched a print campaign with pictures of its celebrated account holders in the distant past viz. Dadabhai Naoroji, J.R.D. Tata, J.C. Bose, among others. As per the agency, the idea is to establish SBI’s ‘legacy and reputation’ in the mind of modern consumers. For many, using historical icons as brand ambassadors is the safest bet (besides being economically cheaper), as there are little possibilities of controversies and criticism due to their present deeds. Remember, the quagmire that marketers found themselves in when Salman Khan drove his Land Cruiser over sleeping pavement dwellers in Mumbai or when Sanju Baba landed in jail. Millions of endorsement dollars riding on their backs gave sleepless nights to many. Guess it does pay sometimes to really go ahead and take Apple’s advice: ‘Think Different’!

 
 

Of deaths & clebs

Death-on-sale!?

Branding dead celebrities is a multi-billion dollar business and a slew of smart entrepreneurs are cashing in on the positive feelings associated with the celebrity’s image.

No matter how morbid it sounds, Michael Jackson’s death has given a new lease of life to Hollywood’s ailing economy. As in life, even in death, everyone and anyone remotely associated with Michael Jackson (including his dear dad) is busy using his name to build up their respective bank balance.

Just a couple of hours after Jackson’s death, the music industry relaunched many albums of Jackson and overnight a few of his songs booked top slots of charts. So much so that even eBay, iTunes and Amazon saw a new surge in demand related to Jackson products and merchandise. His father also joined the frenzy. Just three days after his son’s death, Joe Jackson was spotted on CNN’s Red Carpet casually plugging his new record label, Ranch Records. Buzz is that Joe is even lining up Michael’s children for a world tour as The Jackson Three next year. Even rapper Akon is suddenly touting a song with Jackson in his new record;and earlier this month Madonna too paid tribute to the singing sensation at London’s O2 Arena – where Jackson was supposed to perform – of course, to packed audience!

Gloomy as it may seem, marketing the dead is actually a billion dollar industry. A dead product (read: a dead celebrity!) has all the attributes that are required to make a brand. They have a fan following, they are idols, they are memorable, they are likeable, they are valuable and above all, as they are no more present to pamper their fans with their performance, their very names are cash cows for smart entrepreneurs.

Barry Silverstein, a marketing consultant and co-author of the McGraw-Hill book, The BreakawayBrand spoke to 4Ps B&M and gave his take on the trend. “I believe using dead celebrities as part of a marketing program is both a short and long-term strategy. It’s short-term because marketers can capitalise immediately on a dead celebrity who dies, but it’s longterm because, as has been proven with Elvis Presley, a dead celebrity’s aura can live ten, twenty, or fifty years, thus providing a smart marketer with an ongoing path to potential sales and profits,” he says. As per the Forbes’ list, the top 13 dead celebrities generated $242 million in 2007. Firms like CMG Worldwide and the Richman Agency (now a part of Corbis) buy the licence and intellectual property rights of dead celebrities. CMG boasts (even today!) clients like Rosa Parks, Marilyn Monroe, James Dean, Jesse Owens and Babe Ruth among its clientele. While the Richman Agency has few from nonglam world, CMG and Corbis receive 20% of the profits from any endorsement. Adds Barry, “Once a celebrity is gone, they will never act, sing, dance, speak, or perform again and that makes every collectible and every image associated with that person truly valuable.”

Take Elvis Presley. He has still not lost his essence and stands firm in this highly competitive world...uh, the world of dead celebrities. According to Forbes Magazine, around 600,000 people visit Presley’s home every year. Elvis has already sold 118 million record albums and around 500 million commemorative Elvis US postage stamps were sold after 16 years of his death. But with Michael Jackson’s sad and untimely death, Presley’s top slot seems to have found a close competitor. Marketers are even planning to commercialise Michael Jackson’s estate in the lines of Elvis’ estate. The media also crashes in on the party. You simply have to look around at all the ratings-boosting coverage of MJ’s death for current evidence. TIME magazine has been particularly quick on the uptake. While the figures for their recent special commemorative issue on Jackson are still not available, a similar special issue on Princess Diana’s death by TIME sold more than 1.1 million copies. Natmags is releasing a commemorative 132-page Michael Jackson tribute magazine and a total of 200,000 copies of the glossy A4 title will be on sale for a month, priced at £2.99 per copy. Memorial events too are going strong, where fans are ready to pay $50 to vendors for a picture next to a cut out of the King of Pop. Jackson’s funeral, in fact, has been the biggest in entertainment history, even bigger than Diana’s death and at par with the event of Obama’s presidential speech. Jackson’s cremation event was viewed by more than 750 million people. Going by Nielsen data, Princess Diana’s funeral saw 33.25 million viewers, while former President Ronald Reagan’s mid-day funeral drew 0.8 million people only. Not to be outdone, even merchandise licensees from around the world have successfully tuned into manufacturing and distributing products using celebs who have passed away. In 2008, Elvis Presley Enterprises was sold by Elvis’ daughter, Lisa Marie, for $100 million. It should not come as a surprise therefore if tomorrow it is Michaels’ images and stamps. In the past, Diana dolls had become icons of the Princess after her death. They can still be bought for $188.95 from the Society for the Preservation of History. Franklin Mint’s porcelain portrait plate sells for $29.95 and Solid Silver Memorial Coin for $55.

If we are talking of legendary celebs, we can’t miss out on Marilyn Monroe. More than 40 years after her death, licensing her famous poses and pout have made more than $30 million in fees for Anna Strasberg, the wife of Ms. Monroe’s former acting coach, and her business partner, a professional peddler of dead peoples’ images. Marilyn Monroe’s images alone have pulled in more than $30 million since her death and $8 million in 2007 alone. In 2004, Robert Sillerman (a wealthy American businessman who deals in building and selling media companies) paid Lisa Marie Presley $100 million for an 85% stake in Elvis Presley Enterprises Inc.

And not to miss out on the Monroe frenzy to entice potential consumers, Mercedes-Benz still features Monroe (along with James Dean) in some of their ad campaigns. An auction event organised by Julien’s auctions (of Darren Julien), sold a Jackson album ‘Goin’ Back to Indiana’ for $33,750. The auction also featured other collections of Michael Jackson, Marilyn Monroe and Elvis Presley. Social networking sites have also not let-go this opportunity and have done everything possible to give their users real-time updates. Twitter and Facebook are alleged to be the first ones to break the news of Jackson’s death. Twitter saw up to 5,000 Jackson-related messages being posted per minute and eventually his death emerged as the most discussed subject on the portal. Facebook saw a similar response; with the number of postings tripling during the hour after the news of Jackson’s death broke. Talking on these marketing techniques, Barry states, “Some companies license rights to use a dead celebrity’s image, movie clips, or music and incorporate those things into TV ads or promotional materials. Others just pay homage to the dead celebrity to gain a marketing association with the individual.”

Even IT giants are getting enamoured by the potential of this mammoth business. Corbis, the digital image company set up by Bill Gates, has bought a Beverly Hills company, which owns the image rights to more than 50 deceased celebrities. Corbis takes a 20% cut of the profits from any endorsement, double the usual rate for a living celebrity endorsement. Even celebrity Promotion Companies like CKX rely heavily on dead celebs for their bottom-line. They purchase the intellectual property rights and thus churn out huge money. And if you thought that only the big brands and consultants can take advantage of legends that have passed away, you could not be more wrong. Just walk the streets of New York, London or Rio De Janeiro and you’ll see markets flooded with Che Guevara, Marilyn Monroe and now even Jackson merchandise, ranging from T-shirts, handkerchiefs and coffee mugs to sundry decorative brick bracks. True, dead celebs make for hot brands, hotter than even the living ones! May their souls Rest In Peace!

 

Tinsel Town : Water

The dry-cleaning of 70 mm

The blatant waste of water for shooting purpose in tinsel town

When it comes to controversy regarding water in Bollywood, the movie 'Water' would feature prominently in the list. But then the same word when used in movie (not as movie title!) never raises any eyebrows. The way water is wasted for shooting purposes in tinsel town is really uneconomical. The usage of water in any movie's shooting can’t be brought down to nil, but then sheer and blatant wastage of water should also not be ignored.

The usage of water has always been there in movies for almost all types of scenes be it for climax, romance, tragedy or disaster. From creating artificial rains to natural ambience, water is used (read: abused) for almost all purposes in the tinsel town. As per recent newspaper reports, a leading forthcoming movie used around 200 water tankers to shoot a city flood scene, while another movie "Tum Mile", used 200 tankers of water for a shooting sequence. Likewise "De Dana Dan", used 700 tankers of water for shooting the climax. It is estimated that 28 tankers of water, on an average, are needed for a single rain sequence, i.e., to create artificial rain. Worse, the water that is used for shooting purposes is not any normal tap water but highly purified. But the real waste can only be comprehended after diving into the details. Well, as they say, the devil is in the details — each tanker of water holds nearly 12,000 litres of water! Which boils down to the fact that on an average 3,36,000 litres are required for creating artificial rainfall for a song sequence. And this is just for one shot, and remember it takes numerous similar shots (and numerous days) to zero in any sequence!

Contrast this with the usage of water in Hollywood movies. Agreed, that even Hollywood movies do use element of water to lure the viewers and make their movie visually more pleasing. But then even movies like "Titanic" and "Pirates of the Caribbean" used less water and more special effects to create the desired effects and visuals.

The whole issue of using and wasting good quality, purified and drinkable water gets grimmer after analysing the situation of water in Mumbai and whole of India. As per UN reports, by 2050, per capita water availability in India is expected to drop by about 44 per cent, all thanks to growing populations, higher demand and a depleting water table. The Mumbai water authorities have reduced their water supplies by 30 per cent as the state faces huge problems of water shortage. As per official statements, the water in Mumbai presently is 60 per cent of the total annual storage of around 13 lakh million litres that is required. And this situation is just not confined to Mumbai but can be seen and felt across the nation in almost every household.

Any kind of shooting (be it for movies, soaps or commercials) should make sure that they at least decrease the usage of water. More emphasis should be given to sharing of resources and opting for natural ambience. It is advisable that instead of using purified water, more efforts should be given to conservation, recycling and re-usage of water, rather than wasting this precious resource blindly. This will not dilute the essence of cinematography but will actually help them in washing away the water related problems of Mumbaikars and India.

Putin: Mismanaged Russian Media

A circus clown called Pravda!

Putin’s mouthpiece is a flabbergasting piece of shambles 

Oh, what all it could have achieved; and look at where it has ended. To say that the Russian government’s official mouthpiece (former, they claim), Pravda, has descended into becoming a ludicrous two crap piece of dimwit news creation, is to state only the tip of the Kremlin iceberg. There has been a lot of talk about Vladimir Lenin’s legacy. It requires no reiteration to praise his role in the development and progress of the Soviet Union. When it came to the Pravda of old, he left no stone unturned to take it to new heights and to make sure that it echoed the voice of the nation. Pravda used to follow Lenin’s editorial stance regularly and voiced what came to be known as Leninism. It was actually after the October Revolution of 1917 that Pravda started selling nearly 100,000 copies daily. Pravda expectably became an official publication of the Soviet Communist Party and a channel for announcing official policy. Decades – and many Soviet premiers – later, it fills one with sadness to see the pathetic state that Pravda has been left in. Sample a few of its breaking news.

On September 24, 2009, Pravda published news (and last month uploaded explicit videos too!) that featured a Russian based US diplomat Kyle Hatcher cavorting pleasurably with prostitutes. US Ambassador to Russia, John Beyrle, defended and clarified that the tape was “clearly fabricated.” As per Beyrle, “the video spliced genuine footage of diplomat Kyle Hatcher in a Moscow hotel room with staged footage of a couple having sex.” The attempt to frame Kyle seemed so ludicrous it could well have been managed by a high school kid. But then, this kind of zany tragicomic news is no stranger to Pravda. Take this multi-part series they had on the topic of sex in 2007. On April 18, 2007, Pravda presented their own version of a juiced up adultery survey on various countries. Fair enough. But six day later, the paper published news on sex museums, following the same within a week with a detailed report on how “future technologies may destroy sex as the ultimate pleasure for humans.” On May 7, 2007, the editorial team came out with a deeply thought review of breasts – about how various media outlets portray breasts differently.

One year earlier, in January, 2006, Pravda had headlined an article on Condoleezza Rice as follows: “The US Secretary of State released a coarse anti-Russian statement. This is because she is a single woman who has no children.” Their brilliant analysis commented, “[Rice] loses her reason because of her late single status. Nature takes it all... Such women are very rough. They are all workaholics, public workaholics. They can be happy only when they are talked and written about everywhere.” That sounds nothing compared to what they did in July 2008. In an article titled, “George and Laura Bush to divorce after election because of Condi Rice?” Pravda confirmed that “George W. Bush has been having an affair with US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice. A former employee of the presidential administration told The National Examiner [sic!] that Laura Bush once spent her night in a hotel to stay away from the White House… Laura Bush will reportedly be paid $20 million in case she divorces her husband…” Another article was titled, “Condoleezza Rice’s sexual worries...”

It’s sad that Putin has chosen to ignore the ridiculous bunch of editors’ mob running the scallywag show in Pravda. Or perhaps he hasn’t. Whichever way it is, Pravda presents a huge opportunity for Putin to develop his international image in an intellectual manner. His recent dalliances with Russian Patriarch Kirill seem to be paying off double time with Kirill visiting many anti-Putin countries and regions in a successful attempt to change perceptions about Russia. Putin may not realise this, that despite the editors, Pravda has a huge international brand value. And yes, some of the current news reports seem to have obtained a saner tint. Even the website has become pretty upbeat. But unless Putin leverages Pravda to run international commentaries from the Krugmans and Friedmans of the world, the media vehicle’s potent strength would never be realised... Last we checked, Pravda was running Cindy Crawford’s bikini clad photographs as the opening views on its home page.

W o r l d : G e o - s t r at e g i c L o c at i o n

Roach’s good face!

Why you have no idea what’s going on in the Arctic and the Antarctic!

When it comes to environment and environmental concerns, nothing can beat the global warming issue. Global warming already contributes to anything above 150,000 deaths and five million illnesses annually, as per research reports by the World Health Organisation and the University of Wisconsin. But then, as they say, there’s a good face to every roach that lived. Since civilisation, the Arctic and the Antarctic were the only two regions that did not experience any kind of colonisation. How much longer, you ask? We say, a question too late. A few countries are all set to turn the tables in their favour and commercially exploit this melting issue. With global warming intensifying, new resources and new avenues of commercialisation are gradually getting exposed. So what, you ask again – well, weren’t countries already studying penguins in these caps? Wake up Rip, you really have no idea what’s going on!
The North Pole first. The Arctic icecap is rapidly melting, thus opening up access to massive natural resources and creating shipping shortcuts that could save billions of dollar. It is estimated that over 50% of the ice cover in the Arctic region has disappeared since the last 2-3 years, resulting in the opening up of new sea routes. Countries like Russia, Canada, Denmark and Norway are leaving no opportunity to claim their control over this area. Since August 2007, strategic bomber patrol flights (predominantly Russian) are a regular affair over the region. Not for anything else, but to keep an eye over the activities of other countries over this region. In the same year, in 2007, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper also showed his interest in sending naval patrol vessels to Arctic and setting up a training centre along the Northwest Passage. He further announced the building of a deep-sea port (at Nanisivik) and a military base (at Resolute Bay). The very next year, in 2008, Canada conducted its largest military exercise ever. A few months back, in July 2009, Denmark’s MPs approved plans to set up an Arctic military command and task force. Likewise, Norway is also considering exploration for oil and natural gas in its Arctic volcanic island of Jan Mayen.

If Russia thought it had had a head start, today, the region is covered by strategic bomber flights of Canada, Norway and Denmark too – of course, with the Russian navy patrolling the waters. This unconventional growing interest of various countries over ‘dead’ region can be explained through researches conducted by the US Geological Survey (USGS) and the Norwegian company StatoilHydro that predicts that the Arctic hides 25% of the world’s undiscovered oil and gas deposits.
The studies further reveal that the region may contain nine billion barrels of oil and 86 trillion cubic feet of gas. Extending this research, British Petroleum, Europe’s second-largest oil company, estimates the region to hold nothing less than 200 billion barrels of oil or up to 50% of the world’s undiscovered hydrocarbons. In September 2006, Gazprom completed drilling in a few areas of Shtokman field (estimated to have 3.8 trillion cubic meters of natural gas and more than 37 million tonnes of gas) and expects the gas production facility to be operative by 2015.
Add to it the newly discovered sea routes, which are saving huge amounts for shipping companies. Warming can take a walk, many companies use icebreaker ships to cut the ice, their cost and transit time. A fast-dedicated sea-lane is being planned between the Arctic port of Murmansk (in Russia) and the Hudson Bay port of Churchill (in Canada). Arctic routes are unbelievably giving substantial competition to Panama and Suez Canals; and their biggest selling point is that as of now – unlike the Suez or Panama – there are no fees for Arctic routes, unless of course polar bears attempt to fleece you. Talking business, even South Asia’s giant, China, is gearing up to exploit this business model. China has one large “research” icebreaker, the Snow Lion (Xuelong), which is being used in both the Arctic and Antarctic. Since China’s economy is highly dominated by exports and international trade, such low cost shipping route would add to its profit. Beluga Shipping, on September 12, 2009, became the first shipping company to travel through the Northeast Passage without an icebreaker ship as an escort. A few weeks later, even German merchant ships MV Beluga Fraternity and MV Beluga Foresight from Ulsan, South Korea arrived through the passage at Yamburg, Siberia.

Some newspapers report that while the “journey from South Korea to the Netherlands, for example, is about 12,658 miles, by using the Northeast Passage, approximately 3,452 miles (and 10 days) can be shaved off, thus saving about $300,000 per vessel.” Studies show that by avoiding the Suez Canal, the trip from Asia to Europe is shortened by almost 5,000 km. Even South Korean and Singaporean shipyards are busy building massive new icebreakers; and Japan is strategically lining up its shipping industry to exploit the routes.

If North Pole is the mistress, the South Pole is the pole dancer. Like Arctic, various studies suggest that the thick ice cover over the Antarctic continent is home to the world’s largest reservoir for fresh water – holding 30 million cubic kilometres of ice, which is equivalent to 75% of earth’s fresh water. Seismic tests suggest there could be about 60 billion barrels of oil under the hidden ocean floor. It all started in the year 1959. In order to protect Antarctica’s ecology and to prevent military activities, mineral mining, unofficial scientific research and other ecologically harmful practices/initiatives, twelve countries signed the infamous Antarctic Treaty. But then, like almost all other global treaties, this treaty was also not able to contain the greed of the already greedy world.
By the end of the 20th century (late 1990s), many countries had consolidated their control over parts of Antarctica. Argentina had a control over various areas since long. By 1994, permanent occupation was also observed. Earlier, in 1982, the Brazilian government had launched its first Antarctic expedition – and in about a year had successfully built their first base (Comandante Ferraz). Furthering this neo-colonisation procedure, in 1991, Brazilian President Fernando Collor de Mello became the first president to spend three days in the occupied area – and all this to again fortify their claim. This was followed by a visit of 13 Brazilian parliamentarians to the base (in January 2008 and then in January 2009). Another Latin American country’s claim on Antarctica is a matter of hilarity and dispute in global forums.

Chile’s officials claim that Antártica Chilena, a ‘province’ on the continent, historically belongs to the country and is as old as Chile itself. To further its claims, Chile maintains a permanent civilian population (130 plus), a small school and even a bank on the province. But the oldest coloniser among them all, predictably, is the United Kingdom. The country had a continuous presence in the South Atlantic region since 1833 (the area is today called the British Antarctic Territory or BAT). The UK went as far as undertaking a secret wartime military operation (the infamous and ignored Operation Tabarin in 1943 – during WWII) in that territory. BAS, or the British Antarctic Survey, is currently administrating the research and control in the area. Hilariously, last year, to commemorate the centenary occupation of British rule, the BAT issued its first legal tender coin. Not to forget the US, which of course has NASA’s bases in the continent (NASA believes that Antarctica’s surface ‘is quite similar to that of one of the moons of Jupiter’. Right, we get it now!).
The geopolitics game begins with New Zealand and Australia recognising the BAT and UK returning the favour by recognising the Australian claim on the continent. But then these two ‘friendly’ neighbours do not recognise the Argentine or Chilean territories; the compliment is paid back vice versa. Seven countries (France, Argentina, Australia, Chile, Brazil, New Zealand and Norway) have made eight territorial claims (two by Norway and one each by others). And the interesting fact is that these claims have been recognised only between these seven countries. Why are all these manipulations critically dangerous for the world? That’s because it won’t be long before a nuclear armed nation with a cannonball leader stakes its claim to a valuable portion of Arctic or Antarctic, and announces it will go to war with any country that disputes the claim or tries to evict them from the area. We’re betting 60 billion barrels of oil that that time will be pretty soon!

Rio de Janeiro: Olympic Bid

Olympian samba in ‘Lula’land

Brazil is on track to host the 2016 Olympics, but it must also focus on developing more world class athletes

“Yes we créu!”, may sound like a cliché – especially to all those North Americans who have been pre-occupied with the razzmatazz of “Yes, we can”. But this was one occasion they couldn’t; make Chicago win the bid to host the 2016 Olympics, that is. And this happened despite Barack Obama himself staking his reputation behind Chicago’s bid. 

Anyways, the more interesting development has been w.r.t. to the winner – Rio de Janeiro, a city famous for sun and sin, which got chosen ahead of Chicago and Tokyo. Even more shocking was Madrid’s lost of 32-66 in a direct contest between the two in the final round of voting. It’s for the first time that any Latin American country will be hosting Olympic games. The IOC’s choice of Rio de Janeiro makes the emergence
of this “backyard of the United States” quite evident.

What came as an added advantage for Rio was the ongoing preparation for 2014 FIFA World Cup in the country. Brazil has always been over-enthusiastic about football. And this has acted as amajor shot in the arm for its bid for the Olympic games. Since most of Brazil’s infrastructure and games venues are under a major overhaul for the FIFA World Cup, the city seems pseudo-ready for Olympics.

But it seems that this “backyard of the United States” was also preparing itself quite well “behind the veil.” To win the 2016 games for Rio de Janeiro, Brazil spent almost $50 million. Rio will spend an estimated $11.1 billion to build the facilities and infrastructure for the Olympic venues. So much so that Brazilian president Lula da Silva spent two days in Copenhagen and also wrote personal letters to the 106 voting members. He had each letter hand-delivered by an ambassador. Obama’s effort was quite measured in comparison, as he made a special appearance at the last moment. Along with Lula, soccer legend Pele and Olympic champion swimmer Cesar Cielo were also there to urge IOC members. Lula da Silva said in his appeal to IOC delegates, “It’s not possible that it be in England in 2012 and in another European country in 2016 ... It’s not fair that Brazil, one of the 10 biggest economies in the world for 30 years; that Brazil, one of the world’s industrialized countries, a nation that has demonstrated its love for sports; it’s not fair that Brazil not be chosen.”

Europe has already hosted 30 Olympic games, while Asia has five. Oceania has hosted two and North America has bagged 12, including eight in the US alone. Rio also hosted the Pan American Games in 2007, which has led to a lot of positive change in the city. Even the local public support was higher for Rio as per the IOC poll. Around 67% locally supported Chicago, 56% locally supported the Tokyo and 85% locally supported the Games in Rio and Madrid.

Lula knows that along with a huge games infrastructure, Rio needs a complete re-fabrication of its transportation system. To ease the chaotic traffic of the city, Rio is planning to make roadways through granite mountains (from Ipanema to Barra da Tijuca). Rio also plans to upgrade its bus rapid transit or BRT systems. With the poverty graph moving southwards and offshore oil deals paying off the county well, things are indeed looking up for the company. Out of the total planned investment of $14.4 billion, around $11.5 billion will be spent on building/upgrading infrastructure. As per Brazil’s sports ministry, the games are expected to rake in 120,000 jobs each year across Brazil until 2016 and an additional 130,000 jobs per year for the following 10 years. 

 The biggest predicament for this nation now is preparing its athletes, especially in the country that is known as Holy Grail of football, but not so much for other sports. China spend millions on development of its athletes, while UK is doing the same for the London Olympics in 2012. Just like China, Brazil will want to showcase its growing might to the world in every possible way through these Olympic games. And an inspired performance by its own athletes may just be the icing on the cake it needs.

US & Canada: healthcare dissimilarities

Rich dad, poor dad

Barack just needs to look to his neighbours to understand health policies

That America has not done as well in supporting health issues over the years is a given fact. But how bad is ‘not done as well’? The answer is pretty bad. Not many would know that in the US, the incidence of cancer among males and females is 562.3 and 417.3 per 1,00,000 respectively (American Cancer Society, Surveillance and Health Policy Research, 2009), life expectancy is 77.8 years, infant mortality rate is 6.9 deaths per 1,000
live births (CNN once reported that the US has the second worst newborn death  rate in the modern world), mortality rate under the age of five years for males and females is 9 and 7 per 1,000 live births respectively, only 2.7 acute care beds per 1,000 people are available (5th worst amongst all OECD nations), 2.8 physicians per 1,000 and ranks 72nd by overall level of health on WHO parameters!

Perhaps today, the biggest issue in the US is the failure of its healthcare system, especially given the debate on Obama’s policy decisions. Though Obama is not labelled a failure, yet when it comes to healthcare reforms, it might not take too long for his 300+ million supporters to ‘change’ their point-of-view. One need not travel miles to prove what ails the States. Their next door neighbour – Canada – is a case in point, or rather, against the point. Canada has a healthcare model that is better; because it works!

Even after having a US-like healthcare model, Canada has successfully achieved better results in its healthcare report card. Healthcare spending in Canada is around $160 billion or 10.1% of its GDP in 2007, which is one percentage point higher than the average spending by OECD countries. But very interestingly, it is far lower than the US allocation, which is 16% of GDP. Canada also spends lesser on a per capita basis compared to the US. Canada’s total healthcare per capita spending was around $3,895, which is lower than the $7,290 per capita spending of the US. The critical reason why the system, despite spending less, works better in Canada is that while the public sector is the main source of funding for Canadian healthcare, the US system is dependent on private source funding.

In the year 2007, 70% of healthcare spending in Canada was through public sources (which, though, has decreased from 74.5% in 1990), while in the US, the same was 45% (the lowest among all OECD countries). Unbelievably, this happens despite the fact that the Canadian government spends a lesser amount (16.7% of its revenue) on its citizens’ health than the US government (which spent 18.5% of its revenues last year). Surprisingly, in spite of such gigantic healthcare spending in the US, a whopping 40% of the US citizens lack adequate accessibility to the country’s healthcare system (24% of the US population remained under-insured, according to the Consumer Reports Study, 2007), while with relatively lower investments, only 5% of Canadians are outside the system.

It is also astounding to observe that simply having more doctors, physicians and nurses doesn’t ensure a high quality of health service. Canada has fewer physicians per capita than in most other OECD countries (In 2007, it had just 2.2 practicing physicians per 1,000 people, lesser than the 2.8 physicians per 1,000 population in the US). Canada has 9 nurses per 1,000 people, while the US has 10.6 nurses per 1,000. Canada also ranks as worse as the US in the number of acute care beds per 1000 people (2.7). Look at where that has brought Canada. Canadians have an average life expectancy of 80.4 years according to the Canadian Institute of Health Information (US: 77.8). Infant mortality rate also has come down drastically to 5 deaths per 1,000 live births (US: 6.9). Adult smokers consuming tobacco products has gone down from 34% in 1980 to 18% in 2007 through an effective public awareness campaign, advertising ban and taxation moves. In Canada, 15% of its population is obese, far below the US, which has 34.3% of its population afflicted by obesity (OECD health data). Experts comment that patented drug prices are 35% to 45% lower in Canada than in the US. Some US citizens now even purchase prescription drugs from Canada (many using online transactions) than from their home country – this cross-border purchasing has been estimated at $1 billion.

Where’s the learning in all this? A key concept that the US government could start with is that the Canadian government centrally sets the guidelines for healthcare and ensures they are uniform throughout the country. Moreover, the government ensures that the system is non-discriminatory, both qualitatively – in terms of treatment – and quantitatively – in terms of pricing. According to a recent news analysis by Financial Times, a heart bypass operation that would cost some $1,30,000 in the US costs $24,600 at Bumrungrad at Bangkok – and even when airfares and a two-week holiday/recuperation period are factored in, it is still almost 80% cheaper.

Barack Obama might do well to read a relatively newer study published in The American Journal of Medicine, which says that medical debt is the principal cause of personal bankruptcy in the US, and its impact on weakening the whole economy should not come as a surprise.

The Presidential Tracking Poll published by The Rasmussen Reports shows how now, “the number who Strongly Approve [of Obama] has fallen from 43% in January to 30% in August. During that same time frame, the number who Strongly Disapprove has grown from 20% to 39%. Those numbers translate to a Presidential Approval Index that has declined from +23 in January to -9 in August 2009.” That’s the lowest ever recorded for Barack Obama, once considered and talked of in the same breath as Lincoln and Roosevelt. But those ratings are still better than Bush’s, who – in the final month of his job – had only 13% saying they ‘Strongly Approved’ of him, and 43% saying they ‘Strongly Disapproved’ (Bush ended up getting a negative Presidential rating of -30).

This is not to say his health policy commentaries are wrong, but to say that clearly, Barack Obama does have an incredible lot of distance to cover on healthcare. Some mention the distance is 498 miles... from Washington to Ottawa.

Around the world: mental (in)competence

Are you nuts?

They were great men, running great countries... oh, they were all nuts

Psychos, freaks, insane...! We were amazed when we found out that there have been political leaders in this world who have qualified on all three of the above accounts – no, we’re not referring to our dearest Members of Parliament. It’s more astounding when we realised after our (brilliant?) secondary research that  some of these mentally unstable politicians actually ended up becoming the heads of countries!

Going by the example, the case of Richard Nixon comes first. Nixon was President of the United States from 1969 to 1974 and the first one in US history to resign from office (facing sure impeachment). The book, Richard Nixon: The Shaping of His Character, by Fawn M. Brodie – famous biographer and history teacher at the University of California – became the totem pole for understanding who the real Nixon was. Shockingly, the book reveals that Nixon was actually a sufferer of paranoia. For information, paranoia is most often linked with psychotic illnesses like schizophrenia – experts comment that in some cases (not necessarily in Nixon’s), the person believes he is on a special mission and has been chosen by God. To that effect, some of Nixon’s controversial policies do bear evidence of a traumatic childhood he had gone through.

A study done by a group of psychiatrists at the Duke University Medical Centre astoundingly reveals that 49% of former US presidents were afflicted by mental illnesses. The study published in the Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease further reveals that 18 out of the 37 presidents researched, were found to have suffered a mental illness of some form or the other. Ulysses S. Grant (general-in-chief of the Union Army during the Civil War and the then President of US) was also among them. The medical case of depression was the most prevalent disorder among presidents, occurring at a rate of 24 percent – ‘At least 10 presidents were affected by episodes while in office, and the study found evidence that symptoms interfered with their performance in almost all cases.’ Abraham Lincoln was one of the most famous of the sufferer lot – his seven losses (at various levels) before he finally became President big reasons for the same. Surprisingly, or perhaps not so surprisingly, George W. Bush is the most recent documented case of a president suffering from high levels of depression.

On the other hand, although Garry Will, author, journalist, historian specialising in policy and politics states in his book, Kennedy Imprisonment: Meditation on Power, how John F Kennedy’s “insatiable machismo” had dangerous foreign policy implications for his country as well as for the world, one cannot directly infer that Kennedy was suffering from any mental illness – the concept of ‘sexual addiction’ has still not been accepted notably as a disease of the mind.

In a book called Ronald Reagan: the politics of symbolism, the famous American historian specialising on biographies of American presidents, Robert Balleck, says that Reagan’s bitter experience in early childhood, due to his alcoholic father, had severe implication in his later life. As Balleck writes, “The episode(s) must have reinforced Reagan’s horror of being in a helpless condition, beholden to someone else for survival... Reagan lived in fear of his father’s uncontrolled behaviour and understandably places an exaggerated premium on self-mastery in his own life and in the life of the nation.” Although Reagan left office in 1989, in the year 1994, he announced to the public that he had been diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease, an affliction that kills brain cells. Then CBS White House correspondent Lesley Stahl has commented that during an interview when Reagan was in office, “a vacant Reagan barely seemed to realize anyone else was in the room,” and that “I had come that close to reporting that Reagan was senile.” Reagan’s doctors refute this presumption that Reagan had developed the affliction in office.

If the US has its hands full, the world has its hands fuller. In a medical disclosure of the current President of Pakistan, Asif Ali Zardari was declared mentally ill by doctors appointed by him personally during the time he was behind bars. Doctors reveal how he was suffering from psychological problems like dementia, depression or post traumatic mental disorder. It is also documented how Zardari attempted to commit suicide in the between of the jail terms. On a similar platform was the killing Ugandan President, Idi Amin, who was accused of suffering from the “general paralysis of the insane” (demantia paralytica; a neuro-psychotic disorder). But the diagnosis could never be substantiated.

Next in the line is Kjell Magne Bondevik, former Norwegian Prime Minister (from 1997 to 2000 and again from 2001 to 2005). He stakes his claim to the fact that he was and still remains the first head of any nation state to publicly announce that he is mentally ill. Wonder of wonders, he did not resign but took sick leave. And currently he remains the President of the Oslo Centre for Peace and Human Rights in Norway.

Winston Churchill was noted to be a manic as he suffered from manic depression. In 2006, a British mental health charity even commissioned a statue of Churchill, and defended the same despite a public outcry – the charity later clarified that it was trying to project a more positive image of people with mental illness (which speak volumes about its initial claim). In his book Black Dog, Kafka’s Mice, and Other Phenomena of the Human Mind, psychiatrist and historian Anthony Storr wrote: “Had he [Churchill] been a stable and equable man, he could never have inspired the nation....”

Premiers and heads of states have been ridiculed, mocked at and made a joke of since almost time immemorial. And more often than not, many of these premiers have given those slights of hand a pass rather than a challenge – unless of course in non-democratic nations, when civilians have been jailed or even executed for mocking the head of a nation. But can one ever imagine living in a world where your own leaders are certified maniacs? There you go again about our MPs...