Why the Surprise?

We generally like to panic. Human nature. But do we really need to panic with every news we get? Recently, American politics have become a circus- oh wait, they have always been a circus. However, the recent circus has been around the defense bill that would give the military powers to detain US terrorist suspects. The outrage might be rather misplaced. Honestly, if the people have the insights to vote for leaders who are willing to put them into prison, shouldn't they be the ones to blame? On other hand, this is nothing new. After all, Guantanamo has been detaining American citizens for years. So why the outrage?

There is the concern for the American constitution and the implications of such a bill- however, one has to look to the past decades to understand that the American institution has been taking a hit for years now. The last straw might have been the Supreme Court passing a law that would essentially give corporations more rights than people. That was unfortunate. Thus, there should be no outrage for such a bill when it is supposed to protect the Freedoms that have become the reason of American existence. Although one has to wonder- do these freedoms really exist?

This bill should be cause for concern. it should cause outrage. Think of the potential ramifications if the military would go into the streets picking up potential terrorists, and locking them away- without the hope for justice? yet, this will become just a memory soon.

Give this bill a couple of months, and it too shall be forgotten. People are drawn to order rather than justice. Hence, before protesting for the potential implications of such a bill, the people would rather find the peace in the moment. For justice, as they say, will always find you at the most surprising moment- even though it might be too late.

Speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far

A West African Proverb (according to Roosevelt)- well implemented in the US.

It has always been fascinating to outsiders that America’s favorite past-time is watching men wielding big sticks as they hit a very small ball…precisely meant to infiltrate the opposite team and destruct them as the man runs for a home-run. Yes, baseball is a rather dull game, made exciting by the beer, peanuts, hotdogs, and the chant of “Take me out to the ball game”.

A big stick…meant to make a ball go far. But enough of baseball.

Roosevelt made the big stick theory popular off course. However, over the years, this theory, has been the making of American policy, specifically, foreign policy. _Until recently when Obama took power, the general principle for American rather narrow glorified exceptionalism, was to talk of democracy while simultaneously employing regimes that destroyed societies. Double-standard- basic operating procedures US Policy- it is not just a recent phenomenon.

Roosevelt would be the one to say:

“A just war is in the long run far better for a man’s soul than the most prosperous peace”

-then he will go on to be known best for his extension of the Monroe doctrine as he believed that he had the right to intervene to "stabilize" the economic affairs of small states in the Caribbean and Central America- None of these countries thanked him kindly.

He would be quoted saying “Peace is generally good in itself, but it is never the highest good unless it comes as the handmaiden of righteousness; and it becomes a very evil thing if it serves merely as a mask for cowardice and sloth, or as an instrument to further the ends of despotism or anarchy”

-the truth however is that to epitomize on his big stick theory, the Roosevelt Corollary an explicit or maybe even implicit threat to the very states that supposedly were to be protected, as the government muscled to obtain concessions and privileges for American corporations.

He would again be quoted saying, “I abhor unjust war. I abhor injustice and bullying by the strong at the expense of the weak, whether among nations or individuals, I abhor violence and bloodshed. But it takes strength to put a stop to abhorrent things”-

- and to that, we only have to think of the canal diplomacy. I am sure Nicaragua and Panama are thankful for that. Right?

The big stick theory- or rather, the whole idea of the “man with the big stick” is an ideology that can only be implemented once- and the US has gotten the license already, and did a few test-runs on that. The concern is that, the rest of the world is trying to follow suit. The whole idea of Realpolitik and the Machiavelli ideals fall short of humanity. There is a reason why Machiavellianism is closely related to narcissism and

The Iran Issue

Is Iran really a threat to the US? Killing their scientists in 2010 was not such a smart idea- although neither Mossad or the CIA will make statements as to their guilt. It does not help the issue when the country is tittering on a revolution. Now there are Iranians who are both pissed off at their government, and the US/Israel as well. So who wants to predict the future of this predicament? Sooner or later Iran will come around but maybe they should stop killing their people to build a greater society-their history is one that is complex and intriguing at best. The Iranian government is not innocent and no excuses can be made to for their actions. However the US and its allies are not innocent either. They should also stop bullying the country around, because it does no good. Maybe they should learn that you don’t piss off a madman and then expect them to act according to your wishes.

Between the US and the UK there is enough bad blood to justify the anger of Iran and it's people. The plunders of the 1900s did not make for good diplomacy in the part of the Britons-especially the 1918 bloodbath. The US and UK absolute siding with Iraq in the Iraq-Iran was not a great way to bridge the already increasing gap between the west and Iran. Don’t forget the Iran-contra affair. Then there is the embargo and the nuclear energy fumbles. Then off course there is the Israel issue-lets not forget, it is Israel that has nuclear capabilities, and since Iran is not a suicidal rampage, it might be time to regroup for NATO. All in all, the Western allies cannot claim innocence in the disastrous policies concerning Iran.

What happened to making policy based on long-term ramifications? Usually not investing in human capital is a bad idea. And such are the mistakes made by international policy makers and even the countries themselves. Investing in people instead of weapons is a smart investment. If the US is so concerned about the Iranians, Lebanese, Syrians and the Palestinians, where is the justice them? Obviously Iran posses no treat to the US- H.Clinton and even Chirac have pointed out just as much. Even on the basic level of nuclear capability Iran could work as a deterrent for the Israelis, for next time they decide that they can attack Lebanon, Syria or Gaza, they might have to think twice. Clearly, the Israelis would prefer not to have to look over their shoulder at what Tehran might contemplate doing in the way of retaliation- hence their staunch allies in the US puff and huff about a dangerous Iran. Obviously Iran is doing little in assuring the peace of its people, yet, pissing of the leaders is not the interest of anyone least of all the Iranians themselves.

What if the US Constitution was flexible?

I have a godbrother whom I love very much. He is an annoying little twerp, but like my very many brothers and sisters (blood or adopted), he has been an integral part of my political thinking. He is a Jew, non-practicing, and I am a Christian. I would call myself Pro-Israel, for I am never pro any country. I do love its people but like many other governments, its politics disgust me. I am skeptical and would rather hope that Palestine will be free someday.
My brother is a 16 year old who has grown too fast, and has learned quality music like the Beatles and BB King. In one of our daily squabs, we have started on the constitution. i can always excuse him for not having read the whole document- he is in HS after-all. But he has bought into the whole American-exceptionalism and the menace of the idealism of manifest destiny. However, he is advocating for a flexible constitution. His argument? Things have changed! Apparently, the "founding" fathers could not possibly imagine a world where there were bombs, nuclear weapons, the internent, and spies. I couldn't get past a word to let him know that in those times, all these dangers, maybe with an exception of the nuclear war, were all a possibility or in existince, albeit on a smaller scale.
So I had to wonder if he was not onto something. What would it mean if the US constitution could be flexible? One of the most fundamental values of the US is the Constitution. In fact, it can be said that it is what holds this country together. It is what lawmakers boast about, the platform for many political debates, and the tool for justifying a lot of actions by the government and its people. The constitution is the fundamental brick, in the making and sustaining of this nation. Therefore, arguably, if the constitution was to be flexible, so would this country. The national debate would not be on the Federal government becoming bigger, it would be bigger. The states, well, one can only imagine that with all these states co-habitating under one umbrella, there are those that would have like to sucede. The price to pay for a flexible constitution is chaos. From the preamble, to the last sentence of the constitution, the laws that established this country have seen it come this far. But by all things comparable, the country is still young-Europe is much more like a good, bitter aged wine that takes a lot of getting used to. However, guaranteeing freedom of the people, and establishing the checks and balance system, the constitution has assured that the people have a louder voice in politics than those in the government, and that there can be some form of separation of powers in government that makes it essential in managing the very many facets fo the American system.
Things have changed, and there are things like the second amendment that could use some refining, but to make the US contitution flexible would be disastrous, as the government could claim the power they want, without the censorship of any law. There could also be a Bush dynasty in the making....Think about that. The arguments for a bigger government is just not pertinent. Even with Obama's efforts of a health care upheaval, the country is no where near becoming a socialist government. Even France at its best is not worst off for being a social democracy.

OBAMA GOT OSAMA "but where is the Justice?"

This title is attributed to my boss. This morning, he came in the office chanting that, and it stuck with me.
Obama got Osama and then fed him to the fish-unlike Jonah and the whale, he won't be spit out alive.
So we have heard the news...Osama Bin Laden was killed in the compound that he was "hiding" in. Now let us use the word "hiding" lightly, for the man was surely not hiding in such open air. Ask the Pakistanis, they would tell you all about it.

Now, back to the real issue. Bin Laden is dead. So where is the victory? And what Justice?
Let me preface this by saying that in the Nairobi Bombing, I lost friends and my father nearly died. So why don't I feel justified, or rather victorious? Oh wait, I know why- this is not justice. and sadly no victory either. You see justice includes having a man face his crimes, and the decision is made not by a gun, but by word of mouth. Justice has to be considered by three components: Punishment, reparations, and the right to truth.- none of which is what happened to Osama. What justice have the victims received? and what about the war that is still going on in Afghanistan? Where is their justice?

A flashmob at Ground Zero is -well- touching. I used to work there, so I can imagine how great it would have felt to see the jubilation. Lets be clear- Obama has just won his second term. Polically, this is a huge victory. But what are we celebrating? The lives of Americans lost in what was essentially a war against a man who lived in a cave? the Lives of Afghanis lost in this warped sense of retribution? The now bleak future of the people of Afghanistan who live in a shadow government? Or are we celebrating the victory of Halliburton in protecting its assets? Please tell me, for that American whose dollars have been misused-what exactly are you celebrating? Feel free to correct me if I am wrong here.

Whose death are you celebrating? The real problem is still out there. Osama Bin Laden was a general- but of the worst kind. He was a monster. Much like we can attribute lunacy to Qaddafi.
Osama bin Laden was much human, and very much led by his ego—he was a leader after all. He was really if you think about it, like those of us who have never thought of going to war- or confronted others from the opposite fence. Osama bin Laden was an aristocrat warrior- think of the princes of Persia. Or you just study the aristocrats of old. He loved to be photographed alongside his rifles- but did he really use them? But like a highly decorated general, he spent his life sending others to battle without discrimination- men, women, even children to die. He killed Muslims as easily as the rest of the others(infidels). A very sad comparison-but he learned how to use religion to his defense, and the West kept giving him all the ammunition he needed. he killed Muslims as freely as he killed the rest of us—infidels.

So what victory? Please remember, Osama Bin Laden was no martyr. Those who are fighting are still alive. For all his madness- he was smart. Never forget that. Unfortunately, you can't say the same about those around him.- He might be dead, but the terrors he surfaced are still alive.

Is it Freedom?

Freedom....and what is supposedly stands for.

"Freedom" has become an American cliche. You could shout in opposition, however, in lieu of Sarah Palin, John Stewart, Ann Coulter and fellow political pundits there is much to be said about Freedom. I believe in freedom, infact I advocate for it. But you've even heard from spiderman, "with great power comes great responsibiliyt", Freedom is powerful. However, freedom without the responsibility runs to chaos. The freedom rant has become the norm in American political discourse. It is become lame, really, because people and leaders mostly, shout about the word, yet, lose its meaning in the process.
Freedom is freedom if all parties act responsibly. A while back, after the shooting in Arizona, I was first of all shocked, but also blamed Sarah Palin. It is not her fault really, but she can take responsibility with the rest of inciters who have a lot speech, and tongue without thought. You cannot put cross hairs into political discussion and tell people to reload and attack without thinking that someone somewhere out there is crazy, and you might be giving them the right ammunition to act.As much as we would like to think that we can do whatever we want-we really can't. Our actions affect others, directly or indirectly, and most importantly, our words affect others. Everyday we speak out curses and blessings. We say words that we take for granted while cursing others along the way. Be careful of what you say, for words have power. Be careful of what you do, for you are not an island to yourself.
My dislike for Sarah Palin was not really helped by her statement of the day of the funeral. The woman for all her appearance lacks class, and maybe for all her education and practice might lack some brains. Her speech was tactless at best. It might be harsh for me to call her out on responsibility of the actions taken by the mad-man/druggie, but I believe that she lost her chance to be seen as a leader.She is responsible because she labeled herself a leader. It could have been anyone else, Obama, Pelosi etc, and if they had incited words of violence, they would be responsible.
Unlike the common belief "Words are NOT cheap!" If she is truly a Christian, then she should read carefully where it talks about being careful of our thoughts and words.
She has no problem comparing women to animals, and calling for an up in arms battle...and then using words that would mean a historical wounds to those who were short i.e Gifford(happens to Jewish). "Blood libel" might come to CLOSE to what people are doing, but that is not what they are doing. There is a difference there. and I think Jews should be offended. They have been attacked throughout history that they don't need a brainless speech to remind them that they were once targets of madmen. Other than that...she missed her opportunity to be seen as a leader. because she chose a most sensitive day, and time, to sprout her ignorance. If history has taught us anything, well, is it that we fight the same battles over and over again. We just hope that the second time or the third round, we do better. However, we use usually forget to learn the lessons, and we repeat the same mistakes. Such is the discourse of the political arena of the world.

Political pundits/commentators are great. However, that we need to start acting more responsibly towards those who might be caring enough to listen. Freedom is nothing if we do not practice it with a grain of salt. One might have the freedom to walk naked, but that doesn't mean one should walk naked. One might have the freedom to carry a gun and shoot, but, first, thats stupid and second, jail awaits. our actions of freedom or in the name of freedom have consequences. They always have, and will always do. Newspapers can publish what they want, but there will be reaction to the actions, its quiet simple really. Freedom is great. But there are consequences, negative or positive.

Were they to tell you the truth, you wouldn't vote for them...

Why do politicians lie? Are politicians as callous, power hungry and self-absorbed as they are often portrayed? Often politicians find themselves in a position that they have to be deceptive in order to get bills or budgets passed. But really whose fault is it? The citizens? The politicians? Or both? The reality of it is that, if politicians were to tell the truth, no one would vote for them-hence the tension. The public demands results, and politicians are expected to deliver these results otherwise they are not expected to stay elected for long. This is compounded a few times over, when money is involved.

Ideally, budget should reflect the values and priorities of the people who are represented. Budgets are taken as a contract that is a moral document resembling, and representing the values of every individual in the family, community, state or nation. For a politician, who is to decide what these collective values are, it is no easy task. To take an example from recent events, the Affordable Care Act signed into law on March 2010, by President Barack Obama has generated a lot of tension among the public and the Obama administration. This battle continues to be partisan and even the democrats who were in support of this bill are distancing themselves from what they believed as a good investment for the American people. This is particularly true for those who are seeking re-election. It seems that the public has “conveniently” forgot that the passing of the bill was a result of the public’s demand for better and affordable healthcare over the years. Before he was elected, Obama had clearly stated that there would be healthcare reform, and the public seemed to be in accordance on the much-needed reform. However, when he presented the bill with the projected $1.6 trillion cost, the public was in an uproar. What the public saw or heard was that their taxes will be much higher, and that it might take up to 10 years for the benefits of the reform to be reaped. Two things are underplayed. First, the public forgets that they played a key role in having the bill passed. They had a chance to speak to their representatives in congress, and they were given a platform where they could speak out and ask questions regarding the law. There were negotiations between the different parties, and the different interest groups. Earmarks were added, and subtracted, and in the end, it was agreed upon, being a fraction of the bill that had originally been proposed. Second, what the public does not hear or understand is that the costs are projected over the next ten years. Even though Obama gave the public what they wanted, he is facing criticism and public distrust based on the people’s projection of the cost of the bill and a feeling that their money is being misused.

Public budgeting gives a window of analysis on the role that both politicians and those they represent play in the overall political outcomes that are projected in the local, state and national politics. The budget process has rigid constraints enforced by those who pay and the multiple actors with differing goals. Furthermore, the process expresses the current environment, and ultimately attempts to resolve the tension generated by the separation of those who pay from those who make the decisions. The process of budgeting can be determined as a cause and effect whereby the public’s aversion to loss provides a platform where politicians either deliver or they are replaced. Ultimately, the public wants money spent well because where people spend their money reflects on what they value. This becomes complicated when the money is on a state or national level where the budget is to reflect on the collective values of those being represented.

When the President invites you to the White House, You GO!

The GOP makes democracy and diplomacy difficult. The recent snub of the president's invitation to the white house was a childish display. Remember in HS when the kids thought that because they could get away, they became disruptive in class, and blatantly disrespectful? Well think of that scenario in a larger context.
One has to wonder, what was the GOP trying to prove? That they are stupid? ignorant? scared? or all three? Albeit democrats are no better with democracy, but they are a bit better with diplomacy.
Remember the Republican summit? you have to...cause Obama kicked the GOP's Butt big time. However, HE SHOWED UP! The GOP summoned the president to their little house, and he knew that political etiquette required him to at least show up, even know the environment was more than hostile.- He ended up kicking their butts anyways.
Were they scared that he would show up again, and intellectually beat them at their own game? One can only assume.
At the end of the day, the president offered an olive branch which was thrown back in his face.
It was direspectful, and unnecessary. It is so disappointing to watch grown men act like they are still in their diapers. America needs leaders, not children, so if the GOP is going to make the changes that they balk in mics across the country, then they need to STEP UP! The first step is to recognize that respect is an essential trait in politics...and the POTUS is not their play toy. For that, they need to look no farther than Sarah Palin.

Will the Tea Party Deliver?

It has been weeks since my last post but today, the mystery of the whole tea party is finally getting me to think about it.
I visited their website the other day. Very impressive. They have a great mission statement. In fact, it is so great that I am wondering why I have not joined the bandwagon. They want:
-fiscal responsibility
- a small gvt
- free markets
Not too much to ask right? but the problem is that, none of these items are defined. You can want, but if it is not realistic, then you are just a dreamer.
My question is: How are all those goals to be achieved? you can tell me what we need, but how are we going to get there? They are telling the public what they want to hear. At this time, it can be safely assumed that A LOT of Americans want a small gvt (because they think they can do better), they want some fiscal responsibility ( WHO DOESN"T), and off course free markets ( as the rich get richer). YES, off course this is going to appeal to people. Then you add loonies like Glen Beck and the whole " Plan for America" or "Contract for America" ( they really need to pick a name for it)- and you've got a pretty good package- maybe even better than the economic recovery or even the health care Bill (-rather doubt it though)
But really, with all this....WHERE IS THE VISION? how are we going to get from "big" gvt to small gvt? and attaining fiscal responsibility.....YEA RIGHT!
Better yet, can these tea partiers really lead? I mean seriously? What makes them so different? Being a Conservative Christians ( Would someone please define this for me!), or a libertarian is not a qualification for being a leader. Nor is being a war hero- (just ask McCain). If Palin and her gang goes to Washington, are we really expecting for them to do better?

Does it not make sense that politicians are liars and all crooks? just look in the past. Even George Washington was no saint. Basically, if I was running for office, I would sell you the best speech, using a language so hypnotizing that by the time I get into office, you won't know what hit you. And off course, I lied. But you elected me!
The tea party leaders are either some political super heroes, or we are buying into another rhetoric that we disappoint and destroy. It is easy to say "I WILL..." without having the problems of governance on your shoulders.

Can we please go back to the basics? or maybe, Corporations are the problem and not the gvt. Especially if the Supreme Court has given them the power to buy out politicians. The lobbyists, the earmarks added on bills...the negotiations....the buy outs and the dirty politics-those are the problems. Tax breaks for the poor is not a problem, it is a solution for those who are really poor. maybe, going to the root of the problem might be the issue of order, instead of creating a maddening party. Maybe the people are the problem. Blaming gvt, and wanting, wand wanting even more, does nothing if change does not come from inside out. and gvt, is the out....so find the change within first.

U.N. MDG Summit Begins; UNAIDS Data Shows 22 African Countries See Drop In New HIV Infections - Kaiser Global Health

U.N. MDG Summit Begins; UNAIDS Data Shows 22 African Countries See Drop In New HIV Infections - Kaiser Global Health

Its about time. But there is still a lot of work to be done. For now, we can celebrate.

The Tale of a religious Center

Are people afraid of Islam? and if so- why?
Are they afraid of Muslims? and if so why?
If Muslims are evil (as many signs and people indicate) then who is good?
A religious center NEAR ground Zero- now there is an overdue process.
Obviously, by the reaction of many its seems that there is a lot of healing to occur. Maybe people would like to think that the whole acceptance of other peoples is true, and occurring, but as things stand, apparently not.
For the same reason that some of the society has lied to themselves into thinking that they are over the whole "black" issue with Obama in power, are the same who claim to be tolerant, and accepting of others, while they hide behind their insecurities.
Should it be clarified that the Imam of the proposed religious center is not asking people to become Muslims, rather, he wants a center of worship that is granted to him by the constitution.
What is the use of a constitution that one takes pride in, if they pay attention to only part of it?
Food for thought.

Iran and WMDs!

The recent issue of the Atlantic , the talk has been Iran and the nuclear war. Off course the first thought that comes to mind is "Abandon SHIP....Abandon!" Sadly there is really no where to run to after the abandoning. The world is a mess, even the soap operas can't seem to catch up. Tres Sad.
More importantly and scary is the question of a nuclear Iran. Questions rise- will Israel finally bomb Iran? If they do, where are they going to stop to refuel? Saudi Arabia? Iraq? Jordan?
Lately, it is Iran in the hot waters. Before Iraq was it! Now that the US is a bit wishy washy about being on the band wagon to bomb Iran, Israel might be alone on the bombing.
But there is an oversight on the leaders part. While you can certainly depend on the idiocy of Iran leadership, you can also be sure they are not stupid. Idiocy and stupidity might be in the same class, but the two are not synonymous at times. They can be mutually exclusive.
The leaders idiocy is in their lack of perception in what the future potentially holds. Ahmadinejad has a view of magnanimity that only belongs to lunatics. ( For all he had done and said, he will join leaders like Mugabe, and Quadafi). For a leader to think that he can threaten a country that has the protection of the US, and its allies- that borders to lunacy. In one word, the future of Iran and its people could be : BOOM!
However, it cannot be assumed that they are stupid. Ahmadinejad and Khomeini are not going to keep antagonizing the West thinking that there are no consequences. Having WMDs is not going to help Iran eliminate its enemies. The only thing to come out of this is probably the MDD which seem to have had some valuable results. If Iran uses their weapons, then there is a lot of BOOM that is going to be going around, and Iran is not going to be the only victim.
There is also the fact that a couple of the WMDs are pointed at Iran. So Ahmadinejad is not goint to jump head first into the idea of bombing Israel, without considering the idea there are other countries that have more WMDs including Israel, and they are waiting to launch them the minute that Iran goes crazy. Considering all this, even Khomeini in his supreme power will think twice before bombing any country.

Is there hope for politics: better days to come?

Ah...NOPE. The public is lazy and refuse to think for themselves, leaving it to corrupt "leaders". So no, there are not better days, unless the public acts and makes better decisions. Oh yea, and not letting Ann Coulter, Jon Stewart, Rush Limbaugh and the likes think for them. You probably shouldn't let Sarah Palin think for you either. The woman can see Russia from Alaska, but she is vicious in her lack on insight- unless women have started liking to being likened to vicious animals.
The politicians are feeding on the public's paranoia. and enjoying being dubious.
There is nothing worse than spending your time with people who are paranoid. Eventually, you find yourself walking down the street, back and forth making sure that a guy with a silencer is not following you-Even though you know you are not carrying anything that could potentially be of any help to anyone. Talk of your sense of grandeur! I mean, what is worse that having conspiracy theories all around? that is not to say that there are no conspiracies, for goodness sake, the CIA lives on conspiracy theories.
There are people who are paranoid everywhere, but it is not helped that the same people bring that paranoia on themselves. Case in point, look at the recent elected officials in congress.
We all wish that things could be better, but wishing is not going to produce results. Really, NOT! How do you expect for things to get better when you continuously elect people who are continuously making bad decisions? Its like the Wisconsin Budget case where the elected officials thought that increasing spending and cutting taxes would help their case. Okay, does that sound stupid to someone else, or just this particular author?
Is there hope for politics? Probably, but that will take a massive action that is not foreseen. The public is lazy. Thinking for themselves is too hard. So they let an "elite" few who lie to them with talks of hope and "restoring America".
The future of politics and all the good that COULD be accomplished is in the hands of the people. NO----I am not talking about a revolution ( not the armed kind anyways-thats just stupid). The public needs to make wiser decisions. Start thinking for themselves, and maybe just maybe, things might get better. You can't expect things to change while you keep voting in the same idiots.

Christians Blindly dislike them, Israel Kills them: The Plight for the Palestinians

Thanks Pat Robertson! He has definitely made a big contribution to society. He might one day want to answer as to why Palestinians do not deserve to live in the land that they had occupied for generations and generations. As if the Palestinians have not had enough. Christians have come to hate them, all because they think that the Bible orders them t0- maybe we missed that particular passage that tells those (who are not even Jews, to hate people they've never met.)- Again, thanks Pat.

Let us seriously consider their situation. In the last couple of weeks, Israel has just been working hard oppressing the settlements, and basically being the terror nation that everyone else excluding the US, thinks of the country. It is easy to call up on Hamas and their "awful" actions, but have we really looked at the issue closer, or have we let- as always-the media, and the US foreign policy makers, cloud our judgment?

You see, it is easy to speak of African colonization, because there is proof that actually, the Europeans came killed and plundered, and then left the continent almost bare. Not so with the Palestinians, they were at first silent victims, and when they spoke they were terrorists. But think about, they have been silently, oppressed, crushed down, and almost destroyed. Off course this is no excuse for Hamas and their terror activities. They are guilty of killings, but Israel to shoulder the blame for that. Even Ehud Barak, a prominent Israeli Politician, admitted that if he had been born a Palestinian, Hamas would have had his vote and participation.

Isn't time we really revisited this whole question of Palestine and Israel. Let us not kid ourselves- Israel is not a Jewish nation. Religion plays little in this. Yes, we sympathize, and some of us empathize as we have gone through horrible, tragic episodes, but it is time that this silent genocide came to an end. Or maybe, even made the headlines. Why are we permitting the circle of oppression to continue? Where is the plight for the palestinians. Whether Palestinians and Israelis like it or not- if they want to go to religious extent- they are blood brothers.

When the Oppressed Become the Oppressors

I saw this trailer, and I had to see the documentary. People speak of Justice as if it is like a gallon of milk that you can go to the store and buy, but daily, I am reminded that this is not the case. Justice might be served on cold plates, but there seem to be a really messed up idea of what Justice is to be.
The documentary above explores the blunders of Mugabe, as blacks were given land that was inhabited by the white farmers. It was to this injustice that the movie addresses.
Sadly, this is just one of several instances Paulo Freire's words become a reality. The oppressed become the oppressors, all they need is the opportunity and the right motive. Mugabe and the white farmers, Israeli and palestine, are just a few instances of this. However, a documentary like this reminds one that there is always more to the story than the simplicity of hate begetting hate.

The World went to Africa, and the Big Powers were shamed

Who said that the World Cup had nothing to do with politics? Which is probably why there are political figures in their suits watching the games, and making bets on the games. Or why the French team is screwed, and Nigeria, well Nigeria is Nigeria.
Football is a national metaphor. It might not be the case for the US, but everywhere else, football is serious business. It is embedded in political and national pride.
Otherwise, Sarkozy would not be calling Henry in his office to explain France's despicable actions. Or the Coach being fired, and their national Football association president being fired. Or Nigeria would not be under the thumb of FIFA's scrutiny if they were not just banning a "mediocre" team out of international Competition. The whole African continent would not be so excited to see the US beaten by their own. And by that, I mean the very same people who would not be able to point out Accra, let alone Ghana on the African map.

However, this will be the world cup which will be remembered as the time that superpowers returned to Africa, and they were quickly kicked out. What a joke. First France- Niger, Chad,Mali, Morocco, Algeria, senegal, Cote d'ivoire and togo might have rejoiced a little bit too much. to see that exit. Off course, there were some who said good riddance to England. Although the poor lads were tired, and half of their team with some serious injuries. Italy, well, Africa has nothing against Italy, unless we count their prejudices against blacks (unless someone has an explanation for why Balotelli was not part of the team.) Well, then the US is gone- defeated by Ghana, two times, two consecutive world cups. And off course, there is all the analogies of the French leaving, the English staying to fight the Germans, and off course, the US shows up late, in the hope that they will really pull a magic bullet and save the day. Except miracles rarely happen on a world stage.

So now we are left with Germany. and that is the one Country that has politically been held as a threat. yes, politics and football are not usually mutually exclusive. at times these two entities are very much connected. At times, the football side is much stronger, which is why, Nigeria and France are threatened by the idea of being entirely banned out of the federation.- and rightly so. If the players cannot be protected by FIFA, there would be much more instances of Escobar, only the governments will be doing much of the lynching.

Obama Did What?

Why is it news that Big corporations have power, and have a strong level of control over government?
I would also like to know what Obama has done that is beyond what other politicians have not been able to accomplish..

Politics is a dirty business. I mean, seriously dirty. But it is just there are those few good ones, and those are ruined by the many who are dirty. It is hard to appreciate a field that I respect when everyday, there is something wrong with those who participate in that field.

Find the right catch phrase, and you are on the way to Capital Hill

Tonight I had an amusing conversation with my god-brother. For 15 years, he has so much insights. So if adult conversation fails, I am lucky to have a sharp minded that is willing to engage me-albeit reluctantly at times.
Like me, he seems to be tired of politics. And I can only hope for his sake that things will get better, because if I am tired of politics now, and he is also tired of them at his age..by the time he is 30, things might be ugly. (knock on wood) but lets hope there is no third world war.

Anyways, the conversation trailed to what it takes to be a politician. For Obama it was "we need change"- change we can believe in. That was it! Americans were sold. Then there is the word " maverick" for McCain, although he never really fully defined what it meant to be a maverick. It was even less of a pretty word when Sarah Palin was using it twenty times. Maybe just a bit annoying with the whole Change we can believe in. - Did anyone stop to think that maybe change is a slow process that would take more than one Obama to fix the mess of decades and decades of idle leadership?

What is the next phrase? Off shore drilling?
So if you have aspirations to be a politicians, its quiet easy. Learn the weaknesses of the people, and feed them empty promises, with one brilliant phrase- and you will have the world at your feet. (unless you are in Africa, in which case, you need to have a whole army protecting you if you were to live for more than two months)

Independece is such a pretty word

In a recent article by the NY Times, they featured Senegal's celebration of their independence 50 years later. The 50-year celebration is to be observed by all of France's former colonies. The bizarre news of all this is that well, the real celebrations are not taking place in Africa, but in France. "Leaders from Senegal, Mali, Niger, Ivory Coast, Benin, Togo, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Mauritania, Gabon, Republic of Congo, Central African Republic, Chad and Madagascar have all been invited to Paris to parade their troops along the Champs-Elysées on Bastille Day, the national holiday of their ex-colonial ruler." (Times)
Well, that is to say that still, it is not really about these African countries. France will be on the spotlight.

In the next four or so years, several other African countries will be following suit in celebrating a whole 50 years of independence. Countries like Senegal, in building a huge statue bronze, wish to bring about pan-Africanism or the wished African Renaissance. However, since Africa is free in word and not in deed, I wonder why they are spending good-earned money on frivolities that will end up in dust. The last fifty years have given little to celebrate about. Africa has been the epicenter of wars, famine, pestilences, and some very very bad leadership. The African is no better off than he was under the colonial rulers. The land is not his own, the food he produces is not enough to give him income, and the leaders he trusts to look out for his interests steal whatever little is left and puts it in an off-shore account. This is not to mention international players including governments that are in pretense of caring only to depress that African even more. And don't forget the corporations who use him as means of cheap labor. - yet, he is INDEPENDENT. ( There must be some other meaning of independence other than being able to navigate freely etc).

Indeed, other than being alive, and having been well endowed with complex nature and beauty, the African has little to celebrate as far as independence goes. -maybe being a live is enough reason to celebrate?- It it not a total catastrophe off course. There are things to be admired (otherwise, it would be rather depressing). There are cities that have been modernized and they seem to be working with some sort of efficiency. This is to say that it is not all gloom, but for the 90% that is rather dark, there needs to be solutions. Sadly, while it would be entertainingly pissy to blame all of Africa's problems on international players and the African leaders, the people are also to blame. It might be time to realize that Africa is not a monarchy, nor a family business. Africans have to take a stand, for the AU has miserably failed them. If the African man is to have something to celebrate about, it will be up to him make that happen.

Death of a State: Congo and its continued downward Spiral

From Freedom to History: White King, Red Rubber, Black Death

No title is more appropriate to describe the atrocities that took place in the Congo. The documentary is disturbing, and the facts shocking. It has been an accepted fact that King Leopold and the Belgians milked the Congo, and left a trail of dead bodies as the reward for all the hardships that the Congolese went through. What was not understood was the extent of the atrocities.

King Leopold convinced European powers that they had nothing to worry about when he acquired Congo. They believed Leopold’s statements of benevolence and to the end, he saw his actions as a way of bringing civilization to Africa. However, history tells of a different story. King Leopold, after fifty attempts finally got the Congo and it became his personal fief at the cost of the hands of the Africans. He used a garrison of soldiers some of them African, to enforce laws that would fill his treasury with money. The film clearly shows how the people of the Congo were King Leopold’s personal slaves. They were forced to work in harvesting rubber, and if they failed to meet the required minimum harvest, they were killed, their wives were raped, and their right hands cut off. These particular methods seemed to work as King Leopold became richer, as the natives died senseless, and were hacked into pieces. For these crimes, Leopold was never put to trial; the Congolese people never received retribution, as Belgium became richer as they became poorer.

Death to Democracy: The Assassination of Lumumba

Congo received Independence, and the world rejoice. The reign of Belgium was over, and the Congolese could look forward to a hopeful future. What they and their upcoming leader, Patrice Lumumba, did not realize was that Belgium and the rest of the super powers were not done with the country yet. Africans might have done the actual killing of Lumumba, but we know different. Lumumba had died the moment he refused to adhere to the ideals of the West. Lumumba’s crime was being too African and wanting change for his fellow citizens. His crime was not choosing to align with the US and Belgium, and to that he signed his death warrant.

Patrice Lumumba was assassinated, buried, exhumed, hacked into pieces, and then burned to un-recognition. What is disturbing is that those who did the killing, not only go on record, but they show no remorse for killing a leader that had been chosen by the people of the Congo. The Western powers chose a different leader who was much more eager to become their puppet, and after the “disappearance” of Lumumba, Mobutu became the new leader. As history shows, Mobutu stole from his people, repressed the Congolese economy and then eventually left the country to live in “exile” Could have things been better with Lumumba in power? We will never know, as that opportunity was taken away from us.