The Hiccup Account

South Korea

2010-03-29T01:00:00.000-07:00

Currently, I am in South Korea. Will be updating this blog again via a domain (thehiccupaccount.com) when I am fully settled. My personal Korean blog is sujistella.blogspot.com !

I'm back!

2010-03-09T19:17:00.001-08:00

I'm back!

Dearest nonexistent reader pool,
You can now ease from the edge of your seats and sleep easy tonight as I am back to blogging after taking a long overdue trip to Florida to see family (see: previous rants about airplanes). To be fair, I did return several days ago, but I have been preparing to go overseas to work in Korea in two weeks, (learning Hangul/eating kimchi, perfecting my use of chop sticks, etc.) These are obviously time consuming tasks of monumental importance.

And what a better day than today to be back?

The upper house of India's parliament passed a bill this evening requiring a third of seats in its national parliament and state legislatures to be given to women. This is exciting and of course, I strongly believe that women should hold more positions of any kind in governments around the world. India's move sets an example for the world that women are grossly underrepresented (women make up 10% of India's lower house and even less than this in its state assemblies). Most people in India seem to agree with the bill, as only a very few members of parliament objected to its passing. Those who did object though were pretty vocal about it and not because they disagree with the advancement of women per say. I think that the bill is necessary, but I do feel for these nay-Sayers.

Here's why I initially disagreed with the bill-

Quotas: A quota of any kind can be risky as this leads people to obtain positions based on reasons that have nothing to do with merit. Although it is completely possible that all of the women who will obtain seats in parliament will completely, 100% be the best women for the job, there will always be that lingering field of doubt that those who speak against women's rights will play up to prove some inane "point" or another.

Dynasties: Some say that the bill will further strengthen political gharanas, giving more power not to all women but to those who belong to the strongest political families. One blogger's stance

Yet, it is the lesser of "two evils"

Yeah, the dynasty argument holds a lot of weight, but it is a risk that I think is completely worth taking. The fact of the matter is, these quotas may be necessary in this case to break through centuries of lack of representation and power that women have had to face. We should be applauding India, and should use the bill as an example to follow for our own country. I don't think that we should use quotas in the US, but the lack of the appearance of women in our ruling bodies is appalling.

Not to mention the fact that the US still is yet to have a woman serve as president although there have been dozens of female heads of state that have led all kinds of countries, many of which we often claim to be more "democratic" than. hm.

http://www.guide2womenleaders.com/Female_Leaders.htm

Round Two: Expedia

2010-02-22T23:06:00.000-08:00

Round Two: Expedia

So, it was bad enough that I had to cancel my trip, re-book a flight with an airline I was annoyed with and which doesn't provide international service so I basically can't use it ever except right now, three weeks before I leave the country. That was bad enough. It was also bad that my little sister, who doesn't like airplanes in the first place (thank you, Samuel L. Jackson), is now traumatized for life and can't go on this trip with me.

Then, I call Expedia, try to use my credit for a new flight and all hell breaks loose. Seriously. I called Expedia and this man, whom I could barely understand over the phone, tells me I need to book my flight before he could apply the credit and that I should call back. I was a little bit leery about this, seeing as in doing so I would have to pay first and then receive the credit, but I did it anyway. I get the itinerary number and I call Expedia back. This woman tells me, "Oh, no you were supposed to get the credit first and then book the flight." What?! I freak out. So she promptly tells me I will be refunded for that charge and proceeds to re-book the same flight with the Delta credit. Okay, annoying, but OK.

Then... She is reading back all of the ticket information to confirm that it matches the original flight I booked. Yes. Yes... She then tells me that she is going to charge it on my debit card. I say NO, NO. As this debit card was already used to buy TWO flights (since the refund takes some time to kick in, I figured). I knew I didn't have enough money in that account to cover it and I would overdraft. I offered to give another credit card. I pleaded. She said she charged it. I said NO. Then I checked Bank of America, and I already had over-drafted. I told her this. She then hung up on me.

I called back and a man (who I think was the same guy who gave me the bad advice in the first place thus causing all of this calamity), told me that, "Everything was all set." Well yes, that's great, but what about my overdraft fee now with Bank of America because this woman would not listen to me? She charged me, the customer who is shelling out hundreds of dollars for this flight, against my will and it was recorded. I said this to him and he finally offered me a $25 discount.

BS.BS.BSBSBSBSBS. I am never using Expedia again for any of my flights. Nor am I using Delta, and I'm sure I will be doing a lot of flying in my lifetime.

Also, if I ever have to hear that obnoxious Expedia "dot com!" jingle ever again I may vom.

I Fly Like Paper.

2010-02-22T22:47:00.000-08:00

Unfortunately, I've had a lot of trouble fulfilling the second half of M.I.A.'s lyrics, as I have been unable to get HIGH LIKE PLANES (and I'm not referring to drugs), as of late.

The frustration that I feel is that shared by many people, as airlines have been overbooking, overcharging, and in general causing unnecessary dismay and agitation as the industry continues to trudge through the financial blows dealt by the recession. Celebrities aren't even immune to the miserly ways of the industry, as the tale of Kevin Smith (Silent Bob), who was bumped from a Southwest flight for being too fat last week, attests to. The airline offered him a $100 credit (which he did not accept) after he ranted about getting bumped from his flight (which, he had to purchase two seats for due to his size) via Twitter.

And although I'm not getting bumped from planes for that reason, nor am I getting in fights with rappers that have internet jargon-based acronyms instead of names (see: LMFAO v. Mitt Romney), I am frustrated.

Here is my story.

On February 15, 2010, my sister and I were set to take off out of JFK via a flight with Delta Airlines. We arrived at the airport approximately two hours prior to our departure time. We had already checked in the day before our flight and had no luggage to check. So, that was that. After going through security, buying some gifts for our relatives, and all of that lovely stuff, we arrived at our gate about 25 minutes prior to take-off. At this time, I realized that our gate had been changed. Simultaneously, I heard my name called on the loudspeaker and my sister and I (literally) ran to the new gate. However, this gate was on the opposite end of the terminal so we arrived approximately 7 minutes after my name was called. Since our flight was overbooked, our tickets had been given away to someone else and we were not allowed on the plane. We were bumped to "Seat Request" status for the next flight out. And then the one after that. The only flight they could guarantee was for the next day, which was too late because we were on a time crunch. Whoops.

I get that it was the customer's responsibility to be aware of last minute gate changes and the like. I get it. What got me though, was the fact that my sister and I STILL arrived to the gate according to the time frame that was suggested to us on our ticket. In the fine print it says, "Please arrive 15 - 40 minutes prior to departure time." We arrived 25 minutes prior. Maybe even more.

What also bothered me, was the fact that I saw this happen to someone else on one of the flights that we were requesting seats for. In this situation, the couples' names had been called and they appeared an instant later at the ticket counter, as they were waiting very close to the gate. Yet, the Delta employee had already left to go to the bathroom after calling their names. The other employee who still remained was helping someone else and did not acknowledge the couple. A few minutes later, the original Delta employee returned and informed them that their seats were given away. I don't get it. So essentially, I am going to arrive at the airport four hours early from now on, and check-in twice: in person, and online.

So, we had to cancel our flights with Expedia, receiving a Delta credit and a $150 re-booking fee. Awesome.

Going Rogue

2010-02-19T10:13:00.000-08:00

Move over John McCain, you're not the only maverick around here anymore.

Make way for President Obama, who demonstrated one very important lesson to Americans yesterday when he announced that he will work on generating health care legislation to attempt to bridge differences between House and Senate Democrats and Republicans... alone.

Aside from teaching the American people that if you want something done right you're better off just doing it yourself, Obama's plan to go-it-alone on preparing health care legislation for next week's bipartisan meeting finally gave critics who complain that he hasn't done anything something to chew on.

Yet, the news has been met with criticism by the Republican party, with Congressional members already planning on skipping next week's meeting. They claim, as Republican leader Rep. John A. Boehner's spokesman illustrated nicely in today's Times, that Obama's solo health care performance reflects a sort of socialist-esq takeover of America's health care system by the Democratic party against the will of the American people.

“We have this event to discuss areas of agreement, and then what?” asked Michael Steel, a spokesman for the Republican leader, Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio. “How will they incorporate our ideas? Will they abandon their plans to jam through their latest backroom deal? Or is this just an infomercial for the same government takeover of health care that the American people have rejected again and again?”

The panic in Boehner's words (via Steel) is pretty apparent, but he can sleep easy tonight because no one in the Democratic Party knows what is going on either. No, it's just the president. Doing his thing. He has revealed some parts of his plan, namely a requirement for all Americans to obtain health insurance or face penalties and a tax on high-cost, employer-sponsored insurance plans. He has not said anything yet about abortion.

My question is though, why hasn't Obama done anything about climate change? Afghanistan? Guantanamo? Iran? Why hasn't he told us the secrets of the island? WHAT about Toyota?

Maybe next week.

Welp, One Way to Avoid Doing Your Taxes

2010-02-18T18:18:00.001-08:00

I don't recommend following the route Joseph Stack III of North Austin, Texas took to avoid the IRS.

The Myth of Bipartisanship

2010-02-17T18:06:00.000-08:00

Once upon a time, there were two parties whose sole identification was derived from the extent to which they oppose the other regarding the biggest issues plaguing our great nation.

This... is their story.

So yesterday, Evan Bayh (D-Indiana) decided he had enough of the Senate infighting over health care legislation and threw in the towel, leaving his party with even more uncertainty as to their fate in upcoming months. Although some are praising Bayh for representing the need for bipartisanship and cooperation in order to actually get things done, the soon-to-be-former senator actually has just added another memo to the Democratic Party's laundry list of problems as they scurry to find a candidate to run for Bayh's seat.

If we can learn anything from Bayh's exit, I think it is this: a focus on being strictly "bipartisan" and "neutral" can lead one to lose sight of the real issues at hand, thus severely limiting their potential to perform their jobs properly. It's the same thing with journalism as a constant struggle for our country's main paper publications to be "neutral" can confine them to the cages of P.C.-ridden reporting that echo the same "solid facts" that other papers have already spouted out or re-circulated from the Associated Press. Not to knock solid, fact-based reporting, (because goodness knows the antithesis of fact-based neutrality, which is the sloppy churning of whatever thread of gossip can be grasped along the rumor mill, is far worse.) But what seems to be happening is that all of this focus on trying to cooperate really ends up steering the House and Senate away from fighting for the issues at hand.

Yes, there has to be compromise between the two parties. Yet, there also has to be change. Let's face it, the issues that must be dealt with right now are primarily those that are already opposed by most in the Republican Party: climate change and broad-based public health care reform. Therefore, in order to put forth legislation regarding these issues, the Democratic Party has to be willing to wade, not in the seas of bipartisanship, but instead as a united front that breaks down the issues individually with the Republicans that oppose them. In other words, a compromise that takes the form of issue-based negotiation, rather than a bunch of Democrats running around making deals with this one and that one screaming "bipartisan" until either they, or the cows, come home. (Or the Republicans take over).

Torture Tuesday

2010-02-16T14:55:00.000-08:00

I seriously can't help myself with the cheesy alliterations, can I?

After a failed attempt at taking a vacation, I am back. Today's post relates to Dick Cheney's interview with ABC, in which he openly admitted to supporting torture, essentially pleading guilty to having committed a war crime.

CHENEY: I was a big supporter of waterboarding. I was a big supporter of the enhanced interrogation techniques that...
KARL: And you opposed the administration's actions of doing away with waterboarding?
CHENEY: Yes.

Then, the interview carried on with little incident and no further acknowledgment that the former VP just admitted to committing a CRIME.

Although some bloggers (namely, Greenwald & Andrew Sullivan) commented on the topic, little acknowledgment in the mainstream media was paid to the Cheney's confessions and the larger issue at hand- why he hasn't he been prosecuted yet/when will this prosecution occur?

I find it funny (funny, as in sad/bizarre/mind-boggling, not comical) that those whose wrongful actions bear the gravest consequences in our country are the ones that are most apt to be "excused" (see: bailout).

But then again, this is international law we're talking about, something which the US has long been known for disregarding (see: the Iraq war).

Feminist Friday

2010-02-12T11:21:00.000-08:00

Happy Friday! I saw this video, which is in response to the Dodge Charger Superbowl ad, below, and it inspired me to put up a little feminist rant I submitted in response to this awful article I read on The Daily Beast earlier this week. Unfortunately, the comments magically became closed before I could submit it so I have no other choice but to put it on this blog.

First, here is the Dodge ad.

Here, is the response:

Two thumbs up.

Oh, Okay. So here is my response to Lisa Hilton's article at The Daily Beast. Please read her article, it will be sure to ignite the feminist within (and just in time for Valentine's Day!).

...Wow. Where do I begin? I agree that obesity as an epidemic among American women does not get the attention that it deserves, and that the heightened awareness in the media concerning our country's underweight models could be seen as counter-productive, or "silly" given the severity that obesity poses to the health of women in America. But it is not silly, and besides, that is not what this article is about.

Instead, Ms. Hilton praises what she herself claims is an "unreachable" standard of thinness required for success in the modeling industry that is blatantly unhealthy and unnatural. She belittles those who aren't "dedicated" enough to achieve such unhealthy grandeur by starving themselves via a strict diet of Splenda-enhanced zero calorie beverages and fruit. Seriously?

The real problem lies not only in Ms. Hilton's disillusionment that any such diet should be promoted by any means, but that her main reasoning for praising the dedication of our super model and celeb society to such "unreachable standards" is that these women are doing what it takes to get ahead. She even likens a woman's determinant starvation to the vigorous physical training of our nation's top athletes.

The point that Ms. Hilton completely misses though is this- YES, these women did what it took to be successful. But what were these things? Starvation and adherence to a ridiculous absurd standard that is unnatural and unhealthy. Should we really be praising them? Instead, I think if Ms. Hilton is really the feminist that she claims to be (which, she is not), she would be questioning the very standards these women are having to suffer for. YES, modeling is a vain industry. Yes, most agencies do not want to feature overweight women on their runways. I get it. But why the need for this unreachable, unhealthy standard. To be successful, one should be healthy, eat well, exercise regularly, and yes, it helps to be attractive. But should a woman have to starve herself to meet society's standards? NO.

The corsets that messed up our bone structures and the forced wearing of dresses and all of that crap don't even compare to forced starvation.

Women who question these standards are SMART, logical, feminists. Not just, as Ms. Hilton paints us, a bunch of fatties waving our fists at the "unattainable beauty" in Vogue that we can't achieve because we simply lack the will-power to give up eating.

Also, Ms. Hilton should be ashamed of herself for mocking women who have tried to overcome these unreasonable standards and who struggle with self-esteem issues because of all of the psychological affects of being bombarded with images of starving women equated with "beauty" in our media.

--

HAPPY VALENTINE'S DAY!

Seasonally-appropriate Weather vs. Global Warming

2010-02-11T22:07:00.000-08:00

This week, Washington, New York, and Philadelphia had a lot of snow. Snowmagedeon, as some in the media have been calling it. Washington seemed to be the worst off, as they were unprepared for the most snow the region has seen since 1880 (2 to 3 feet), having to shut down schools, businesses and most government buildings, leaving many people cooped up inside of their homes for two to three days. With all this time and no action, the media subsequently focused on the storm. Yet, as the plows started rolling the East Coast's wintry wonderland away they also took with them the media's focus in Washington for the past few days. Just like that. Scurrying about for a story in the nick of time, Fox News correspondents offered us a "fair and balanced" discussion this afternoon to alert us that the existence of this "Snowzilla"calls into question the scientifically-proven fact that man-made climate change is threatening the livelihood of our planet.

To ensure the fair and balanced nature of the program, the news channel provided viewers with the most important facts before the discussion:

FACT: 63% of US covered in snow right now.

For all of you that missed the fair-and-balanced display, here is the recap. (I have left out names for simplicity's sake):

Fox News Host: So, *Expert*.. Haha. What do you think about this record snow, and what it says for climate change? This snow has got some folks really laughing about "global warming".
Climate Change Expert/Scientist: Well, the US did get a lot of snow. However, it is winter. And, it does not go to speak in contradiction to the fact that man-made climate change is happening.
Republican: Climate change=myth. Clearly, look outside.

There are a few funny things about this whole situation. Going with the whole fair-and-balanced thing~~, I'll call them~~ here are just a few "facts".

Fact: The majority of the hottest years on record have all occurred in the past decade
Fact: It snows in the winter, particularly in the Northeast.
Fact (I like this one): Climate change has been proven to increase precipitation levels in "wet" areas (decrease in very arid regions) of the world.

Yet, people of Fox News' camp such as co-host of Fox's program Cavuto, Eric Bolling, used the snow storm to mock the existence of climate change.

Oklahoma Republican Senator and global warming skeptic James Inhofe also LOLed in the face of climate change by uploading photos on Facebook of himself and his family building an igloo adjacent to a sign that said, "Al Gore's new home."

It was sweet of Inhofe to think of Gore's livelihood given the dire weather conditions in DC this week. If I were Al Gore I would return this kind of sincerity by making a similar igloo home for Inhofe, except in the Artic. Actually, a kind of "getaway" for all climate-change skeptics. Of course, I would be kind enough to advise them all to bring enough life vests and rafts as this time-share will melt.

Guantanamo. Still Churning out Love for America

2010-02-10T11:27:00.000-08:00

Today marks the trial of Guantanamo Bay's youngest detainee, Omar Khadr, who is being accused of throwing a grenade that killed a member of the US Special Forces when he was 15. Khadr was among others in a compound in the Eastern Afghanistan village who refused to surrender when demanded to do so by US Special Forces in July of 2002. After failing to comply with US forces, the compound was promptly ambushed by Apache attack helicopters, A-10 Warthog fighter jets, and two F-18 jets that reduced the compound to nothing but a bunch of rocks and dirt.

Then, two grenades emerged from the rubble, striking and eventually killing one US Special Forces member and blinding another. Khadr was the only survivor and is thus, being blamed for the throwing of the grenades. The boy, a citizen of Canada (which has essentially disowned him), was thrown into Guantanamo and has remained there ever since.

Many in the US, or at least those who voice their opinions via comments on blogs and what not, believe that Khadr should be committed for war crimes. The most colorful folks praise the true "American" approach: "Execute the terrorist, he should pay for his crimes guffaw guffaw guffaw! God bless America!"

As ignorant as that may sound for me to classify all those who think Khadr should pay for his crimes may be, it is nowhere near as ignorant as the comments that are flooding cyberspace via the fingertips of those who are on the opposing side.

Yes, let's just bomb those who disagree with us, takeover their country, detain and torture people who have not yet been proven guilty, and oh, while we're at it, let's throw in the execution of a boy whose village was ambushed and threw a grenade at the ambushers just because his daddy has some connections to bin Laden. Because fighting violence with violence really works out for us well, eh?

Khadr has ties to bin Laden through his father. But he also has ties to his brother, who has been acting as a helpful informant for the CIA. Clearly political allegiances are not always inherited. If this were the case Dick Cheney's daughter would be a conservative homemaker rather than a liberal lesbian.

Also, trying children for war crimes is generally against the practice of the UN/the international community.

"I could have prosecuted anyone under the age of 18 for war crimes and crimes against humanity, but I chose not to," said David M. Crane, the former chief prosecutor for the Sierra Leone court and a law professor at Syracuse University. "I didn't think any person under that age had the requisite mens rea, the evil-thinking mind, to commit a war crime. It's a rare thing, almost unheard of, that we prosecute children."

Well, you can be sure that after seven years of torture in Guantanamo, Khadr's mind is closer to such "evil-thinking" ways, as former detainees as a whole continue to turn AGAINST rather than in support of the US, after being released. Apparently though, people think that being tortured for seven years will instill the warm and cuddly twinges of love for America and its values.

She's Ba-ackkkk

2010-02-09T07:59:00.000-08:00

Hello, friends!

Yes, I am back from my splendid weekend spent not watching the Super Bowl (although I still planning on going on Hulu to check out the commercials). Today, I'm talking about my long lost favorite blogging topic: Sarah Palin, because indeed, she is back. Ms. Palin spoke at the National Tea Party Convention in Nashville this past Saturday, where she lifted American spirits by talking (for $100,000) about three main topics: ~~budget~~ tax cuts and energy.

The use of Palin to ~~lift American spirits~~ energize the extreme right, really speaks to the flaws of the conservative movement. Continuously, people like Sarah Palin and the talking heads at Fox News try to enliven Americans with a passionate rhetoric that has little grounding in reality. While it is true that a lot of Americans will vote for the president they would "most want to have a beer with," I think at this point people are growing tired of the ideological warfare and just want to vote for the party that will provide Americans with jobs. As a whole, Americans are unhappy with Obama, but are they unhappy enough to vote the Republicans back in again in the midterm elections? Maybe, but only if they can provide them with practical solutions for improving the economy and providing people with jobs. So far this is yet to be the case, and Palin is a perfect reflection of this.

The AP reports:

Palin says that declaring war on Iran or showing stronger support for Israel might convince voters that Obama is tougher than they think on national security and doing all he can to protect the U.S. Otherwise, according to Palin, Obama won't be re-elected if he continues on his current path.

As this Salon.com article (and Cher from 'Clueless') rightly responds, AS IF.

"-As if the Obama administration were not escalating the war in Afghanistan against the Taliban, who aided and abetted the al-Qaida attacks on the U.S., while continuing the war in Iraq, which had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11

-As if invading two countries that did not attack the U.S., Iran and Iraq, would be more statesmanlike than merely invading and occupying one.

-As if the public, sickened by the cost of the Iraq war in American dead and maimed and trillions of dollars in the long run, had not turned against wingnut militarism and tossed Palin's party out of Congress back in 2006.

-As if singing "Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" to the tune of the Beach Boys' "Barbara Ann" helped Palin's running mate John McCain win the White House in 2008.

-As if swing voters were concerned, not about the highest levels of unemployment since the Great Depression, but about what they considered to be too few American military deaths abroad."

Ill Ills and the Messy Won

2010-02-05T12:18:00.000-08:00

Ahnyoung! As I've been spending the better part of my day learning Korean, I find discussing the North fitting for today's post...

There has been some discussion lately about how North Korean leader Kim Jong Il's uncharacteristically rational actions as of late are indicating that we may see some positive changes in the future for the Great Leader and his country. Kim Jong Il's behavior is likely the result of one of the following:

1. Change of heart
2. Amnesia/Loss of and subsequent regaining of consciousness and his senses, (see: ABC's canceled series, Samantha Who? for comparison)
3. Loss of power, control

Although I'd like to think that Kim Jong Il has had a change of heart after his government revealed yesterday that they will release American detainee and missionary Robert Park because he expressed his wrongdoing (crossing the border with hopes for the release of N. Korean detainees) and love for (fear of) North Korea "misled by Western propaganda", I highly doubt that this is the case. My money (in American dollars, not NK Won, thank you) instead is on number 3, given the fact that the country has downgraded from its status as a "failing state" to an all out hot mess in recent weeks.

This has been particularly the case since the government decided to re-open markets and devalue its currency, the won, without giving enough notice/setting unreasonable restrictions which have cost the country's investors loads of $$ and basically screwed up their entire market.

Oops.

This has angered people, which could lead to interesting political consequences as Kim Jong Il's son and future leader of the country is said to be behind some of the changes. Yet, taking on typical KJI style, the leader has blamed someone else for the problems his finance minister. Although, the Great Leader has conceded that some people in his country "could be happier" (ha!) and that he is looking to improve the conditions for them. Wow, I guess this is what happens when the rich people financially supporting the nation's progress get pissed (see: Bank bailout, US).

Don't Ask, Don't Tell- Just Shoot

2010-02-03T12:02:00.000-08:00

So, as President Obama had announced in his State of the Union address last week, the military is now being forced to repeal its "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy regarding gay people in the military. According to BBC, over 1,000 people were dismissed from service in just the last year alone, due to this policy. What was interesting though, was that the people who were dismissed were not just serving in active combat but were also held positions as Arabic translators, and other non-combative service jobs. Essentially then, my title for this blog post is inaccurate but my point remains the same: At a time when the US government has frozen most of its spending except for defense, why not focus on the military?

This touches upon the larger collective angst that many Democrats have been expressing since the State of the Union:

We thought voting in Obama meant less focus on the military.

Yes, we do have to concentrate on how to get the troops out of Afghanistan and Iraq (which of course, we haven't)... but Obama's dismal prediction of spending cuts regarding most other programs until 2020? Very deflating.

Aside from the obvious fact that banning anyone from serving our country because of their sexual orientation is absolutely unjust and absurd, LGBTQ people should be able to serve in the military because frankly, we need them. Plus, this gives Obama a chance to give Democrats some conciliation to our woes regarding the fact that he failed to cut back military spending, shut down Guantanamo, or pass legislation regarding that whole gay marriage thing.

Some, like The Daily Beast's Lee Seigel, fail to see this necessity though. In his blog post titled "Obama's Desperate Gay Pander" he writes,

The president should be focusing on jobs and reaching out to the GOP. So this seems like an especially crazy time to revisit “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”—and reinflame the culture wars....

... Pardon the sarcasm, but repealing the Pentagon’s prohibition against openly gay soldiers is so 1993. Perhaps Obama is still so busy searching for hints about his destiny in books about Lincoln and FDR that he has forgotten about a president named Bill Clinton, whose decision to take on the Pentagon’s notorious ban on sexual honesty inflamed the culture wars that would engulf Clinton's presidency.

I agree that the president should be focusing on jobs but I just don't see the harm in dismantling oppressive rules that cost us good men and women and infringe on civil liberties. I also don't see how equal rights can be so 1993, nor do I see the connection between Clinton's sexual affair with Monica Lewinsky in the Oval Office and knocking down embarrassingly offensive and unequal legislation against gay people. Major fail, Seigel.

Well, China's Starting to Get T.O.ed

2010-02-02T11:08:00.000-08:00

In the past couple of months, it's become pretty apparent that the Chinese government is getting increasingly ticked off with the United States. The announcement of President Obama's plan to meet with the Tibetan spiritual leader, the Dalai Lama, has escalated the Chinese government's annoyance to new heights. The Chinese government has subsequently denounced these plans, threatening the state of future Chinese-US relations in addition to pouting and calling the Dalai Lama a "troublemaker."

It's times like these that relationships between national leaders really show themselves for what they seem to be deep down very often: a large-scale version of a bunch of hard-headed kids from different cultures on the playground given money and weapons.

The three main points of contention between the two nations in the past couple months- Google, Taiwan, and the Dalai Lama- simplified, is below. I found it fitting to supply a “hot” index, as some magazines geared for teenagers often do.

1. Google

US: Internet restrictions will sever our link to the booming economic giant of China, plus limit our access to Chinese consumers so we can market our products, media, etc. Your rapidly advancing technological capabilities frighten us (digital warfare)!... er, freedom, democracy, free speech!

China: US needs to mind their own biz. Trying to influence our country with subversive views. We don’t need Google and we don’t need you! China will advance without needing the help or support of the US, thank you.

Hot index: * (Getting pretty warm in here)

2. Taiwan

US: Usual course of action. Recession + largest military budget in the world + all other spending halted – foresight regarding political/cultural consequences= sell weapons to Taiwan, make ~$ 6 billion.

China: I see how it is. Now their flaunting their military might and supplying neighbor state-that-fails-to-recognize-it’s-part-of-China with loads of defense missiles.

** (GrRrR)

3. Dalai Lama

US: Headache. Could use a trip out of the Senate, House, infighting, etc. Could use a good sit down with the Dalai Lama to really clear our heads. Plus, diplomacy and compromise is in right now (see: Taliban, Iran, Palestine?). – foresight regarding political/cultural consequences + bad timing.

China: !#(@!)@*#$# you’ve got to be kidding me.

*** (Too hot for words)

The BBC’s version of the drama here.

Frustration

2010-01-29T10:54:00.000-08:00

Please tell me what is wrong with this picture. This is from Who Runs Gov's weekday poll from yesterday.

Test yourself on political trivia. Scour Washington Post stories for answers. Each weekday marks a different quiz theme. After you answer the questions below, see how well you know WhoRunsGov.

Polling Obama's first year

Question 3 of 5

Incorrect, you selected:

24

The correct answer is: Twenty-four percent of respondents said they have a great deal or good amount of faith in Republicans.

This happened with pretty much every question- I would choose the right answer and the web site would tell me I was wrong, then proceed to provide me with the correct answer (which I had already chosen as correct!)

We Saw That, Alito

2010-01-28T12:44:00.000-08:00

Dear Supreme Court Justice Alito,

If you thought that we didn't see you shaking your head when President Obama addressed his concerns re: the Supreme Court's decision last Thursday in his State of the Union address last night, then you are sadly mistaken.

Epic fail.

It's just another example though, of how the supposed neutrality of the Supreme Court yet again renders itself a complete fallacy.

Let's not forget the last great example of the partiality and party-line voting of the Supreme Court- the election of this man:

Scary, isn't it? I get that justices are people and of course cannot entirely divorce themselves from their own personal opinions. Yet, they do have a higher responsibility than your average citizen, (Joe six-pack if you will), to put aside their own personal biases and concentrate solely on the legality of the matter at hand. All judges, and jurors for that matter, are obliged to rule with equity and the supremacy of law over personal opinion in any case at even the lowest level in our court system. This is why you cannot serve as a juror in a case about a clown who unknowingly used toxic balloons at kids' parties (hypothetical) if you have a deep-seeded fear of clowns. For some reason though, the members of the nation's highest court are allowed to determine the outcome of a presidential election when there is the clear bias of personal political partisanship and fear of upsetting political allies smacking them in the face. Duh.

I really don't know how exactly we could go about doing this better, but I think that something has to change in the Supreme Court. Maybe nine members is not enough? I don't know. I'm all for upholding the Constitution and the sacred intentions of our country's founders in their creation of our governing bodies and all of that good stuff. But sometimes I think that it would help us if we questioned the formation of these institutions when they clearly are not working the way they were intended/should work.

As Einstein said, "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."If this is the case, then the US Supreme Court could use its own padded cell.

Oh Wait, Nvmd- Lord Goldsmith

2010-01-27T13:35:00.000-08:00

I don't get it.

Former UK attorney general Lord Goldsmith, February, 2003: "The Iraq war... probably illegal."
Former UK attorney general Lord Goldsmith, March, 2003: "JK."

Now, Goldsmith is testifying in the UK's "Iraq Inquiry," set to determine the legality of the war, and who ~~can be blamed for getting the country into the mess~~ gave into United States coercion. The BBC has been providing up-to-date info on the testimonies here.

Honestly, I think that's what it's going to come down to in the end- Who gave into the US and how top UK officials were coerced and by whom. For now though, Goldsmith denies any coercion. Instead, he claims that up until a month leading up to the war, he essentially thought the intervention was probably legal, but that the case could have been stronger. Then, as it came time for him to reach a conclusion, he decided that it was good enough.

"Asked why he left it as late as 13 March to issue a definitive statement that war was lawful, he said that was when the military had sought a "yes or no" answer."

Well yes, laws do generally lead one to make such "yes" or "no" conclusions, which is why they exist. If this was not the case we would see jurors concluding that defendants were "sort of guilty" or "slightly innocent". Even weathermen/women are more concrete in their conclusions, and they deal with the WEATHER.

"They were entitled to have a clear view. They weren't to be put in the position of being sent off, maybe it is, maybe it isn't lawful'.

"There was no other way of anybody answering that question but me. It was my responsibility... I reached the view that, on balance, the better view was that it was lawful."

Suddenly, after months reviewing the situation, the legality of the war according to UN Resolution 1441 became clear to Goldsmith. It spoke to him. Or something.

But after discussions with US and UK diplomats, Lord Goldsmith said the "true meaning" of resolution 1441 became clear and he said that he was confident that Iraqi non-compliance with this agreement would "revive" the authority to use force inherent in existing UN agreements.

OK.

Raining on Obama's Parade

2010-01-26T11:42:00.000-08:00

Hello, friends. Really trying to decide if I want to make my blog strictly political, or a mixture of politics/personal. I think for now, I'm going to try to keep it primarily political... Yep. Maybe I'll breathe some life into my old blog from my Journalism class last year as my personal one. Or something. More updates on that matter as the days come. and go.

Anywho, today I want to talk about Obama, with the whole
State of the Union address approaching us and all. As throwing members of your own party is in style this month (see: election of Senator Brown in Massachusetts, unrelenting debate between House and Senate Dems over the health bill) it seems fitting that even Democrats are being overly critical of Obama. I get it. He tempted us with all of his "Yes we can"s and the prospect of a Bush-free future for the first time in eight years. Now, it is a year later, and as Americans face unemployment at around 10%, health care reform that the House and Senate cannot agree on, a rising deficit, and a still-open Guantanamo Detention Center (despite Obama's deadline to have the Center closed by January 22, 2010), it is no wonder why people are losing faith.

Yet, an article I read in Time recently opened my eyes to how hard we are on Obama. I mean, seriously, he isn't a miracle worker. The main components of the gray cloud over the President's head have little to do with the areas where he could have taken greater action (Yes, he could have), such as Guantanamo, equal marriage/rights, and defense/pulling out of the war in Afghanistan. Instead, what follows Obama (and has left his approval rating plummeting below 50%) is the economy. The economic situation that we are faced with today though, really has nothing to do with Obama, but rather deep, systemic issues that were introduced long before Obama or even, to an extent, Bush, were sworn in to the Oval Office. Yeah, there's more that can be done, but one of the primary issues that helped lead to the economic recession was the idea of the "quick fix" in the first place. That being said, I'm willing to give him a little more time before I jump on the Obama-hasn't-done-anything-yet-wtf bandwagon.

However, I am not too happy about the proposed federal cuts, not because I don't think they should be passed, but rather because I can't understand why defense at least i.e. the war in Iraq/Afghanistan was not lowered. "The US military budget was almost 29 times as large as the combined spending of the six 'rogue' states (Cuba, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Sudan and Syria) who spent $14.65 billion." (Global Issues Watchdog)

So, here is the new year. With Obama agitating both Republicans and Democrats. And Bi-partisan international and national watchdog groups.
Today's Times

“Given Washington Democrats’ unprecedented spending binge, this is like announcing you’re going on a diet after winning a pie-eating contest,” said Michael Steel, a spokesman for the House Republican leader, Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio.

Oops. But Obama wants his pie, and he wants to eat it too. We'll see how that goes.

Oh No He DIDN'T

2010-01-20T10:55:00.000-08:00

Monday night, for the first time in quite some time, I had a nightmare. I was a Republican. It was frightening. I woke up in a cold sweat.

On Tuesday, I went about my day haunted by the images from the night before, when I was confronted with the alarming news that Republican Scott Brown had won the late Ted Kennedy's Senate seat. I couldn't help but think that my dream was a premonition. Weird.

This is not only a big deal because a Republican won in Massachusetts of all places, but also because this essentially prevents Obama from getting what he wants to done.

The Christian Science Monitor sums up the consequences nicely in this article.

Healthcare reform's dubious future
Healthcare reform is in big trouble. There are maneuvers Democrats could use to try to ram legislation through despite losing their filibuster-proof, 60-seat Senate majority. But in the wake of Democrat Martha Coakley’s crushing loss, some moderate Democrats elsewhere in the country already are expressing reluctance to take any drastic steps.

Cap-and-trade for carbon emissions? Gone.
Obama’s ambitious proposal for cap-and-trade carbon-emission regulation, meant to combat global climate change, now is not going anywhere this year.

GAH! They left out one other consequence: Ted Kennedy is rolling over in his grave.

More here in an article from NPR.

2010-01-18T23:00:00.001-08:00

bRb getting a tune-up.

Haiti

2010-01-14T09:15:00.000-08:00

It's amazing that in just a few short moments, an earthquake can afflict such an unbelievable amount of destruction on a country. It really puts things into perspective.

Image: AFP/Getty

Image: AP

The Telegraph's image gallery on the aftermath of Haiti's magnitude 7 quake.

Graves for Google

2010-01-13T18:41:00.000-08:00

Google decided today that it would no longer filter its searches for its Chinese subsidiary, Google.cn, after it was revealed that the Chinese government conducted a major hack within the company’s infrastructure to access the e-mail accounts of Chinese human rights activists. The Internet giant recognizes that it is likely that it will have to cease its business operations in China. Their blog.

On the BBC today, I saw Chinese people crying while laying down flowers and other grave markers across the lawn of Google.cn Headquarters with parting words of sorry and dismay towards their nation’s increasingly stringent hold over free speech via the Internet/the potential loss of jobs and credibility the departure of Google could bring for their country. [Image courtesy of Guardian].

In addition to monitoring anti-government activity via the Internet, the government blocks popular blogging and social networking websites such as Twitter and Facebook… [And Blogger, I presume?]

It’s unfortunate that this has happened and I hope that in time the Chinese government will side in the way of greater freedom for its people, as it is faced with business incentives and worldwide scorn.

Yet, I find this pretty fascinating, as we are finally starting to see potential for an increase in civil liberties/freedom for people around the world as technology spreads via globalization that has been talked about a great deal by scholars particularly since the birth of the Internet.

Are economic incentives though, enough to push authoritarian/communist/pseudo-communist regimes such as China in favor of greater freedom for their people? Because, let’s face it- When it comes down to it, it’s all about the Benjamins. The Chinese government claims that Google needs the nation’s business more than the government needs Google. We’ll just have to see about that.

What do you all, my currently non-existent pool of readers, think?

The Right to Discriminate

2010-01-11T17:37:00.000-08:00

Well here's something that's been in the news (barely) that doesn't have anything to do with Tiger Woods (or does it? see: next scandal)!

Gay marriage.

The impetus to write about this hot button issue comes not only from the fact that today marks the beginning of the federal trial

Perry vs. Schwarzenegger, which concerns California's anti-same-sex marriage "Proposition 8", but also because I spent a good part of the day in Trenton where the NJ State Senate rejected the legalization of gay marriage last week.

I'm not going to spend my time ragging on opponents of same-sex marriage: People have the right to hold their own moral judgements and biases so long as these do not infringe on the rights of others. Yet, this right begins to infringe on others when this bias is reflected in legislation that directly denies people of some of our country's most basic rights.

Even articles that are written without any outlandish bias against LGBTQ rights, such as Heritage Foundation Fellow and Former Attorney General Edwin Meese III, in his Op-Ed that was in yesterday's NY Times, often address some sort of "fairness" that is owed to gay marriage opponents.

Thankfully, some of Judge Walker’s rulings have been overturned. For example, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals block the disclosure of internal communications among the core Proposition 8 organizers. But there is no question that virtually every ruling by Judge Walker so far has put advocates of traditional marriage at an increasing disadvantage.

Despite this, during the trial, the supporters of Proposition 8 will work hard to demonstrate that it was rational for voters to conclude that marriage is a unique institution that promotes the interests of child-rearing, and that those interests are broader than the personal special interests of the adults involved.

What? A disadvantage? I'm sorry. Maybe I've missed something, but since when does allowing one group of persons to enjoy the same benefits that you do, when these affect you in no way whatsoever, put you at a disadvantage? I'd understand if this law suddenly made it illegal for heterosexuals to get married. Then, I'd get it.

What gets my goat even more, is the involvement of child-rearing and how this interest is broader than the "personal special interests of the adults involved." Not only has it been proven that gays can raise children just as well as straight people, but since when does marriage, as this "unique institution" that the author claims in his article, have nothing to do with the "personal special interests of the adults involved"? Essentially, Meese is saying that marriage has nothing to do with love, then. Which is fine, considering that straight people can go to Vegas, often at their lowest point of drunken indecision and spontaneity, and grant legal validity to a relationship that they may never remember in the morning. Did the Elvis impersonator ask them if their bondage was being made with the best interests of child-rearing in mind? That would be pretty awkward.

Meanwhile, gay people who are involved in a serious, loving, committed relationships who actually may have children together? Naw, their relationship doesn't mean anything, legally. Unless they live in Massachusetts or Connecticut, or reside in a state where they can get a "civil union". Yet, separate but equal, is never equal. Pretty sure we learned that, say 55 or so years ago in Brown v. Board of Ed.

A Toast to the First Post!

2010-01-11T16:08:00.000-08:00