Booth capturing? Lauren goes Islamic...ho-hum

There is something about Tony Blair and his extended family that has an obsession with religion and these sudden flashes of light. His wife Cherie chose to wear crystals and do reiki to get her energy all up. Tony became a Catholic and maybe that inspired him to write a version of the Confession in his memoirs. Now his sister-in-law, Lauren Booth, has converted to Islam because of some “holy experience” in Iran.

"It was a Tuesday evening and I sat down and felt this shot of spiritual morphine, just absolute bliss and joy.”

Oh dear. She should tell this to the ayatollahs instead of giving interviews about it. They’d kick her peaches and cream English ass for such blasphemy. I know many people see religion as some sort of ‘kick’ and being lost in a sublime experience, but what about the rituals? Our Lauren has no problems. Her morphine shot has given her a headache fit enough for her to follow the regimen. As a report states:

(She) now wears a hijab whenever she leaves her home, prays five times a day and visits her local mosque whenever she can.

Funny. Which mosques do women visit? Does the media not have any knowledge? I assume she leaves home often, so what’s the need to state that she covers her head whenever she steps out?

I don’t know about Lauren’s motives, but her timing is perfect. She is now dissing Tony for his book, saying that he is not a human being. I suppose she would have to study her new religion and figure out how not to address male members of the family in this manner and what qualifies as a human.

Before her spiritual awakening in Iran, she had been "sympathetic" to Islam and has spent considerable time working in Palestine, she said, adding that she hoped her conversion would help Blair change his presumptions about Islam.

Pother! Keep your sympathy to yourself. There are several Christians in Palestine and the media is unnecessarily clubbing her being “stuck in the Gaza strip” along with this news. Besides, you do not have to be a Muslim to change people’s perceptions. You just need to keep your eyes open. It is time for her to shut up and go beyond page 60 of the Quran she is currently at. Why are these minutiae of such importance? She could just as well read War and Peace for all we care.

Blaring isn't quite tony

Muaah, I am a yankee poodle

Tony Blair is the sort of guy you would take home to your pet orangutan provided your pet orangutan is upto it. Yes, of course, I refer to the former British prime minister’s confession to being an animal in bed. One marvels at his ability to keep 10 Going Down Street in fine fettle, and we shall refer to his beastly instincts in a bit.

First, his memoirs are called ‘A Journey’, and without reading it I have formed a fair opinion since it has been publicised a good deal.

It has, like most books these days, to do with publicity. In fact, he has written a six-page introduction for his transatlantic readers that says:

“The book, in many ways, is a story about America as well as, evidently, a history of my time as British PM.”

This reveals how he seems to have meshed the roles of PM with that of keeper of America’s political policies. He even audaciously writes about the US:

“Mere mortals are still inspired by a certain awe.”

I understand awe; people do admire characteristics of nations and societies and even some leaders. But, what does being mere mortals have to do with it? Are the US and its leadership god, whatever is the herd or individual definition of such a god? It is ironical, then, that the qualities he admires are based entirely on practical considerations:

“These Americans can be smart – really, really clever. Homely, folksy, in certain aspects disarmingly simple: but don’t let any of that fool you. Underneath all the pop culture, old-fashioned courtesy, Disney, McDonald’s and the rest of it, there beats a brain.”

Pop culture and the rest arise from a canny mental ability as does consumerism. You don’t get apple pie only because your heart beats for it.

“I have come to love America and what it stands for. The essential values it embodies are so much more fundamental to our fortune than even Americans themselves may appreciate. America is great for a reason. It is looked up to, despite all the criticism, for a reason. There is a nobility in the American character that has been developed over the centuries.”

Fine. If he is talking about values embodied in the Constitution; if he is talking about the everyday American. But can character be generalised? What have the British learned from the Americans? What nobility is he talking about and what centuries? It would seem he is talking about some ancient civilisation that has fought off several conquests by outside forces.

It is clear that he is not referring to the America of the people but of the politicians.

On George Bush: “The stupidest misconception was that he was stupid…He also had – has – great intuition.”

On Barack Obama: “The personal character is clear: this is a man with steel in every part of him.”


On Bill Clinton: “an extraordinary mixture of easygoing charm and ferocious intellectual capacity. Probably . . . he is the most formidable politician I ever met.”

Blair comes up with an smart analysis of the Monica Lewinsky affair. As stated in a report:

He says Mr Clinton had a curiosity in people. With men, this would result in friendship, he says, while with women there was a sexual dimension. “In this, I doubt that he is so very different from most of the male population.”

Right. This ignores the fact that the curious men are with women who might be curious themselves. They do not get the same respect in society or by the likes of Blair. He justifies Clinton’s lies as “not wanting to embarrass his family”.

Do families not understand curiosity? And it is precious that while he accepts with equanimity the affair of his minister Blunkett, he dismisses the scandal to his choice of the “wrong woman”. She was married. A woman’s marriage is a problem with this curiosity business, it would seem.

Tony Blair has had a rather interesting recollection of when he tried to rid himself of anxiety when faced with a leadership battle. I don’t know whether it is wife Cherie or his opponent Gordon Brown who can take credit for this!

“That night she cradled me in her arms and soothed me; told me what I needed to be told; strengthened me; made me feel that what I was about to do was right... On that night of the 12th May, 1994, I needed that love Cherie gave me, selfishly.

“I devoured it to give me strength, I was an animal following my instinct, knowing I would need every of emotional power and resilience to cope with what lay ahead. I was exhilarated, afraid and determined in roughly equal quantities.”

If there is a potent connection between sex and politics, then this is it. More importantly, Blair has done it with tremendous delicacy. Selfishness and instinct are married rather well. It is also a great analogy for the survival need that regresses to evolve to withering heights.

News meeows - 23

Tony Blair’s sycophancy towards the US is well-known. He is now defending himself before the first official grilling of sending 45,000 troops to Iraq in 2003. That is six years too late.



His remarks are completely off:

“This isn’t about a lie, or a conspiracy, or a deceit, or a deception, this is a decision. And the decision I had to take was, given Saddam’s history, given his use of chemical weapons, given the over 1 million people whose deaths he caused, given 10 years of breaking UN resolutions, could we take the risk of this man reconstituting his weapons programme? I believed ... that we were right not to run that risk.”

Was this his decision or his Party’s? Or was it prompted by America? Had Saddam caused deaths outside his country? Did anyone in Iraq seek western intervention? Now that no WMDs have been found, he is talking about the threat of Saddam reconstituting his weapons programme. Does the West not have the technical arsenal to know about such earth-shaking occurrences? Aren’t they warning the rest of the world about imminent attacks? Weapons programmes do not just drop from certain skies or sprout from the soil of selected nations. It takes some work and that can be traced.

The more amazing comment is Blair being concerned about Saddam breaking UN resolutions. Apparently he had already promised Bush his support to get to the weapons for, “If we tried the UN route and that failed, my view was it had to be dealt with.”

So, the possibility of the UN route failing was there. Could not Saddam have utilised those same loopholes and tardiness?

And then he has the gumption to state that the post-war planning was flawed:

“The planning assumption that...everybody made was that there would be a functioning civil service. Contrary to what we thought ... we found a completely broken system.”

What did he expect? After decimating a country pretending to help it, there would be a system that would work so that the West could arrive to the sound of bugles and put up a puppet regime?

This war was a lie and deceit. And there ought to be international legal provisions to try leaders of countries that use the UN as their toad.

- - -

Can Shahrukh Khan please thank the Shiv Sena? Or has he already done it much before the ‘controversy’? I hate to revisit the IPL saga, but when the first bits of news trickled in I did not read a single comment by the actor. He came in later to say that the Pakistanis and Australians must be allowed to play. Now, the Shiv Sena has asked its party’s loyal workers to tear posters of the not-yet-released film My Name Is Khan.

Last night I was watching a discussion between a SS guy and an activist, Gerson da Cunha. We know what the SS guy must have said, but Mr da Cunha wondered why the Shiv Sena has not done anything about ‘Bombay’ Port or the ‘Bombay’ Times. I found the latter bit intriguing. The gentleman, although among the few truly genuine people as per my instinct, is pretty much visible on Page 3. It was, therefore, a bit surprising that he brought this up. Also, he made a specific reference to the TOI “at Bori Bunder”! As many of you might not be aware, that stretch was called that, the Bori standing for the Bohris – a sect of Muslims. I think he was trying to make a point.

Anyhow, after that I changed channels and there was Sharukh on a news programme talking with Karan Johar and Kajol and they did their hokey-pokey routine. Is anyone from the SS objecting to the promos, the interviews on TV, in the newspapers?

No. Because the SS needs to be in the news and so do the people “in trouble”, especially if the trouble is going to get them the attention they need at the moment.

The Shiv Sena is a public service organisation that keeps our celebrities in fine fettle. The film is to release only in the second week of this month. Our Home Minister P. Chidambaram has come out and spoken about how he would like to see the Pak players in action. He said it was his personal opinion. The Home Minister cannot appear before the media and give his personal opinion on a subject that has the nation in thrall and is already a diplomatic disaster. No one asked him what his favourite video game was.

So, Shahrukh gets Congress support but being a good Maharashtrian he will also be nice to the SS…maybe an apology, maybe a special meeting with the Supremo where ‘the matter will be resolved’? And then a special screening with buttered popcorn?

- - -

How important is it for anyone to have news channels discuss Sania Mirza’s broken engagement? We know that the media is intrusive and we are. If it has to be reported, fine. Be done with it. But, no. They were playing Hindi film songs in the background and brought in the third party factor, too. Worse, her publicity-hungry father was telling media persons about “incompatibility”, and one anchor in the studio said how can they now become incompatible when they were compatible when they got engaged?

Clearly, this woman has no idea. Did the media ask them whether they planned to get married because they were compatible? It could have been that he liked watching her play.

This has given enough grist for the glossies and sundry snippets to debate the issue about women’s achievement and men’s insecurity. Ten people are asked ten questions in ten places and they give ten answers which effectively say nothing that we don’t already know.

For the 'don’t already know' and my views, watch this space. (Hah, isn’t that how the media keeps you hooked? I am just tryin’ my hand at it too!)