Journalism or Political Pamphlets?

After a rather long hiatus in blogging, I thought I should take baby steps, and refrain from pouring all the ideas that have been struggling to get out my head (creating cyberspace junk). Here are a couple of AP newspaper headlines; shot while in Vizag (March'09).

It is not uncommon for private news organizations to endorse political candidates. But I wonder if this kind of blatant bias would qualify as "journalism".

Don't Beat Around the Bush!

Picture source: Cinematic Wallpaper

A blast yesterday killed twenty-eight people in Iraq. Routine reports of this kind of death since the beginning of this unjustified war, reminded me of the following dialog from Star Wars Episode III - Revenge of the Sith.

Anakin Skywalker: Sometimes I wonder what's happening to the Jedi Order. I think this war is destroying the principles of the Republic.

Padmé Amidala: Have you ever considered that we may be on the wrong side?

Anakin Skywalker: What do you mean?

Padmé Amidala: What if the democracy we thought we were serving no longer exists, and the Republic has become the very evil we've been fighting to destroy?

Anakin Skywalker: I don't believe that, and you're sounding like a Separatist.

Padmé Amidala: What this war represents is a failure to listen. Now you're closer to the Chancellor than anyone, please, ask him to stop the fighting and let the diplomacy resume.

Anakin Skywalker: Don't ask me to do that.

Of course, I am not supporting terrorists in Iraq or any kind of terrorism.  Answer to the question "who is a terrorist?" is merely a point of view.  How do we define the word "terrorist"?  If a person who caused more than million deaths for no good reason is not a terrorist, who is?  Mr. Bush's record is on par with that of Pol Pot.  It is about time for the US to unequivocally (and officially) admit to the world, "(we) our ex-president made a terrible mistake in Iraq and caused grief to millions here in this country and abroad", and hand over President George W. Bush to the International Court of Justice for his war crimes.  On a second thought, may be not.  After all, George Washington's cherry tree story is a myth.  We don't take morals from urban legends.  Do we? 

US Auto Industry

Industry in dust?

Source: Riber Hansson

Obama Elected President as Racial Barrier Falls

I came across this headline this AM, and I was nodding my head sideways. First of all, I am very glad that Obama won, as expected. I think that he is an excellent candidate, and that America will finally be in good hands soon, after eight long tumultuous years. Also, I believe that this event will greatly energize and motivate African Americans, esp. the kids - good for them.

However, I do not think that this election result is an indication that the racism is on decline; it probably is declining, but I wouldn't use this result as an indicator.

I would agree with this argument when two equally good candidates (one black, one white) contest, and the black (wo)man manages to prevail. With economy in turmoil and foreign wars going nowhere, even a scarecrow would have beaten a Republican. Added to this, on Republican side, McCain's senile charisma was matched only by Palin's mastery of world politics - that didn't help them! I believe that a good percentage of vote was anti-Republican rather than pro-Democrat. I am not saying this to undermine Obama's capability. Irrespective of statistics, again, I think that he is an excellent candidate who deserved 100% of the vote.

What I am saying is, when I am thirsty and I have 60c in my pocket, I would buy the best soda available for that money. I wouldn't bother to find if the seller is white, black, or some shade in between. In our case, Obama was Coke Classic for 50c, while McCain was Sam's Cola for 75c; I can't afford to pay more for an inferior drink.

I think racial discrimination will prevail (at least) as long as large financial disparity continues between ethnic groups. I am not pinning down racism to whites. For examples (once) rich upper castes in India exploited the lower castes for centuries. Now, at least in large cities, with distribution of wealth among many castes, the caste divide is not as conspicuous as it used to be.

If we talk about race, if anything, this election probably is an indicator of reverse discrimination. Based on exit polls, more than 95% African Americans voted for Obama while about 55% of whites voted for McCain.

Finally, I think discrimination is a necessary survival instinct. Whether we like it or not, whether we admit it or not, we constantly discriminate. For example, in many cases, black = poor, and poor = crime. I bet, on using implication logic (a implies b and b implies c, means a implies c), even rich blacks would roll up their windows when they drive through predominantly black and impoverished neighborhoods. Do current social conditions imply that blacks are inferior? No way! As evolutionary biologist Jared Diamond so eloquently presented in his book Guns, Germs, and Steel, we are what we are for a variety of complex reasons. Talking about racism, I strongly believe that Indians in the US are more racist when compared local whites/blacks - again, new environment, survival.

Imagine a non-conforming deer in a jungle who attempts to mingle with a pride of lions with an open mind - he surely would end up joining them at dinner table! I firmly believe that racial discrimination is an abominable act/thought. Unfortunately, most of us are not as innocent as we presume ourselves to be in this department. In this world, wealth (and knowledge, to an extent) is the only equalizer, unfortunately.

Are Indians Peace Mongers?

Satyagraha won India it's independence from the British. I noticed that based on this, we tend to conclude that Indians have a predisposition for peace. On reading about relatively high incidence of communal violence, caste politics and associated killings, rapes, and gang violence in major cities, I disagree with this conclusion. However, like the majority, I too believe that Gandhi was a true lover of peace, and was a great leader. Here is my point.

Historically, when Moguls came to India, we didn't just hand them over our kingdoms (out of our peaceful nature) in a silver platter - we fought (rightfully so), lost, and let them have their way, as we had no choice. Now, hypothetically, let us say that in the midst of our independence struggle, Germany offered Indian National Congress some powerful weapons that our Sepoys could have used to annihilate the British army. Would we have used them against British? May be, or may be not. Would we have taken these weapons to the bargaining table with the British to tell them "leave, or you will be toast"? Very likely, but we can't be 100% sure.

When we were fighting British, fighting peacefully was our only choice. They had guns and tanks, and we didn't. Also, they had superior generals and negotiators who managed to divide us and rule. Whereas our Rajahs and Mantris were mostly failures (for their inability to plan long term, and see what was coming). Basically, we had a lemon, and Gandhi made one hell of a lemonade.

We can truly claim that we are peace seekers, when we have multiple options for winning quickly, but we choose a non-violent option knowing fully well that it would be a lot tougher path. We knew that we were too weak to fight British. It is not that we could have fought a war and won - they would have royally kicked our butts if we had decided to fight with aggression. Also, if we are peace mongers, why didn't we try Satyagraha with China, Pakistan, and at Babri masjid?

After British invasion, our situation was analogous to a lone unarmed man coming across a grizzly bear in the wild. He knows that he stands no chance if he confronts the bear. He would shoot it if he had a gun. But for now, playing dead would be a safe bet, as this would offer him some chance for survival. We did the exact same thing with the British. Our strategy was, sooner or later, they will get tired of kicking our butts and they would leave. Our strategy worked like a charm. They sure got tired and left, after kicking our butts for 90 years:-)

During independence struggle, Satyagraha was our only choice. Credit goes to Gandhi, but not necessarily to the janata in general. Let us not try to glorify our inability to envision and stop British invasion, by falsely claiming that we allowed invasions because we love peace; because, our so called peaceful nature has not been consistent.

On a side note, I wonder why didn't this idea of Satyagraha occur to Lord Krishna prior to Kurukshetra war? I mean, instead of telling Arjuna "they are bad guys, they took your land, kill them, and take your land back", why didn't He suggest Pandavas to demonstrate Stayagraha? May be because His diplomatic efforts have failed, and the Lord knew that Kauravas wouldn't change their mind.

Hillary Rocks Her Boat With "Xerox"

Or, should I say "Hillary found herself between Xerox and a hard place"?! Anyway, here is a view of the world from the colored lens I am wearing right now!

Haute Heir Hillary

Yesterday during Clinton-Obama debate at UT in Austin, Senator Clinton said:

You know, when a mother grabs my arm and says, “I can’t get the operation my son needs because I don’t have health insurance,” it is personal for me.

I was thinking, "well senator, if it was really "personal" to you, why didn't you simply pull out your check book and loaned that poor lady some money? you lent $5 million for your campaign recently?" I guess it was not "that" personal. Or, our beloved senator meant to use the word "important" and not "personal".

Cry Baby Clinton

I was surprised, like rest of the common folk AND political pundits, when I heard of Clinton's victory in New Hampshire. Every major poll in the US predicted that Obama was going to win. They got it all wrong. I am not a big fan of Clinton as she does appears pretty cold, calculated, and insincere to me.

I think her almost tearful response to a women's question on TV, "how do you do it" (how do you stay upbeat under all the stress of campaigning?) had a big role in causing Bradley Effect to kick-in, resulting in her victory with a narrow two-point margin. Her response didn't make any sense to me. She said:

It's not easy, and I couldn't do it if I didn't passionately believe it was the right thing to do. You know, I have so many opportunities from this country just don't want to see us fall backwards.

Well, if she believes in her message so passionately, shouldn't it be easier for her to be upbeat? Besides, such a soft side is not an asset to a Commander-in-Chief.

Also, rumors on Obama probably didn't help him, to say the least.

Mehican Vs. Mohican

Nice word play with "Mexican", which is pronounced somewhat like "Mehican" in Spanish, and Mohicans! Timing of publication of this cartoon is right, as increasing number of Americans are bothered by the fact that the majority of those who enter the country from South of the border are not learning English* and not getting integrated into the society. Though I loved the cartoon, I too feel that all foreigners in the US must learn to speak English.

*This lady has some learning to do in writing English:-)

Causes of Mass Extinctions

Leave alone the message, I thought the depiction of Pleistocene period was pretty funny!

From Hero to Zero

Though I wish the best to the US, I don't like Bush's foreign policy (or the US' foreign policy in general). Bush recently proposed building a missile defense system in Czech Republic with 10 interceptor missiles housed in Poland.

I love the positive spin US puts on its so called "missile defense" plans. I think use of the term "interceptor missile" is very deceptive. A missile system used for defense can also be used for an offensive move (I don't believe any statements to the contrary). The UN should condemn use of such crafty language. Even though everyone realizes this possibility, if this defensive term is used over and over, it would induce some false sense of security in Eastern Europe (like, "at last, the US is here to protect our stability" kind of attitude!).

The good thing is, Putin firmly said, NIMBY! If the US really wants to thwart any Iranian aggression, I wonder why didn't Bush consider Albania as the base for these so called interceptor missiles instead of Poland? Albania is closer to Iran than Poland, and Albanians (for some strange reason) loved Bush during his recent visit.

I wish that the US treats other countries with the respect they deserve. There is a large chunk of US population that really respects other countries, but their voices get suppressed by a small fraction with a bellicose predisposition, I think.