Category: politika

HearWho Plugin Message: Object reference not set to an instance of an object.

Last night, my wife and I watched the election results as our newborn daughter slept in the crib next to us. Donald Trump is our next president. This much is now certain. What this means for our daughter’s future however, is less certain — like all futures.

Whether you voted for Hilary or whether you voted for Trump, all-in-all, it’s important not to overstate the importance of a single four-year presidential term of one person on your life. Yes, the President of the United States is like a Keystone species: with a disproportional large effect relative to size. Yet, still no one person is all-powerful. In fact, I think about some of the most notable individuals throughout history that have changed society for the better: those who have brought about social change, or have opened our eyes to new perspectives. Heroes like Dr. Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks, Susan B. Anthony, Ghandi, Mother Teresa, Nelson Mandela or Albert Einstein. None of those heroes were US Presidents. Additionally, all of these individuals suffered severe discrimination in their lifetimes: Einstein fled Germany from Adolf Hitler’s regime, Mandela was jailed for 27 years, Ghandi and King were assassinated. My point is that it’s not from a position of comfort that brings out the best in us — provoking society to change for the better — but significant change often comes from a position of discomfort and suffering: extraordinary achievements from seemingly ordinary individuals.

If you didn’t vote for Trump, and you don’t like the political trajectory of the nation in the upcoming years, four years is not a long time to wait for another election. I have many close friends who are both republicans and democrats. Even my family, although we share DNA, we don’t always share similar feelings on politics. Yet we still talk to one another, love and care for one another, all despite our politics. I think the same goodwill applies to the nation as a whole. Sure, there are gray dark spots on the fringes: those groups mired in exceptional hate. They will always exist in some form, but they are diminishing.

We all know John F. Kennedy famously remarked that the country is more about the individual’s endeavors rather than what an amorphous “country” might do for (or against) us. But another lesser known quote by JFK that I like even more, is that it is better to light a candle than to curse in the darkness. We can watch what happens in the next four years passively, or we can be an active participant of the future of our nation, and the future of our children. What candle will we light? What specific cause close to our hearts will we take up in the next four years and what passions will we inspire to that cause? That, my friends, is ultimately the thing that will matter most to our onlooking sons and daughters — that is, when they wake up in the morning.

The thought of a world where you can be arrested and sentenced to prison for criticizing public officials or for simply voicing an opinon is quite scary. So scary in fact, I often feel they are just confined to Orwell’s fictional and pejorative views of the distant future, the ominous mid-80’s ..ooooooo. And then there’s Rand, with Anthem, her take on the future–just as dismal. But then, when the book is closed, it’s all over; the world within the pages, is not the world you live in. Everything’s fine.

…then there’s China.

This week, bloggers in China are being required by law to register their websites with the government in another attempt to duct tape the mouths of their citizens.

So for those “seditious” bloggers that are being strong-armed by their government to stop writing on their blogs, I welcome you to host on my server. Contact me via e-mail.

Adoptablog

Tom Delay has the makings of the archetypical corrupt politician. Look, he even has all the requisite character traits:

1. Inverted Philanthropist: Siphon large amounts of money back into your own pocket. Delay’s method, hiring wife and daughter as “political consultants”, and paying them a modest 500,000.

2. Opportunist: Regardless of the frailty of circumstances, leap beyond appointed purview and share officious legal misinterpretations to the judiciary. Be as obstreperous as possible, and shy not away from slandering.

3. Interest Conflicter: With open arms and a bright artificial smile, accept the “donations” of wealthy foreign interests–and hey, you may even get a free trip to S. Korea from it.

4. Republican: (Not fair, I know.)

You got to give it to him. Dubya has a knack for appointing high-ranking officials. Now that most of the cast involved in Act I of the Bush Administration have pushed and shoved their way in line, handing over papers of resignation, Bush is trying to reshuffle the cards and in the process– spilling the deck all over the table.

First blooper, a replacement for Sec. Tom Ridge of Homeland Security with Bernard Kerik, the former NYC Police commissioner. And of course, turns out this guy has a messy criminal record with indictments of conspiracy, an FBI probe for alleged fraud, and various acts of infidelity not quite the unadulterated record we’re looking for in such a high appointment. Needless to say, Kerik has withdrawn from the nomination.

Second blooper, the replacement of Attorney General John Ashcroft; you may remember him from such works as “The Patriot Act” and “Liar Liar”. And for this replacement, the Bush administration nominates Alberto Gonzales, a former White House council that has been intimately tied to prisoner abuse scandals in Abu Garib. Another Swing and a miss.

Well, so far he’s 0-2. My question is: how much longer till a Supreme Court Justice appointment?

Let the recounts begin!

Although recounting the votes will never change the results of the past presidential election, certification of the election results is absolutely necessary. It may seem fitting for the sore loser to wallow over the final score, fret over the bad call, ostracize the interfering fan, and churn up a deluge of “what if’s” and “should of’s”, and although the timing of the situation may seem to be in favor of this assessment, I don’t feel this is the motivating factor behind these recounts. Even if things miraculously turn up different during this recount, if we find that John Kerry may have actually won Ohio, there is no way an ostensibly disinterested and republican-owned congress would certify any one less than George Bush as President; and I think many wrongly consider the re-counts as a ray of hope in such an abdication. John Kerry formally stated that he was not participating in the recount, not to be misunderstood as deprecation, but done primarily to discredit this misinterpretation that democrats have called for this action as a last ditch efforts to usurp Dubya.

The acutal goal of the recount is to bring to light a clear problem in our election process, particularly with the shortage of voting machines and of miscounted absentee ballots, both happening to appear in Ohio, a critical state in this election. I think the goal is that in going forward, for future elections, if these issues in our election process are not addressed now, we may run into the dire predicament where the wrong candidate comes out winning the election. Take election 2000 (Gore/Bush) for example (I’m not bitter–okay, maybe a little).

Every Tuesday afternoon, at about 1:30, I can usually crack open my front door, stick my arm out and feel for the latest TIME magazine. And, of course being that time-of-year, specifically the week before the New Year, TIME does its “Person of the Year” and guess who is smack dab on the cover–Dubya!

Yes, President Bush is Person of the Year, according to TIME. But, no need to cancel your subscription just yet. The way they figure out who is person of the year, isn’t entirely subjective, and it’s not always meant for accolades, although you could look at that way. It’s determined by who has been in the News the most the past year, the famous and infamous, and you can’t deny the fact that Dubya has had a headline or two pretty persistently, and not always for honorary reasons. And to any liberals out there, you may take comfort in the fact that 4 years ago, when TIME was to determine, Person of the Century, they were actually considering Hitler. But, in keeping with political correctness, and staying off their own covers, they went with the more Innocuous Einstein instead– a reasonable choice.

But this year, with Dubya, and keeping with my suspicious nature, I think there could have been a splash of agenda involved with this final decision. This year’s election has been said to have two big losers, Democrats and the Media. Democrats for obvious reasons, and the Media, since some bias reports put their objectivity into question. Perhaps TIME was hoping for a way to absolve themselves from this stigma? Perhaps.

Either way, Person of the Year, I can understand it.

Curiosity prompted me to type in marriage in the mirriam-webster online dictionary, and the result was pretty interesting:

a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage

Now, It has been speculated that moral issues were the biggest reason why Bush won reelection. But among this subset of issues, one in particular seemed to harbor the most dissenting opinions, Gay marriage.

The bible is the primary reactionary tool that opponents cite when bashing gay marriage, which for me does not seem relevant. Soon, these hot-button issues that have polarized our nation will have to be addressed, but governmentally, is it sound to base our rationale on the spiritual teachings that represent just one of the myriad religions practiced in this country. In India, Hinduism and Islam are dominant religions, would it make sense for that country to simply pick one of these religions and base law simply around the more popular of the two, without any representation for the others? Would this be fair? Sure, I am Christian, and I do believe in the bible and it’s spiritual merit, but I just don’t feel that my beliefs should be forcibly imposed on another of differing convictions. Recently, I had asked my friend Nick about his opinion on these issues, and he brought up a really profound, rhetorical point, “Wasn’t this country founded for religious freedom?”.

As Chief Justice Reinquest’s deteriorating health condition, threatens vacancy in our supreme court, let’s pray Dubya does the right thing.