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.