Monday, March 7, 2011

Politics, Diplomacy & War

Quite an interesting title eh
We often to dodge those parts of the paper or turn the channel when we see it on the news
but the days we live in don't allow us as Americans to do that.

With uprisings ranging from Egypt to Wisconsin it becomes pertinent to understand the mentality behind what is going on.
What causes a large group of people to unite and move in unison for a cause?
Those 3 in the title

And we live in a day where the everyday man is suffering more and more, one becomes more interested in the state of world affairs. But why does it take drama to do so? Here in the US, we thought President Barack Obama was going to wave a magic wand to make the problems of the previous president and yet we see otherwise. However we sling comments of what we think they should be doing yet we don’t even understand how are own political system works, how ironic.


As Americans we are spoiled and blessed (depending on perspective) In our embryonic existence as a country, we have had less than 5 incidents and even in our most recent attack (9/11) we were rightfully abhorred by the world looked at us and almost smirked. You see if you live in a city like Jerusalem war, “terrorism” and other things that can expedite death are a daily part of life. We are accustomed to sending troops to “go” to war but we don’t understand what it’s like when war comes to us. This may prove to be critical in understanding the psychology of other countries as civil unrest continues to break out.


A word that is thrown around and oft is the bridge between politics and war. Yet the human element isn’t understood and it often leads to war. Diplomacy of the 21st means being realistic in understanding people and the needs of the people and has the year goes forward it will be interesting to see in various countries how the “Big 3” (Politics, Diplomacy, War) factor into our daily discussions more and more, being economics or sports.


Monday, February 21, 2011

How Democrats are Pimping America

I told ya I was coming back for the Democrats

Now If you are under 35 and are Hispanic or African-American in a major metropolis chances are you vote Democratic if for nothing else it’s “the lesser of two evils” as many folks like to think of it.

Well lets go back…The “Dixiecrats” as they were known was for back in the 19th and early 20th century were and are known for bigger government. Meaning government has a bigger say in what goes on versus Republicans who want to mitigate government involvement to some degree (For those that missed my discussion on Republicans

During the times of slavery (You know that thingy folks want to wipe from the history books, that Black folks are being so “sensitive” about. i.e. “C’mon it was a while back, let it go, you got a Black President what more do you want!”) Democrats in the south fought hard to keep slavery! Why, it was economics mostly and then race! Yes I said it! That was not a typographical error! There is the inherent moral issue of enslaving another human being that is so beyond wrong I won’t belabor the point, but the South was making a lot of money off of the free labor of slavery, and well, the North in all of its industrial Revolutionary glory had better technology but no labor. Ergo, the Civil War! It was Democrats who provided the biggest fight to Black American progression in this country during that time, and in the early days of Jim Crow, which makes it almost ironic how the elders in the community fight so hard to vote Democratic, because they have the best interest of “the people” in mind! A dangerous broad assumption would you not agree?

Fast forward to the Great Depression, when President Roosevelt made things like the “New Deal” and created Social Security and the like to help the people and minorities have voted Democratic hook line and sinker since. I’ve seen heated family discussions over voting Democrat and Republican in Black households, which since I have gotten older, never ceases to amaze me.

Race? Why discuss it in the relation to politics, because people draw their political affiliations along the line of race guided by emotions. A Black candidate expects Black people to vote for him if he/she is Democratic and people will guilt you into voting for them, by invoking such tactics as Race baiting, if you don’t. A Black Republican is IMMEDIATELY perceived as a sellout and doesn’t have the best interest of “the people” in mind, however I digress! (Interesting though)

A good example of viewing the Democratic conundrum is the mayoral race in Chicago; two African American candidates, two Hispanic candidates and a Jewish candidate. There are those that say it is imperative to vote for the African-American candidate because they “have the best interest for Black folks at heart.” What does that mean; a vague and assumptive phrase that is based off of looking like me? Andre 3000, rapper with the group Outkast, best sums this up “Every Ni$$a with dreads aint for the cause, and every ni$$a with gold aint for the fall” Meaning just because someone bears a characteristic that is one way doesn’t mean they are. (And besides since when do people need the proverbial Moses to lead them out of a metaphorical wilderness in a time where you can Google information and foolishness alike?) Yet many subscribe to such assumptive thoughts and don’t objectively look at the facts and take the time to understand what it is they want and predicate their decision on that. (Go figure)

The Democratic Party on local, state and national levels have done an excellent job preying on the apathetic nature of minorities and comfortably assume they will have the vote of the people, based on such actions. Knowing how minorities have the predisposed urge to demonize and vilify the Republican party, make themselves the lesser of two evils, and hey, if they happen to look like me, then all the better? Appear with the people and make it seem like you are one of them, and you will get their vote? Sound familiar? The same Democrats that tossed a proverbial bone back in the Great Depression (1930s) but based on that logic, should we not be loyal to the Republicans because it was a Republican that “Emancipated” Black Americans? Even with a “Black” President, we expect that since he looks like “one of us” he will “look out for us”. Why? Define what “us” wants? Will we hold him accountable the same way we held George W. Bush? (Republican) Is it okay to fail the community because you are Democrat? Folks are predisposed to be lenient to Democrats because of these thoughts. And yes with the advent of Democratic leadership, we have had things like Medicaid and SSI, but also the wool at times has been pulled over the eyes; the retort being that Democrats at least did “Something” where as Republicans have not done anything lately. However in political results, you are as good as “What you have done for me lately?” (DUN DUNNA DUNN copyright Janet Jackson). Therefore it is incumbent on the voters regardless of affiliation to keep the accountability pressure on all politicians to ensure the needs and wants of the people.

The point of the discourse is that programmatic voting is dangerous. There is nothing wrong with identifying with a particular party because their ideals line up with what you believe in, however people’s beliefs are like the people in that they are dynamic and not static and one has to be ready to review them and adapt, as well as hold that group to accountability. Accountability in that if they don’t give you what you want, utilize and manipulate the system for what they are to be used for. A good politician is one that adapts to the loudest voice of his constituents. Make yourself loud, and heard, and if they choose not to listen, remove them.

In conclusion, as we are approach the first important Mayoral election in Chicago in over 20 years, bear this in mind, you have a voice, and it’s your right to use it. WHOEVER it may be, above all know what it is you want and find who works for you, and if they don’t work, you got 4 years to watch em and find a replacement.

And if they get irate… we got Egypt as a reference of how to handle that.


Sunday, February 20, 2011

How the Republican party is destroying America!

It can be said that Democrats are contributing to the downfall as well, (and in my next article I will discuss that) however for the purposes of this article we are focusing on Republicans.

Amongst minorities particularly, the African-American community, Republicans are vilified because of their stances that in general are against bigger government, yet most don’t know or remember that the very person that liberated African-Americans, Abraham Lincoln was a Republican (Though he did it for political reasons, not necessarily because he was keen on Black folks, but I digress). In fact in the political history of the United States, it was during Reconstruction, which was right after slavery that Black Americans began to enjoy a taste of political freedom and advancement and it was with the Republican Party.

It wasn’t until the Great Depression of the 1930s that Black Americans began to vote Democratic and it was mostly because President Roosevelt, via his New Deal began to toss Black Americans a few crumbs (and it was miniscule comparatively what he did for others but again I digress)

Fast forward to today: Why are we so anti-Republican?

Lol.. lets see.. let’s go back to the 1980s, there was an actor, by the name of Ronald Reagan who came in and began this whole deregulation thing. GREAT idea back then, however we are now suffering for his actions today in 2011, meanwhile he is being canonized. (GO FIGURE). Then there was the whole CIA Iran Contra thingy that allowed for the flooding of “urban communities” with a synthetic drug that led to crime, high unemployment, yadda yadda etc etc.

Next up, we have George Bush the First. Nice guy! Coined the phrase, “Read my lips” however he began the two part saga that has created our generations Vietnam over in the Middle East. However I will give him credit in that he actually had a conclusion to his war. It was during his Presidency, that we had a recession as well, but it was nowhere near as bad as the current.

Lastly, we have George Bush the 2nd. Not as bright as is father, but he meant well, however his execution was horrid, (lest you were a prisoner of Guantanamo Bay;) under his watch the economy witnessed the most horrid attack on US soil, and began what is known as the Great Recession, which is still kicking our ass today.

Now that I have given a bit of a backdrop, the skepticism isn’t even completely from the history lesson, but for things like an article I had the pleasure of being forwarded.

Top 10 Shocking Attacks from the GOP War on Women

1) Republicans not only want to reduce women's access to abortion care, they're actually trying to redefine rape.

2) A state legislator in Georgia wants to change the legal term for victims of rape, stalking, and domestic violence to "accuser."

3) In South Dakota, Republicans proposed a bill that could make it legal to murder a doctor who provides abortion care.

4) Republicans want to cut nearly a billion dollars of food and other aid to low-income pregnant women, mothers, babies, and kids.

5) In Congress, Republicans have proposed a bill that would let hospitals allow a woman to die rather than perform an abortion necessary to save her life.

6) Maryland Republicans ended all county money for a low-income kids' preschool program. Why? No need, they said. Women should really be home with the kids, not out working.

7) And at the federal level, Republicans want to cut that same program, Head Start, by $1 billion. That means over 200,000 kids could lose their spots in preschool.

8) Two-thirds of the elderly poor are women, and Republicans are taking aim at them too. A spending bill would cut funding for employment services, meals, and housing for senior citizens.

9) Congress voted yesterday on a Republican amendment to cut all federal funding from Planned Parenthood health centers, one of the most trusted providers of basic health care and family planning in our country.

10) And if that wasn't enough, Republicans are pushing to eliminate all funds for the only federal family planning program. (For humans. But Republican Dan Burton has a bill to provide contraception for wild horses. You can't make this stuff up).

When I first read this, I seriously thought this was a joke. I mean I don’t necessarily drink the Democratic Kool-aid either but damn! The reason many “minorities” struggle with even respecting let alone voting for the Republican Party, is that they seem to not be in touch with the regular people of this country.

Must be nice to have health care and good housing and good finances without worrying too much! Then they slander so many Americans with their assumptive stances, and then toss in distorted Christianity to verify and solidify their stances. Example you ask? Sure, let me oblige youJ

Planned Parenthood

Cutting funding to Planned Parenthood, is like not feeding a pitbull and slapping it and wondering why it mauls you when it gets free. Planned Parenthood is not just the purveyor of death for those that have chosen to not be responsible. For one, abortion is not something that should be voted on by old Anglo-Saxon males who have no idea the ails and troubles and complexities of the female body. Second there are other situations of abortion that are not just someone being “irresponsible” (i.e. rape) Third, in a unique function Planned Parenthood has been the equivalent of emergency health care for many and access to at least some form of healthcare for those that can’t afford it. Interestingly enough some of these Republicans have forgotten the human condition in their rhetoric. You see, if you continue to cut educational funding, and after-school activities, you are breeding scenarios for such activities because there is no alternative but sex, drugs and violence. Where are the parents you ask? Oh yeah, remember that Ronald Reagan guy? The whole deregulation thingy? Well mommy and daddy lost their jobs to outsourcing so now they are scraping to get whatever to pay rent and well, it’s hard to be a parent when you are working 12 -16 hour shifts to barely get by! I know, I know, that’s no excuse because, “those people” should pull themselves up by their bootstraps, and let the trickle-down theory work (aka give money to big business to help the little guy, but how are they pulling up their bootstraps if they are being forced to wait for a hand out from business, yet its not cool to get a handout from the government?)


Ahhh yes! Unemployment! Republicans literally played economic terrorism with President Obama with this one. Either give rich folks more tax breaks (so they can do the whole trickle-down theory thingy) or no unemployment! Now THAT is terrorism for ya! Again the Republican Party has forgotten what really goes on with the people in mainstream America. Unemployment is painted by them as a financial blight that allow for laziness and create dependence! Are there some individuals that “pimp the system out” Of course, however in this Great Recession, it has literally been the closest thing to a lifeline for many who have been out of work for as long as 3 years, and this I know firsthand. Unemployed people are not always individuals who didn’t try. Some are highly educated and “over-qualified.” Some are victim to their industry or field collapsing. Some are forced into unemployment because a company doesn’t want to pay them what they are worth, or they are a victim of ageism. What do you tell a man or woman who is 50 years old and worked in a field for company for over 25 years to do, go back to school! Sure, but chances are they might be putting a kid through school themselves. No one wants to hire the person with experience at what he/she is worth! Cost too much, plus they are close to retirement! Oh yeah that 401k and pension plan they worked so hard to save.. yeah …about that.. (insert Bernie Madoff, Bank failures etc)

Now I can go on about this for a while, but the point I am making is that Republicans say that more government is bad for the people. An opinion that is to be respected but, the track record isn’t good, and for anybody that is so assumptive and then throws distorted religious perspective behind it, in this case, distorted Christianity, how dare you call someone terrorist? Your Jihad is not against a Western Infidel, but against the common folks of America! Instead of wearing Egyptian cotton for purification, you hire Big 4 firms to purify your personnel all for the bottom line!

Go figure.. and in the words of Sean Carter, “and this is in who you wanna place your faith?”


Friday, February 18, 2011

                                          DUMB    and   DUMBER?
                                       (Sarah Bachmann)

Will Sarah Palin get the joke?Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) calls the Pigford settlement a form of "reparations"
Not sure how many of you watched the State of the Union address given by President Obama. But I'm sure you heard a little something about the rebuttals given by the Republican party. I say rebuttal(s), because there were indeed 2.  CNN covered both of the responses while Fox news covered only 1 and left Michele Bachmann out.  I have my own theories about why this is, the leading one being that  Michele Bachmann is a tea party activist and by playing her rebuttal it would further divide the Republican party, and by Fox News being a Republican mouth piece they don't want to further the notion.
Michele Bachmann's rebuttalWho is this character?  A tea party favorite, Bachmann was tapped to give the second rebuttal to the State of the Union.  This is what she had to say.
"After the $700 billion bailout, the trillion-dollar stimulus, and the massive budget bill with over 9,000 earmarks that the President signed, many of you implored Washington to please stop spending money we don't have. But, instead of cutting, we saw an unprecedented explosion of government spending and debt at President Obama's direction; unlike anything we have seen in the history of our country. For two years President Obama made promises... He claimed that he would find solutions to fix our economy and help create jobs. Well, here are a few suggestions: 
The President could stop the EPA from imposing a job-destroying cap-and-trade system.
The President could agree with House Republicans and commit himself to signing a Balanced Budget Amendment.
The President could also agree to an all-of-the-above energy policy whereby we increase American energy production, reduce our dependence on foreign oil, reduce the price of gas at the pump, and create good-paying jobs in the U.S.
The President could turn back some of the 132 regulations put in place in the last two years that each have an impact of $100-million or more on our economy. Thanks to all of you, there's reason to hope that real spending cuts are coming. Last November many of you went to the polls and voted out big-spending politicians and you put in their place men and women who have come to Washington with a commitment to follow the Constitution and cut the size of government. And I believe that we are in the early days of a history-making turn here in the House of Representatives. Last week we voted to repeal ObamaCare, and each day going forward, we must work hard to dismantle the massive government expansion that has happened over the past two years"

The FACTS:  Failed stimulus?  I think Bachmann failed math class in the 3rd grade, you know the class where they taught you that < means less than, and >means greater than. Here's a fun fact for you Sarah.. I mean Michele, the economy shed roughly 8million jobs from Dec. 2007-July 2009.  This was the last year of the Bush administration into the first 6 months of the Obama administration.  Common sense would prevail and the obvious fact of the matter is that the policies of the Bush administration specifically, (deregulation, tax cuts for the top 5% of the richest in America and no new innovations whatsoever) have led to the job losses.  

According to economist Robert J. Shapiro.
From December 2007 to July 2009 - the last year of the Bush second term and the first six months of the Obama presidency , before his policies could affect the economy - private sector employment crashed from 115,574,00­0 jobs to 107,778,00­0 jobs. Employment continued to fall, however, for the next six months, reaching a low of 107,107,00­0 jobs in December of 2009. So, out of 8,467,000 private sector jobs lost in this dismal cycle, 7,796,000 of those jobs or 92 percent were lost on the Republican­s' watch or under the sway of their policies. Some 671,000 additional jobs were lost as the stimulus and other moves by the administra­tion kicked in, but 630,000 jobs then came back in the following six months. The tally, to date: Mr. Obama can be held accountabl­e for the net loss of 41,000 jobs (671,000 - 630,000), while the Republican­s should be held responsibl­e for the net losses of 7,796,000 jobs.

Lets talk about the Stimulus: The simple philosophical difference is this:  Would you rather trust in the "trickle down economic" theory, which means putting money into the hand of big business, which has failed us repeatedly.  Or would you rather have the money invested into infrastructure, small business, healthcare and new innovation such as green technology (which would inevitibley create jobs, put people back to work, and help cut the deficit)?  I know there's a whole lot more that goes into the 2 proposals, but this is the core of what each party believes.  Do I personally believe in the free market? sure... I think it's great to increase competition, I think it's a good way to increase the quality of services and products.  But.. and there's always a but, what the Republicans want to do is decrease regulation, decrease oversight.  This thought process has failed us time and time again.. we need to look no further than the sub-prime loans and the banking industry.  

So.... Is Bachmann the new Sarah "it was too cold to go to history class, so I just made it up" Palin?  I really don't think so.  She's a lot smarter, she doesn't spew stupidity with every breath.. she's just someone that doesn't really understand the facts. Here's my advice to the Tea Party members as well  Shijo Mullappallil's Republican Party, stop looking for what I call a "WOW" candidate.  If you think that Bachmann and Palin are the future of the Republican party... I say to you.. Carry on.  I'm voting for Obama during the next election,  putting either one of those clowns up there against him may lead to (for the lack of a better term, or lack of me wanting to use it) a waxing. 

Stay tuned for more Sarah Bachmann news... I'm sure more stupid things will come out of their mouths within the coming months.

Ashish Ansal, MD

Saturday, February 12, 2011

The Mayoral election: A republicans point of view

So here is my little shot at being a future editorial wizard.  My good friend and political enemy, Ashish Ansal, asked me to join in the festivities as a voice of the Republican delegation.  I can go on and on about being a lone ranger in the relatively tough world of being a minority rooting for the Republican cause, but instead I will take on the challenge and move forward.  I will leave to discuss my views for future articles but for now I am here to discuss a little about the Mayoral candidates for Chicago.  I am going to talk about four of the candidates and that’s mainly because, like the California Governor elections, some candidates are going to be non-factors (I have been wrong on a couple of occasions).  Now here we go!  This might not be the article I express my Republican views, cause there is not a viable Republican (winner) candidate for Chicago Mayor from my neck of the woods.
I will discuss the candidates in order of how I predict the race will finish.  This does not reflect my desire as to who “should” be the great mayor of Chicago.  I will keep my opinions brief and will elaborate in due time.  I did not go into political views in my discussions, as the candidates are all fairly similar and although I do oppose some views, I do agree on a few, but that’s boring talk.

4.  Miguel del Ville is currently the City Clerk of Chicago and a former Illinois State Senator for 20 years.  He certainly brings a number of years of political “expertise” (loosely used).  He was also the first candidate to declare his Mayoral bid and also a first to air a campaign ad, have a website and a Facebook page and the first candidate to declare that he will not accept campaign contributions from companies that do business in the city.  He campaigns as a reformer and this is proven by his declaration of not accepting campaign contributions from companies that do business in the city, but unfortunately that decision has taken his exposure and his backing from a number of political powerhouses.  Who wants to back a loser?  Not the Sun Times or Tribune.  I do like his passion for helping those that are often ignored and he really does seem to want to help the Chicago people in his mayoral bid.  He has served on various educational boards and as a director for the Boys and Girls Club.  Again, without money and power in Chicago, it just does not look like it is going to happen.   One more thing is that with two Hispanic mayoral candidates, the votes will be split and unless one wants to relinquish their bid, del Ville seems like the odd man out.

3.  Carol Moseley Braun is a former United States Senator who represented Illinois.  She was the first, and to date, only African-American women elected to the U.S. Senate.  She has also dedicated a majority of her life to politics.  She has even ran for a Democratic National Bid, but subsequently dropped out.  I am going to say that I am just not a fan of this candidate.  It seems that controversy has always followed her and although she was given a silver platter of positions and power in the Senate, she threw it all away of numerous controversies (none proven).  One of these “allegations” was unaccounted campaign funds and she admitted to bookkeeping errors.  I don’t know about you but where my money goes and where it is used is something that I want to make sure is accounted for.  If you can't handle your own election bookkeeping how do you figure to handle that of the big city of Chicago... I'm just saying.  She is too liberal for my own taste but she does have a significant backing and is popular amongst African Americans.  She wants a second chance but I just doubt that “Chicago” is going to provide her that stage.  People want to trust their Mayor (haha Chicago Mayor trust, that’s funny) and she seems to have lost that.

2.  Gery Chico is well known for a few things mainly being the former chief of staff of Mayor Richard Daley and was a former president of the Chicago Public Schools and Chicago Park District and former Chairman of the City Colleges of Chicago.  He is the big rival to who my number prediction as winner of the Chicago Mayoral bid.  I bet he was a little happy and very sad regarding the residency controversy with Rahm.  Other than his involvement as Chief of Staff, his primary political contribution is minimal.  He is, on the other hand, considered a “political insider” who probably means he has a lot of clout in the City.  I mean just knowing and having been endorsed by Richard “I am Chicago” Daley is enough to get you at least 10 percent of the votes.  That being said, he has dedicated a lot of his years to various different posts as I stated before including CPS and the Park District.  Only problem is that controversy seems to follow this man as well.  He was a senior partner in a law firm, Arnstein and Lehr, which later went insolvent and dissolved and many have blamed this to poor management, which included Chico.  Like, Mosley Braun, how do you expect to run Chicago if you cannot truthfully and honestly run a law firm (hey lawyers are honest!, I swear).  Although, his final records as CPS and Park District were adequate, they also did not come without a little controversy.  He is a little too liberal for my good as well but he has done a fairly decent job and with the endorsement of Richard Daley, he will certainly make some noise (but will fall short).

1.  Finally, the candidate I believe will win this little election is none other than, Ashish…..Rahm Emanuel.  I want him to win because then Entourage has to film a couple of shows in Chicago on behalf of his brother! (Ari Emanuel).  Oh yea, politics, I tend to forget that when this guy is involved, just kidding that is just the cynic in me.  Rahm has held elected political positions in the United States House of Representatives (5th district) but he is what many have called a political strategist. He has strategized for numerous political powerhouses including the President of the United States, Barack Obama and former President Bill Clinton.  He also played a vital role in numerous campaign elections for Richard Daley, who has endorsed his rival Gery Chico.  This guy is certainly fiery and two things that he has going for him is money and the entire Jewish Faith backing him.  Like his rivals in this election, he has both the political aspect but also a dab of religion and race.  We clearly have to acknowledge this fact.  If no one already knew, there was a little controversy over his residency in Chicago and his eligibility to run for Mayor of Chicago.  Long story short, he can run not only triathlons but also for Mayor of Chicago.  My two cents, he should be allowed to run, it was always his intention to run for Mayor (Daley surprised everyone) and he proved that and now we just get to sit back and let Ari…I mean Rahm do his magic.  Finally, he is the big time player who will follow the footsteps of Daley.  Daley did a great job running Chicago.  Yea there is a little muscle being pushed around by Daley but hey he got the job done and I think Rahm has the clout, the knowledge and the expertise to run Chicago for decades to come.

- Shijo Mullappallil

Wednesday, February 9, 2011

Editorial-The Dangers of Homerism

A common misconception of many competitive types is that success is the product of blindly supporting a position or side without addressing, understanding, or even sometimes siding with potential competitors. Some take this to the extreme by disliking certain competitors so vehemently that they will never support that competitor even if such lack of support will be detrimental to their position. This can hold true in business, sports, politics, and many other aspects of life.

The term Homer has been commonly used in the United States for sports fans who commit such extreme alliances to certain sports teams and vocally support almost every move by their teams even if the objective facts point towards the contrary. Chicago sports fans have been guilty of this, as have fans from other cities. A classic example of a delusional Homer would be former Los Angeles Clippers announcer and NBA Hall of Famer Bill Walton. The extent to which this Bozo would hype up arguably the worst sports franchise in the history of modern civilization would be sad if it wasn't so ridiculous. In the case of Walton, it was not so dangerous since it was so obvious that the man was simply ranting nonsense to collect a paycheck. The danger arises when people adapt such a Homerist personality that trickles down to other aspects of their lives and into issues much more serious than a sporting event. Unfortunately, true Homers morph into nothing more than pure haters.

The danger of lacking objectivity is that it creates hate and vitriol so delusional that it is detrimental to all parties involved. The current crisis is Egypt is a classic example. The danger in the populist movement that has gripped the world ever since the internet has taken off is that every Dick, Bob and Harry thinks they can knock on the doors of power and boot people out of office. This would be alright if the situation is warranted. Unfortunately, many times these were popular movements that gained steam after going viral and then people blindly start following the movement without looking at the facts. I'm not an expert on Egypt so I won't comment on whether it was warranted or not. I will state that it sets a dangerous precedent when people can overthrow anyone anytime they are upset. Egypt may be an extreme example, but this could give people ideas to boot Obama out of office because they are angry about healthcare or boot Bobby Jindal out of office because they are annoyed with his ridiculous hairdo. I experienced a similar event firsthand as a news assistant with KABC-TV, the powerhouse ABC affiliate in Los Angeles. I worked there during the recall of then California Governor Gray Davis. Davis, a man I met and talked to personally when I later worked at CNN, in my opinion was a nice fellow who got shafted by a media and public that turned on him. The movement to recall him went viral and people started turning on him for a former Austrian steroid-user/average-at-best actor. It didn't matter what the facts supporting Davis were, the people had decided to go against him without providing any objective reasoning. Hardcore Republican and Democrats do this all the time. That's why we're always stuck with the candidate with the deepest pockets because the strategists know that a few extra buck of advertising goes a long way in brainwashing a bunch of rar rar go team Homers. In Chicago we've seen the consequence of this. It's called the Chicago Cubs. The longer fans admire the ivy and pack the stands, the longer the team can employ stand-ins for major league baseball players that can push the World Series drought into a third century. Homerism empowers the opposition.

The same applies to relationships in business and personally. Many times people refuse to let go of their views, When this happens, the opposition has no wiggle room and it creates an unbreakable stalemate that is a lose-lose for all involved. Cults are notorious for manipulating Homers. A famous example of this was the Jonestown massacre where Jim Jones told his followers to ingest a deadly "kool-aid" poison that resulted in one of the greatest mass suicides in World History.

To conclude, I sincerely hope that all the voters in the current Chicago election look closely at all the candidates and make a responsible and educated decision. Yes Emmanuel has deep pockets and a great deal of experience in power. However, people should not simply vote for Rahm based on the big name. He's running for Chicago Mayor, a position that has seen everyone from Harold Washington to Jane Byrne (Yes there have been Chicago mayors not named Daley). Everyone should put their Homerisms aside and look at who is the best person for the job, not who is the big name or the person they like. A lack of objectivity or vilifying the opposition takes you from the ridiculousness of a Bill Walton to the deadliness of an Adolf Hitler. Both Homers, but the latter decided to gas his opponents. There's nothing funny about that.

Bollywood Jay

Monday, January 31, 2011

Programmatic Voting (Just a thought)

Its something that I don't think many people tend to think about. We like to think we are independent in our decisions and we came to those conclusions all by ourselves. Truth is, we are influenced by family friends, experiences, stereotypes and the like and voting is very obvious.

For those that are unaware, in the city of Chicago there is quite a paramount race for Mayor. The long time incumbent, Richard Daley is stepping down and its a mad grab for power within the city.

Within one particular demographic, there was this big to-do about "THE" candidate. As in the candidate the people all agree on. In this case it was within the Black community after a thinning process reduced the pool  from more than 5 to one. However, there are those running that in theory are "splitting the vote".  But what does that mean?

Do a particular group of people have to completely agree on one candidate? Why? We believe in naivety that all will agree? It assumes a homogeneous mentality that is far from truth within such a volatile subject as politics. Only thing more derisive and divisive is religion.

All in all, we can say one thing but when we are within the booth casting our votes, all of that flies out the window.

Group-think though prominent, usually gets eschewed for individuality in the end. We all look at potential candidates the way we look at jobs; what can you do for me, why should I choose you.

So as we go forth and make our decisions, find the candidate that moves YOU. Not your mother grandmother, pastor, etc. Because ultimately your choice is what will affect you.