If Edgar Allan Poe called the death of a beautiful woman the most poetic event in literature, and if an individual (such as myself) decides that all of Playboy's videos of their Playmates have been tastefully handled, then why is the equation of the two considered distasteful?

*

Why is the Indian government expressing disappointment over Rana's acquittal over charges of directly being involved in the 26/11 Mumbai attacks? Does that mean that the Indian government possesses some other evidence than the US govt. to prove culpability?

*

Is expressing disappointment over a particular verdict indicative of any intentions to dole out retributive, rather than rehabilitative, justice? Or is it just that justice's overall purpose is to do what is necessary with threats against the state's sovereignty - an "ultimate obligation"?

*

Is it fair to use the phrase "national shame" every time some government-instituted facility for Indian hockey players goes wrong? Because what I understand is that the status of being a national sport does not connote special attention. Instead of reverting to the how of successive governments disappointing said status, it would be cheaper, quicker and easier to just reshape our attitude towards everything that's just not cricket.

*

Even as attempts to seek alternate recourse against constitutional provisions are labeled as the loss of faith in the polity, why is it that judicial provisions exist to appeal against the verdicts of a lower court's orders at the Supreme Court? Or am I forgetting any provision for an individual to secede from the state in case of not availing due justice?

*

Do I reserve the right to pick who does and who doesn't claim to be proud over my achievements? Isn't it of consequence that my stature in the eyes of others is impacted by who the sponsors of my talents are? On that regard, would it seem selfish to do so or just sensible? I will reserve the right, and concede the consequence, and claim to be sensible first.