Winning over one of the "madridistas"

By Eduardo Alvarez

I was born into a family of Real Madrid supporters. My mother's father, Joaquín, was a sociofor as long as I can remember. My father's father, Eduardo, not only rooted for Real Madrid but also detested Catalans. In my early years, the vast majority of my closest friends were also Real Madrid fans, with very few exceptions.

Guardiola was part of the Dream Team.

With such a background of family and friends, the thought of supporting any other team never crossed my mind. In 1982 I watched my first football match live at the Santiago Bernabéu (where else?), as Real Madrid played Ujpest Dosza in a Cup Winners' Cup tie. On a cold October night, Real Madrid prevailed, and would eventually go on to lose the tournament's final against an Aberdeen side coached by one Alex Ferguson.

In my adolescent years I often attended matches at the Bernabéu. As soon as I could afford it I became a socio and bought season tickets. This nurturing of the Real Madrid creed and its liturgy almost inevitably led to the hatred of all things Barcelona. The most exciting matches at the stadium were the "derbis" (never called "clásicos" back then) against the Catalans, a mixture of sporting rivalry and political competition that created an unparalleled atmosphere in the stadium.

Once Barcelona appeared on the pitch, we loved to hate them, and chose our targets carefully: at the Bernabéu, Julio Salinas was never allowed to forget his glaring miss vs. Italy in the 1994 World Cup; Hristo Stoitchkov was booed beyond belief; Luis Enrique, theblaugrana phase of Luis Figo's career, and Andoni Zubizarreta were also among our favourite villains to scream at. However, Josep Guardiola always commanded a great deal of respect among us madridistas.

Leaving aside his exceptional elegance on the pitch, Pep made his first impact on my short-sighted football beliefs after one of the best matches I can remember. In September 1993, Atlético de Madrid played Barcelona at the Nou Camp. The match had just started and Romário de Souza scored an amazing goal. Before I knew it I was hooked by the fantastic dynamism of that Barcelona side.

Guardiola was interviewed after that match. When asked whether Barcelona's offensive approach was too reckless, he answered: "We play to win, so we take risks. And I just can't imagine Real Madrid playing this way". Barca's attitude on the pitch was something premeditated and non-negotiable, and Pep was their foremost representative.

In fact, that Barcelona team changed the way I watched football. I started to enjoy the game played well, although that didn't alter my allegiances: I still wanted our dull Benito Floro side to beat the so-called 'Dream Team', no matter how. In the following years my admiration for Guardiola kept growing despite the bitter end of his career as a player and Pep's public appearances in the media were inspirational and entertaining whenever he spoke about football.

His appointment as Barça's gaffer last May was as suggestive as it was risky. Guardiola had no real coaching experience, but possessed a deep knowledge of the club and the right vision to leverage a handful of fantastic players. During the season I watched in painful delight each football lecture Barcelona gave on the pitch. Then we got to the point where the Catalans had pocketed both domestic titles and were going to play for the treble against Manchester United.

If I had grown fonder of Barça's brand of football over the years, that was not the case among my Real Madrid friends. Their opinion was unanimous: they wanted Barcelona to suffer an ignominious defeat. The best place to watch that happen would be at an English bar, so that they could root for "oonuit" (the Spanish media way of pronouncing United) in a friendly atmosphere. We chose a well-known pub that was already packed with English expats when we arrived, much to my friends' joy.

The opening ceremony, apparently taken out of "Asterix and the laurel wreath", was finishing. The teams were introduced and we got our first surprise of the evening: the pub cheered Barcelona's entrance. Most patrons were Arsenal, Liverpool and Chelsea fans who were following my friends' rational and wanted their arch rivals to lose. In the group next to us only Barry, a Gunner from Islington, was rooting for United: "You should support your countrymen, mate," was his reasoning.

At this point I had not yet decided who I would root for: the attacking flair of my domestic adversaries, or their conspicuously dressed-in-white opposition. A foul on Carlos Puyol in the third minute cleared all my doubts. Barry stood up and screamed: "(expletive) off, you Spanish fairy!" If it came down to it, I would have to support my countrymen indeed.

The match started with United looking the hungrier side, until Samuel Eto'o ended his barren spell in the tenth minute. He had been looking like a poor man's Andy Cole for a solid month, but took advantage of his first one-on-one chance and scored with ease. I celebrated discretely and got a few stares from my friends.

The next 15 minutes were balanced, with no clear chances. Then the real Barcelona started to play: they got hold of the ball and put together a marvellous string of almost 50 passes that finished with a free kick taken by Xavi Hernández. The Englishmen supporting Barça were brimming with excitement, in anticipation of an easy win.

Messi celebrates with his manager.

From that point until half-time, United barely saw the ball. Guardiola had positioned Lionel Messi in one of those "hole" roles instead of his usual right flank spot, similarly to the Madrid match. The Argentine, Xavi and Andrés Iniesta kept possession easily and controlled the midfield, although they were strangely soft in the final third.

Just when we expected United to come out strong after the break, Barcelona overwhelmed them with three glorious opportunities in just five minutes. "Good omen, they're wasting chances!" said the optimistic Barry. Then Xavi hit the post. "Great omen!" screamed Barry. But he was wrong. United were still chasing shadows, and a few minutes later Barcelona scored their second, after Xavi's umpteenth pinpoint pass this season was met by Messi (the shortest player on the pitch, no less) with an emphatic header. "This is awful, they're just too good", said Barry. "They are the best team and you know it", I told my friends. No response from a depressed bunch of vikingos.

The match finished and we decided to dash. Barcelona had just won the first Spanish treble in grand style, so there was definitely no reason for a few madridistas to stick around celebrating. We left as a few dozen Englishmen applauded Puyol holding the Cup, a surreal sight indeed.

"Now Florentino has to do something really big", uttered one of my mates. He will, but the impact is unclear. Guardiola is now reaping the rewards of an approach that started 20 years ago and today permeates all of Barcelona's youth teams.

It will be hard for Real Madrid to replicate that with a bunch of marquee signings. With the right motivation, the Catalans have everything to keep winning for a long time. I am just glad to be able to enjoy their brand of football and celebrate with them, even if it's only their international victories. Thanks, Pep.. and Barry.

One Title closer to the Treble

BARCA WIN COPA DEL REY

By Eduardo Alvarez

It's is hard to imagine a better representation of the heterogeneous mixture of economic interests, political views and cultural identities that Spain has become than Wednesday's Copa del Rey final.

Seydou Keita (L) celebrates with Gerard Pique after winning the Copa del Rey

Well before kickoff it was evident that this year's deciding match would be unquestionably a great football encounter: the team with the most titles (Barcelona with 24) faced the second best (Athletic de Bilbao with 23, although they claim one more title won by their predecessor Club Vizcaya in 1902).

For Barcelona, this was the first match in a fortnight which could see them win a historical treble (Liga, Copa del Rey and Champions League titles). For Athletic, it was their first chance to conquer silverware in 25 years, and judging by the difficulties of the team to recruit young talent, could be their last for several years to come.

While Barcelona were still busy trying (and failing) to win the Liga title last weekend, Athletic had been preparing methodically for this final. Although their team was the clear underdog, older Basque supporters vividly remembered a few Cup Finals of yore in which Athletic managed to upset big time favourites, such as Di Stéfano's Real Madrid or Maradona's Barcelona. The Catalans had already shown some tiredness in their draw against Villarreal last Sunday, and the absences of Thierry Henry and Abidal, among others, could have given Athletic a chance to surprise Guardiola's side.

The importance of the match went beyond its pure footballing aspects. Even though the State of the Nation debate was taking place at the Congress on Wednesday, most politicians got more airtime in the media to discuss the potential outcome of the match than to share their point of view about the endless quarrels between government and opposition. Journalists usually specialising in political matters thought the match was a nicer topic than the somewhat depressing state of the country, and understandably so.

Belonging to this last category, Patxo Unzueta, one of the most insightful observers of political matters in the Basque Country, wrote a delightful article in "El País" explaining the insurmountable challenge Athletic faces to maintain a Basque-only policy, in a time when the birth-rate in the region is one of the lowest in Europe. There's simply no Basque kids to keep the flame alive.

But the core theme of his piece was the fact that in these times of strong political controversy and economic crisis in the Basque Country, the people need something to bring them together, as the socialist Patxi López had stated back in March, and the Vizcaino Athletic could do that for them, even if it was only for the night of the Cup final.

It seemed to be the case on Wednesday in Valencia. The city appeared to be taken over by men and women in red and white shirts, despite the fact that most of them did not have a ticket to watch the match. The stadium looked as good as any Copa del Rey final I have seen, a beautiful feast of colour and chants hours before the match started. Barcelona fans also showed up, hoping to witness the first title of their team this season.

One subject had been conspicuously ignored in most pre-match analyses: Basques and Catalans would be playing for the Copa del Rey trophy in front of the king himself. Not precisely the ideal scenario for a quiet development of the usual Cup final proceedings... when the national anthem began to sound, a sizeable amount of both fan bases began to boo both the king and the anthem, an unjustifiable lack of respect and manners after more than 35 years of democracy. The Spanish TV muted the sound and pretended that nothing was happening, which is also hard to explain after those same 35 years of democracy...

But let's talk about football. Athletic started the match true to their promise: high tempo, direct football, no concessions. After a couple of good chances, the hard-working Toquero scored in the ninth minute, giving Athletic a deserved lead. Barcelona looked shocked for a few minutes, Athletic began to concede some space and then Xavi Hernández took over.

When this influential midfielder started playing for Barcelona's first team in 1998, Louis Van Gaal, at that time the team's gaffer, famously said that "Xavi is better than De la Peña". The Spanish media spent months mocking poor Louis (and his hilarious accent in Spanish), as it sounded like another attempt of Mr Van Gaal to appear smarter than anyone by comparing an unassuming, quiet youngster with the biggest midfield talent Spain had seen in a while.

Barcelona manager Pep Guardiola is lifted by his players after the Copa del Rey victory.

Eleven years later, looking back at both players' careers, justice has to be made: the Dutchman was spot on. On Wednesday Xavi vindicated him even more with another spectacular performance. His passing accuracy and rhythm progressively got his team-mates involved, especially Daniel Alves and Lionel Messi, causing Athletic to feel the pain of running after the ball without getting much of it. Barcelona increased their pressure until Touré Yaya broke the deadlock with a beautiful solo effort. His ugly gesture towards the Basque supporters once he scored was unexplainable and will surely not go unpunished.

Barcelona kept control of the ball and missed a few chances (Eto'o will not be satisfied with his performance) until a terrific nine minute spell at the beginning of the second half. They scored three beauties almost effortlessly and made sure the title was in the bag. Barcelona's last goal was a fantastic free kick by Xavi that put a classy ending to the competitive part of the match.

The remaining twenty minutes were an extraordinary celebration of both teams on and off the pitch, with every single supporter chanting and enjoying a memorable evening. It truly seemed that both teams had won, if you were to judge by the behaviour of their fans. At the end of the match you could see the determination in the faces of the Barcelona players, as though this was just the beginning for them, while most of the Athletic players were in tears knowing that there won't be many more Copa del Rey finals awaiting for them in the future. The king delivered the trophy (no boos this time) putting an end to a great cup final full of contrasts.

Barcelona retained their unofficial Spanish "Rey de Copas" title and took their first step towards the treble. The Liga trophy should be in their hands this coming weekend, so actually there is only one more to go. Guardiola can now devote the next two Liga matches to decide the best way to cover for all the injuries and suspensions on the 27th of May. The role of their bench will be instrumental if they want to beat Manchester United in Rome.

It was an unforgettable football night in Valencia. The pitch was perfect, the atmosphere was top class and the teams gave everything they had to win the match. The whole country took sides and followed the contest with passion. Unzueta's recommendation for the Basque Country is actually the best possible medicine for the Spanish nation as a whole: we need more events like this Copa del Rey final, even if it is just to boo, suffer, argue and celebrate, as long as we do it together.

A Fondness for Killing!!!

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Wednesday expressed deep regret for the deaths of civilians in U.S.-led air strikes in Afghanistan this week and promised to try to avoid these in future.

"We deeply, deeply regret that loss," Clinton said as she opened three-way talks with Afghan President Hamid Karzai and Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari.

Is that it? Is that what all those lives lost in the great Afghan land deserve. I agree it’s a war zone, but killing hundreds of civilians does not in any way justify US’s war on terror. OK, my post today is not to rant about USA or Terrorism, but to deeply understand the affinity that we Humans have for killing. Let me start off by drawing some parallels between civilian behavior in my home land, India.

India is a land of paradoxes. Sure we are peace loving civilized people, but on the other hand we had a mass of people branded Chaandaals. Even in modern times we hear about Narabali (human sacrifice). This is not sacrifice. People kill some body's child in the hope of getting something for themselves. Most barbaric and selfish. This happens only in India. We have traditions of learning, selflessness and general well being. We need to inculcate it. It is delusion to think that we are great. The concept of humanism can be found among us, but it is not essentially ours. We can burn or bury our daughters. We are brutal more than many societies.

Last week in Madhya Pradesh dacoits burnt a dozen villagers to death, because they suspected them of being police informers. In another incident in Jharkhand, villagers lynched four suspects to death and burnt another eight alive. They suspected them to be part of a gang of dacoits come to loot them. In Meerut, citizens in one poor locality brutally killed over a dozen stray dogs, because they had been attacking the local children. In Assam an MLA poaching in Kaziranga national sanctuary told the guards that an MLA is a king and needs nobody's permission to hunt, or words to that effect.

All these incidents force you to accept the shocking fact that we are actually a fairly violent species, notwithstanding all our boasts about being the world's most tolerant Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam ( the world is my family ) rationalists with a golden heart . Our assumption has simply been that we, the Indian people are basically live and let live types because we had figured out, ages ago that violence doesn't pay and that love conquers all . But are the above incidents a proof of rational behavior? What if, despite our claims to rationality, when push comes to shove, we are not all that reluctant to abandon rules, side step the law, and begin playing revenge games? We do it either verbally (like Varun Gandhi or Muthalik or Thakre) or physically, like the men in Chambal who had, a few decades ago, blinded a group of thieves by pouring acid in their eyes.

It would be too deterministic to say that we are wired for violence genetically. But both archaeological evidence and common myths show that both men and women , ever since they turned from prey to predators, have largely preferred fighting wars and attacking each other for acquiring power ; instead of sitting down and discussing things out rationally and amicably .

Question arises , if state sponsored violence in India is put on hold for reasons ranging from political to ideological , will individual and culture specific violence begin to replace it ? As states that cushioned capitalism's excesses for some two centuries collapse, democracy that dominates our era is beginning to fray too. In the age of diminishing resources and shrinking families will democratic states begin to be replaced with old empires repackaged, with politically correct labels of course .

The more I read of violence in India the more I believe it is only about survival and power. Both issues are two sides of the same coin which are intensified on a daily basis due to over population leading to more and more lack of space or opportunities or both. Two dogs are loving and loyal along with being territorial - a whole pack will turn territorial in a desperate way if they feel their area is being encroached upon. They will attack and mob out of sheer fear of losing their territory. The less space people have to live the more they will compete. Where space is not the problem - opportunity is. Space to grow mentally and emotionally is as frustrating as lack of space to sleep and even think. I believe culture is a process. It defines and is formed from the mental, economical, psychological state of the society. I know many may differ that the definition of culture is not just 'studied behavior patterns' as is with animals. But I do believe that when humans by and large are oblivious to issues of over population, how are they any different from the two rats in a cage who finally multiply to two dozen in the same cage and due to lack of space show anti social behavior patterns.

Wonder How Sonia’s Magic Always Works…???

I was reading this news article today (click to read, source Reuters, India) and like always wondered how does Sonia work her magic. Is it her own personality that wounds her magic, or is it the “Gandhi” in her name, or is it the Rajiv factor? Even if we think that people cannot be as naïve as to think that she is a descendent of the great Gandhi family, Gandhi as in MK Gandhi, such large gatherings are only a matter of insane adulation (or) gimmick politics. Most of you reading this post know who Sonia Gandhi is? But how is she such a charismatic figure? That is something we shall try to discover here.

Between April 16 and May 13 India is holding its 15th national elections. Who is likely to win and form the next government? In my view, unless trends change dramatically, India is headed for another hung Parliament.

Our Present political Situation…

The last decade in India has been one of profound changes. Four foundations of post independence India have been altered, or fundamentally challenged, by developments of recent years. First, secularism, a key political principle which traditionally provided considerable psychological and political security to religious minorities, has been vigorously attacked by Hindu nationalists. Secularism is shaken as a result, but it is neither dead nor likely to die. Since the destruction of the Babri mosque by the Hindu nationalists, votes for them have not risen. And though a right-wing Hindu nationalists want to move or destroy two more un-specified mosques, the BJP is unlikely to sponsor another wanton destruction of a contested holy site. However, the fact that minority rights are no longer a certainty is a mighty change in Indian politics.

Second, the caste hierarchy that marked Hindu social order for centuries is beginning to crumble. Political mobilization of the so-called lower castes is undermining, perhaps decisively, the caste hierarchy, though not eliminating caste consciousness. A vast majority of India is Hindu, and a vast majority of Hindu society is lower caste. The rise of lower castes has been a remarkable consequence of India's democracy and has changed the political attitudes of all parties. This result is clearly a triumph of the democratic principle, given that, though more urban than before, India is still 65 percent rural and lower castes constitute its majority by a wide margin.

Third, Since 1999 India has come closer to the United States but not embraced it wholeheartedly. India is looking for what may be called a mature friendship--a friendship that emphasizes, even celebrates, what is common between the two nations, but can also survive their differences.

Few societies rebuild their founding pillars without serious political turbulence. In extreme cases not only the political system but the nation breaks down. India is developing but still poor, primarily agricultural, and ethnically highly diverse, but, with the exception of the 18-month suspension of political freedoms by Indira Gandhi, it has remained democratic.

In short, compared to its past, India today is less secular, less Moscow-friendly, less dominated by the upper castes, more democratic, and more market-oriented. All of these trends are likely to deepen in the coming years, with one exception. Secularism is unlikely to have a continuing fall. Even a BJP in power will not find it easy to undermine secularism, for it is a constitutional matter and a simple legislative majority is not enough to change the constitution. More importantly, the BJP is unlikely to come to power, now or later, if it appears too threatening to the minorities and does not discipline the visceral anti-Muslim instincts of many of its cadres.

So what about the Congress & Sonia’s influence?

The Congress is basically a victim of its own success. It kept winning for so long that it began to attract those interested only in power and the benefits of office, legitimate or illegitimate. Ideological rectitude has been a rarity in Congress politics for the last two decades, and the party's organization has been in a state of disarray for some time. Can the Congress win back the minorities, especially the Muslims, who constitute 12 percent of India's population?

These imperatives have been clear for some time, but the Congress has lacked the leadership to tackle the ideological and organizational revitalization of the party. The Congress was demoralized and desperate. It was looking for alliances to save itself in many parts of India. Then Sonia Gandhi appeared on the scene.

Sonia Gandhi's entry into campaign politics has been serendipitous for Congress Party members, who were looking for a charismatic savior. Over the last seven decades, the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty has been a virtually inexhaustible source of charisma in India. Part of the charisma is built on genuine contributions of the family, and part is based on myth. Sonia Gandhi is the widow of Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, daughter-in-law of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, and granddaughter-in-law of Prime Minister Nehru.

Yet Sonia Gandhi's charisma was not a foregone conclusion. Her marriage into the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty was a plus, but other tests remained. Could she make public speeches and establish a rapport with audiences? How would she deal with the fact that she was Italian by birth and Indian only by citizenship?

Her campaign had also disarmed BJP politicians. More than any other party, the BJP stands for India's traditional family values and culture. So the BJP couldn't really attack a daughter-in-law making an argument for traditional values. In the cultural politics of the family, it is irrelevant where the daughter-in-law came from, so long as she maintains family values.

When Sonia Gandhi announced that she would campaign for the Congress Party, the BJP had thought of undermining her by invoking the xenophobic notion of a "Rome Raj." By presenting herself as a woman more traditional than many Indian women, Sonia Gandhi has turned the tables on the BJP.

Why has Sonia Gandhi received such a popular reception? Is it that minorities are beginning to return to the Congress, or is her image as a great mother, a devoted wife, a good daughter-in-law, and a dignified widow so credible and effective as to pull large support? As more disaggregated polls come out, we will know more about the reasons for her popularity. As of this writing, the hypothesis that both of these factors are playing an important role cannot be ruled out.

Will her charisma last, or does her popularity signal only intense mass curiosity about a mysterious public figure? If it is lasting charisma, will she be able to institutionalize it into a restructured, revived party organization? In the Nehru-Gandhi family there are two political styles. Jawaharlal Nehru, India's first Prime Minister used his charisma to build party organization; Indira Gandhi, his daughter, used her charisma in a personalistic way, undermining the Congress organization. Which model is Sonia Gandhi adhering to? These questions and more need to be answered to get the weight off my chest.

Probably the movie on Sonia played by Katrina Kaif would give us some answers...Some more insight please…

Gimmick Yourself in the name of Self-Governance

I was actually preparing myself to post an article that I have been wanting to post for a long time now, a post on Ronaldinho Gacho – a “phenomenon” as described by his coach and a great inspiration to any professional practice. But then, I thought by making it more generic in nature, I would reach out to a wider & a better audience. I know how my dear football friends would crib about this one line itself; forget the prospect of agreeing to an entire article dedicated to the man from Brazil. I still have it on my desktop though, so might as well post it any day.

So, why the thought of relating “motivation & self-governance” to Ronaldinho? Its very simple, he is one man who I admired and adored, and I still do, for his passion for the beautiful game and desire to be the best in the World, and in a flash, over 3years everything tumbled from He being branded the “World’s Best Player’ to “Football’s Bugs Bunny”, and how ironic that media played a pivotal role for such a dramatic turn around. But lets not discuss that for now, I shall come back to illustrate his case at a later part in this post.

Self-motivation & self-discipline, how important parameters are these in our day to day lives. Could we ever understand the need to be self-governed with these principles? So, what exactly is Self-discipline? It is an ability to control your behavior. That’s it, simple isn’t it? Yet, most of us don’t feel that we own our behaviors. We feel out of control, that we can’t subject our own actions to our conscious minds. The picture portrays a sense of joy and emotions driving her senses. The act of joy can sometimes motivate you more than anything else.

When you define self-discipline that way, then the common equation that binds self-discipline to the ability to stick some rigid regime disappears. Of course, self-disciplined people can stick to rigid structures. But when you gain true mastery over your own actions, then you don’t need some set of rules or protocols to decide how you act. You don’t let any other entity beside your conscious mind to drive your actions, except for carefully chosen habits that you either leave in or instill in your system. This creates the sense of freedom you are finally free to decide exactly what to do with yourself. You’re not enslaved to some habits that you can’t unlearn or emotions that you can’t suppress.

Self-discipline and self-motivation can be quite hyper-intentional, yet floating around like a leaf in the wind may be equally harmful. The difficult thing about self discipline (at least in most cases) is that it feels like something one should force him/herself into it. Of course you can do it. And you must have done it many times, but the problem is that, in the long run you shall inevitable slip. Why? Because you can force yourself out of your balance only for period of time. And that’s it. You can’t keep a sustained effort indefinitely.The moment you relax, you naturally return to you point of origin. The solution is obviously changing your “point of balance”, changing your habits instead of forcing yourself not to follow them. That of course is very challenging path that will require lots of “self discipline” again, at least at the beginning.

Mastery over your own actions can be practiced and cultivated by challenging yourself to a certain routine, like any physical or mental action. The more victory you experience over other forces trying to control your behavior, the more you trust your consciousness to control your actions. Besides, habits can be formed even around things you initially think are hard to do.

I do believe, however, that you make a case for balance within the frame of what I refer to as “mind vs brain.” Over the course of time, the will of the mind can overcome the desires of the brain. Forming good habits takes time and attempting to do this quickly may be self-destructive. Each of us have a certain potential and we cannot reach it without some form of self-discipline. Success is no accident. We simply need to find our own balance to find it.

Now here comes my favorite section of this post, cribbing about my adulation and inspiration for Ronaldinho. Wow wow wow…do not be apprehended, as it wouldn’t be too long. I am reminded of the Engineering Management course during the final spring of my Graduate studies at University of Tulsa. A course taught by Dr. Marcus O Durham, which involved two business attire presentations to improve corporate management and control. One of those presentations was to be on any topic chosen from his test book, and I chose “Motivation”, rather changed it to “Self Motivation”.

And I remember, taking Ronaldinho as an example for a reason that was justified based on his accolades and achievements at that time. A 5min time frame which was not suited for my style of presentation and given my adulation for Ronaldinho, 5mins was too short. Towards the end of the presentation, annoyingly Dr. Durham was fizzling his hand asking to crop it short. To his surprise I did not even look at him and continued staging on how self-motivated could Ronaldinho be for him to perform at the highest level week and week out.

To perform at the level that he does is something no ordinary sports person can dream about. For those who are not aware of club football in Europe, there are National Club Championships, League Cups and also the glorifying European Club Championship. And take all this away you still have the World Cup Qualifiers, International Friendlies, etc. So for him to perform at his best in all these competitions without fatigue and with enthusiasm and given how erratic could Spanish fans get, he had to be very well motivated and disciplined in himself. But for such quality to deter and ruin his career, it would only take his own actions. His fanfare and celebrity status overtook his impulsive play and brought him well below the ground in shame. His move from FC Barcelona was not liked by his and Barca fans, but lack of fitness and motivation led to his exit.

His then coach at FC Barcelona, Frank Rijkaard said on Catalan TV: "You would have to think so. It is a shame, but I am with him. Nobody should forget everything that he has done for this club. I truly hope that he can go out and show the world that he can still play. That time will come and he will need to react well. One must remember everything the way it happened. I did not over-protect him. He is a player that never caused any problems."

He grew fat and was not able to move around freely. People thought that his desire for football is no more and his actions had proven their words more so often. The picture on the right compares Ronnie before and after an injury cum pleasure driven ride. He was often seen clubbing late nights before a game and would always turn in late to the training. Like you read above, Frank was only trying to protect him but not over-protect him. I now wonder if the only cloud on the Ronaldinho horizon is whether he will be deemed too ugly to advertise Viagra in his retirement.

Although I boast about writing this post, some of my goals are still in the waiting. I have hit the gym after a year long gap and feels very nice to be able to do things my way. There are still certain things I crave about doing and disciplining. Waking up early is still a challenge. The earliest I have been able to do on a daily basis is 6:30AM. I believe I could use the hour if I do 5:30AM.

I always recall the following quote:

“The price of discipline is always less than the pain of regret”

Burn this quote into your memory, and recall it whenever you find yourself being tested. It may change your life.

My List of Top 10 Powerful Countries - 2009

1.      The United States of America

It is the world's biggest economy and by far in terms of spending and power. The World’s strongest army, the most powerful democracy, and the media centre of the world, plus in many ways the centre of world diplomacy and foreign relations. This easily makes USA the worlds most powerful country. One may always deny it, but the fact remains placid.

2.      Russian Federation

It has the second largest army and a puppeteer of many Central Asian states. The largest European population, and largest world area, which gives it immense control over itself, and immense levels of independence. The size of Russia helps give it extra resources and abilities that make it such a big power.

3.      Peoples Republic of China

The 4th or 2nd largest GNP (Gross National Product) depending on different measures (Either normal measures, or ones which cancel out misleading totals for currency values, in that later case China places second) a recent riser, above France and Britain, It also has established itself as having nukes. A huge army, and is becoming even more of an international power, as of the resource hungry booming economy, though even if that stalled, it would still be 3rd, as of other advantages.

Plus massively the largest population in the world, and like the above 2 is a UN Security council member.

4.      France

The fifth republic has UN Security Council membership, is a nuclear power and has a lot of influence over Africa. It is also a G7 economy, a leading democracy, and has a quite large army; one of world’s most powerful in fact. Added to this EU membership gives it extra power.

5.      Great Britain

UN security council status, nuclear weapons, G7 economy, a leading democratic state, and a media from music, to actors centre, that has a lot of influence over the world as of its popularity. Membership of the EU adds to its power.

6.      Republic of India

The most populous democracy, a growing economy, a nuke weapons carrier, and as the Second most populous country on Earth it has the morals way. 

7.      Japan

The State of Japan has the second largest economy, and a big democracy, but rammed in by China, and the USA, so below France, Britain and India.

8.      Federal Republic of Germany

It is the World's third largest economy. EU member, of the 27 European Union countries, but hampered in influence of World War II, and World War I, which affected Germany's moral position in the world, and reduced German influence on many areas of the world,

9.      Republic of Pakistan

Second largest Muslim country, largest in the area where most Muslim lands are, has nuclear weapons, and a quite united nationality.

Beats Indonesia, as that land is to far away from other Muslim lands, so carries less weight. Pakistan spends so much on its military dictatorship, while Indonesia grows as a more civil democratic land. Its power tussles with India, make it keep a high arms budget, but could weaken it in the long term, as army spending in the long term is a inefficient use of economic resources.

10.  Republic of Brazil

It is the largest Latin American country, Largest Portuguese speaking land, good relations globally. It is also the biggest power in Africa, South Africa, via the support for the ANC (African National Congress) and its huge economy.

Changes expected for 2009 include India and China continuing their advance towards their new world power status, but all these lands essentially keep their positions for the year because of each nation's innate strengths. The European Union could be called a new superpower, if it carries on progressing, and if its members continue pooling more powers. The links between North America and Europe across the Atlantic, should keep these areas strong in the world. Will USA keep its place as the hyper power for few more years???...Now that is to be patiently waited for and seen.

Freedom's Untidy...Shoes Happen!!!

Many of us were not even born during the 1984 riots but the hurt still runs deep with many Sikhs introspecting on events of 25 years ago and empathizing with journalist Jarnail Singh for throwing a shoe at Home Minister P.Chidambaram. The emotions ran high when I was talking to a colleague today who happens to have seen the riots when he was in India.

‘I think it was a very bold and strong step. It not only showed the anguish and frustration of an individual but voiced the sentiments of the entire Sikh community against the judgment regarding the 1984 Sikh riots,’ a sikh student had to say.

If we as Indians, for a moment leave behind the regional bias which we always tend to carry, direct our opinion towards this event, we could say that Mr. P Chidambaram was at the loose end of an emotional collapse of the Sikh Journo and it would also be fair to comment that our political structure is loosing its ground day by day. The actions in the parliament reflect the insane and disorderly behavior of the elected, but for an Indian Journo to act the way he did speaks volumes of the emotional stress an ordinary Indian is succumbing to. The following is a sneak peak into the happening, and later we shall discuss the shoe throwing as a phenomenon and from a broader angle refreshing our memories to the Bush incident.

Chidambaram was replying to a question posed by a Sikh journalist on the Central Bureau of Investigation's (CBI) clean chit to Congress leader Jagdish Tytler on the 1984 anti-Sikh riots.

The shoe missed Palaniappan Chidambaram, who leaned back to avoid it. He later smiled and asked security guards to take the reporter out of the room.

"Please take him away," the minister said after the missile was thrown at him. Congress party workers immediately took the white turbaned journalist away.

The irate journalist, Jarnail Singh, who threw the shoe, has justified his action. Singh works at Hindi daily Dainik Jagran.

As the action caused a flutter in the hall, a composed Chidambaram appealed to the reporters, "let not the action of one emotional person hijack the entire press conference. I have answered his questions to the best of my ability."

Responding to a question on the clean chit to Tytler in the 1984 anti-Sikh riots, Chidambaram said, "First of all let me make it clear that CBI is not under the home ministry. To my knowledge neither the mome ministry nor any ministry of the government had put any pressure on the CBI."

"CBI has only given a report to the court. It is for the court to accept or reject or ask for further investigation by CBI. Let us wait for the court decision," he said.

As the journalist persisted with his questions, Chidambaram told him "no arguments, you are using this forum..." following which the journalist hurled his shoe.

An unapologetic Singh said he will not apologise for his action, though his manner of protest might have been wrong.

"My manner of protest might have been wrong, but I did not intend to hurt anyone," he said.

Flying footwear has suddenly become the world's favorite protest statement. The trend began in December, when an Iraqi journalist hurled both his shoes and a torrent of abuse at George W. Bush during his last Baghdad press conference.

Shoe throwing has since become a globalised phenomenon. (“Bootslapping (future verb): to express political displeasure by throwing footwear.”...Lolz.) The antiwar group Code Pink pelted a Bush effigy with shoes outside the White House. A Ukrainian protester tossed his loafers at a politician, declaring that the “shoe is going to become an important means for ordinary people to influence their leaders”.

In the future of political protest the shoes will continue to fly, but with varying significance. In Arab culture, hitting someone with a shoe is an extreme form of insult. Throwing a shoe at the Chinese Prime Minister in China would be an act of suicidal bravery. The same act in a Cambridge lecture hall required little courage: merely a good throwing arm, a reasonable aim and a desire to be noticed.

Shoe hurling may be hugely symbolic or plain silly, but its significance lies less in the intentions of the thrower than the reaction to it. How a state and society respond to this sort of deliberately offensive act says an enormous amount about a country, its notions of individual freedom, justice and sense of humour.

Gandhi would never have lobbed his sandals to make a point, but shoe throwing is hardly the most violent form of protest either, which is what makes it a strange sort of political litmus. A country's very soul may be reflected in its response to a smelly insole chucked at an important person: this is the “the shoe test”.

This is the civilised, measured approach to protest, even protest that involves flinging shoes around and insulting foreign dignitaries. Mr Bush, oddly, put it best, after ducking two size-ten missiles hurled by an angry Iraqi in his socks: “It's a way to draw attention... I believe that a free society is emerging.”…Huh what a joke.

As Donald Rumsfeld might have put it: Freedom's Untidy. Free people are free to do bad things. Shoes happen.

As for the Indian shoe protester, he was taken to the police station after the incident but was let off without any charges slapped against him. He left the conference asking his community to be calm, he said: "Nothing should be done to break the peace of the country... Country comes first."