The American legal system might be disappointing consistently, but it seems that some parts of the public service system have their agendas clear and fair. After the Defense of Marriage Act 'defined' that marriage is a union exclusively between a man and a woman, it was concluded that same sex couples were not to receive any federal benefits including Social Security and health care. Highly unfair and let me add, unconstitutional since we are all about 'separation of church and state.' But just like the abortion issue, debates concerning same sex marriages are a hot social topic that are used to deviate the less informed electorate from the facts and get votes.
But the city of Cambridge, Massachusetts has found a solution to get their way with the feds. In order to make up for the unfair treatment of homosexuals and the cost of lost benefits, the city has decided to offer additional pay to gay workers. Being in a gay relationship can cost from $1500 to $3500 a year, and the city is paying their gay employees the appropriate amount so that there is no added burden on not being straight. Amen! If the federal government is bent on socially conservative policies, local governments can take matters in their own hands, and effectively. It shouldn't be anyone's business to define how I should live my life or even worse, punish me if I don't fit the norm. America - the land of the free? Free to do as you please. And if violence, sex, and crime is okay to air any time of the day, then defining the boundaries of 'true love' seems highly contradictory. 17 companies have joined the city in their efforts to fairly compensate gay workers. Hopefully this will catch on, and across the board.
There was also some fairness and credibility in the realm of international affairs. US has decided to withhold $800 million dollars in aid to Pakistan until they resolve their 'trust' issues. Just like a betrayal in an exclusive relationship, US finding Osama bin Laden in Pakistan has led to estranged feelings of mistrust and doubts. Tensions have escalated and relationships have strained following the raid on May 2 and to be honest, rightly so. Until Pakistan shows that it is indeed against the Taliban (even though this is contrary to documented evidence) and that they are willing to contribute to the demolition of terrorist groups across eastern Asia including Afghanistan, providing millions of dollars in the name of security assistance will only be used for unclear, controversial causes. It has now been uncovered by Admiral Mike Mullen that in order to snap at critics, the Pakistani government is believed to have been behind the abduction and killing of journalist Saleem Shahzad who wrote about the infiltration of Taliban militants in the Pakistani military. Clearly, once again, Pakistan has something to hide. US is acting appropriately given its crucial and self-vested monetary and security interests in the region and using the $$ card might add some strain for better talking points.
The US Justice system has its share of work cut out to provide fair and correcting justice, but perhaps certain parts of the government do have their priorities straight. Let's get some eyes and ayes on that..
Showing posts with label american politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label american politics. Show all posts
Monday, July 11, 2011
Monday, June 20, 2011
Save the political jargon: Facts please!
A recent online article in The Trumpet news magazine caught my irritated attention. The article titled President Obama's Disagreement with Winston Churchill 'claims', citing history and Winston Churchill's philosophy, that President Obama is making a huge mistake by underestimating Germany and not paying attention to what a powerful and influential Germany represents - as suggested by Churchill during World War II.
Every journalist or reporter that covers a story has a right to their opinion. Leaking it over into a story without stating all the facts is not only bad journalism, but it is also irresponsible. For most people, the 'mainstream media' is their only source for news. People don't have the time to dig up facts and old international affairs to crosscheck stories and facts claimed in the media bias. Which is why a good reporter will give sufficient background information and even share facts that might seem to hurt his or her own position on the issue at hand.
Winston Churchill has been raised on a pedestal in America. Agreed that he was a tremendous leader with a vast influential potential and stood for the premises of democracy, capitalism, and 'righteousness' as comprehended by most Americans. But he also had his share of questionable episodes that are often overlooked by the Western media.
During his time served in the British forces during India's independence period, Mr.Churchill had been less than supportive of India's independence movement. Not only did he openly state his discontentment with the idea of an independent India, he also conveyed his dismay with Gandhi's nonviolent movement. He went far enough to state that Gandhi's death was a necessity and that him going on a hunger strike and surviving triumphantly was a failure of Britain's national interest. There are historians that claim that Churchill's wartime government during the Bengal 1943 famine should bear significant blame for the mortality of 3 million people.
Leaders have to thrive midst controversies. Given. But to highlight the positives while ignoring questionable judgement and decisions is a disservice to the masses.
It is considered taboo for leaders of the West to sway against vetted leadership. It is time to take a detour from acceptable and expected leadership and pave way for one that is dynamic, fair and encompassing. Reporters have to promote the idea of global leadership and newfound principles that don't rely on stale, stereotypical schools of thought. Churchill with India, Nixon on Iran Contra Affairs, Roosevelt and his socialist policies, even Jefferson and slavery have all been branded as great leadership, yet share substantial controversial politics. Perhaps Obama's stance on strong German leadership has an agenda bigger than what was needed to be fetched 60 years ago. He doesn't have to equivocate with political jargon and blindly follow acceptable stances given today's world affairs. A good leader's decisions don't need unwarranted following. They can be backed up with unfaltering pragmatism and the truth.
Find the complete Trumpet article here: http://www.thetrumpet.com/?q=8378.7073.0.0
Every journalist or reporter that covers a story has a right to their opinion. Leaking it over into a story without stating all the facts is not only bad journalism, but it is also irresponsible. For most people, the 'mainstream media' is their only source for news. People don't have the time to dig up facts and old international affairs to crosscheck stories and facts claimed in the media bias. Which is why a good reporter will give sufficient background information and even share facts that might seem to hurt his or her own position on the issue at hand.
Winston Churchill has been raised on a pedestal in America. Agreed that he was a tremendous leader with a vast influential potential and stood for the premises of democracy, capitalism, and 'righteousness' as comprehended by most Americans. But he also had his share of questionable episodes that are often overlooked by the Western media.
During his time served in the British forces during India's independence period, Mr.Churchill had been less than supportive of India's independence movement. Not only did he openly state his discontentment with the idea of an independent India, he also conveyed his dismay with Gandhi's nonviolent movement. He went far enough to state that Gandhi's death was a necessity and that him going on a hunger strike and surviving triumphantly was a failure of Britain's national interest. There are historians that claim that Churchill's wartime government during the Bengal 1943 famine should bear significant blame for the mortality of 3 million people.
Leaders have to thrive midst controversies. Given. But to highlight the positives while ignoring questionable judgement and decisions is a disservice to the masses.
It is considered taboo for leaders of the West to sway against vetted leadership. It is time to take a detour from acceptable and expected leadership and pave way for one that is dynamic, fair and encompassing. Reporters have to promote the idea of global leadership and newfound principles that don't rely on stale, stereotypical schools of thought. Churchill with India, Nixon on Iran Contra Affairs, Roosevelt and his socialist policies, even Jefferson and slavery have all been branded as great leadership, yet share substantial controversial politics. Perhaps Obama's stance on strong German leadership has an agenda bigger than what was needed to be fetched 60 years ago. He doesn't have to equivocate with political jargon and blindly follow acceptable stances given today's world affairs. A good leader's decisions don't need unwarranted following. They can be backed up with unfaltering pragmatism and the truth.
Find the complete Trumpet article here: http://www.thetrumpet.com/?q=8378.7073.0.0
Monday, June 13, 2011
Weiner attracts negative publicity..(Pun Intended)
Turning on the news channel off late has been a hub of "bizarre" happenings. Protests, wars, earthquakes, waterspouts, scandals!
It is interesting to note how sex scandals get a taboo sort of undivided attention, while illegal lobbying, suicide bombings in war zones and third world agendas (or lack thereof) get less air-time. It's the great media masterminds at work. They know what sells and riding on that for as long as possible drives ratings and of course lots of dollar bills. But the reasons on why such issues sell are double standard and hypocritical in nature.
Case of Democrat House Rep from New York, Mr. Anthony Weiner is one that comes to mind when talking of recent media obsessions. Mr. Weiner thought it would be a good idea to post some sexually explicit photographs of himself via Twitter to his "followers". This caused an uproar in the House and apparently some people were upset. Mostly because he was married, and partially because such actions by an elected official are highly inappropriate. Apparently inappropriate enough to not be fit for the job. Really? Hmm.
Not saying that what he did was okay, but the consequences and reactions arising from these findings deserves some analysis. Even though 56% of the people he was representing believe he was still fit for the job, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi along with Chairwoman Schultz called for his resignation. The reason for their position is not needed. Mr. Weiner's actions are attracting negative publicity for the democratic party. Republicans, hungry for any substantial boost in their chances of winning, are capitalizing on Weiner's goof. Granted his actions were irresponsible and perhaps showed bad judgement, but is he really the sole one guilty of this "worst crime possible"? A large number of Americans, pardon me, millions of people from around the world indulge in such controversial activities on a daily basis. Some of them are surely CEO's of big companies, political figures, and other influential personalities. The rest guilty of this are average people with interests in what seems to be inappropriate virtual hobbies. But these activities don't necessarily make people unfit for their jobs. It's safe to say that by not getting caught most people are able to hide that they have such interests at all.
The cyber-world has become a new ground for political battles. But the true question is whether just because someone gets caught implies they are the only ones guilty. Before the chip-age took front stage, such events took place behind closed doors and sealed envelopes. Before we make judgments and start ridiculing high profile personalities, it is perhaps worth considering how many others were guilty of doing something similar but didn't get caught. In a country obsessed with violence, sex, and reality shows, America is acting a bit too prude-ish on this one. Just because things are more accessible these days, doesn't mean there was nothing to access prior to this digital age. After all, leaders are average people like you and me. They do, agreed, have an edge over us when it comes to influence and power, but believe it or not are human nonetheless. For Mr. Weiner, however, guilty as charged will sum up his time of shame.
It is interesting to note how sex scandals get a taboo sort of undivided attention, while illegal lobbying, suicide bombings in war zones and third world agendas (or lack thereof) get less air-time. It's the great media masterminds at work. They know what sells and riding on that for as long as possible drives ratings and of course lots of dollar bills. But the reasons on why such issues sell are double standard and hypocritical in nature.
Case of Democrat House Rep from New York, Mr. Anthony Weiner is one that comes to mind when talking of recent media obsessions. Mr. Weiner thought it would be a good idea to post some sexually explicit photographs of himself via Twitter to his "followers". This caused an uproar in the House and apparently some people were upset. Mostly because he was married, and partially because such actions by an elected official are highly inappropriate. Apparently inappropriate enough to not be fit for the job. Really? Hmm.
Not saying that what he did was okay, but the consequences and reactions arising from these findings deserves some analysis. Even though 56% of the people he was representing believe he was still fit for the job, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi along with Chairwoman Schultz called for his resignation. The reason for their position is not needed. Mr. Weiner's actions are attracting negative publicity for the democratic party. Republicans, hungry for any substantial boost in their chances of winning, are capitalizing on Weiner's goof. Granted his actions were irresponsible and perhaps showed bad judgement, but is he really the sole one guilty of this "worst crime possible"? A large number of Americans, pardon me, millions of people from around the world indulge in such controversial activities on a daily basis. Some of them are surely CEO's of big companies, political figures, and other influential personalities. The rest guilty of this are average people with interests in what seems to be inappropriate virtual hobbies. But these activities don't necessarily make people unfit for their jobs. It's safe to say that by not getting caught most people are able to hide that they have such interests at all.
The cyber-world has become a new ground for political battles. But the true question is whether just because someone gets caught implies they are the only ones guilty. Before the chip-age took front stage, such events took place behind closed doors and sealed envelopes. Before we make judgments and start ridiculing high profile personalities, it is perhaps worth considering how many others were guilty of doing something similar but didn't get caught. In a country obsessed with violence, sex, and reality shows, America is acting a bit too prude-ish on this one. Just because things are more accessible these days, doesn't mean there was nothing to access prior to this digital age. After all, leaders are average people like you and me. They do, agreed, have an edge over us when it comes to influence and power, but believe it or not are human nonetheless. For Mr. Weiner, however, guilty as charged will sum up his time of shame.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)