Is India a model of a responsible power for not escalating Mumbai attacks into a War with Pakistan in the day of American/ Russian/ Israeli style unilateral military aggression Or Is India just a spineless directionless soft target??
Last months attacks in Mumbai are being termed as India's 9/11 by the World and even Indian Media and all of a sudden government is all worked up setting up new agencies.
So what are all these.. diwali crackers??
Is it because the wealthy and foreigners got killed? Would the attacks be called the same if they just attacked the VT/ CST station. I bet not. How cheap is the life of an average Indian?
And stop this war posturing and stop blaming Pak for everthing. They can't protect their land from their own... and as it is evident so clearly, so can't we. Stop the Naxals, Stop the ULFA, Stop the SIMI, Indian Mujahidin and the likes, Stop the rioting mobs, Stop the police inaction and corruption, Stop the vote bank politics. Then, we can point fingers.
The Oil prices are high and there are no signs of slowing down. An global demand is not going down anytime soon.
New solar and wind power technolgoies have years to go before they get affordable and mature. Battery technology and Hydrogen fuel cell cars are still in budding stages to be adopted on a mass scale. It would probably take atleast 50 years to significantly displace the existing energy sources with these Greener ones
We have to try working with the current technologies we have while continue exploring new frontiers and adapt to them. There is an urgent need in short term for energy to continue to be competitve in this globalized world.
There is a need to diversify the portfolio of energy sources and have a right mix to decrease the dependency on the foriegn oil.
I do not understand why for every step in that direction, there is huge resistance in this country.
Produce more oil with offshore drilling in US?? NO. Oil Spills.
Produce more power with more nuclear plants?? NO. Nuclear Waste.
Produce more Ethanol/ Bio Fuel?? NO. Food Security/ Unethical.
Yes, we need to move towards cleaner and greener energy sources. But you need to have the Economic strength to be able to make that bold change. It does cost significant amounts of money to turn green. There is absolute need for a practical and affordable path to get there. And that would come only with Economic strength. And Energy security is a must.
A collection of the irrational unfair and sexist comments from many TV commentators on Hillary that has got nothing to do with her positions or her politics.
Strangely none of them has raised much of controversy. We are truly imbibed with sexism.
http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/05/25/special-comment-for-keith-olbermann/
I know, I know!! I thought I would keep myself out of it.
I was wondering why Hillary is still in the race while the complicated democratic delegate math makes it next to impossible for her to win the nominee. Dig deeper, there is more sense to it. There are number of ways Hillary could hypothetically win the delegate math.
Lets consider, winner takes all delegates for a state, like the Republican Math. No super delegates here -
After PA, Hillary leads Obama by a healthy margin
Appx. 1560 vs 1260 not including Florida and Michigan.
Appx. 1735 vs 1260 including Florida. (No Michigan)
Wow!! that's a big lead.
Now lets forget about Republican math and work out General Elections math which probably makes more sense -
After PA, Hillary leads Obama
251 - 197 not including Florida and Michigan
278 - 197 including Florida (No Michigan)
She'd already be president ;)
If we discount the states which held caucuses which obviously do not reflect the popular vote. Remember Texas, where Clinton won the primary by 5% but lost Caucuses square and out by more than 15%. Barack leads Clinton 69 to 5 in electoral college votes for Caucus states, which could have gone either way -
Then, Hillary's electoral college lead in the states that held the primaries -
256 - 128 with out FL
273 - 128 with FL
There is more than one reason for Hillary to stay in the race. :)
I am sure they are presenting the super delegates with this kind of Math. If they are not already doing that, they should. But to atleast make a case, I think the popular Vote is something that she must probably win. Obama leads by 1.4% including Florida before PA results are counted. 422K more votes in hard numbers.
These are calculations from my own spreadsheet with data from different sources. So there are approximations. Hmmmm, don't I have anything better to do?
Look at the players - Microsoft, Google, Yahoo, News Corp's MySpace, Time Warner's AOL.
It all started Google's unstoppable growth in Web advertizing at the expense of others. Despite of numerous high quality efforts by Microsoft, Yahoo and others, there is no stopping the Google's march. So MS cannot see itself fighting Google on its own on the web, wants to buy Yahoo in the hope that 2 is better than 1. Yahoo then tried to run away from MS to court News Corp to maintain its independence. News Corp didn't see itself able to compete MS offer and tried to join MicroSoft in the deal. MS see no benefit bringing in News Corp when it can have Yahoo all for its own. Yahoo doesn't want to have anything to do with MS, tries to tag in with AOL and its even prepared to work with the player that is responsible for all its problems, i.e. Google to keep itself independent.
It'll be interesting to see how this game ends. To me, it doesn't look like any of the outcomes would even come close to challenging Google's domination on the web advertizing. You can't beat an innovating market leader at its own game. MS should have known it from its Zune experience. Xbox experience has got more to do with Sony's bigger plan to push BluRay.
MS, instead of buying Yahoo to play Google over the web, should take the game to a different battle field - In-Game advertizing for Xbox, Contextual Advertizing for Television with IPTV, In-car advertizing with Sync or other GPS and what not. If it doesn't make its moves on other fronts faster than it is doing now, it'll be too late.
Yahoo, there is no syngergy to go with MS or AOL or even NewsCorp. It'll be another business deal that would result in different degrees of failure. For Yahoo the game should be to be independent and work with everyone. Be the media company it always supposed to be. Delivering the content and services to its user community whether they are on the web or tivo or mobile or gps or facebook or myspace. Be the no.1 destination and monetize the traffic as best as you can.
Google is at the top of this game with majority of the marketers in its fold. Just sit tight and make no mistakes.
No matter whom I support and how hard Clinton tries, Obama is going to be the Democratic nominee. So its probably better not to lose mind over whats happening. In the end, all this discussion is inconsequential.
Just sit back and enjoy the circus.
Is India becoming a playground for the intolerant? The evidence is mounting that it is. Jodhaa Akbar cannot be screened in Rajasthan because some Rajputs have taken umbrage at the heroine's name. Sania Mirza has court cases slapped against her for resting her foot too close to a national flag; Richard Gere for resting his lips too close to Shilpa Shetty's. Viking Penguin has been served a legal notice because Jaishree Misra's historical novel on the Rani of Jhansi actually treats her as a human being. Our most famous living artist, M F Husain, is living in exile because he fears harassment if he returns to his own country — at an age where he should be able to live with love and honour in his homeland. An exhibition in Chennai on Aurangzeb is shut down after protests by Muslims claiming it misrepresents the mediaeval emperor. Taslima Nasreen, a persecuted author to whom India had given asylum, has now fled the country, her peace of mind and health broken by the relentless hounding of fundamentalist Muslims and the cravenness of both the West Bengal and Indian governments.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Time_to_stand_up_for_a_tolerant_society/articleshow/2890122.cms
I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy. For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely – just as I’m sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.
Ok, you knew that your mentor made Anti-White remarks that can be considered 'controversial'. (I assume based on the context). What did Obama do to 'Change' his attitude and make him 'Hope' for a future without racism. Did you make an effort to bring in 'Change' in his attitude. What is your reaction, just disagreement?? Like many of US?? You are not one of us - you are running for president. If you cannot 'Change' the attitude and the mind set of a person who is closest to you, What 'Change' can you bring in to the entire nation?
Transcript: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/18/us/politics/18text-obama.htm
Yes... media will sing praises on his speech and those who support Obama would claim it to be the singpe most important speech on race post civil rights movement. I've already seen head lines that use words like bold, unconventional, daring, unique etc... This carefully crafted speech does nothing to change the status quo. He explained in pages and pages how we have come to this point. He says he condemn Wright's speech but went on to subtly explain why he would give such a speech. And explained why White's have resentments against the Black community and that they are born from the circumstances. Renestment doesn't mean racism. That appplies to both sides. And this speech is supposed to be about racism and not resentment.
Everyone knows there are resentments on either side. And that all races need to work towards the 'perfect union'. Ok. Whats new. This is what any person who wants to talk diplomatic about the race situation in USA would say. Any politician who is looking for votes would say the same thing. Those words suddenly do not gain weight just because they are spoke by a black politician.
I expected him to talk about the harsh realities and what needs to be done. I expected him to talk straight and condemn wright in all its content and intent. If we keep looking back at the History, how can the 'Change' happen. I expected him to strongly warn all the commentators and political pandits to stop bringing race into the picture. I expected him to tell Blacks that it is time to stop blaming whites for every problem they face and ask them to stop cry 'racist' even at the harmless comments on race (bill clinton, ferrero etc). A small town racist in Alabama is not responsible for the murders in Oakland. I expected him to inspire Blacks to get rid of the hiphop bitch and ho culture and the guns on the street culture. America is providing equal opportunity to anyone who has the will to succeed. I hoped he would raise the need for that will power. I expected him to pursue young blacks to stop looking at the past and work towards a bright future. I expected him to address the root cause of the poverty in black neighbourhoods and layout a plan to wipe out the economic disparities.
Hmmm.. Not This Time. All we got is another politically motivated and extremely calculated speech. And in all possibilties he is going to be praised by all with out question. And his speech would likely inspire (sic) many more votes from the 'American Idol' nation.
I preferred Clinton over Obama based on the debates and other speeches from the initial primaries. I felt Clinton was more informed in what she was talking about and I thought having Bill Clinton on her side would be a great asset. We'd have a great 'buy 1 get 1 free' offer.
Obama while a good orator, I did not think his speeches were inspirational. For, I did not think he was strong in the content. I did not understand from the speeches what 'Change' he wants to see and how he is going to bring that change. It felt like KCR of TRS saying that splitting AP into two states would magically solve all the problems of Telangana. Obama did not come across well when talking issues and answering questions in the debate. He was dodging questions and wavering around while giving answers to straight forward questions. More importantly, I could not see an accomplishment of his that stands out to convince me that he is capable of changing America. Its like making a mid level manager, the CEO of a multi billion dollar company. He might be good at what he does, but that would not make him qualify to the most important job in the world. I guess, Americans are ready for any one after George Bush.
While he talks about Hope and Change, I felt that he is also a seasoned politician not unlike Clinton trying to get to the white house. He said he was going to bring in new kind of politics, but it is for all to see in the past few days he is anothe feather from the same bird. His politics did not last half the campaign. He was an underdog, and media loves underdogs. He is not any more and we can see Media already having a field day. And Wrights and Rezkos cases are only the start.
I always hear from the media that Clinton is divisive and polarizing. Having been in America only from 2002, I did not have much idea about the Bill Clintons' time that gave her an image of a polarizing figure. While I think they are not rational, I can see why people have uncomfortable feelings about her. And I see that people want to wipe out the slate clean and start afresh with this new guy. Which I felt is an escapist mind set. Truly, I am more impressed with Dr. Ron Paul and his message. He truly reflects change. But America is not ready for the Change he wants to bring in.
Between Hillary and Barack how ever, I'd any day go for more knowedgeable, tried and tested Hillary. She has the will, the strength and the skills to get the America back on the track that veered off in Bush's administration. Obama is a smart politician who like Clinton, benefitted because of his historic candidacy, but he is not ready for the job. My guess is Obama would become Democratic candiate but would be defeated by McCain in November.
Update:
Add Texas and Wyoming Caucuses for Obama. Its 14 out of 15, And the one clinton lead was in American Samoa 2 delegates to 1. It more or less a unanimous sweep for Obama. Whats troubling is, if you take texas where primaries and caucuses were both held on the same day with same electorate, Obama while trailing in the Primaries by a good 4%, leadin the caucuses by atleast 15%. Thats a huge disparity!!
That leads to the question - are caucuses democratic and do they represent the public choice?? Remember, there are no caucuses in the general election. We would never know what would have happened if primaries were held in those 15 states instead of caucuses given the Results in TX. Definetely something to think about for democrats at the convention. I am sure Clinton will bring that up late in the game.
Obama lead the delegate count in 12 of the 13 democratic Caucuses held. With 262 delegates vs Clinton's 135, i.e two thirds majority.
After reading the article in NYTimes on how Caucuses are held, it looks like Clinton is not too far behind Obama in popularity as it appears to be.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/14/opinion/14collins.htm
When Hillary uses generic phrases like 'fired up! ready to go', Everyone unanimously shouts that she picked up the line from Obama. She is not even allowed to say she is for 'Change', for 'Change' is owned by Obama.
Now it turns out that the speeches of Obama are taken in form and content, from Mass Gov. Deval Patrick 's election speeches in more than one instance and were never credited publicly until caught. More over, Obama dismisses it as a non issue. No one in the Media points a finger. Sure, they discuss. They discuss on how Clinton is trying to attack Obama.
I am surprised! In a country where copying and plagiarizing without credit is considered very menial in a very over the top way, Obama escapes unscathed.
Change we are looking for!
The way Media works -
When Clinton says something about Obama or his policies.. Headlines scream 'Clinton Attacks Obama...'
When the reverse happens... they softly read 'Obama Targets Clinton...'
Can we call it bias??
Posts
All Comments
