Cha-ching! $205,000 and counting...

.

From the Times of London:

  

"The revelation that the Republican National Committee spent about $150,000 (£94,000) on Palin's designer wardrobe, $36,000 on her make-up artist and $19,000 on her hairdresser has detracted from the Alaska governor's folksy, moose-hunting image. Her standing among independent women voters, a key target group, has declined by 24 points since the Republican convention in early September, according to a poll in The Washington Post."

  

A dream of every "real-American": A gun-toting, runner-up beauty queen, running after a moose, killing, skinning and cooking him; I fail to understand why liberals want to crush this "real-American Dream".

Republicans gone wild

.
Michele Bachmann's comments last week suggesting members of Congress should be investigated for anti-Americanism have already raised her opponent more than $1 million in 96 hours. Now, two more Republicans find themselves in hot water for off-the-cuff remarks that suggest Democrats, well, they just don't see America like the rest of us.

  

"Liberals hate real Americans that work and accomplish and achieve and believe in God," North Carolina Rep. Robin Hayes told a crowd waiting to hear from John McCain. He denied the story at first, in statements to Politico, before later conceding that he did and apologizing.

  

Now, new video has come to light in New York, in which upstate Republican Randy Kuhl tells WHAM-TV he thinks the Democratic majority "wants the American public to suffer and to hurt so that they can make some political gains at election time."

  

All three Republicans are getting seriously negative publicity for their remarks in local papers, and it's making their re-election bids less certain.

  

That's terrible news for both Hayes and Kuhl, who already faced difficult races. Hayes beat Democrat Larry Kissell by 300 votes in 2006 and either trails Kissell by a wide margin (in a Democratic poll) or leads by just three (in his own poll). Kuhl beat Democrat Eric Massa by a 51%-49% margin in 2006 and now trails Massa in the latest Democratic poll.

  

We can only imagine the title of the forthcoming memo from Republican campaign chief Tom Cole: "Shut up!"

  

This is copied from another blog in Politico, The Scorecard 

Ha Ha Ha

Foolish Democracts

.

The White House is within sight, as is a filibuster-proof Senate and a handsome majority in the House.

So what are the senior Democrats up to? Running their mouth and tickling their tonsils with their toes. And helping McCain.

Joe Biden is guaranteeing an international crisis if the Obama-Biden ticket is elected. "Mark my words: It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy," Biden told the crowd. "The world is looking. We're about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America. Watch, we're going to have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy." Mr Biden added, "He's going to have to make some really tough - I don't know what the decision's going to be, but I promise you it will occur. As a student of history and having served with seven presidents, I guarantee you it's going to happen,".
  
Barney Frank is looking forward to raise taxes.

John Murtha is calling many of the people who put him in office "rednecks." The news comes one week after Murtha claimed the area is racist, then apologized for that comment. Murtha believes there is one segment of the population which is holding on to its racist beliefs and he said it's difficult for them to change. Murtha said it may be even more difficult for them to vote for Sen. Barack Obama for president. "Particularly older people. They want change but they don't want to see things go too far," Murtha said.

John Kerry, addressing a business summit on energy issues, had this joke to tell: "Barack got asked the famous boxers or briefs question," Kerry went on. "I was tempted to say commando." The senator said Obama successfully parried that question but that John McCain, the GOP nominee, had some problems. "Then they asked McCain and McCain said, ‘Depends,'"

McCain was ahead in the polls after he picked the former beauty queen as his running mate and was focusing on his foreign policy and security creds. The financial crisis came as an October sursprise, and Obama started to take over and as of today, the RCP average shows him ahead by over seven points. 

However, Biden is giving an opening to McCain to take the focus back to McCain's comfort zone. Frank is bolstering McCain's argument that Obama will raise your taxes. Murtha is reminding the small-town folks, who Palin thinks are the only patriotic ones, that Obama sees you a bitter guys who cling to God and guns. Kerry is once again trying his hand at comedy after backlash to his comment about the GI Joes made him forget to run again.

It seems that the Democrats may unleash a bigger November surprise: snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.


Are they stupid? Why can't they just shut up?

Who is the REAL Sarah Palin?

.












.

The 'One'

.

Teflobama

.

After the "throw the kitchen-sink" tactic didn't work, the McCain camp is sowing the seeds of a new one: We can't have the Congress and the President of the same Party.

It is sad to see that the Republicans have given any hope of regaining either branch of Congress; heavy losses are predicted for them in the House, and it is becoming likelier that the Dems will have a filibuster-proof majority of 60 in the Senate.

  

More than anyone, Republicans should know how this could create a mess. For the last eight years, they have controlled all the three branches of government: the Executive, the Legislative and the Judiciary.

Thank God I ain't an A-rab!

.

At a recent townhall meeting, a supporter told McCain, "I don't trust Obama...He's an Arab."
 
McCain stood shaking his head as she spoke, then quickly took the microphone from her.
 
"No, ma'am," he said. "He's a decent, family man, a citizen that I just happen to have disagreements with."
  

So if you are an Arab, you are not a citizen (obviously), or a decent, family man.
  

For a full disclosure to the McCain mob, I ain't a Muslim either. So please, please, never distrust me, or hurt me.

Leave Sweet Palin alone

.

Doggone it, the media has to be filtered; it is so disrespectful of the MSM to publish stories like these about a future president. If a joe-sixpack like me, or a hockey-mom like my wife, had our way, these predators would be raising a white flag of surrender. I report, you decide:

 

• Alaska judge orders state to preserve Palin's e-mails: A judge has ordered the state of Alaska to preserve any government-related e-mails that Gov. Sarah Palin sent from private accounts. "It's a dereliction of the governor and her duties," she said. The judge ordered the attorney general to contact Yahoo and other private carriers to preserve any e-mails sent and received on those accounts. If the e-mails were destroyed when the accounts were deactivated, he directed state officials to have the companies attempt to resurrect the e-mails.
• Panel finds Palin abused her power in safety official's firing: Sarah Palin unlawfully abused her power as governor by trying to have her former brother-in-law fired as a state trooper, the chief investigator of an Alaska legislative panel concluded Friday. Investigator Stephen Branchflower, in a report by a bipartisan panel that investigated the matter, found Palin in violation of a state ethics law that prohibits public officials from using their office for personal gain. The investigation revealed that Palin's husband, Todd, has extraordinary access to the governor's office and her closest advisers. He used that access to try to get trooper Mike Wooten fired, the report found. Branchflower faulted Sarah Palin for taking no action to stop that. He also noted there is evidence the governor herself participated in the effort.
• For Palin, some pork is kosher: Palin over the years has approved billions of taxpayer dollars for discretionary projects, including some to which she had personal, political or parochial connections. From the $25,000 for the Juneau Christian Center to $2 million for an academic conference meant to dispel the broadly-accepted idea that climate change is threatening polar bears (she actually preferred the money be used for the state’s lawsuit arguing the bears shouldn’t be listed as threatened) to $630,000 for a kitchen in a hockey arena complex the self-described hockey mom built during her second term as Wasilla’s mayor, Palin has tended to approve line items in Alaska’s capital budget — essentially the state version of federal earmarks — for projects favored by her and her supporters.
• Meet Sarah Palin’s radical right-wing pals: Extremists Mark Chryson and Steve Stoll helped launch Palin’s political career in Alaska, and in return had influence over policy. “Her door was open,” says Chryson — and still is. Chryson belongs to a fringe political party, one that advocates the secession of Alaska from the Union. “The Alaskan Independence Party has got links to almost every independence-minded movement in the world,” Chryson exclaimed. “And Alaska is not the only place that’s about separation. There’s at least 30 different states that are talking about some type of separation from the United States.” 
• Todd Palin, Longtime Former AIP Member: Gail Fenumiai, director of the Alaska Division of Elections, says that Palin's husband Todd was a member of the AIP from October 1995 through July 2002, except for a few months in 2000. He is currently undeclared. At least two AIP officials recall Gov. Palin attending the 1994 convention, though she says she did not attend.

 
And I'm tired of the rubbish posted on YouTube linking her to the AIP

  

SNL: The first Presidential Debate

SNL: Interview of Sarah Failin'

Please vote for the McChaos-Failin' ticket

 

What's wrong with McCain? He tries to create chaos every time his poll numbers dip.
  
First, he picked Ms. Palin, the most stupid way to create a stir. It was the day after Obama's mega-speech and he wanted to drown out any sensation it may cause. This is really an affront to women; there are much more qualified Republican women candidates who could have been chosen. But he wanted a chaos.
  
Then, as if Ms. Palin had not caused enough of a distraction to help his campaign, he proposed to delay the GOP convention as hurricane Ike was hammering the Gulf coast. Cooler heads prevailed, and only some activities were curtailed. But the Senator would have preferred to create a chaos.
  
Finally, when he saw Obama had surged ahead by 9% points in the Washington Post/ABC News poll and a host of new polls from Fox News, Marist and CNN/Time, each with numbers closer to Post/ABC than not, he declared that he is suspending his campaign and asked Obama to do the same. He also asked that the debates be postponed in wake of this financial crisis this country is facing.

The same day he called Dave Letterman at 3:00 pm to say that he cannot appear on his showthat day as he is suspending his campaign and heading to Washington to ensure the solution to the financial crisis has been reached. Instead, he went to give an interview to Katie Couric, also of CBS. He departed to Washington not until next day, and only after addressing the Clinton Global Initiative.


Four things become clear from his recent actions.

For one, he wants to create chaos and then ride into town like a White Knight and take credit for rescuing the country from a catastrophe. He has taken this page from Bush's play book; and the Iraq war is a good example. 

At first, he acted like an arsonist by fully supporting the president to attack Iraq, and agreeing with Rumsfeld and other neo-cons that this war will be short, that we will be greeted as liberators, that there is no Shia-Sunni animus and that we will be departing the country in short order after leaving behind a model democracy in the Middle-East region.

When that didn't happen, he put on his maverick armor, and rode on the high horse of surge as if try to extinguish the fire he had helped start. It is a no-brainer that violence will go down whenever you put more troops on the ground; the test is if this tactic would usher in a the larger strategic goal, which in this case was political reconciliation. The surge was successful only because this tactic had other symbiotic forces at work as well, like the Anbar Awakening and the standing down of the Mukhtadar Army, but even then the full goals have not been met.

Another example is when he parachuted into Washington to make sure the bail-out plan works. This was receiving a bipartisan support in Congress, and that of the President. It was going smoothly this the Senator decided to become a part of it, when it quickly unraveled. He only succeeded in creating further chaos.

  
Then, there is his tendency focus at one thing at a time. Why couldn't the campaign go on while he visited D.C.? Why did the convention and/or the debates have to be postponed? Can't he deal with two or more crises at the same time?


In addition, he made all these decisions, in addition to countless others throughout the years, rather hastily and rashly. It doesn't seem that he put much thought in any of these, as is becoming evident of his vetting of Ms. Palin. As she goes around and talks to the nation via the press, a picture is emerging that she is most unqualified person that could have been picked.
  
And lastly, his cancellation of his appearance on The David Letterman Show was very telling of his character.

Why did he lie to Dave? Probably because the Palin interview with Couric had been a disaster, and he wanted his interview to share space with that of his VP pick on the evening news. But why couldn't he have been candid with Letterman? I'm sure Dave would have understood.

  
  
In none of these actions did the Senator seems to put "Country First", as he'd like us to believe. They were all driven by personal ambition to be the President, even if the country suffers from the actions he has to take to win.



So, please vote for McCain if you'd like a person who will have his hand on the nuclear button if you don't mind that he makes rash decisions, embellishes in creating chaos, cannot multi-task and is prone to mislead you if things get hot and uncomfortable. By voting for him you'd also put in office someone to be a heart-beat away from an aged person with recurrent cancer, and I'd assume that you are comfortable with her in that position. 

And afer you do, say a little prayer for our country. Gov Palin is a strong believer that prayers work, and Sen McCain is also a recent convert.

Sarah Falin'

God bless America.

Country first.

Show me your friends, and I'll tell you who you are.

Conservatives love Sarah. Ever she has been nominated, she's drawing huge crowds and the McCain campaign has raised millions of dollars. She has energized the GOP base and has breathed new life into a drab campaign.

Even Rev. Dobson, who thinks that all the ills of America are because of liberal values and WORKING WOMEN, is now supporting McCain because he's running with Sarah.

A French philosopher once said, "Not all conservatives are idiots, but all idiots are conservative".

God, please bless America and save her soul.

-- Post From My iPhone

McTasking

Senator McCain has already told us that neither the Economy nor Technology is his strong suit. Foreign policy and matters of defense/security are and it seems his modus operandi is "Ready, Fire, Aim".

From the events that unfolded this week, it became obvious that he can't multi-task either. I'd give him the benefit of doubt: Given his age, I'm not surprised that he cannot walk and chew gum at the same time.

He had to suspend his campaign and call for postponement of the presidential debates because he wanted to go to Washington to rope in errant collegues who were still seeing the economic picture through his eyes as he had been until recently, when he started to run for the presidency.

Especially when he was the Chairman of the powerful Commerce Committe, but throughout his 26-year career as a pol in D.C., he has been a proponent of deregulation and a believer of the Reagan mantra: "Government is not the solution; government is the problem".

Citizen McCain comes to Washington to tell his fellow congresspersons that being a maverick isn't good enough to be a successful politico any more; we are a nation of small towns where people are bitter and whine.

-- Post From My iPhon

McCain's Economic Plan

.

McCain's Economic Plan For Nation: 'Everyone Marry A Beer Heiress'

Hillary and Sarah

 

Just wondering

What would have happened if Barak Obama  had a daughter who was 17 and pregnant and unmarried and the father was a teenager hoping to launch a rap career with "Thug Life" inked across his chest?

How would have middle-America reacted?

Would Rev. Dobson been as magnanimous?
  
Hmm.

What's wrong with Obama

 
For one, he is not Barry O'Bama.
  
Everyone has been asking the same question: "In this Democratic year, why isn't Obama ahead by double-digits?"
  
It's the race, stupid!
  
Difficult to quantify and uncomfortable to talk about, the effect of race in voting patterns is something we rather not discuss. However, over the last few weeks, there has been a gradual appearence of articles mentioning how race would/could affect Obama's chances. I posted an op-ed excerpt from an Indian newspaper, American Exceptionalism, on 6 September, discussing this issue.

In an exit poll, 12% of voters in the Democratic primary in West Virginia said that race would affect how they would cast their ballot. Many thought that this is actually a low figure, and these people were not being wholly truthful with the pollsters. Clinton got two-thirds of the vote and Obama a mere one-fourth. Even though Edwards had withdrawn form the race before this primary on May 13, he still got over 7% of the votes.

  
Now, CNN reports that an AP-Yahoo News poll, designed in partnership with Stanford University, has conducted another study "...that surveyed racial attitudes suggests that racial prejudices could tip the balance in the upcoming presidential election." It finds that "If there were no racial prejudice among voters, Sen. Barack Obama would receive about 6 percentage points more support..."
  
A CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey found that "Of the 8 percent of Democrats who told CNN they plan to vote for Obama's GOP rival, Sen. John McCain, half said race was a factor". The AP-Yahoo News poll found that "one-third of white Democrats harbor negative views toward blacks — many calling them "lazy," "violent," responsible for their own troubles."
  
In the Gallup daily tracking poll, it was Obama 48%, McCain 44% today, down for Obama from 50-44 on 20 September. Most polls give Obama a 4% lead nationally, though the RCP average was 48-45 in his favor. 
  
The Rasmussen daily tracking poll gives Obama a 1 point edge (48%-47%) today, and the Rasmussen Markets data currently gives Obama a 52.2 % chance of victory.
  
So, assuming a national lead for Obama at 4%, combined with the 6% lead he would have had if he wasn't an African-American, the total lead today would have been 10% for him today.
  
A 10% lead would still not be bad, considering that the RCP average for a Generic Congreesial Vote is only 6% in favor of the Democrats (47%-41%).
  
Obama's nickname as a student was Barry. If only he had kept this name, and hyphenated his surname to O'Bama. After all, he IS related to Dick Cheney.
  
Let us pray. This is going to be a historic election. Either we will have the first African-American as President or a hockey mom a heart-beat away from being one.

Hindu terrorism in India

  
Terrorism in India is not new. No, I am not talking just about terrorism in Kashmir. Even before Kashmir became a problem, India had to deal with Naxalites in Bengal, Khalistanis in Punjab and various outfits in the old province of Assam.
  
Although India's leaders talked about the country as a shining example of "Unity in Diversity", several vested interests want to see India fractured, either geographically or ideologically. Either of these divisions will weaken India, when it stands at the threshold of becoming a regional and international force.
  
Of obvious note is the 'Islamic' terrorism, that has gripped the nation, as it has the entire world. Vir Sanghvi in his piece today, "After the blasts" in the Hindustan Times, has given a good analysis and so I would not spend time on it.
  
What is of significance are the other acts of terrorism that go unpunished. These are committed by units of the 'Parivar' (Family); they have political support because the Bhartiya Janta Party (BJP), their political wing, is the main opposition party at the Centre and also governs several states.
  
Recently, there has been killing of Christians in the provice of Orissa. The Press Trust of India (PTI) reports that "The National Commission for Minorities (NCM) has blamed Sangh Parivar outfit Bajrang Dal for the communal violence in the NDA-ruled states of Karnataka and Orissa." (NDA stands for National Democratic Alliance that is a combination of political groups that governed India before the present regime. The BJP is the major partner in NDA.)
  
In addition, the Hindustan Times reports that "the 150-year-old St Peter and St Paul Cathedral were set on fire in Jabalpur in MP [Madhya Pradesh]. The Jabalpur attacks coincided with fresh attacks on Karnataka churches, in Moorje in Chikmagalur and Chikaballappur, 50 km from Bangalore." In addition to Orissa and Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh is also ruled by the NDA.
  
An Australian missionary, Graham Staines, 58, and his sons, Philip, 10, and Timothy, 6 ware killed in 1998 in Orissa, and the Bajrang Dal was blamed for that act as well.
  
Christians in India are a small minority, but even Muslims, the largest minority in India (12% of the population) are not immune. Between Feburary and May 2002, the Indian province of Gujarat witnessed a pogrom, with overt, covert and tacit support of the State government, that left over 2000 Muslims dead. Of course, Gujarat was (and is) ruled by the BJP. 
  
  
India is a secular democracy, with freedom of speech, religion, etc. protected, like the First Amendment in the United States. A large proportion of Indians believe in the 'seperation of church and state'. However, there has been a steady and dramatic increase in people, especially the majority Hindus, who feel that their rights are being trampled on because the government is favoring minorities.
  
Excuses are easy to find for these miscreants. From "forced conversion to Christianity", "burning of Hindu 'pilgrims' by Muslims in Gujarat", to "forced evacuation of Kashmiri Pundits".
  
The fact remains that these outfits of the 'Parivar' - the Bajrang Dal, Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP), The Rasthriya Svamsevak Sangh (RSS), etc. - practice or condone violence. Some, like the Bajrang Dal are more violent, while others, like the RSS, fan the flames.
  
Unlike no other time in history, India is at a critical juncture. Its economy is growing between 7 and 10%, it has just become the sixth de facto member of the nuclear club and its geopolitical importance is coming to fore.  If it were to jump on to the world stage as another power, it cannot afford to have a disruptive landscape.

It does not matter whether this disruption is caused by a Hindu or a Muslim organization. It must be attended to.
  
For its own sake, India should declare the various organizations of the 'Parivar' as a terrorist, freeze their assets, and ban them.

The terrorists have come home to bomb

  

 

First, my condolences to the loved ones of the people killed in the bombing of the Marriott in Islamabad. 
  

It is not surprising that this bombing, with all the hallmarks of al-Qaeda, took place in Pakistan. What is shocking that it took so close to the seat of its power; the hotel is near the Parliament, the Presidency, the Supreme Court and the Prime Minister's residence.
  

Pakistan has to reevaluate its domestic and foreign policies in a hurry.
  
I quoted in a 12 August blog: In an Editorial today (Curb this vindictive hype!), the respected Pakistani newspaper (The Daily Times) states that "The state doesn't have the ability to impose its writ on more than half the territory, and areas under normal administration also are fast slipping into the zone of "ungoverned spaces"."
  
The same newspaper has another editorial today, "Al Qaeda and Pakistan". This is a good explanation of the relationship, and should be read. It underlines why Osama bin Ladin is still popular in Pakistan while, according to a study by the Pew Center, his popularity has fallen significantly in the Muslim world in the past six years.
  
This domestic upheaval in Pakistan is directly related to its foreign policy. The state partitioned from British India in 1947. While India (the remaining part) pursued a policy of status quo and that of non-alignment, Pakistan embraced one of a revisionist state and aligned with anyone and anybody that could help settle its scores with India, whether it be China or the United States.
  
In short, it foreign policy has always been India-centric, and all decisions and events in the Pakistani landscape can be explained when viewed through this prism.
  
The reason it came close to China is because that was the only big country in the neighborhood that had a beef with India. Similarly, it allied with the United States because India wouldn't (India was the founding member of the Non-Aligned Movement, formed to stay away from the two super-powers) and hoped that the US aid would help pursue its agenda against India.
  
The reason it helped the US to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan was the same. The government the Russians were installing in Kabul was pro-India and Pakistan didn't like it. After the Russian defeat in 1989, it installed the Taliban and supported it, because it then didn't have to worry about its western border and could concentrate on India, the eastern neighbor.
  
In 1989, the region was awash with soldiers-of-fortune, who had helped the US win the war in Afghanistan. Precipitously unemployed, Pakistan found a new role for them as terrorists who could slip into the Indian controlled Kashmir and cause disruption. After three full-scale military adventures, two over Kashmir, that it lost, Pakistan felt that this slow-bleed of the Indian Armed Forces would be to its benefit.
  
To be precise, Pakistan did not start the Kashmir problem for India. There was already a movement afoot that demanded a more autonomous status for the province, but it was generally non-violent and secular. Pakistan, with the help of these terrorists, injected a religious fervor and introduced large scale violence.

 
For over a decade, until 2001, Pakistan was happy at hurting India with little or no cost to it. Just like these mujahideen were fighting the "Godless communists" (words of President Reagen) in Afghanistan, they were also serving Islam (in their opinion) by fighting "pagan Hindus" in India (although India is a secular state, with religions besides Hinduism, though Hindus form the majority). And since Kashmir was a province with a Muslim majority, it belonged with Pakistan, not India (the reason for the Partition of Pakistan from India was religious; over 99% of Pakistanis are Muslims).
  
Things changed after 9/11, when Pakistan decided to side with the US and the West to root out terrorists from Afghanistan that had masterminded the attacks on the World Trade Center. It also had to withdraw its support, officially, from the Taliban, which was harboring Osama bin Ladin.
  
Two things happened then. First, the terrorists were angry at the government of Pakistan for supporting a Western cause that they saw as un-Islamic. Second, large and influencial parts of the state machinery continued to support the taliban and al-Qaeda. In fact, as this editorial shows, so did the Pakistni vox populi.
  
For one, it was contrary to the official policy that Pakistan had pursued of using terrorists to strike India. Second, these terrorists are irreverant to authority and can take autonous action. Pakistan could control some of their actions, but not all.
  
So this latest bombing at the Marriott is really a result of the policies the Pakistani government has pursued for over six decades, especially for the last two. While these terrorists still are causing havoc in India, and lately not just in Kashmir but in its heartland, they are also turning their anger to the hand that has fed them for so long.
  
I would not be surprised that this bombing has some internal support as well. It could be facilitated by interests that are against the current Pakistani government, but we could never come to know. Or, it could just be an independent action against the 'un-Islamic' leanings of the Pakistani government. It could also be a combination of both, which seems more likely.

This has serious consequences, no matter what the underlying cause is. It should not be dismissed just as a "reap what you sow" matter.
  
First, an unstable Pakistan has grave consequences for the entire region. We don't want another Middle-East. Even China, Pakistan's "all weather friend" (as Pakistanis call it), has noticed. 


Second, Pakistan has nuclear arms. The easiest way for the terrorists to get to them is in Pakistan. 
  
So we should all help Pakistan from sliding into a failed state. And pray.

Papa don't preach....

.

Life happens. Sex happens. Pregnancy happens.
 

So what's the big deal about Gov Palin's 17-year old unmarried daughter, Bristol, being five months pregnant? Shouldn't we lay off on sensationalizing news about families and personal lives of political figures?
 

Tell that to John Edwards, or Bill Clinton. Or Senator Craig.
 

As Anne E. Kornblut wonders, "What if, back in the 1990s, Clinton had announced the pregnancy of an unmarried, teenaged daughter? Would the Republicans have declared it an off-limits family matter and declined to judge her, or would it have turned into a national scandal that hurt her chances as she decided to pursue her own career in elected office? What if, simply, the roles had been reversed?"
 

I doubt if the Republican machine had been very magnanimous. However, that's no excuse for the Democrats to return the favor.
 

Lets not deal with the hypothetical. The question is if Bristol could have benefited from explicit sex-education and using contraceptives, both of which Gov Palin opposes. It is evident that 'abstinence-only sex-education' doesn't work; the Governor has an example in her own home.
 

Further, the mother of all ironies is that the the family-values gang has overlooked the fact that an unwed teenager has had sex and is now pregnant; they are celebrating the fact that Bristol has decided to continue her pregnancy!
 

The National Enquirer is usually not worthy of being quoted. However, it was impressive that they had shoved the Edward story onto the MSM. According to its latest issue, "...Sarah Palin attempted to quietly have her daughter Bristol get married before news of her pregnancy leaked out,...[and had] planned for the wedding to take place right after the Republican National Convention and then she was going to announce the pregnancy."
 

It goes on to say that "The ultra-conservative governor’s announcement about her daughter’s pregnancy came hours after The ENQUIRER informed her representatives and family members of Levi Johnston, the father of Bristol’s child, that we were aware of the pregnancy and were going to break the news."
 

I have no issue with Bristol being pregnant and unmarried, though I wish she hadn't been in this situation. Teenagers do stupid things, and I believe that now, even she feels she would have been smarter. She has a life ahead of her and this unplanned event may put a damper on her future ambitions. 
  
I have no problem, either, with the Governor trying to sweep the 'family shame' under the rug; it is very human for her to do so, as a lot of stuff happens to families that they may not be particularly proud of.
 

The issue I have with this is that Gov Palin is portraying herself as a poster child of family-values, decrying pre-marital sex, contraception, explicit sex-education while seeming oblivious to the what's happening in her own family which proves that these things do work.
 

This "do as I say, not as I do" attitude also lowers her credibility on other issues she says she supports. Like teaching creationism alongside evolution in schools. Does she really believe in this of is doing it out of political expediency?
 

Similarly, it is her decision to have a baby with Down's syndrome. While it was her choice that should be respected, and the fact that there is nothing wrong with giving such a baby with a loving family, the question now seems to be whether she could have done it otherwise or not, because of her political stance.
 

The best thing in life is, for all, be honest and practice what you preach.
 
And I sincerely feel sorry for Bristol; there is no reason in the world she should have been put under the spotlight, even if Gov Palin had to turn down the VP offer.
.

American exceptionalism

'American exceptionalism' is a term coined by Alexis de Tocqueville in his Democracy in America.
 

De Tocqueville was a Frenchman who traveled the US in the 1830s, and was impressed by its equitable society (there weren't many, if any, democracies in the world at that time).
 

American exceptionalism referred to the belief that the US was different, perhaps superior, to other countries, because of its history, its geography, its politics, its culture, its resources and its resourcefulness, etc.
 

American exceptionalism is not just an academic idea; even ordinary Americans believe it. However, at no time has it intersected with the history of race in America. To put it another way, American exceptionalism is a 'White' belief. Arguably, for much of the white American community, it is an idea that has evolved because of them, and that can develop only with the 'Whites' — but not with a 'Black', even one as "exceptional" as Obama.
 

At a baser level, race evokes a dislike and/or visceral fear in many white Americans. The latest The New York Review of Books has an article, "Obama: The Price of Being Black", which mentions several factors at work against Obama. The new requirement in some states that voters carry government issued photo-ID works against African-Americans. That some states will put a 'civil rights initiative' on the ballot, reminds many voters of the race of the candidates.
 

Then there is the "Bradley effect": in 1982, Tom Bradley led all polls in his race to be Los Angeles mayor. He lost. In 1989, David Dinkins ran for New York mayor, and led polls by 18 points; he won by two. The same year, Douglas Wilder was projected to win the race for Governor of Virginia by nine points; he won by half a point. When it comes to polls, respondents seem to answer questions of race more liberally than how they would vote. Going into the conventions, most polls had Obama and McCain running neck-and-neck.
 

Logically, electing Obama would only prove American exceptionalism in its truer sense, and not in its strict 'Anglo-Saxon' sense.
 

But 9/11 proved that for the 'City on the Hill' (the metaphor for America by its Puritan settlers), the "barbarians are at the gates". As November 4 approaches, if Obama continues to rely on his rock star magnetism rather than his wits, fear may very well overtake the yearning for change in America.
 

Obama might even lose. And if he does, it would mark the beginning of the end of American exceptionalism.


 

This article is from an op-ed piece "It's still in black and white" in the 06 Sep 2008 edition of The New Indian Express. The writer, Aditya Sinha, is its Editor-in Chief and is based in Chennai, India. I have lightly edited it and provided hyperlinks.

Paradise on Earth

.

The Mughal Emperor Jehangir (father of Shah Jahan, who built the Taj Mahal in memory of his beloved wife Mumtaz Mahal), wrote this couplet in Persian about Kashmir: If there is Paradise on Earth; It is this, It is this, It is this.

I visited the Vale (of Kashmir), as it is called, when I was 21. I could not agree with Jehangir more; Srinagar, Gulmarg, Pahalgam and the other places I visited there are still very pleasently memorable. I had promised to myself then that one day I will bring my future wife and our children back to see the splendid panorama. But it was not to be.

The actual history of Kashmir is long, convoluted and controversial. In a nutshell, it the province of Jammu & Kashmir was under the direct rule of a Hindu maharajah, Hari Singh. During the years of the Raj, it existed as an independent entity and paid an annual 'fee' for remaining so to the British. When independence was granted in August 1947, and India was divided into India and Pakistan, Hari Singh chose to remain independent, rather than join either of the successor states, which was his option.

However, a short time after the formation of the two nations, irregulars from Pakistan (next door) raided the Vale in an attempt to annex it to Pakistan. Within a matter of days, Hari Singh had agreed to become a part of India, and Indian troops were landing at Srinagar airport. This was the start of the first Indo-Pakistan war, which had been by now joined by the regular Pakistani Army units.

Ironically, during this first year post-independence, the armies in both countries were still under British command, and the war ended in a stalemate when India's first Prime Minister, Nehru, appealed to the UN. A cease-fire was instituted and a 'Line of Control' established at a point where the Indian Army was able to push the Pakistani forces back.

There were some contradictions . The alleged basis of the partition of India was religious; it was the division on a country into a Muslim Pakistan and a predominantly (82%) Hindu India. Nevertheless, after Partition, India still was the most populous Muslim country in the world (This title has since been taken over by Indonesia, about a decade ago).  Kashmir was (and is) the only state in the Indian Union with a Muslim-majority population. This was the casus belli for Pakistan: why should a Muslim-majority region be a part of a predominantly Hindu (though secular per its Constitution) India? The Pakistanis ignored the fact that Kashmiris wished to stay independent.

Unknown to India, in the region of Askai Chin, adjacent to Tibet, China built the National Highway 219, connecting Tibet and Xinjiang. This was the basis of the Sino-Indian war of 1962, because India considered Askai Chin to be its territory. It has been under overt Chinese  control since. Aksai Chin was historically part of the Himalayan Kingdom of Ladakh until Ladakh was annexed from the rule of the local Namgyal dynasty by the Dogras and the princely state of Kashmir in the 19th century. When Hari Singh (a Dogra) acceded to India, All of Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh (including Askai Chin) legally became a part of India.

In 1965, Pakistan waged another war against India in an attempt to annex Kashmir. Though India had just lost its first and only war with China over territorial disputes, it defeated Pakistan soundly. India wanted to be a status quo state; Pakistan a revisionist one.

So at present, half of the entire State is administed by India, one-third by Pakistan, and the remainder by China. Surrounded by these three countries, it is rather impossible for it to stay independent, as it originally wished.

In fact, this state comprises of three regions. Jammu is predominantly Hindu (66%, 30% Muslim) and Ladakh about half Buddhist (50%, 46% Muslim). It is only the Vale of Kashmir that has a majority of Muslims (95%, 4% Hindu), and it alone has been the bone of contention between the two countries. However, if you ask a Kashmiri on the street, he will still like to be independent, but his next choice will be joining Pakistan, rather than India. No so in either Jammu or Ladakh; they'd like stay with India than be independent or go over to Pakistan.

When Maharajah Hari Singh acceded to India, he esured that his province enjoy a special status in the Union, unlike the rest of the states. This was promised, and under Article 370 of the Indian Constitution, the Union Constitution was extended to the State with some exceptions and modifications. For example, a non-Kashmiri cannot own land in that state, though a Kashmiri can hold property in any other part of the country. In addition, the state receives money from the Central government in excess of any other state on a per-capita basis. For instance, it received about eight times in funds as compared to another state, Bihar, in 2007.

Nehru was himself a Kashmiri, and he knew the feelings and aspirations of Kashmiris well. During 50s and early 60s, the whole country of India was coming into being and starting anew, and it was a rather uneventful period in Kashmir's history. It had the first free elections and voted in its own, Sheikh Abdullah (aka the Lion of Kashmir).

With the death of Nehru in 1964 and the rise of his daughter Indira Gandhi (no relation to the Mahatma), things began to change. Indira was not, like her father, a statesman; she believed in realpolitiks, and was sly, calculating and sought vengeance. During the next decade, she put the Sheikh in jail, poisioned the politics of the state and installed a government of her own party (the Congress) after elections that were corrupt and irregular.

This led to the formation of JKLF, the Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front, in 1977. Its members were moderate, often scholars, who wanted to raise the issue of more sovereignty of their State and felt that the promises of the Article 370 were not implemented in full. Their protests were non-violent in the beginning, but soon led to aggression.

Pakistan was happy with this inbred agitation, though it was not particularly happy with JKLF because they did not want Kashmir to be a part of either Pakistan or India and had declared their movement as non-religious. Pakistan wanted to foment trouble on religious lines, and started to widen this existing fault-line by recruiting, training and funding outfits that would act against India. Still, until the end of the 1980s, all the trouble in Kashmir was by disaffected Kashmiris, and the disturbance was moderate in scale.

The year 1989 proved to provide a big bonanza for Pakistan. The Afghan war has just ended with the withdrawal of Soviet forces, and there were hundreds of soldiers-of-fortune suddenly unemployed. The ISI (Inter-Services Intelligence), the MI-6 of Pakistan, was only too happy to oblige. Suddenly, the home-grown movement was converted into a big-scale operation of terrorism that was supported in mechanics and logistics by the Pakistani Armed Forces. Of course, there were Kashmiris in the ranks, but the whole process now had a definite religious flavor and fervor.

 

It suited Pakistan for several reasons. Firstly, having been defeated in the wars of 1965 and 1971 by India, it provided a sweet revenge. This was especially sweet because in 1971, India had helped East Pakistan secede from the West and become Bangladesh. Secondly, it knew it would not be able to wrest Kashmir out of India's control by regular military means, because India's was a more powerful military. This slow-bleed of the Indian Armed Forces suited it well, and kept Indians occupied and unable to create any other trouble for Pakistan, or so their thinking went. Thirdly, this provided a raison d'etre for its Armed Forces, which were becoming important players in the political landscape of Pakistan.

India had no option but to react militarily. Soon, the Vale of Kashmir was turned into a police state. This further exacerbated the violence, and the viscious circle continues to the present. As is true with any police state, there were human rights violations and other excesses by the Indian Army, which are no excuse its actions being a result of the terrorists trying, and succeeding, to exact a toll on them.

This violence is rather limited to the Vale of Kashmir, though there are occasional episodes in Jammu as well. If truth be told, Pakistanis will be happy to annex just the Vale; they are not interested in Jammu or Ladakh. In fact, there has been increasing sentiment in the Vale to be a part of Pakistan.

The Indian State has several dilemmas about the status of Kashmir. It is, by its Constitution, a secular State, and where everyone stands equal regardless of caste, creed, class or religion. How could it allow Kashmiris to be treated differently, though they have to because of Article 370? How could it let the Vale secede? India has prided itself on being a secular democracy, and this detachment would be a testament to the facts otherwise. It is also a question of pride; how can India let any part of its territory secede? In addition, it will open the door to other regions clamoring for autonomy. This is quite a possibility, as India is as variegated as Europe with regions only a few hundred miles apart having different cultures, languages and cuisines.

On the other hand, Indians are tired of the conflict. The Indo-Pakistani relations that held center-stage in the 20th century are becoming increasingly irrelevant. India is rising to become a world economic power, while Pakistan is slipping into failure. The middle-class is growing in India, and its worries and priorities are changing. India wants to look forward to attaining a place on the world stage and is not interested in looking back at the issues that it feels shackle it to the past. It also has to deal with increasing terrorist threats in the rest of the country.

There has been as growing sentiment in India is to let the Vale of Kashmir go. It doesn't care if it remains independent or becomes a part of Pakistan. As far as Indians are concerned, no one in their right mind would want to be a part of that country in 2008. If Kashmiris want it, Godspeed.

It seems that I may visit Srinagar with a Pakistani visa. I won't mind as long as Pakistan becomes a safe and stable nation. But that may not happen in my lifetime and, alas, I may not be able to keep my promise.

Grow up

.

The Democratic Convention starts tomorrow in Denver. It could end up being  Greek tragedy, thanks to supporters of HRC. The catharsis that Hillary spoke of could very well have the effect of massive puking and crapping all over the place.

And Democrats may do what they do best: Snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

As this article in Politico reports, "..some Clinton aides wondered openly if the Obama campaign was mocking Clinton's famous 3 a.m. ad". Such is the paranoia in the HRC camp that they feel that when "Asked why Clinton was never seriously considered, one Clinton aide responded with a single word: "Ego.""

Jenny Doggett, founder of counteveryvotecast.org, was quoted here as saying that "It's a big mistake not to choose her. It's sad and it's a sure way to guarantee the Republicans will win," because Obama didn't pick Hillary. Ms Dogget, who has urged Clinton to take her campaign to the convention floor, added: "Obama can't do this on his own. This ticket [Obama/Biden] isn't going to be able to compete and can't overcome the lack of unity. Only Hillary can bring them that."

This article also says that "Only about half [52%] of former Clinton voters say they'll back the Illinois senator." About a third are undecided and the rest [21%] plan to vote for Senator McCain.

The policies of HRC and BHO are very, very similar, so it is not that these votes will not go to Obama because of different priorities a President Obama will pursue. And it is not just sour grapes, either.

These supporters were themselves egotists, and only less than eight months ago, they didn't consider that anyone had the brain or balls to go past HRC. It takes one to spot one, and since their pride has sustained a fall, they are in no mood to forgive or forget.

They would rather vote for a 72 year old man with fading memory, confusing and contradictory messages, a near-perfect conservative voting record, who agreed with President Bush (proudly) 95% of the time.

This liberal stock is not concerned that the Arizona Senator considers a cut-off of $5 million for being rich, cannot remember how many houses he owns (between 7 - 11, but no one actually knows), and is tied to a $100 million fortune.

This feminist group is untroubled with the fact that he sought this fortune (by dating Cindy) while he was still married to a former swim wear model who did not meet his expectations on his return (she had lost her good looks due to a massive car accident while he was a POW in Vietnam).

This pro-choice crowd seems apathetic to the possibility that a President McCain could turn the balance of the Supreme Court to the right for the entire next generation. If Roe v. Wade gets overturned, they will surely moan: "If only Hillary was there".

This anti-war band of sisters seem to have no problem with voting for a man whose knee-jerk response to any international crisis is a military or otherwise belligerent response. With his thinking stuck in the Cold War era, McCain would help us build a bridge to the 20th century, and no the the late 20th, but going far into the 1950s.

Even the Clintons do not seem to have taken the defeat in stride. 

In a recent appearence, the Senator mentioned to Obama as "my opponent". She continued to say how much she has done for her "opponent" after she lost the race. In the end, it was all about her.
 

The former president, who had declared repeatedly that Hillary was ready to be President, could not bring himself to answer the 'readiness' question posed by an ABC reporter a fortnight ago. "You can argue", he said, "that no one is really ready to be the President". So much for a ringing endosement.

I think the supporters are just keying in to what the Clintons are implying; the tone is always set at the top.

Regardless of the result, two things are certain about this election. It will be a referendum on Obama, and will be the most dissected balloting ever. 

For the Clintons and their supporters, this will be the the day of reckoning. Unless they give Obama a full-throttled support, the Senator can kiss her chances of a 2012 run goodbye if Obama loses and the former President's legacy will be severly tarnished.

The State of Pakistan

.
Pakistan is emerging as a big headache for the US, more than Georgia in a sense. A recent article by Robert Tracinski, "What to Do About Pakistan", is rather interesting. I have also expressed similar sentiments in by blog article, "Hurry up to embrace India", a few days ago. Before that, I had given my opinion on the "Failing state of Pakistan".