Thursday, January 31, 2008
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
ALIPAC & Mainstream America
Mani at one time pointed me towards this xenophobic website (don't be fooled by the name, these guys are against all immigration, legal and illegal) where self-proclaimed patriots gather to bash immigrants of all stripes and colors. Therefore, it was with some glee that I went into the discussion board tonight to see the acrimony that the McCain win in Florida would have caused.
I was not disappointed.
One poster "USA-born" whose online avatar was a bald eagle head posted:
"I'm sick too [about McCain's win]. I wonder if we're out of step with mainstream America?"
Well, let's see. If mainstream America is composed of borderline - no, scratch that - of racist, xenophobes who are the modern day descendants of the Ku Klux Clan, no, certainly the members of ALIPAC are not out of touch with mainstream America.
What's that? Mainstream America is not composed of bigoted racists? Oh, tough luck "USA-born".
I was not disappointed.
One poster "USA-born" whose online avatar was a bald eagle head posted:
"I'm sick too [about McCain's win]. I wonder if we're out of step with mainstream America?"
Well, let's see. If mainstream America is composed of borderline - no, scratch that - of racist, xenophobes who are the modern day descendants of the Ku Klux Clan, no, certainly the members of ALIPAC are not out of touch with mainstream America.
What's that? Mainstream America is not composed of bigoted racists? Oh, tough luck "USA-born".
Olympic Torch of Repression
Anyone who held fantasy ideas that the arrival of the Olympics, and the attention of the outside world that it brings, into China would somehow make the government less repressive and more tolerant of human rights was sorely mistaken.
On the contrary, China is moving aggressively to stifle even whimpers of protests ahead of the Olympic Games in an attempt to ensure that foreign visitors see a sterilized, "harmonious" society envisioned by the cabal that heads the Communist Party of China. Virtually anyone with the integrity or courage to speak their mind about rampant abuses of political and civil rights are being arrested left and right, akin to sweeping anything that might make your society look less "harmonious" under the carpet.
Perhaps what is most disturbing is that China has moved to repress even persons who are not necessarily voicing political opinions. Hu Jia is one such unfortunate soul. Hu has been detained on and off since 2006 and has been under house arrest along with his family for much of that time. With Hu in police custody again with unsubstantiated and politically motivated charged leveled against him, his wife has been cut off from the internet as well as most human contact.
The ruling junta in Beijing seems to be sparing no effort in squashing any and all signs of protest ahead of the Olympics. The rest of the world, meanwhile, continues to fawn over China and watch as the Chinese people are subject to restrictions that no human beings should have to bear.
Despite all this, the courage of those willing to speak out is remarkable. As Hu Jia once remarked to his mother:
“If I don’t shed blood for the country, who will? If I don’t go to hell, who will?”
On the contrary, China is moving aggressively to stifle even whimpers of protests ahead of the Olympic Games in an attempt to ensure that foreign visitors see a sterilized, "harmonious" society envisioned by the cabal that heads the Communist Party of China. Virtually anyone with the integrity or courage to speak their mind about rampant abuses of political and civil rights are being arrested left and right, akin to sweeping anything that might make your society look less "harmonious" under the carpet.
Perhaps what is most disturbing is that China has moved to repress even persons who are not necessarily voicing political opinions. Hu Jia is one such unfortunate soul. Hu has been detained on and off since 2006 and has been under house arrest along with his family for much of that time. With Hu in police custody again with unsubstantiated and politically motivated charged leveled against him, his wife has been cut off from the internet as well as most human contact.
The ruling junta in Beijing seems to be sparing no effort in squashing any and all signs of protest ahead of the Olympics. The rest of the world, meanwhile, continues to fawn over China and watch as the Chinese people are subject to restrictions that no human beings should have to bear.
Despite all this, the courage of those willing to speak out is remarkable. As Hu Jia once remarked to his mother:
“If I don’t shed blood for the country, who will? If I don’t go to hell, who will?”
Sunday, January 27, 2008
What Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney have in common
So what do Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney have in common? Well, for one thing, they both epitomize sleazy politics and a win-at-any-cost, by hook or by crook mentality when it comes to their candidacies.
I've already shed some light on previous posts of Romney's antics: from promising unemployed workers in Michigan that he'll bring every single job back to shamelessly telling voters that his experience in the private sector (where his main achievement was downsizing jobs) is what this country needs in times of economic crisis.
Hillary is not so different. Despite the fact that the Democratic National Committee has penalized Florida for moving its primary date ahead and that all the candidates had previously promised not to campaign there, Hillary Clinton is now maintaining an active presence in Florida. I guess her rationale is that if she can't beat Obama fair and square in an election where they both compete, she'll just have to win in states where she can monopolize and hope those delegates are enough to send her over the top.
She did the same in Michigan which was similarly penalized, by refusing to take her name off the ballot, despite the fact that both Obama and Edwards had done so. So far, she lost in Iowa, managed to steal a victory in New Hampshire by shedding some crocodile tears before the election, won in Michigan uncontested, managed to steal a narrow victory in Nevada where she falsely accused Obama of supporting Ronald Reagan (when in reality all he had said was that Republicans at one time had ideas, even if he never supported those ideas), and lost by a landslide in South Carolina despite the fact that she and Bill Clinton stooped to levels that I did not think possible of a former President and First Lady.
So I guess her strategy is to win in Florida by being the only Democrat to campaign there and then try to use that win as a feeble attempt to win the Feb 5 primaries in 20+ states. I guess now I know what the Republicans mean when they talk of the "Clinton political machine." Let's hope that her nefarious plot does not succeed.
I've already shed some light on previous posts of Romney's antics: from promising unemployed workers in Michigan that he'll bring every single job back to shamelessly telling voters that his experience in the private sector (where his main achievement was downsizing jobs) is what this country needs in times of economic crisis.
Hillary is not so different. Despite the fact that the Democratic National Committee has penalized Florida for moving its primary date ahead and that all the candidates had previously promised not to campaign there, Hillary Clinton is now maintaining an active presence in Florida. I guess her rationale is that if she can't beat Obama fair and square in an election where they both compete, she'll just have to win in states where she can monopolize and hope those delegates are enough to send her over the top.
She did the same in Michigan which was similarly penalized, by refusing to take her name off the ballot, despite the fact that both Obama and Edwards had done so. So far, she lost in Iowa, managed to steal a victory in New Hampshire by shedding some crocodile tears before the election, won in Michigan uncontested, managed to steal a narrow victory in Nevada where she falsely accused Obama of supporting Ronald Reagan (when in reality all he had said was that Republicans at one time had ideas, even if he never supported those ideas), and lost by a landslide in South Carolina despite the fact that she and Bill Clinton stooped to levels that I did not think possible of a former President and First Lady.
So I guess her strategy is to win in Florida by being the only Democrat to campaign there and then try to use that win as a feeble attempt to win the Feb 5 primaries in 20+ states. I guess now I know what the Republicans mean when they talk of the "Clinton political machine." Let's hope that her nefarious plot does not succeed.
Thursday, January 24, 2008
An Appeal? How Quaint ...
So apparently, the Western "powers" issued an appeal at the World Economic Forum in Davos in an attempt to pressure the Burmese regime to achieve even modest targets such as freeing political prisoners, forget achieving actual change.
I think the word pathetic is an understatement ...
Platitudes are one thing, but the West is clearly not willing to take the strong steps that are required such as boycotting the 2008 Beijing Olympics and installing and tightening existing arms embargoes on China, India, Thailand and other nations that back the Burmese regime.
Instead, we Western "powers" issue appeals ...
Yeah, that's going to work!
I think the word pathetic is an understatement ...
Platitudes are one thing, but the West is clearly not willing to take the strong steps that are required such as boycotting the 2008 Beijing Olympics and installing and tightening existing arms embargoes on China, India, Thailand and other nations that back the Burmese regime.
Instead, we Western "powers" issue appeals ...
Yeah, that's going to work!
Mitt Romney: Universally Hated
Every now and then, there is an article that says exactly what I'm thinking. This is one of those articles.
I told my roommate about a week back that I hated Mitt Romney. She said, "Well, of course you do, you support John McCain". That got me thinking. My dislike for Mitt Romney goes well beyond that of a normal political opponent for someone I support. My dislike for Mitt Romney extends to the core of my very being and it's spurred by everything that Mitt Romney does, which ultimately goes down to his penchant for saying *anything* that could get him elected.
From talking to other people, I know I'm not the only one with such feelings. The surest thing that Republicans can do to put a Democrat in the White House is to nominate Mitt Romney as their candidate.
And if John McCain should not get the Republican nomination, I really hope that Mitt Romney gets it, albeit for very different reasons. It would be nice to fight a general election *against* a Massachusetts flip-flopper this time.
I told my roommate about a week back that I hated Mitt Romney. She said, "Well, of course you do, you support John McCain". That got me thinking. My dislike for Mitt Romney goes well beyond that of a normal political opponent for someone I support. My dislike for Mitt Romney extends to the core of my very being and it's spurred by everything that Mitt Romney does, which ultimately goes down to his penchant for saying *anything* that could get him elected.
From talking to other people, I know I'm not the only one with such feelings. The surest thing that Republicans can do to put a Democrat in the White House is to nominate Mitt Romney as their candidate.
And if John McCain should not get the Republican nomination, I really hope that Mitt Romney gets it, albeit for very different reasons. It would be nice to fight a general election *against* a Massachusetts flip-flopper this time.
Thursday, January 17, 2008
Romney's Oily Pandering Works in Michigan
Almost a month and a half ago, before all this primary madness began, the Economist gave us strong reasons of why we should look at John McCain, reinforcing my impressions from the debates.
It basically cast the difference between the two Republicans leading today as follows:
"His [McCain's] willingness to stick to his guns on divisive subjects such as immigration stands in sharp contrast to Mr Romney's oily pandering."
I love that characterization, not least because it's true. McCain leveled with the people when he said in Grand Rapids last Wednesday:
"I've got to give you some straight talk: Some of the jobs that have left the state of Michigan are not coming back. They are not. And I am sorry to tell you that."
And as McCain pointed out, neither is it the government's responsibility to protect certain segments of the economy from market forces or globalization. McCain said in Livonia:
"It wasn't government's job to protect buggy factories and haberdashers when cars replaced carriages and men stopped wearing hats. But it is government's job to help workers get the education and training they need for the new jobs that will be created by new businesses in this new century."
As a former CEO and venture capitalist well versed in how the free-market economy runs, Mitt Romney knew this. McCain and Romney both know that the best thing that the government can do for unemployed workers is to provide them the skills that they need to compete now and to get back on their feet as soon as possible, not offer them false hope.
Unfortunately, Romney did what he does best, pander. Mitt Romney claimed that "He [McCain] said, you know, some jobs have left Michigan that are never coming back. I disagree. I'm not willing to accept defeat like that."
Romney went further with his pandering. He railed against the new mileage regulations passed by Congress and signed into law by Bush, saying it was akin to an anvil on a drowning industry. Never mind that the Massachusetts flip-flopper had, in his time as Governor, signed into law some of the toughest emissions standards in the country. Never mind that the decline of the American car industry has been because Detroit has refused to increase efficiency while Asian rivals have and now unfortunately workers are paying for the CEOs gross incompetence and neglect.
But perhaps Romney's views on emissions regulations, like his views on abortion and gay rights have "evolved" and as the Economist pointed out, "in a direction that is strikingly convenient - perhaps through intelligent design."
Before the Michigan results came out, a blog post on The New York Times remarked that if Michigan voters selected John McCain's hard truths and rejected Mitt Romney's feel-good pandering, "it may signal that industrial-state voters understand more about modern reality than most of their leaders tend to think."
Unfortunately, that didn't happen. Industrial-state voters continue to cling to vestiges of hope and I can't blame them. I can however blame politicians who are willing to distort the truth and raise false hopes for people who are down on their luck so they can lie, cheat, or steal their way into office. We've already had one such President under George Bush. Do we really need another one in the form of Mitt Romney (I wonder if Mitt Romney makes it to the general election as the Republican nominee, and that's a big if, then will his views intelligently design themselves again to the new group of voters?).
For now, the Mac's looking good in South Carolina. Fortunately, Romney's oily pandering will not work everywhere.
It basically cast the difference between the two Republicans leading today as follows:
"His [McCain's] willingness to stick to his guns on divisive subjects such as immigration stands in sharp contrast to Mr Romney's oily pandering."
I love that characterization, not least because it's true. McCain leveled with the people when he said in Grand Rapids last Wednesday:
"I've got to give you some straight talk: Some of the jobs that have left the state of Michigan are not coming back. They are not. And I am sorry to tell you that."
And as McCain pointed out, neither is it the government's responsibility to protect certain segments of the economy from market forces or globalization. McCain said in Livonia:
"It wasn't government's job to protect buggy factories and haberdashers when cars replaced carriages and men stopped wearing hats. But it is government's job to help workers get the education and training they need for the new jobs that will be created by new businesses in this new century."
As a former CEO and venture capitalist well versed in how the free-market economy runs, Mitt Romney knew this. McCain and Romney both know that the best thing that the government can do for unemployed workers is to provide them the skills that they need to compete now and to get back on their feet as soon as possible, not offer them false hope.
Unfortunately, Romney did what he does best, pander. Mitt Romney claimed that "He [McCain] said, you know, some jobs have left Michigan that are never coming back. I disagree. I'm not willing to accept defeat like that."
Romney went further with his pandering. He railed against the new mileage regulations passed by Congress and signed into law by Bush, saying it was akin to an anvil on a drowning industry. Never mind that the Massachusetts flip-flopper had, in his time as Governor, signed into law some of the toughest emissions standards in the country. Never mind that the decline of the American car industry has been because Detroit has refused to increase efficiency while Asian rivals have and now unfortunately workers are paying for the CEOs gross incompetence and neglect.
But perhaps Romney's views on emissions regulations, like his views on abortion and gay rights have "evolved" and as the Economist pointed out, "in a direction that is strikingly convenient - perhaps through intelligent design."
Before the Michigan results came out, a blog post on The New York Times remarked that if Michigan voters selected John McCain's hard truths and rejected Mitt Romney's feel-good pandering, "it may signal that industrial-state voters understand more about modern reality than most of their leaders tend to think."
Unfortunately, that didn't happen. Industrial-state voters continue to cling to vestiges of hope and I can't blame them. I can however blame politicians who are willing to distort the truth and raise false hopes for people who are down on their luck so they can lie, cheat, or steal their way into office. We've already had one such President under George Bush. Do we really need another one in the form of Mitt Romney (I wonder if Mitt Romney makes it to the general election as the Republican nominee, and that's a big if, then will his views intelligently design themselves again to the new group of voters?).
For now, the Mac's looking good in South Carolina. Fortunately, Romney's oily pandering will not work everywhere.
Friday, January 11, 2008
Daily Kos' Dirty Tricks
Apparently, the Daily Kos is urging Democrats to go and vote for Mitt Romney in the Michigan Republican Primary in an effort to mess with the Republican Presidential struggle.
Is it me or is this a gross and petty distortion of the democratic process? I am sickened by this pathetic move.
Their main arguments in favor of this is:
1) Republicans have done this before, so now it's payback time.
2) "Open primaries are stupid. Should we be meddling in their primary? To be honest, open primaries like this Michigan one are ridiculous. As far as I'm concerned, if someone isn't a Democrat, they shouldn't get to decide my party's nominee. If someone isn't a Republican, they shouldn't get to decide the Republican's nominee. So if this little campaign adds impetus for closing primaries, so much the better. But as long as the law allows crossover voting, there is nothing wrong with picking up the ballot you think best helps YOUR candidate."
I am not even going to waste my time arguing against point #1.
Now, point #2. This is why extremist organizations like Daily Kos are dividing the country. They want to hammer people into groups like Republicans and Democrats and ensure that you always vote party line.
I'm a proud liberal, but there's no one on the Democratic side who interests me. If I want to support McCain, I should have the freedom to forfeit my choice on the Democratic ballot and vote in the Republican primary.
That is one of the great assets of the open primary system. It gives supporters of a candidate, regardless of which party they belong to, a chance to support them through the primary process. To misuse this process is nothing short of spitting on the democratic values this country was founded on.
Let's hope, for the sake of the country, that Daily Kos' despicable dirty tricks campaign doesn't work.
Is it me or is this a gross and petty distortion of the democratic process? I am sickened by this pathetic move.
Their main arguments in favor of this is:
1) Republicans have done this before, so now it's payback time.
2) "Open primaries are stupid. Should we be meddling in their primary? To be honest, open primaries like this Michigan one are ridiculous. As far as I'm concerned, if someone isn't a Democrat, they shouldn't get to decide my party's nominee. If someone isn't a Republican, they shouldn't get to decide the Republican's nominee. So if this little campaign adds impetus for closing primaries, so much the better. But as long as the law allows crossover voting, there is nothing wrong with picking up the ballot you think best helps YOUR candidate."
I am not even going to waste my time arguing against point #1.
Now, point #2. This is why extremist organizations like Daily Kos are dividing the country. They want to hammer people into groups like Republicans and Democrats and ensure that you always vote party line.
I'm a proud liberal, but there's no one on the Democratic side who interests me. If I want to support McCain, I should have the freedom to forfeit my choice on the Democratic ballot and vote in the Republican primary.
That is one of the great assets of the open primary system. It gives supporters of a candidate, regardless of which party they belong to, a chance to support them through the primary process. To misuse this process is nothing short of spitting on the democratic values this country was founded on.
Let's hope, for the sake of the country, that Daily Kos' despicable dirty tricks campaign doesn't work.
Thursday, January 10, 2008
The People's Car & Modern Imperialism
Today, Tata Motors achieved history by unveiling the people's car, a car to be sold in India priced at just 100,000 Rupees (about $2,500).
This car signals a new phase in the automobile revolution because it takes people in developing countries who currently transport their whole families on overloaded scooters and motorcycles and actually gives them an enclosed car where they are afforded some safety.
It is almost a boon from heaven for people like 35-year old Vijay Pawar.
Surely, everyone must be ecstatic at the prospect of people in India, and soon all over the developing world, improving their standards of living? No, not really, the elitist intelligentsia in the U.S., the likes of Tom Friedman of the New York Times introduce us to the latest form of western imperialism.
Tom Friedman proposes that India "tax it (the $2,500 car) like crazy until it has a mass transit system that can give people another cheap mobility option". Surely, the two are not mutually exclusive. Surely, efficient mass transit can be built without condemning people living in lower socio-economic strata to life without a car.
Also, I wonder if Friedman knows that the $2,500 car is powered by a 33-hp engine that provides 50 miles to the gallon or 21.26 kilometers per liter? But what the hell, let's have India tax that car like crazy so that people in rich countries don't have to feel guilty about driving giant SUVs that provide 15 miles to the gallon or 6.37 kilometers to the liter.
Who said western imperialism was dead?
This car signals a new phase in the automobile revolution because it takes people in developing countries who currently transport their whole families on overloaded scooters and motorcycles and actually gives them an enclosed car where they are afforded some safety.
It is almost a boon from heaven for people like 35-year old Vijay Pawar.
Surely, everyone must be ecstatic at the prospect of people in India, and soon all over the developing world, improving their standards of living? No, not really, the elitist intelligentsia in the U.S., the likes of Tom Friedman of the New York Times introduce us to the latest form of western imperialism.
Tom Friedman proposes that India "tax it (the $2,500 car) like crazy until it has a mass transit system that can give people another cheap mobility option". Surely, the two are not mutually exclusive. Surely, efficient mass transit can be built without condemning people living in lower socio-economic strata to life without a car.
Also, I wonder if Friedman knows that the $2,500 car is powered by a 33-hp engine that provides 50 miles to the gallon or 21.26 kilometers per liter? But what the hell, let's have India tax that car like crazy so that people in rich countries don't have to feel guilty about driving giant SUVs that provide 15 miles to the gallon or 6.37 kilometers to the liter.
Who said western imperialism was dead?
Wednesday, January 09, 2008
My Case for John McCain
This is an excellent article in The Economist on why America would do well to elect John McCain as the next President.
The Case for John McCain
Personally, why do I support McCain? I'm going to keep this short but I'm also going to try and convince you why he is right when it comes to the issues. Here are the issues that are of most importance to me, from the most important down.
1. Torture - John McCain, when he appeared on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, drew raucous applause from the audience when he said that if he became President, one of the first things he would do is to shut Guantanamo Bay down. Things such as the existence of the detention facilities at Guantanamo Bay, denial of habeas corpus and due process under the law to those held in our custody, and extraordinary rendition by the CIA detract from America's international image and rip to shreds the Constitution. John McCain has time and again been crystal clear as to where he stands on these issues. Forget other Republicans, with the exception of John Edwards, even none of the Democrats have taken as high a moral position as John McCain on this issue.
2. Iraq War - I've said it before and I'll say it again. I was against the surge. I thought it would cause increased bloodshed, for both American troops and Iraqi civilians. I was wrong. The surge does appear to be working. The Democrats seem to either have missed this or they are pandering to the anti-war fanatics who would have us leave Iraq no matter what, even if we are to leave sectarian genocide in our wake. And these people call themselves liberals and progressives? I can only shake my head in disappointment.
3. Global Warming and the Environment - John McCain is one of the few Republicans who believes the threat that global warming poses and is ready to step up to face the challenge. Even on the Democratic side, the only person who seems more capable is Al Gore and would certainly have gotten my support, the only problem is that he's not running. The rest of the Democrats pay lip service to fighting global warming, but they fail to convince me that they would do more than John McCain on this front. In fact, I'm convinced that Hillary would do less.
I disagree with John McCain's viewpoints on issues such as abortion or gay marriage, as he is anti both. However, I agree with him on the bigger, more important issues and respect the man's integrity enough to give him my support, realizing that we need not agree on all issues. A politician that says what he believes in is rare. A politician that says what he believes in even when it is deeply unpopular is rumored not to exist. John McCain is that politician.
The Case for John McCain
Personally, why do I support McCain? I'm going to keep this short but I'm also going to try and convince you why he is right when it comes to the issues. Here are the issues that are of most importance to me, from the most important down.
1. Torture - John McCain, when he appeared on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, drew raucous applause from the audience when he said that if he became President, one of the first things he would do is to shut Guantanamo Bay down. Things such as the existence of the detention facilities at Guantanamo Bay, denial of habeas corpus and due process under the law to those held in our custody, and extraordinary rendition by the CIA detract from America's international image and rip to shreds the Constitution. John McCain has time and again been crystal clear as to where he stands on these issues. Forget other Republicans, with the exception of John Edwards, even none of the Democrats have taken as high a moral position as John McCain on this issue.
2. Iraq War - I've said it before and I'll say it again. I was against the surge. I thought it would cause increased bloodshed, for both American troops and Iraqi civilians. I was wrong. The surge does appear to be working. The Democrats seem to either have missed this or they are pandering to the anti-war fanatics who would have us leave Iraq no matter what, even if we are to leave sectarian genocide in our wake. And these people call themselves liberals and progressives? I can only shake my head in disappointment.
3. Global Warming and the Environment - John McCain is one of the few Republicans who believes the threat that global warming poses and is ready to step up to face the challenge. Even on the Democratic side, the only person who seems more capable is Al Gore and would certainly have gotten my support, the only problem is that he's not running. The rest of the Democrats pay lip service to fighting global warming, but they fail to convince me that they would do more than John McCain on this front. In fact, I'm convinced that Hillary would do less.
I disagree with John McCain's viewpoints on issues such as abortion or gay marriage, as he is anti both. However, I agree with him on the bigger, more important issues and respect the man's integrity enough to give him my support, realizing that we need not agree on all issues. A politician that says what he believes in is rare. A politician that says what he believes in even when it is deeply unpopular is rumored not to exist. John McCain is that politician.
Is torture torture?
Why do I support John McCain? Watch the following video. Also, not only is Mitt Romney a jack-ass, he is a jack-ass with little regard for either the Constitution of the United States or for international treaties such as the Geneva Conventions or for that matter, basic standards of human decency.
Tuesday, January 08, 2008
Mac is Back
Mac is Back!
Over the past two weeks, my endorsement for President has shifted. Here's my updated endorsement:
1. John McCain
2. John Edwards
3. Barack Obama
Edwards' campaign was going well, but I'm increasingly concerned at what he's recently been saying about Iraq. Much as I was against it, the surge in Iraq does seem to be working, but in an attempt to appeal to the hardcore anti-war fanatics, Edwards seems to be suggesting unconditional retreat and leaving Iraqis at the mercy of sectarian genocide no matter how well we're doing.
Also, Edwards' increasingly protectionist and big government message on issues such as free trade and health care is a bit disconcerting. He pulls at the heart strings on issues such as health-care and the plight of Americans lower down on the socio-economic ladder, but I am nervous about letting government handle everything.
For the general election, I believe the best man to fix George W. Bush's mess is John McCain. He's been right so far on Iraq, he believes in finishing a job once it's started, he'll speak his mind even if something is unpopular and will cost him the election (unlike the Economist's characterization of Mitt Romney's "oily pandering"), he truly believes in America's ideals when it comes to issues such as torture and Guantanamo Bay, and even as a 71-year old, he is far more energetic than many far younger Americans.
On the Democratic side, I am supporting an "anyone-but-Hillary" strategy. She has once again shown how calculating she is by exploiting her gender to the hilt, first by accusing her contenders of "piling on" at the Drexel University debate a few months back and most recently by shedding some crocodile tears (most likely from a planted question) in a pathetic attempt to showcase her "human side".
But for now, my hopes rest with the Mac.
Over the past two weeks, my endorsement for President has shifted. Here's my updated endorsement:
1. John McCain
2. John Edwards
3. Barack Obama
Edwards' campaign was going well, but I'm increasingly concerned at what he's recently been saying about Iraq. Much as I was against it, the surge in Iraq does seem to be working, but in an attempt to appeal to the hardcore anti-war fanatics, Edwards seems to be suggesting unconditional retreat and leaving Iraqis at the mercy of sectarian genocide no matter how well we're doing.
Also, Edwards' increasingly protectionist and big government message on issues such as free trade and health care is a bit disconcerting. He pulls at the heart strings on issues such as health-care and the plight of Americans lower down on the socio-economic ladder, but I am nervous about letting government handle everything.
For the general election, I believe the best man to fix George W. Bush's mess is John McCain. He's been right so far on Iraq, he believes in finishing a job once it's started, he'll speak his mind even if something is unpopular and will cost him the election (unlike the Economist's characterization of Mitt Romney's "oily pandering"), he truly believes in America's ideals when it comes to issues such as torture and Guantanamo Bay, and even as a 71-year old, he is far more energetic than many far younger Americans.
On the Democratic side, I am supporting an "anyone-but-Hillary" strategy. She has once again shown how calculating she is by exploiting her gender to the hilt, first by accusing her contenders of "piling on" at the Drexel University debate a few months back and most recently by shedding some crocodile tears (most likely from a planted question) in a pathetic attempt to showcase her "human side".
But for now, my hopes rest with the Mac.
Tuesday, January 01, 2008
My Trip Back East
Happy New Year everyone! Here are some worthy moments from my trip back east. I left Davis for Philadelphia on Friday, December 28, 2007. I was flying United from Sacramento to Chicago O'Hare connecting to Philadelphia. I had heard plenty of horror stories about United and I was quite apprehensive.
I had a connection time of slightly more than an hour in Chicago O'Hare. Unfortunately, due to snow in Chicago that morning, the flight coming into Sacramento was delayed and we took off from Sacramento over an hour late. We made up some of the time in the air and landed in O'Hare at around 8:40 p.m., about 45 minutes behind schedule. I switched on my cell phone when landed on the runway and immediately received a call from Capstone who was tracking my progress and updated me on my connection status, which was quite helpful, albeit a little creepy.
My scheduled 8:53 p.m. departure to Philadelphia was delayed to 9:00 p.m. and then again to 9:04 p.m. giving me precious minutes to make my connection. Unfortunately, the captain announced that the gate was still occupied and it would take about 10-15 minutes for us to get to the gate. At this point, I gave up my chance of making the connection. I thought it would have made some sense for the flight crew to request all the passengers making connections to get off first while the rest remained seated, but they didn't and I wasn't able to follow Capstone's advice, which was to flag down a flight attendant to request they do that. To further compound my bad luck, I was all the way in the back of the plane.
We got to the gate at about 8:50 p.m., but I only exited the plane at about 8:58 p.m. and made a dash for it. My connecting flight was in the next terminal over. I run across a few gates, down an escalator, on a moving walkway, then along another moving walkway (seeing the crowd on the walkway, I rightfully concluded that it would be faster if I ran alongside it rather than on it), and up an escalator into the next terminal and down a few more gates until I reached B6. Arriving breathless at 9:05 p.m., I noticed the gate door closed. The person at the counter asked me to wait a minute, but nonetheless I piped up and asked him if I had missed my plane to Philadelphia. He asked me if I had a ticket and when I replied in the affirmative, he got me on the plane. There were a number of people like me and by the time we all sat down and pushed off from the gate, it was about 9:20 p.m. Thanks to favorable wind conditions, we reached Philadelphia on schedule. I was almost certain that my luggage would not arrive and neither would I have faulted the ground crew, who had only a half an hour at most to transfer the suitcase.
Not only did my luggage arrive, however, it was one of the first few pieces to roll in on the conveyor belt in Philadelphia. On the whole, I was pleasantly surprised with my United flying experience. Maybe American airline operators are not hopeless, after all. I still would not fly an American carrier on a long-haul route, but my esteem for them has gone up slightly.
So anyway, regarding my trip thus far back east, it has been amazing. I had forgotten what it was like to be in a big city and it was wonderful to be back in Philadelphia over the weekend. I've eaten food so far in Rangoon, had bubble tea in The Bubble House, went to my favorite bar in the world, The New Deck Tavern (where, unlike in Davis, they know what a martini is and can actually make a decent one), had food in Philly Diner as well as amazing Indian food in Iselin, NJ. It's been amazing thus far being back east.
Right now, I'm staying with Mani in Ocean Grove, NJ. Tomorrow, I'll be heading up to my favorite city in the world, New York City where I want to have food in Big Wing Wong Chinese Restaurant in Chinatown and Mandoo Bar in the Korean section in Midtown. On Thursday, I'll be heading back to Philly and am hoping that my favorite food trucks will be open so I can grab lunch. On Friday, we'll be dropping our friend back to Binghamton, NY. I'll be in Philadelphia on Saturday and half of Sunday. This trip has been amazing so far, I just wish it didn't have to end so soon. I miss the east coast!
I had a connection time of slightly more than an hour in Chicago O'Hare. Unfortunately, due to snow in Chicago that morning, the flight coming into Sacramento was delayed and we took off from Sacramento over an hour late. We made up some of the time in the air and landed in O'Hare at around 8:40 p.m., about 45 minutes behind schedule. I switched on my cell phone when landed on the runway and immediately received a call from Capstone who was tracking my progress and updated me on my connection status, which was quite helpful, albeit a little creepy.
My scheduled 8:53 p.m. departure to Philadelphia was delayed to 9:00 p.m. and then again to 9:04 p.m. giving me precious minutes to make my connection. Unfortunately, the captain announced that the gate was still occupied and it would take about 10-15 minutes for us to get to the gate. At this point, I gave up my chance of making the connection. I thought it would have made some sense for the flight crew to request all the passengers making connections to get off first while the rest remained seated, but they didn't and I wasn't able to follow Capstone's advice, which was to flag down a flight attendant to request they do that. To further compound my bad luck, I was all the way in the back of the plane.
We got to the gate at about 8:50 p.m., but I only exited the plane at about 8:58 p.m. and made a dash for it. My connecting flight was in the next terminal over. I run across a few gates, down an escalator, on a moving walkway, then along another moving walkway (seeing the crowd on the walkway, I rightfully concluded that it would be faster if I ran alongside it rather than on it), and up an escalator into the next terminal and down a few more gates until I reached B6. Arriving breathless at 9:05 p.m., I noticed the gate door closed. The person at the counter asked me to wait a minute, but nonetheless I piped up and asked him if I had missed my plane to Philadelphia. He asked me if I had a ticket and when I replied in the affirmative, he got me on the plane. There were a number of people like me and by the time we all sat down and pushed off from the gate, it was about 9:20 p.m. Thanks to favorable wind conditions, we reached Philadelphia on schedule. I was almost certain that my luggage would not arrive and neither would I have faulted the ground crew, who had only a half an hour at most to transfer the suitcase.
Not only did my luggage arrive, however, it was one of the first few pieces to roll in on the conveyor belt in Philadelphia. On the whole, I was pleasantly surprised with my United flying experience. Maybe American airline operators are not hopeless, after all. I still would not fly an American carrier on a long-haul route, but my esteem for them has gone up slightly.
So anyway, regarding my trip thus far back east, it has been amazing. I had forgotten what it was like to be in a big city and it was wonderful to be back in Philadelphia over the weekend. I've eaten food so far in Rangoon, had bubble tea in The Bubble House, went to my favorite bar in the world, The New Deck Tavern (where, unlike in Davis, they know what a martini is and can actually make a decent one), had food in Philly Diner as well as amazing Indian food in Iselin, NJ. It's been amazing thus far being back east.
Right now, I'm staying with Mani in Ocean Grove, NJ. Tomorrow, I'll be heading up to my favorite city in the world, New York City where I want to have food in Big Wing Wong Chinese Restaurant in Chinatown and Mandoo Bar in the Korean section in Midtown. On Thursday, I'll be heading back to Philly and am hoping that my favorite food trucks will be open so I can grab lunch. On Friday, we'll be dropping our friend back to Binghamton, NY. I'll be in Philadelphia on Saturday and half of Sunday. This trip has been amazing so far, I just wish it didn't have to end so soon. I miss the east coast!