If you are one of those who think that stalking is wrong, immoral and a threatening act, get ready to change your mind; the International Olympic Committee seems to believe that it is alright to stalk your ex-partner (or anyone else). Since this is the year of the Olympics, who are we, poor mortals, to challenge the spite of the mighty?
Let us put this in perspective.
Suppose you and your partner had a volatile parting several years back. And suppose as part of that divorce your ex-partner resorted to a scorched earth policy literally, and flatly refused to pay your fair share, took everything, refused to negotiate, finally threw you a cent on the dollar as take-it or leave-it and ran away.
Right into the arms of an even richer partner and have been merrily making your life miserable ever since. Miserable not only in an emotional sense, which is beyond this blog, but deliberately interfering in your life. Say for example, your partner is in the habit of selling you eggs from the self-owned farm through an intermediary, even though the partner knows that you prefer not to deal with them at all.
Suppose yesterday you come to know that your ex and the new partner have been spying on you all along; monitoring your movements, noting down whom you meet with, your travel plans and career path.
Throughout whenever you approached the Police commissioner and the Mayor, you’re told that the ‘rich-partner’ has absolutely nothing to do with you and your suspicions are unjustified.
How would you feel? Me, I just want to climb the roof and start shouting at the top of my voice. And I am doing it, right now, in this blog.
Now if you just substitute
Now to add insult to injury comes the Wikileaks disclosure, that Dow Chemicals paid Stratfor to collate data on the intentions and future actions of activists for Bhopal Gas Tragedy.
To be fair, as far as the leaks have come to light, the actions of Stratfor has shown nothing illegal. In the matter of Bhopal activists, and with the information available right now, it has been an excellent case of data mining of information available in public domain.
Just like the data mining I do to connect, relate, and pose different events to present a logical argument in this blog. (Note: A little self-promotion never hurts)
But what is offensive is Dow engaging and paying Stratfor to do it. If Dow Chemicals feels it is all in the clear, why keep tabs on their adversaries? But if they are doing so, doesn’t it mean their guilty conscience is scaring them?
And if they are guilty, should they be allowed to sponsor the Olympics?
Catch my point?
Putting it the other way, is the Olympic committee and LOCOG saying that stalking your ex is perfectly alright?
My Naughty half natters, ‘If that is an accurate portrait, should not the flag be a Union Jack instead of Star and Stripes?’
Let us put this in perspective.
Suppose you and your partner had a volatile parting several years back. And suppose as part of that divorce your ex-partner resorted to a scorched earth policy literally, and flatly refused to pay your fair share, took everything, refused to negotiate, finally threw you a cent on the dollar as take-it or leave-it and ran away.
Right into the arms of an even richer partner and have been merrily making your life miserable ever since. Miserable not only in an emotional sense, which is beyond this blog, but deliberately interfering in your life. Say for example, your partner is in the habit of selling you eggs from the self-owned farm through an intermediary, even though the partner knows that you prefer not to deal with them at all.
Suppose yesterday you come to know that your ex and the new partner have been spying on you all along; monitoring your movements, noting down whom you meet with, your travel plans and career path.
Throughout whenever you approached the Police commissioner and the Mayor, you’re told that the ‘rich-partner’ has absolutely nothing to do with you and your suspicions are unjustified.
How would you feel? Me, I just want to climb the roof and start shouting at the top of my voice. And I am doing it, right now, in this blog.
Now if you just substitute
- ‘victims of Bhopal Gas Tragedy’ instead of ‘you’,
- ‘Union Carbide’ instead of your ‘ex-partner’,
- ‘Dow Chemicals’ instead of ‘richer-new-partner’,
- ‘LOCOG’ instead of ‘Police commissioner’, and
- ‘International Olympic Committee’ instead of the ‘Mayor’;
Now to add insult to injury comes the Wikileaks disclosure, that Dow Chemicals paid Stratfor to collate data on the intentions and future actions of activists for Bhopal Gas Tragedy.
To be fair, as far as the leaks have come to light, the actions of Stratfor has shown nothing illegal. In the matter of Bhopal activists, and with the information available right now, it has been an excellent case of data mining of information available in public domain.
Just like the data mining I do to connect, relate, and pose different events to present a logical argument in this blog. (Note: A little self-promotion never hurts)
But what is offensive is Dow engaging and paying Stratfor to do it. If Dow Chemicals feels it is all in the clear, why keep tabs on their adversaries? But if they are doing so, doesn’t it mean their guilty conscience is scaring them?
And if they are guilty, should they be allowed to sponsor the Olympics?
Catch my point?
Putting it the other way, is the Olympic committee and LOCOG saying that stalking your ex is perfectly alright?
My Naughty half natters, ‘If that is an accurate portrait, should not the flag be a Union Jack instead of Star and Stripes?’
No comments:
Post a Comment