Desicritics Category: Politics: US

Sarah Palin Resigns: Aims to Run for President in 2012

temporal — Fri, 3 Jul 2009 16:26:04 EDT

photo NYT

Alaska Governor Sarah Palin is set to resign this Friday. She would be handing over the reins to Lt. Gov. Sean Parnell. He would be sworn in on July 25.

This long speculated and anticipated announcement was made by Sarah Palin in presence of her husband Todd and other family members at her home in Wasilla, Alaska.

Mitchell Blumnethal, of NYT, quotes her saying, This decision came after much consideration,” Ms. Palin told reporters gathered at her home, and added, “I really don’t want to disappoint anyone with this announcement.”

Here is her full statement to the press:

“People who know me know that besides faith and family, nothing’s more important to me than our beloved Alaska,” said Governor Palin. “Serving her people is the greatest honor I could imagine. I am determined to take the right path for Alaska even though it is not the easiest path,” said Governor Palin after the announcement. “Once I decided not to run for re-election, I also felt that to embrace the conventional ‘Lame Duck’ status in this particular climate would just be another dose of ‘politics as usual,’ something I campaigned against and will always oppose. It is my duty to always protect our great state. With that in mind, my family and I determined that it is best to make a difference this summer, and I am willing to change things, so that this administration, with its positive agenda, its accomplishments, and its successful road to an incredible future, can continue without interruption and with great administrative and legislative success. I look forward to helping others – to fight for our state and our country, and campaign for those who believe in smaller government, free enterprise, strong national security, support for our troops, and energy Independence.” [link]

She would be the second Governor to resign to seek the Presidential nomination. Last month Gov. Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota, also considered a leading Republican candidate announced that would not seek re election.

While her Conservative base would be pleased by her decision, it does not bode well for the process of electioneering in the US.

Already, the pundits have been decrying the long and expensive process that culminates in the Presidential campaign.

US Troops Withdraw From Key Iraqi Cities

DeeptiA — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 07:59:37 EDT

Most people now recognize the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 to have been a mistake, given that it had negative consequences in a variety of different areas (we'll talk about that later). The invasion led to Iraq becoming a magnet for Islamic fighters from all over, unleashed the sectarian divisions that had been brutally suppressed by Saddam Hussein, led to horrific casualties among the population in the fighting that followed, and scared the neighboring countries (other than Iran), since it led to a Sunni ruled state becoming a Shia ruled state. It also put the United States in a position which was deemed comparable to Vietnam in the sense that mere military might did not lead to a winning position, and dealt huge blows to the armed forces of the US (to both the regular army and to the National Guard).

The issue about getting the army back from Iraq played a major role in the last Presidential campaign, and there is a lot of pressure on Obama to bring back the military; with majority public support being to bring back the army. For many years, it was unclear as to what the timeline for this would be ! However, in the last year or so, the US finally managed to get the right alliances (including with the Sunni minority, elements of which would have been fighting the American forces just a few months back). It was only this reduction of violence, along with fledging steps taken by the Iraqi army and police force (another self-created problem - the initial US head of the Provisional Authority had dissolved the Iraqi army as a contaminated Baathist organization without making any contingency plans). The situation in Iraq now, although not as secure as the US would have liked to see in an ideal world, is enough that the US is able to do the major symbolic action of withdrawing its forces from 6 major Iraqi cities (link to article):

US troops are withdrawing from towns and cities in Iraq, six years after the invasion, having formally handed over security duties to new Iraqi forces. A public holiday - National Sovereignty Day - has been declared, and the capital, Baghdad, threw a giant party to mark the eve of the changeover. US-led combat operations are due to end by September 2010, with all troops gone from Iraq by the end of 2011.

Some 131,000 US troops remain in Iraq, including 12 combat brigades, and the total is not expected to drop below 128,000 until after the Iraqi national election next January. The US Ambassador to Iraq, Christopher Hill, said there would be no major reduction in forces until next year but the pullback was a "milestone".

The current Iraqi Government is treating the event as a major watershed in its regaining total control of Iraq, since the presence of US troops in the cities ensured that the Iraqi Government could not take many steps that they would have liked (such as when the Government wanted to apply pressure on Sunni sections in the cities, they had to face some resistance from the US army). With the general elections also due in the next few months, the Iraqi Government is sure to use the opportunity to claim this withdrawal as a victory.

However, the withdrawal does not really reduce the number of troops in the country, and many of the problems that Iraq faces are still there:
1. Security remains a problem
2. Simmering tension between the Sunni and Shia factions remains in place, increased by the impending elections and signs of fraud
3. The army and police are still not upto the required level of training, and not free from factional bias

After Cairo, Will Obama Back Up His Words With Actions?

Vinod Joseph — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 03:30:13 EDT

There has never been any doubt that Obama is a good speaker and Obama’s Cairo Speech has only reaffirmed what everyone knew, that Obama is a master of rhetoric and linguistic finesse. With the exception of Churchill’s Blood, Sweat, Toil and Tears speech, I can’t think of any other address by any politician in the last hundred years that was so eagerly anticipated and which lived up to its promise. Yes, Kennedy’s Ich Bin Ein Berliner is equally important and memorable, but that was a one-liner and it is always easy to get a one-liner right, though Armstrong did goof up with his.Obama’s speech confirms a clean break with past US policy on the Middle East, especially in light of his predecessor George Bush’s track record. Obama has made it clear that he does not think all Muslims are terrorists or that Islamic culture is not something to be despised or treated with contempt. It is only a small minority of Muslims who are extremists and Obama is very happy to do business with the rest, provided they are willing to meet with him halfway. To do all this, Obama did not hesitate to refer to his own Islamic background or to praise past Islamic contributions to art, architecture etc. Obama also promised to fight crude stereotypes of Islam and demanded that Muslim reciprocate in equal measure. Can it be said that Obama spoke for all Americans? Can it be assumed that a majority of Americans are as appreciative of Islam as Obama is? I am not too sure of that, though it is clear than most Americans do want to make a fresh start.

A few times, Obama went a bit overboard in his speech, but I don’t think many people have noticed, though a few obviously did. For example, he said that the first nation to recognize the US was Morocco by signing the Treaty of Tripoli in 1796. What Obama failed to say what that Morocco was not an independent state and that the treaty was signed with the Pasha of Morocco who owed allegiance to the Ottoman Empire. Along with the other two Barbary nations Tunisia and Algeria, Morocco was officially in the business of piracy.Ships sailing in the Mediterranean or the Atlantic would be attacked by Barbary corsairs unless they were protected by a strong navy or had paid protection money to the Moroccans. After the US became independent in 1783, it no longer had the protection of the British navy and signed the treaty of Morocco under which it paid a large sum of money to the Pasha so that ships flying the American flag would not be attacked. A few years later, the Pasha wanted more money and there was a brief war between the United States and Morocco, following which a second treaty was signed. Whichever one of Obama’s speech writers thought this one up ought to be shot! In my opinion, the first nation to recognise the United States was Great Britain which, at the end of the War of Independence, signed the Treaty of Paris in 1783 under which the right to independence of the thirteen states that initially formed the United States of America was recognised.

Obama also said that America was founded upon the ideal that all are created equal. As far as I know, the founding fathers of America believed that all rich white land owning men are equal.

Obama said that he wanted to create a nuclear weapons free world where no nation would have nuclear weapons and all nations, even Iran, would be able to use nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. Splendid thoughts, but I just don’t see the US or any other nuclear power giving up its weapons. I though the best bit of Obama’s speech came when he talked of US involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq. And the worst bit, for me at least, was when he talked about Israel and Palestine. Obama rightly acknowledged US ties to Israel and the sheer horror and brutality of the holocaust. However he had me confused when he said,

‘On the other hand, it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people - Muslims and Christians - have suffered in pursuit of a homeland. For more than sixty years they have endured the pain of dislocation. Many wait in refugee camps in the West Bank, Gaza, and neighbouring lands for a life of peace and security that they have never been able to lead. They endure the daily humiliations - large and small - that come with occupation. So let there be no doubt: the situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable. America will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own.’

For me the way Obama used the phrase ‘pursuit of a homeland’ is worrying. You see, the Palestinians had a homeland before the Jews returned and it was the Jewish pursuit of a homeland (in my opinion, perfectly justified in principle, but executed with so many blemishes) that has caused so much misery to the Palestinians.

Further some of the Palestinian suffering is the Palestinians’ own fault. But I just couldn’t figure out where Obama stood on all this. To me, it sounded as if he was trying to make a set of very safe statements without offending anybody. Obama wants a Palestinian state and wants the building Israeli settlements to stop. Hurray! Very few people (like Libyan President Gaddafi) still believe in a one-state solution and I didn’t really expect Obama to do so. Obama doesn’t like violence (which he says is wrong) and he reminds Palestinians that all over the world, deprived and downtrodden people have won their rights through non-violence. Does the US have the moral right to make this statement when it is involved in so much fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan? I don’t think so.

Mind you, I am not saying the US shouldn’t be in Afghanistan, only that Obama shouldn’t be sanctimonious and preach about non-violence. From the time Israel won the six-day war in 1967, during which time Lyndon B. Johnson was the US President, the US had taken the stand that Israel should stop building settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Except during George W. Bush’s time, when the US was silent on Israeli settlements in the West Bank, US policy in this regard has not changed since 1967. The US has also always supported the idea of a Palestinian state. Bill Clinton (when he was President) actually went further than Obama did in Cairo and demanded that the Arab parts of Jerusalem (the Eastern bits) be under Palestinian control.

Obama on the other hand was silent on the fate of Jerusalem, , except to say that he wanted Jerusalem to be a secure and lasting home for Jews and Christians and Muslims, which doesn’t convey much. I would like to know if Obama believes Israel is entitled to the whole of Jerusalem. Or would Obama like to see East Jerusalem as a part of the independent Palestinian State?If Obama were a doer and not just a talker, this is what he would do to force Israel to give up the occupied territories. Military and financial aid to Israel would be sharply reduced.

No, I would not advocate a total cut since Israel does face many serious security threats and yes, it is in a very hostile neighbourhood. Hamas and Hizbollah would be recognised as legitimate political entities and treated with some degree of respect. Political parties in Israel which support the cause of an independent Palestinian state – I mean a fully-functioning state with its own armed forces and the right and ability to defend itself, not what Benyamin Netanyahu has in mind – will be patted on the back whilst the fundamentalists like Lieberman will be given short shrift. And all along, the US will keep reiterating the demand for an independent Palestinian state consisting of the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem. Yes, East Jerusalem should be part of the independent Palestinian state.I am not too sure if Obama will do all or, even a part of, what I have mentioned above. The reason I don’t have much confidence in Obama is that I see him as a man unwilling to offend any one. And the Palestinian dispute cannot be solved unless the United States is willing to step on many a toe and twist many an arm. Why do I say that Obama is unwilling to offend anybody?

Look at Obama’s response to a totally different, but equally serious issue facing the United States. Yes, I am referring to the healthcare crisis. Unlike Canada and all countries in Western Europe, America does not have nationalised healthcare. In the US, healthcare is provided by private institutions and it is very expensive. Buying health insurance cover is a very common practice and most employers provide their employees with insurance cover. However, almost fifteen percent or forty seven million Americans do not have health insurance. Addressing this issue was a cornerstone of Obama’s election-time pledge to reform and change America. And how does Obama address this issue? Does he want to create a country-wide, healthcare system akin to the British NHS funded by the taxpayer? No. Is Obama going to introduce legislation that will cap the total compensation payable in medical negligence cases? No, even though such a move would drastically reduce the cost of health care insurance. Does Obama have any plans to reform tort litigation in the US? No. The US is the world’s most litigious society.

Unlike in the UK, plaintiffs in the US have an easy ride. Contingency fee arrangements are very common and attorneys will take on a case for no fees on the understanding that a big chunk of any compensation awarded will go to them. Contingency fee arrangements are totally illegal in India and are permitted only in certain limited circumstances in the UK. Further, even if a plaintiff loses a case which was proved to be frivolous, US courts rarely order the plaintiff to pay the defendant’s costs. In the UK, it is not only common for a losing party to pay a substantial part of the winner costs, on filing a suit, a plaintiff is usually asked to provide security for the defendant’s costs that would be payable if the plaintiff were to lose.

So, how does Obama propose to reform healthcare in the US? By introducing a government-run health care insurance plan that will apparently compete with private insurance plans. There is no guarantee that a government run plan will lower costs. “A Rasmussen Reports poll found that only 32 percent of Americans believed a government-run insurance plan would, lower costs.” There is actually a very good chance that such a plan might turn out to be as expensive as private ones. It is very rare for any government in the world to successfully compete with private operators, even if it doesn’t intend to make a profit. In other words Obama does not want to seriously offend insurance companies or doctors or tort litigation attorneys who make a killing out of the present system.

If Obama is unwilling to say ‘Boo’ in the face of powerful insurance companies, will he say ‘Boo’ to Israel? Very, very, unlikely.

The Palin-Letterman Skirmish & A "Biased" Media

Aditi Nadkarni — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 22:16:16 EDT

Sarah Palin is not going away. Television channels seem to lap her up because lets face it, there is some perverse fun in watching someone make a fool of themselves on TV. It's like watching a celebrity edition of America's Funniest Videos. Add to the mix, David Letterman and now we have Democrats and Republicans fighting over stand-up-comedy instead of the usual tragedies like economic strife or terrorist attacks. Now in addition to Rush Limbaugh, Judge Sotomayor and Newt Gingrich, we have Letterman and Palin as the subjects of heated debates between the forever warring right and left.

People of my generation grew up knowing that ninety percent of Letterman's jokes were crass. I mean, come on now, that man does the quintessential dirty old man look, cackling and sticking his tongue up in the gap between his teeth. Didn't we know his humor was tasteless? Over the years, everybody from our very own Aishwarya Rai to the prison-returned Paris Hilton, have been at the receiving end of his jokes. According to Palin, now at 62, Letterman has finally crossed the line when he made a joke which she insists was about her 14 year old daughter Willow but Letterman claims was about the 18 year old Bristol Palin. The joke was meant to be on Elliot Spitzer and Alex Rodriguez but the reference to a Palin girl seems to have cost Letterman his few cheap laughs. Somewhere in New York, perhaps a Tonight show writer joined the growing unemployment statistic.

All in all, we lost out on what could have been an absorbing discussion about a gas pipeline in Alaska which is what Governor Palin supposedly came on TV to speak about in the first place. She ended up calling Matt Lauer naive for believing Letterman's lame excuse about his joke. What's with people insulting Lauer? First Tom Cruise and now Palin. Where in the world is Matt Lauer's retort? Interestingly, this whole Tonight Show row has an innocent, pale, redheaded victim: Conan O'Brien. It is so unfair that my favorite night show host might lose out on ratings because Palin wants air time; either that or people will recognize that Letterman's humor is too crude for anybody's taste and move to NBC for their nightly entertainment.

The whole charade has made for some very interesting television and media moments. Stooping to the levels of stand up comedy routines, Palin's spokesperson suggested that Letterman should not be allowed near teenage girls. When the otherwise sensible Matt Lauer asked Palin if this comment itself was in bad taste, she with some very awkward sounding sentences refused to clarify if they were in fact insinuating that Letterman was a child molester. After expressing her support for, umm, "flight attendants" she also added that Letterman's joke trivialized statutory rape (because that is what statutory rapists are doing, watching Letterman before they go after a teen when in fact they should in fact be watching NBC's To Catch A Predator). Palin wants Letterman to "apologize to young women across the country" (who let's hope are in bed by the time his show comes on or at the very least have better taste in television programs). She also claims that young girls in the country have low self esteeem because of such jokes.

Fox News wants "feminists" to stand up against Letterman but were noticeably quiet some years ago when another young woman's self-esteem was in jeopardy. Remember those comments made by John McCain and a few other noted Republicans about how "ugly" a teen Chelsea Clinton was? What about the "ape rape" joke made famous during last year's elections. No apologies for those? Well, so much for accusations of a "biased media". Looks like the biases cancel each other out.

But as Palin appears on various morning shows, makes it to the headlines day after day, and does not seem to slink away into the backdrop with her new wardrobe like everyone had hoped, I wonder if the GOP is wishing she would do what she does best: stay in Alaska and keep an eye on Russia.

Racially Motivated Shooting at US Holocaust Museum

smallsquirrel — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 14:39:50 EDT

According to multiple sources, a man armed with a shotgun entered the US Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington D.C this afternoon. The suspect opened fire and struck a security guard at the museum before being shot and wounded by other security guards at the scene. The Washington Post is reporting that the suspect, James W. vonBrunn, who is now hospitalized with life-threatening injuries, has strong ties to white supremacist groups.

The gunman was identified by several news agencies as James W. von Brunn, a man in his late 80s. According to a Web site maintained by Mr. von Brunn, he embraces a far-reaching conspiracy theory involving Jews, blacks and other minority groups. Early reports indicated that he lives in eastern Maryland. NYT

The injured guard has also been hospitalized with serious injuries. A third person was also involved, but apparently only with minor injuries.

This kind of incident is completely unheard of in Washington DC. While the city itself is known for issues surrounding violence, those incidents generally do not happen in tourist centers.

Obama's Speech in Cairo - Reactions on the Ground

Kim — Sun, 7 Jun 2009 20:00:41 EDT

I wanted to write about it the moment I started to hear Barack Obama speak in Cairo, but life has an irritating habit of getting in the way. What is normal after such interference by life, is that I shelve the idea. But this particular event is just too important to be lightly tossed aside in my "expired" folder.

The fact that a US President would be visiting a "Muslim Majority" Country before Israel, was in itself a huge departure in recent practice. There was speculation as to where he would speak from. Options ranged from Al Azhar Mosque (which I personally think would have been an excellent, yet impractical location) to Sharm el Sheikh. He settled on Cairo University.

The whole city of Cairo virtually came to a standstill on June 4th. Rumors abounded of 10,000+ snipers, 20,000 troops coming in on their own helicopters from the US and other such fantastic numbers were bandied about.

Passes to the event were carefully distributed by the American Embassy from what I gathered, to ensure an appropriate balance of profiles. 15 students from each major university were invited.

The Government declared a holiday for all its offices. A lot of Universities postponed exams to cope with this extra holiday. A number of private companies too decided to give employees the day off, fearing that they may be stuck in one of the road clearance drives. People who had parked their cars in certain areas along the route, were told to remove them the day before the President was due to arrive. (Now if we can only get similar celebrities to visit different parts of Cairo each day, we may be able to get those broken down heaps that masquerade as cars, that take up precious parking space to get towed away - How's that as a long term solution to Cairo's parking woes?)

But I digress. Coming back to the speech.

It was absolutely brilliant. There was no fault that an unvested interest could find in that speech except perhaps for him mis-pronouncing hijab and Al Azhar. But given the content and message, those are errors that can be easily overlooked.

The greatest strength of his speech was that he identified with his audience on a personal level. Compared to his predecessor whose speech writers made assume a superior and supercilious tone, Obama came across as "one of us". He drew attention to his Indonesian and Chicago life experiences amongst Nuslim communities.

He gave them praise where it was due, for their innovations in printing, algebra, architecture and then came to his main point. That he would fight negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they may appear. A statement that was greeted with loud applause, that almost died down with his following sentence "But the same principle should apply to Muslim stereotypes of America" This did not seem to be what the crowd wanted to hear. Until then, Obama had seemed to be a cheerleader for the Muslim world, but this statement showed that he wasn't going to unilaterally support the Muslim world. There was going to have to be some give and take.

Once the audience reconciled themselves to this idea, things improved again.

I will not get into the rest of the content of his speech, as it has been discussed ad nauseum on multiple fora.

It was a wonderful bit of speech writing to include references from the Torah, the Bible and the Quran. When he said "Jerusalem - is a place for all the children of Abraham to mingle peacefully", I had goosebumps and I know many Americans who have made Egypt their home, who were moved to tears by this sentence.

His body language was firm yet conveyed his openness to change. He came across as determined while engaging the public through eye contact and clear speech. Again, notable when compared with the last guy to hold his post.

He changed the terminology from the aggressive posturing of the previous government to one based on mutual understanding and dialogue. Instead of general nonsensical terms like "War on terror", he firmly stated that "America is not at War with Islam"

Another firm departure from previous policy was when he clearly stated "America does not presume to know what is best for everyone" If he can follow through on this and not have American Foreign policy and their idea of Democracy being stuffed down the throats of unwilling citizens of countries that aren't ready for the American idea of Democracy, it will go a long way in building bridges that had seemed burned and irrepairable a year ago.

The speech was transmitted live on Facebook and was texted as sms in English, Arabic, Farsi and Urdu. Thus upholding his campaign strategies of involving the younger generations by utilizing media more familiar and accessible to them. It has also been uploaded onto YouTube.

The reaction to his speech by most locals that I know, has been "Let's wait and watch" "We want to see actions, not words" This guy is talking about change in policy, so maybe we can stop suspecting the littlest sneeze. But to start trusting the Americans, we need to see concrete proof. We need to see steps being taken in the right direction. Words will not be enough.

It is undeniable that the US has a large role to play in World Politics. We can only hope and pray that instead of mindless wars and Nuclear arms races, we can at least have dialogue and hope for a future of peace.

In Obama's words,

"All of us share this world for but a brief moment in time. The question is whether we spend that time focused on what pushes us apart, or whether we commit ourselves to an effort - a sustained effort - to find common ground, to focus on the future we seek for our children, and to respect the dignity of all human beings"

Out of Many, One: E Pluribus Unum

Desh — Fri, 5 Jun 2009 08:38:41 EDT

It is telling and indeed intriguing that three religions, coming from the same root have such deep-seated animosities. Even though all the three religions acknowledge half a dozen protagonists as their founding fathers, still Judaism, Christianity, and Islam have developed such deep rooted enmity. In fact, every strain of these religions in turn has led to more animosity. Protestants vs Catholics or Shia vs Sunnis. I can understand if for some time, there may be misgivings... but there seems to be no end to this enmity!

All the morals of Moses, or Love of Jesus or revelations of Mohammad are of no use if all these can inspire is nothing more than hatred and cruelity. A Sunni feels no compunction in hanging an Ahmediya simply because the latter added another protagonist to the long list of Prophets.

Nowhere and in nothing else has a "Past" had such a profound and debilitating effect on such a vast mass of humanity for so long as the past of Jerusalem. Sometimes, I wonder if there indeed could be anything "holy" about a place whose most practically felt contribution to the contemporary world has been hatred and wars! Holiness should inspire men and women to rise FAR above their stature and mind. Between a Demon and God, lies the Human. Holiness should take a human towards the journey to God, but instead if that journey takes a humanity to demonic coordinates, then how profound can it be?

Today, Barack Obama gave a speech in Cairo. It was a speech that many in history SHOULD have given. He said what many SHOULD have said over the centuries since Mohammad but sadly and unfortunately DIDN'T! These were words that were resting on the Lips of Eternity to be uttered.... but there wasn't enough of a humanity available which could get past the bondage of that "Past' to even say these things as unequivocally as Obama said today.

Make no mistake. This speech was not just a political speech. It was an obligation of an entire humanity..... that aspired to take the path to Holi-ness and God-ness to speak out in order to challenge a humanity that had reveled in the safe confines of the narrow but morbid path to demonic ends. When we hate, we are demons. When we love, we are Gods. Between this Love and Hate, we remain Humans. If one Human can acknowledge another Human and the obvious frailties of being so, then there is no meaning of Hate and Love.

Until now, either people of wisdom and power past didn't have the sagacity and will or the courage enough to take this step.. a leap really. A leap of faith that Humanity can be one. E pluribus unum, ("Out of Many, One").

He is being criticized as many people making such efforts are. Some say he didn't go far enough, while others believe he went too far. Some say he is all rhetoric, others accuse him of giving away too much. Dwarfs have never understood what a Giant can see on the horizon. It is the same affliction here.

As much as he took a difficult and unprecedented step, and exhorted others to do their bit, there are people on all sides who are "waiting'. Waiting for his "next step". Little realizing that the "next step" in this entire game of giant reconciliation has to be taken in THEIR hearts and minds.

Indeed it is damning for the entire humanity when it keeps waiting for Prophetic figures to extricate it out of all the sins that people commit willingly and nonchalantly. Even something as simple as a inward look in the hearts... beyond the facade is not possible. Even that needs a Papal or Prophetic nod. Slavery is not a physical phenomenon. It is mental as well.

Today, if we all can find it in our hearts to take the "next step", then maybe humanity can turn the corner and move the pendulum of our existential movement to a Holy direction. Then who needs Jerusalem?

Dr. George Tiller Shot Dead and the Abortion Debate Continues

Vinod Joseph — Tue, 2 Jun 2009 09:17:31 EDT

A couple of days ago, Dr. George Tiller was shot dead during a service at the Reformation Lutheran Church in Wichita, Kansas where he served as an usher. Dr. Tiller ran a clinic in Wichita which “performed elective and therapeutic abortions during the second trimester of pregnancies and therapeutic abortions during the third-trimester of pregnancies”. A therapeutic abortion is one which is required to preserve the health of the mother whilst an elective abortion is one that is by choice. A doctor with 40 years’ experience, Dr. Tiller had been targeted before – he survived a shooting outside his clinic 16 years ago. Abortions have always taken place, over the centuries, often using crude instruments and methods. The Soviet Union was the first country to legalise abortions in 1919. Iceland followed in 1935 and Sweden in 1938. Nazi Germany encouraged abortions among those considered ‘hereditarily ill’ while German women of good ‘Aryan stock’ were expressly prohibited from having abortions. In the UK, abortion was permitted in specific circumstances under the Abortion Act 1967. In 1973, the US Supreme court in Roe v Wade struck down state laws which prohibited abortions. In India, abortions have been legal since 1971. The women’s lib movement made the right to abort a foetus an integral part of women’s rights claiming that not being able to abort takes away control over ones’ own body. It is in the US that the tussle between pro-lifers and pro-choicers is most vociferous. I guess this is mainly because a large segment of the US population is deeply religious and abortion is unacceptable to all organised religions.

In my opinion, abortions ought to be legal but…. and that’s a big ‘But’. I am against elective abortions in the second trimester, especially after 20 weeks when the foetus is capable of surviving outside the womb, unless of course the pregnancy arose out of rape or an incestuous relationship involving a minor. I don’t think a therapeutic abortion is wrong even in the third trimester. Most, if not all pro-lifers in the US, have deplored Dr. Tiller’s killing. I can’t say I admire Dr. Tiller or his work, though I too strongly condemn his murder.After Dr. Tiller was shot dead, Peter Brownlie, president of the Kansas City-based regional Planned Parenthood office claimed that “Dr. Tiller’s patients were almost always in circumstances where something had gone horribly wrong with a pregnancy, and where a woman's health would be endangered if the pregnancy continued”. The words ‘almost always’ imply that Dr. Tiller did carry out elective abortions in the second trimester, as his clinic’s website says. In all probability, Dr. Tiller was a man of strong convictions, who believed in what he did, not unlike a man who volunteers for a war which he thinks is just, even if he knows that it will cause death and destruction.

Not many doctors in the US perform late-term abortions. According to this article, Dr. Tiller was the director of one of just three clinics in the United States that provide abortion services to women past the 21st week of gestation. I’m sure that some other equally ‘committed’ doctor will step forward to fill the void left by Dr. Tiller.As long as the human race endures, abortions will continue and there will always be a demand for people like Dr. Tiller.

Proposition 8: Disposition Hate

Aditi Nadkarni — Tue, 2 Jun 2009 09:10:54 EDT

I find it deeply disturbing that the California Supreme Court felt compelled to uphold Prop 8. I find it even more upsetting that in this time of economic strife people actually reached into their pockets and donated money to bring Prop 8 into effect. According to a news report on Yahoo some even plan to take a day out of their lives to march and protest against the possibility of two consenting adults being in a marriage. When did we become like this? Weren't we supposed to move forward? Who did we leave behind?

Growing up in India, watching films like Bird Cage and sitcoms like Will & Grace, my half-baked impression of the US was that of an all-accepting, free nation where everybody was welcome and treated equal. Five years in Ohio changed those notions. I heard of fourteen year old girls bringing a child into this world because an abortion meant being alienated from their religious cliques, contraception was never brought into conversations and abstinence was unrealistic from a teen's point of view. I heard supposedly educated people, even those in scientific careers, talk about how "homosexuality" was a sin and AIDS a curse. I witnessed the strong hold that religion had on people, their moralities all defined and justified by writ word. They were good, holy, virtuous and those who did not accept their religion were non-believers, heathens, the depraved ones for whom the smoldering gates of hell waited. Neo-nazis marched in the city I lived in and sparked riots. Students on and off campus experienced blatant acts of racism. It wasn't just Indians who snickered and exchanged derisive glances when an openly gay student passed them in the hallways. Intolerance had so many faces here. And yet, as a nation, I still think the U.S is probably a much better and safer place for homosexuals to live in than say one of the Muslim countries. Sadly, though, now long gone are my early impressions of the U.S being this accepting nation where the majority comprises tolerant, open-minded people.

In April of this year, one evening, my dinner sat cold and uneaten as I heard a heartbreaking story on CNN about two pre-teen boys who committed suicide because of the anti-gay bullying at their schools. They were 11 years old. I wept as if they had been my kids. I felt a shame, an inadequacy that as an educated, able bodied adult living in the same world as these little, frightened children, I failed them. They were so terrified of the rejection their little worlds meted out to them that they quietly hung themselves and ended their fears in the only way they knew how. We all failed them. The receiving end of this anti-gay propaganda has innocent faces too. The sentiment that manifested in Prop 8 runs deep, traveling its course through homes and families where children witness the hate and learn from their parents. I imagine conversations in the homes of those who cast that self-important "Yes" for Prop 8 and wondered how much of their strong, unyielding sentiment translated into a death sentence for these two boys who could have grown up to be amazing, talented and compassionate beings.

I also worry about the children of those men and women who plan to march in California against gay marriage. I picture these kids, with clenched fists and angry faces, these little bullies, as convinced as their parents that they too are fighting evil, standing over a frightened little boy who they believe is "gay". The opponents of gay marriage constantly insinuate that being raised by a homosexual couple may not be a healthy environment for a child. But quite frankly, I worry not about kids being raised by loving, caring homosexual parents but about those being raised by intolerant bigots and hope that they do not carry forth their parents' mistrust of people that happen to be different from them.

I cannot even begin to fathom how and why two adults who are in love should require the approval of a state, a city or an outside world to be in a committed relationship because their sexuality, an extremely personal choice is somehow not appealing to other people. The other day, Megan McCain, the daughter of Senator John McCain made an interesting point which I hope the GOP took note of. "Less government" she said has been the long-standing and oft-repeated motto of the Republican party. This spunky young woman then raised an important question as to why the Republican party would want the government or their courts to play any role in deciding whether or not a marriage is appropriate. I had never thought about it this way. The woman was talking sense. Why would a political party that advocates government to stay out of people's businesses, fire arms and health insurance choices want it to then be a part of people's personal decisions about marriage?

I watched three incredible movies over this weekend. On Friday, I saw Milk, one of the front runners at the Oscars', the story of Harvey Milk, the first gay individual in office. He was a city supervisor and had a short tenure in both the Gay Civil Rights' movement and in office. His brief career brought immense momentum to the Gay Rights movement and gave courage to young people of that generation to come out and accept who they were as a first step towards demanding acceptance from others. Watching the film was an eye-opener. I have observed that a lot of people who oppose gay marriage, refuse to see the African American Civil Rights' Movement and the Gay Rights Movement in the same light. I don't know how one can live in such a thick fog of denial and refuse to see a parallel between the two. In both cases people were being discriminated against and denied basic civil rights for being who they were; in one case it was race that fueled the discrimination and in another it has been sexuality. Milk, in so many ways is similar to the courageous stories of Martin Luther King or Rosa Parks. When a gay man or woman is denied the right to marry the person they love and want to spend their life with, must they not feel the same or more frustration than what Rosa Parks felt when she was asked to give up her seat in a bus? Coincidentally, Obama and Harvey Milk have something in common: their philosophies and motivational speeches all carried the gist of hope. In January, when I watched Obama being sworn into office, it gave me hope for the homosexual community. If an African American man can be elected president in this nation then soon homosexual men and women too could enjoy their well-deserved rights, I figured. My hopes were promptly crushed by bitter irony when African Americans, reportedly driven by their religious persuasion, arrived in large numbers to vote in favor of Prop 8. When one group that fought a similar battle poses a hurdle for another group that is currently facing discrimination and inequality then the road ahead seems longer and harder.

The second film I watched was Doubt. This film is like a beautiful metaphorical poem where there is this central, all-consuming river of doubt running through the course of the story and the conclusions of the film are entirely based on the audiences' personal interpretation. At the very end, when Sister Aloysius clutches her cross and breaks down in tears, admitting that she has grave doubts, I concluded that these were doubts about her faith. I have always had this suspicion that scriptures and holy books were written as devious ploys to expose us, our beliefs, our interpretations and thus who we are at our core. This film too, is similar in that aspect; it may reveal your biases based on your interpretation. Sure enough, my conclusion of the plot revealed my nature of a skeptic, one who wants to hold on to that humbling doubt rather than wear the damning censure of certainty which may have hardened the resolve of the individuals who cast a vote in favor of Prop 8. If someone were to tell me that by taking away somebody else's rights I would go to heaven after death or that an almighty entity would be happy with my actions, this very doubt, this skepticism would stop me from acting out of such a selfish disregard for other people's lives.

The third film that I watched was Ma Vie En Rose (My Life In Pink), the heart-warming story of a little child who wants to dress like a girl and is different from what is expected of a 7 year old boy. His innocent eyes stand in touching contrast against the cruelty of the disapproval that surrounds him. While watching the film, my roommate commented that he seemed confused about his gender. "He isn't the one confused" I told her, a sudden realization dawning upon me, "He knows he wants to be a girl. It is the adults surrounding him that are confused about how they feel with regards to his choice". This film provides a glimpse into how early the struggle can begin for an individual that is deemed different. Sexuality in itself should not present a struggle but it is the immaturity of a stubborn world that turns it into one, even for a child. The blameless face of a young boy caught in the midst of harsh rejection and social upheaval is testimony of who it is that stands at the receiving end of the anti-gay sentiment propagated through sermons where, in the very same breath, compassion and love are also preached.

History is probably the closest we humans will come to achieving immortality. Long after our voices are gone, we will all live in the yellowed pages of a biography perhaps, or in classroom discussions, newspapers and now in the gossamer web of this all-encompassing virtual world. I am grateful that I was born in a time in history when there still is so much more left, worthy of fighting for, so many causes that have a right and a wrong to them. I am grateful that my words floating around in cyberspace may someday serve as a tiny spec of history, a testimony that I was on the right side of this fight; and this for me, will be the equivalent of the heaven that believers speak of so much.

Until then, I will sleep well at night, with the knowledge that I did not fuel rejection for another human being, that I saw love where a few others saw impropriety and that I did not act as a hurdle in somebody's togetherness in the one precious life that we all receive.

Barack Obama at Notre Dame: A Touch of Class

Kavita Chhibber — Sun, 17 May 2009 23:30:51 EDT

May 17th turned out to be a gray and wet Sunday afternoon as I sat working on the new issue of my e-magazine. Buzzing in the background for the past few days, had been the incessant cacophony of voices discussing the feasibility conferring upon a President, who was pro stem cell research and believed in the woman's right to choose when it came to abortion, an honorary law degree at Notre Dame, a fiercely Catholic institution.

The noise was getting louder, protests escalating, and gossip being exchanged-"security is being stepped up, many people are not going, there is this plane flying around trailing banners with images of aborted fetuses, there is a petition signed by close to 400,000 people in circulation asking Notre Dame to withdraw the invitation, irate donors are pulling out money from the coffers of Notre Dame to punish, Father John Jenkins' decision to invite Barack Obama, and thus choosing "prestige over truth."

Of course having seen Barack Obama now for more than the first 100 days of his presidential run, I didn't have any doubts that he was going to face the protesters and the issues that had disgruntled his detractors, head on. At 2 pm. EST, I decided to take a break and see what would happen at Notre Dame.

What had tickled my funny bone a few days ago had been Arizona State University's decision not to give the President an Honorary degree at his commencement speech there on the grounds that even though he had become USA's first Black President, he hadn't achieved enough for them to be impressed enough, to continue the tradition of giving to Obama, what most speakers at graduation ceremonies receive-an honorary degree as a sign of respect and appreciation. In their eyes his "body of work is yet to come."

There too Obama had handled the rebuff with his usual grace and humor, when he said "I come here not to dispute the suggestion that I haven't yet achieved enough in my life. Michelle concurs with that assessment. She has a long list of things that I have not yet done, waiting for me when I get home."

As I sat through the speech at Notre Dame, I found my heart warming up at the number of standing ovations Obama received. I also found myself alternately laughing at his wry, self deprecating sense of humor, "I don't know if you're aware of this, but these honorary degrees are apparently pretty hard to come by. So far I'm only 1 for 2," and " We all know about this university's proud and storied football team, but I also hear that Notre Dame holds the largest outdoor 5-on-5 basketball tournament in the world - Bookstore Basketball...I want to congratulate the winners of this year's tournament, a team by the name of "Hallelujah Holla Back." Well done. Though I have to say, I am personally disappointed that the "Barack O'Ballers" didn't pull it out. Next year, if you need a 6'2" forward with a decent jumper, you know where I live." Listening intently and being moved as images flashed before my eyes, at some of the things he said. Many sentences evoked more introspection within me.

When Obama said we must find a way, "to live together as one human family," and added that "It is this...challenge that I'd like to talk about today. For the major threats we face in the 21st century - whether it's global recession or violent extremism; the spread of nuclear weapons or pandemic disease - do not discriminate. They do not recognize borders. They do not see color. They do not target specific ethnic groups.

Moreover, no one person, or religion, or nation can meet these challenges alone. Our very survival has never required greater cooperation and understanding among all people from all places than at this moment in history.

Unfortunately, finding that common ground - recognizing that our fates are tied up, as Dr. King said, in a "single garment of destiny" - is not easy. Part of the problem, of course, lies in the imperfections of man - our selfishness, our pride, our stubbornness, our acquisitiveness, our insecurities, our egos; all the cruelties large and small that those of us in the Christian tradition understand to be rooted in original sin. We too often seek advantage over others. We cling to outworn prejudice and fear those who are unfamiliar. Too many of us view life only through the lens of immediate self-interest and crass materialism; in which the world is necessarily a zero-sum game. The strong too often dominate the weak, and too many of those with wealth and with power find all manner of justification for their own privilege in the face of poverty and injustice. And so, for all our technology and scientific advances, we see around the globe violence and want and strife that would seem sadly familiar to those in ancient times."

These words send me back to my childhood. Life was so easy and simple then. Everyone knew everyone, because there was no internet, limited programs on television, phone lines were hard to come by and there were no cell phones.

But what was such an integral part of our lives was the community we lived in. We had the time, before technology took over- to get to know each other and discover, that underneath our religious beliefs, our cultural diversity, we were all the same. The open dialogue, that getting to know each other, took away the fear of the unfamiliar, and peeled away the layer that makes us self absorbed and non inclusive today. When you know and love someone, you watch out for them. And in those days in my home town of Jammu, Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Sikhs all lived as an extended loving family, watching out for each other's interests. You see, in those days we all believed in that golden rule that is, as Obama said, the underlying premise of every religion in the world-treat others as you would like to be treated.

Today just as technology had brought us together, it has also been used not only for the good of mankind, but often as a weapon of mass destruction. The internet is one powerful example of how on one hand cyberspace sprouts communities, but also with the same speed wreaks havoc in so many ways. It has made us reclusive, cubby holed in our own little cyber bubbles-saying what we please without considering the fact that words can be more lethal than guns when used unwisely, and that people often read things totally out of context and attack back right away, with horrible consequences for the larger world, because retaliation is only a click of a mouse or a text message away.

And while we race to the finish line, chasing material success, we lag so far behind in reaching out to others. Gone are the days of basking in the sunshine with family, holidaying together, having intense conversations about everything under the sun, eating dinner together, or praying together. I actually saw an ad which said-"No time to go to your place of worship? Now pray, and do confessions online for a nominal charge. Even the Lord now has been banished to new cyber quarters!

One of the most telling statements Obama made and it is so true in every area of life is the fact that, "...one of the vexing things for those of us interested in promoting greater understanding and cooperation among people is the discovery that even bringing together persons of good will, men and women of principle and purpose, can be difficult.

The soldier and the lawyer may both love this country with equal passion, and yet reach very different conclusions on the specific steps needed to protect us from harm. The gay activist and the evangelical pastor may both deplore the ravages of HIV/AIDS, but find themselves unable to bridge the cultural divide that might unite their efforts. Those who speak out against stem cell research may be rooted in admirable conviction about the sacredness of life, but so are the parents of a child with juvenile diabetes who are convinced that their son's or daughter's hardships can be relieved."

I think if there is only thing to learn from this President, it's his amazing capability to be a fantastic listener, and his utter lack of ego. I don't know how he keeps this incredible sense of detachment, humor and serenity around him, when I struggle on a daily basis to capture some of that and fail time and time again. I get hurt, shed tears, and blow my cool when I see someone being unfair or unkind. At times, I'm guilty the same and even of being impatient, and presumptuous and so much more. And here was this man, standing before a crowd where many were openly hostile and still spoke his mind in a way that was both firm and still full of understanding and empathy.

From my personal perspective, when I see severe, life threatening genetic disorders, certain types of life threatening cancers and illnesses, Christopher Reeve's amazing battle with a spinal injury and many others like him, there isn't a doubt in my mind that stem cell research must be encouraged to overcome disease and disability. And I also wonder, where does it say in religion that we must cling to outdated beliefs that don't have a place in today's world? Don't many of us donate our organs after our death, to save lives?

Abortion too is a sensitive issue. But Obama faced that controversy straight on and said "Maybe we won't agree on abortion, but we can still agree that this is a heart-wrenching decision for any woman to make, with both moral and spiritual dimensions.

So let's work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions by reducing unintended pregnancies, and making adoption more available, and providing care and support for women who do carry their child to term. Let's honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion, and draft a sensible conscience clause, and make sure that all of our health care policies are grounded in clear ethics and sound science, as well as respect for the equality of women."

Understand - I do not suggest that the debate surrounding abortion can or should go away. No matter how much we may want to fudge it - indeed, while we know that the views of most Americans on the subject are complex and even contradictory - the fact is that at some level, the views of the two camps are irreconcilable. Each side will continue to make its case to the public with passion and conviction. But surely we can do so without reducing those with differing views to caricature." And he asked everyone to do it with "Open hearts. Open minds. Fair-minded words."

I know of cases where the woman, a victim of rape has had the child and hated it every time she set eyes on it because abortion was not an option. I've seen and heard of cases where too many children due to religious beliefs, too close in age and not just made the woman physically and emotionally a wreck, it has sent some of them over the edge with tragic consequences.

I also think the environment and the stigma around unwanted pregnancy need to be addressed as much as the issue of pro life versus pro choice. The world can be very cruel to those who break societal norms and get caught, those who are physically or emotionally weak and those who are without a loving family support system.

So continued education and reinforcement is important, because human beings seem to have short memories about what is good for them in the long run.

Obama said so much that is true of life and important to creating a more humane society but the buck does stop with us all. " ..within our vast democracy, ... doubt should remind us to persuade through reason, through an appeal whenever we can to universal rather than parochial principles, and most of all through an abiding example of good works, charity, kindness, and service that moves hearts and minds.

For if there is one law that we can be most certain of, it is the law that binds people of all faiths and no faith together. It is no coincidence that it exists in Christianity and Judaism; in Islam and Hinduism; in Buddhism and humanism. It is, of course, the Golden Rule - the call to treat one another as we wish to be treated. The call to love. To serve. To do what we can to make a difference in the lives of those with whom we share the same brief moment on this Earth.

Because when you serve, it doesn't just improve your community, it makes you a part of your community. It breaks down walls. It fosters cooperation. And when that happens - when people set aside their differences to work in common effort toward a common good; when they struggle together, and sacrifice together, and learn from one another - all things are possible."

And this is the President some people are waiting to see fail?