As I look around and talk to many of my democratic friends, two things tend to stand out: 1) They mostly support Obama and his vision for “change” 2) No one knows what the change is, how it will come about, and what precisely Obama will do to make this happen. As an avid followers of politics, more so this election cycle around for obvious reasons, I am left dumb-founded when I look around at Obama supporters. Granted, he is extremely intelligent, charming, and a well versed speaker but one aspect eludes him: a valid platform.

He has screamed out for “CHANGE” at the top his lungs, but does anyone know what exactly he means by change? If by change he means changing of a President that is inevitable. If by change he means changing of the way the country is run, that is inevitable as well. If by change he means they way he would run the office if elected, then what exactly will he change? Its good to have a vision but there must be paths to get to the goal, there must be ideas that can come to fruition, there must be honesty and disclosure so people around can rally towards a cause. People are rallying towards the cause of change without knowing what the change is or how we will get there. More empty promises with no action? Have we not had enough of that already?

For a person, who claims to be beyond negative politics, all I have seen him do is bash Hillary Clinton. Rather than talk towards what he is about all he has done is talk about what Hillary is not. I have seen him misinterpret Hillary’s words (MLK situation), call her out on her office records (yet his Senate records are mysteriously non-existent), and cry about being “tag-teamed.” The recent snub towards Hillary at the State of Union Address (where he refused to acknowledge her existence) seems a little petty, which further cements the fact that for someone who claims that he is above all the petty politics that plague Washington, he seems to be a person who fits right in.

Note to Obama: Please tell me what you are about and what your vision is instead of screaming “CHANGE” and putting down other contenders. I know Hillary does the same, but I have a better idea of what she stands for. It’s about time you laid out your plans, don’t you think?

Note to Obama supporters: If I have missed his message other than the word “Change,” please feel free to enlighten me .

The thing about riding the metro is that you often start to notice the little things that happen around you. I have a pretty long metro ride, all 40 minutes plus, if everything runs smoothly (which it rarely ever does). If not, add another 40 minutes on the DC metro system and we are good to go! So, as I sit there everyday, with the express newspaper in hand and the iPod blasting away in my ears with what I call mood music (which is often changing every second on the metro) I looked around and realized that there are so many things I would pass over in different situations.

One of the main things I have noticed is the process of natural selection. I think I am a little claustrophobic, hate riding backwards, so I tend to find a window seat facing the direction of the destination. Once all the window seats are taken up, people coming in are left with a choice of who to sit with. Its almost like that P.E. class back in high school where you want to be picked by the coolest person; being chosen last or (the horror of it all) not chosen at all in the stop makes you want to take out the mirror to check there is nothing stuck in your teeth, your hair is okay etc.etc… Based on my observations, I came up with the following:

1) The Suits: These are the men that are dressed up in suits and often tend to search for seats next to well dressed men or polished women. They often choose to stand if they are unable to find such seats.

2) The Soldiers: Since I get on in Springfield, I pass the Pentagon exit. I see a lot of men and women in uniforms (Army, Navy etc). They tend to stick to their kind as well, except they are the most polite people of all. They are always quick to give up their seats for older men/women, pregnant women, or individuals that are hurt.

Of course, these are my totally biased opinions and I continue to live by them. :)

3) The Oldies: A lot of the older people on the metro are lost and tend to find seats near the maps, to ensure they are going the right way. They don’t have a preference on who they sit next to but tend to refrain from people who are blasting their iPods.

4) The Pervs: These are often people who look for the young ones. Nasty!

5) The Teens: They rarely have a preference and often enjoy the metro ride (Gasp!). They tend to grab the first seat available and yak non-stop till their stop.

6) The Mothers: Run to the seats right by the doors to store the strollers. They guard their territory and are not too pleased when other people step in their territory.

7) The Women: Assess the situation very carefully (present company included). I first look to see if the person looks like they have showered. If yes, then I make sure their music is not blasting. If all is good, I take the seat, if not I end up standing (which is fine by me even in killer heels!).

Of course, these are my totally biased opinions and I continue to live by them. :)

China and Darfur have a long relationship and it has strengthened over the years, to a point where the Chinese are a major source of investment and trade to the Sudanese government. One of the main commodities imported by China is oil. The Chinese are most definitely pro-Sudan and have been reluctant to address the on-going genocide in the country.

The latest report by Amnesty International claims that China has been supplying the Sudan government with weapons despite the UN weapons embargo in place against supplying weapons to DARFUR government (AI also claims that Russia is doing the same). In addition to this, the Chinese have used their veto in the UN Security Council to block moves to sanction the Sudanese government for continued violence in Darfur. After this report released by Amnesty International, a lot of human rights groups are calling for boycotts in the 2008 Beijing Olympics.

Lo and behold: China appoints its first envoy for African affairs and has offered personnel to assist the international peacekeepers in Darfur. A change of heart, or a smooth PR move?

China is emerging to be a strong global player and wants to be viewed as being responsible player. They are already strong in terms of economic prowess but are sorely lacking diplomatic clout. They are trying to balance a relationship between Sudan and the rest of the world body. They definitely do not want negative attention drawn to the Olympics (matter of money and prestige), so they are changing their stance slightly to appease both Sudan and the rest of the world.

The UN arms embargo that is in place prevents arms supplies to the DARFUR state, but does not say anything about Sudan. This provides the loophole for countries like Russia and China to sell the arms to the Sudanese government. The weapons are then in turn used in Darfur. The countries that supply the arms to the Sudanese government have to be held responsible for getting the weapons to the irresponsible Sudanese government. Despite the arms being sent to Sudan, it trickles into Darfur and the genocide wages on. The UN is trying to extend the embargo to encompass all of Sudan, but in the meantime people continue to suffer and die. Does a country like China, which wants to be seen as a global player not shoulder any responsibility? China just announced an interest free loan to build a new Presidential Palace!?!?!

This has to be one of the smoothest PR moves done in China’s history. They are trying to appease without doing anything! If they really wanted to change and make an impact, why not stop the arms supply completely? Oh, wait a minute; they may lose the oil and all the other lucrative deals in place. Basically, this is just another smokescreen to make everyone think things are all rosy but behind closed doors it’s the same old story: another barrel of oil, another gun sold, one too many lives lost….

Paris Hilton has been sentenced to jail for 45 days for driving under a suspended license. Her jail tenure starts on June 5, 2007. This is one subject I have mixed feelings about blogging.

a) Is it important enough to warrant such attention?
b) How does Paris Hilton going to jail affect anyone?

So I decided to leave it as is. And then, I kept hearing it every single morning on Washington Post Radio (yes on the Washington Post Radio). Every where I turn, its Paris this and Paris that. Then I hear that people are signing a petition to have Govenor Arnold pardon her? Umm, okay (that was my initial reaction)! Let’s see. People are rallying to help out Paris Hilton whose achievements are ….what? Exactly. After being totally overloaded by everything Paris on every single media stream, I decided I had to vent out my frustrations and thoughts.

She is known for her:

a) Bad singing
b) Her *ahem* video
c) Awful fashion sense
d) Red carpet antics
e) Gazillion boyfriends
And the list of stupidities go on….

This girl’s only claim to fame is her “name” and the despicable acts mentioned above. My fascination and confusion in this whole issue lies in the fact that someone so stupid can become so popular. You have little kids running around wanting to be like Paris, whose role model is Paris. It definitely is safe to say that gone are the days where role models were women like Albright, Mother Teresa and so on. Seriously, Paris Hilton? Can we not do better than that?

Fine, even if I look past this useless qualities about her and try to find the good things, I just can’t! I mean there is nothing! She should go to jail and pay for the crime, YES CRIME, she committed. I don’t think any ordinary person would get off with doing what she did, so what would make her above the law? Now they are saying she may only serve half of her sentence? Ummm, why?

So, Mr. Governor, if you are reading this: Please let her go to jail and pay for her crimes. We would not want anyone thinking that Hollywood celebrities are above the law do we? (*totally rolling my eyes*)

Maybe someone should start a petition asking to keep her in jail for all 45 days? That’s a thought….

The debates rage on.

Coming on the heels of the Democratic Presidential candidates’ debate was the Republican one. The main players were Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani and Senator McCain. The debate included topics like the Iraq War, Stem Cell Research, and Abortion. Everyone seemed to embrace Ronald Reagan’s legacy, and the point of that was? Exactly!

Iraq War: I am not sure if the candidates have taken the time to realize and recognize what is going on in Iraq or how the U.S. citizens feel about the war. If they did, I am sure they would notice that:

1. The war is a disaster and it is getting worse as we speak. In the middle of the chaos that is Iraq, the Iraqi government is going on a long break? There is absolutely no progress, despite the so called “SURGE?” The rebuilding projects are a disaster! Civilians and soldiers are dying every day. The Iraqi govt. has strong undercurrents of sectarianism.
2. The U.S. citizens voice their resounding “NO” in the mid-term elections. Bush’s rating is at an all-time low. We are unhappy with the way the domestic issues are being handled. All in all we are sick of the War and of the Republican Party.

So common sense would tell me that these candidates are aware of our feelings. I think I spoke too early. Everyone wants to stay the so-called “course.” What is the course? Is it the one we are on right now? Well it has not worked so far, so why would it work going forward. They expressed their desire to win the war and eradicate terrorism across the globe and I would like to have the moon on a platter. Why do they not recognize a need for change in strategy? Am I missing something?

Abortion: As we are all aware, the main stance of the Republican Party when it comes to abortion rights is an anti-abortion position. As we see a more Republican panel in the Supreme Court, one of the most heated debates/concerns is the possible reversal of Roe. v. Wade. In a field of staunch anti-abortionists, Giuliani does not fear being different. He pretty much said that he would be OK if the Roe. v. Wade was reversed, but he ultimately thinks it’s the woman’s right to choose. He’s taking a gamble by reiterating his stance despite being a Catholic and Republican. This would definitely attract a lot of those that are on the fence and belong in neither the Republican nor the Democrat camps.

There was minimal discussion of domestic issues. That was definitely quite alarming. What happened to discussing the following IMPORTANT issues?

1. Unemployment
2. Healthcare
3. Minimum Wage
4. Taxes
5. The Budget Deficit!!!
6. Environment/Global Warming

Granted, this was a 90 minute debate and it’s more of an introductory debate, but still I think these issues should have been at least touched upon.

Highlight of the debate: Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo raising their hands to voice their stance on evolution: THEY DON’T BELIEVE IN IT. Right…..

For many of us who voted to make a change during the midterm elections, we are once again left with the question of whether our votes will create a change? The Senate power hangs in limbo as we look to see if Senator Johnson will emerge from his brain surgery unscathed. What are the repercussions of his illness?

Part of me knows that now is not the time to discuss this, but to think and hope for the best for a human being who is suffering. Everyone wants him to get better regardless of our party affiliations. That being said, I however cannot and will not dismiss the bigger picture and the baggage that could possibly come with it.

When I went to the polls this mid-term election, my mind was clear; I knew what I wanted and hoped to get what I wanted: change. Each choice I made was aimed to make a difference, to create a change, to put in place a more competent Senate and House (in my opinion). When we succeeded I was overjoyed, albeit that we won with a narrow margin.

Since Senator Johnson (D-South Dakota) had a brain surgery, there are questions on how well he would recover, if at all he does? And if he does, will be ok to take control of the office, or would he resign? If he does not take control, then Mike Rounds (Republican Governor, South Dakota) will appoint a replacement. It does not take a genius to realize that a Republican Senator will be brought into power. This would give us a tie, which Dick Cheney (yes, of all people, this idiot) would break.

What does this mean for us? Basically, no change. We are back at square one. We will still have idiots making decisions, wielding power, despite the fact that the message during the elections was clear: change. I really don’t think we as a country can afford to have someone like Dick Cheney at the helm for two more years. Senator Johnson is showing signs of recovery and there are many precedents for Senators to continue to hold office while incapacitated.

I really do not think we can afford to take a step back. Consider this post as a rant of a politically disillusioned American…

I guess everyone’s prayers are being finally being answered. As I was reading Bob Woodward’s book (State of Denial), there are detailed accounts of Rumsfeld’s activities, thoughts, personality etc. The book went on to reiterate what we all knew to being with. He’s arrogant, self-righteous, and stubborn. He did not listen to reason and does not believe that he has to answer to anyone.

He has completely botched the Iraq war. Are we in Vietnam II? Why step down now? Is it because the Republicans lost the House majority and are poised to repeat the same at the Senate? If this is the case, how is Rumsfeld stepping down beneficial to the Republicans? Are they thinking of 2008 elections and their position there? Would it have been better for them if Rumsfeld had indeed stepped down before the GOP votes? All these questions will become more clear in the following days. But what does his stepping down really mean?

Rumsfeld’s stepping down will only make a difference if Robert Gates (former head of CIA, poised to take over) changes the strategy and policies of the unjust Iraq war. As exit polls overwhelmingly showed that the war was highly unpopular among the voters, Rumsfeld took this step. The way I see it, it was known that the war was highly unpopular even before the GOP elections. Why step down now? Are we just being lulled into a state of false hope? Or did it really take the GOP elections to make our voice be heard?

Regardless, we can’t leave Iraq in the middle of a war and it’s not safe for us to be there (unsafe for both the soldiers and the Iraqi civilians and govt. personnel). We are basically in a Catch-22 situation and it will be interesting to see how these events play out in the upcoming weeks.

For now, take a deep breath, rejoice: Rumsefeld is GONE!

I am going to talk a little football here, so please be patient with me (have to get it off my chest!).

Despite being a Cowboys fan, I was not too pleased when our acquisition of T.O. was announced last year. I felt that we were paying an exuberant amount for a talented yet troubled player, and drama was definitely not what Dallas needed. Was it all worth it?

First, came his issues with 49er QB Jeff Garcia and then coach Steve Mariucci.

He pissed off the Ravens by spurning them.

Then his issues were with McNabb and Andy Reid in the Eagles.

He antagonized the Eagles’ fan base by wearing Michael Irvin’s jersey after they were beaten by the Cowboys.

In Dallas he started the season off with a broken finger and now he attempts suicide?!?!

When I first read this, three questions sprang to my mind:

1. Is he doing this just to get attention? (as he is notorious for this)
2. What was Jerry Jones thinking? (considering Parcells is good at working with players who are difficult)
3. How much is enough for T.O.?

The thing about T.O. is that he is an excellent and talented player. The extra baggage that comes with it is not pleasant. He gets paid well, and he repeatedly fails to do his job. As an athlete his responsibility goes beyond just the performance at the games. He has to respect the fans who helped put him where he is. Somewhere he lost his sight and I do believe he is going the Ricky Williams way: CFL anyone?

In the past during extreme religious tension, Pope John Paul II would often issue statements through the Vatican in hopes of calming the situation. He took an anti-violence stance and was a open critic of the Iraq War. Following his death, Pope Benedict XVI was elected at the Papal Conclave. He is conservative and wishes for Europe to return to it’s fundamental Christian views.

Recently, in a lecture at at University, the Pope quoted the 14th century Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus as having said that, “Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.” Before presenting this quote, the Pope had mentioned the discourteous nature of the King.
He also went ahead and said that violence is against the nature of God.

Muslims around the world are deeply offended by the Pope’s remarks (even though he was quoting someone) and are expecting an apology/clarification.

Here is where I became confused:
1) What was the Pope trying to convey?
2) Are the Muslims mis-interpreting this whole situation?

Considering the fact that the Pope was speaking in support of a secular world, I don’t see how this quote has any place in his speech. Infact, I find it downright ridiculous that someone at such a high position would be irresponsible enough to make such a quote. No, I am not a Muslim, but I can still see how something like this spoken from a Pope would have such an impact, especially coming at a delicate time in the world. What is he trying to say here? Is he saying that Islam is being spread around the world through brutality? Is there not violence in every religion even today? So why single out one religion at such a sensitive time? This is definitely akin to a world figure making anti-Semitic or anti-Christian remarks and we all know that those remarks would definitely not fly.

Since the Pope is claiming that he meant no harm by his remarks, Islamic leaders should try to open up a dialogue with the Vatican and clear this issue up. They have to realize that inciting over 1.5 billion Muslims across the world is not going to resolve this issue.

The world leaders and figureheads need to realize that we live in times where more than one religion exists and they need to find a way to transcend these differences in order to live in harmony. I know this is easier said than done, but then again I am the EVER OPTIMIST!

Here are some of the sources I looked at. As I sifted through them breifly, I tired to make sense of it. Please feel free to share your thoughts.

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0605258.htm

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0605237.htm
Note this part in the article: Although the pope did not specifically endorse the 600-year-old criticisms of Islam that he quoted, he did not distance himself from them, either.

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0605263.htm

The Speech:
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/september/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060912_university-regensburg_en.html

Upon re-reading this speech, what point is the Pope trying to make? To me it comes off as him saying that the Islam religion is violent and that they are going against “GOD” since God does not harbor violence.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5347876.stm

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/09/15/pope.islam/index.html

Beep, beep, beep. I run out of the bathroom, as I was getting ready to head to work and pick up my cell phone.

Me: Hello?
My Friend: The World Trade Center has been hit by an aircraft.
Me: What!?!?!?! What are you talking about?
My Friend: Check the news on tv.
Hang up.

What then followed was a frightening account retold on the television sets across the world. The towers and the Pentagon was hit. Thousands hurt and dead. Dust and debris all over New York City by the WTC. The Pentagon with a whole on the side. People screaming in pain. Out of the debris the saviors walk their first steps towards becoming heros. The firefighters, the cops, the officials, the surviors, the victims and the citizens pulled together as a country, as a community, as one to rise above the hurt, pain and destruction. The one minute silent vigils, the half mast flags do not do justice to these brave individuals.

On the fifth year anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, I find myself bombarded by new documentaries, articles and other sources of material. As I sift through these sources, I am confounded by the different conspiracy theories floating around. I understand this quest for the truth, as this was one incident that affected us all and sent ripples of shock across the world. But what is the truth? Do these theories hold value? Why do people choose to believe this?

Previously, I have never put much thought to these theories. This does not mean that I believed everything the government fed us, but I never before took the time to sit down are research these theories. Here’s a few I came across.

Theory 1: Thierry Meyssan wrote a book called, “The Big Lie” was a bestseller in Europe. It put forth the theory that the Pentagon was not hit by a plane but rather by a surface to air missile fired by the US government itself. In addition, he claims that jets that hit the WTC’s were empty of gas and were controlled by radio beacons from the ground. Supposedly, behind these acts were George W.Bush and other government officials.
This is a pretty popular theory that many are choosing to believe. I find this so hard to believe. A conspiracy/coverup this large would involve many individuals and the probability of keeping them all quiet is pretty slim to none.

Theory 2: Morgan O. Reynolds, former cheif economist appointed by Bush (quit in 2002) , believe that the M-16, the Mossad and our Government is responsible for the 9/11 attacks, which serveas a pre-text in leading to the Iraq invasion, which was the ultmate goal of Bush/Cheney.
I do believe that Bush and Cheney wanted Saddam out of Iraq, but I don’t believe that they would go to this extent to carry that out.

Theory 3: United Flight 93 never crashed in Shanksville, PA.
My question: If it did not, where are the passengers?

These are just a few of the theories floating around. The 9/11 review shows that we had sufficient intelligence and information, yet we failed to prevent this disaster from occurring on our own soil.

I suppose the pain of our failure is pushing us to question every action and pushing us to find the truth in all of this. I hope the quest for truth continues so we can once and for all put these theories to rest.

Take a minute today to recongnize and realize, what we as a community have lost and gained.