Lasting Rose

Despite the gloss over Ann Romney tried to give the historic improvisation of Clint Eastwood, who tried to address and insult an invisible Barack Obama who had no way of fefending himself, the Democrats will be eager to pull off something in return at the DNC.
Letting the GOP get away with a piece of stage drama to score a political point against them will be a political sin the democrats can't afford. They can't let the insult go away unpunished like the way the convention managed an important debilitating debate on abortion, which preceded it, to totally disappear from the agenda.
Though it may not be entirely in style for a sitting president, who has already declared that he is no way offended by the episode, to stoop to such silly political theatre, it actually gives Barack Obama a precious chance to defend his records by "Eastwooding" George Bush. After all, Bush, from whom he inherited the economic mess, was conspicuously absent from the RNC to evade having to defend his poor record which would definitely have hurt the claims of the GOP.
George Bush must have evaded the convention under pressure from the GOP, precisely not to remind anyone of his legacy or what the Republicans really did to the US economy in the eight years they were in power. In any case, George Bush couldn't have defended his record convincingly and might have ended up with embarrassing remarks, for which he has a solid record, which might have turned in to the high lights of the convention.
Though George Bush himself was on record about his decision to stay away from the convention, For the GOP itself, who is trying to win back the power in Washington, not being able to hold their ex president in front of the nation, as a guarantee of the rosy state of affairs they promise, is an indefensible weakness.
Whether the political managers of the Democratic Party can see this massive hole in the defence of the GOP and capitalise on it can make a real difference to the message they will transmit from Charlotte in the next few days.
Under normal circumstances any attempt by President Obama and his party to go back several years in history to defend their records would have been torn apart by the GOP as weak defence for incompetence. However, the GOP can no more complain about being unduly attacked if some one will do an "Eastwooding" on any of their leaders as they have publicly praised and justified what the Octogenarian Hollywood icon has enacted during the RNC.
But what will be the best way to delicately tap in to the enormous opportunity must be the thought which has kept the DNC managers sleepless for last week. Obviously a copy cat performance by another celebrity or any of the leaders will be deemed ridiculous and can easily backfire.
Their best bet is President himself, who has time and again proved his entertainer appeal, especially during the White House Correspondents Dinner Speech. Obama has proved not only that he can pull off effective jabs at his political opponents, but that he can do such things convincingly while unbelievably difficult situations like the operation Geronimo was being carried out under his command. President Obama no doubt is as much a theatrical performer as Clint Eastwood is.
It is hard to see that Barack Obama and his political managers will let such an opportunity go untapped. A rebuttal in some form or the other must be expected. It will certainly be one of the high points of the DNC.
In what form and way the president will deliver that will determine the political maturing of Barack Obama.

Americans may not see it because they may not want to. But when it comes to basic human rights at least, the world is coming to see little to differentiate the U.S. from the Taliban it wants to get rid of in Afghanistan. The Taliban thinks women shouldn't go to school; the Americans think 32 million of them shouldn't have a mandatory health cover. What is the difference?

The United States of America may be the richest country in the world without universal healthcare for all, a situation Obamacare (Affordable Care Act) will certainly change. For the rest of the world, with no easy access to facts and figures to compare and who is unaware of the historical U.S reticence towards human rights, the United States of America, which wants to challenge and repeal Obamacare is looking more like a third world country.
That is the take away from the recent Obamacare judgement by the U.S. Supreme court, the dissentand the ensuing political battle cries, all of which have brought the U.S politics and the legal system to world focus, with some disbelief. Hey, is this the America everyone looks up to?

To many foreigners, thanks to its legal system, the U.S. had been the "Never Never Land" which gives shudders down your spine, nearly the same feelings an American family, who is offered a free holiday in Iran, gets in the guts at the thought of a trip.
The general apprehension about the U.S. attitude towards human rights might not be entirely without justification:
• When an Australian citizen seeks asylum in a third world country's embassy out of fear of incrimination and death penalty from a U.S. court if extradited to the U.S.?
• When an ex president of a "friendly" nation with a population of 1.3 billion can be stopped andfrisked at the airport because of his name and racial profiling?
• When a president of the World Bank is handcuffed and thrown in the prison cell overnight withoutrecourse to any legal aid because an illegal immigrant cried foul?
• When recent cases of miscarriage of justice have sent innocent people to the death row which all civilised countries have abolished by now?
• When Guantanamo and stories of renditions are still a reality?
That is to say that there is certainly a 'disconnect' between how the Americans see their justice system from a lot of other people around the world, who are apprehensive, or at least can't understand the way Americans think.
It was not surprising that the entire world, like the President himself, had resigned to the reality and waited for the U.S. Supreme Court, with a conservative majority, to throw the Obamacare, proposed by a democratic administration, in to the bin. That would have been treated as an internal matter and the fate of the U.S citizens.
However, how one judge decided to change history by passing the law has brought the issue to the attention of the world and its scrutiny. Whether Judge Roberts acted to avoid the Supreme Court verses elected representative controversy or out of conscience and a desire to bring the United States of America in synch with the social values the rest of the developed has long since taken for granted has become immaterial.
What gives credence to the question whether the U.S. has really evolved in its human rights view is the vehement and destroying fury of the dissent by the four judges, who have chosen to ignore the human rights implication, in their fervour to uphold the U.S. constitution and the free market.
But what is even more shocking and raises the question if the U.S. indeed cares a toss to be viewed as a third world country is the intransigent politics which has turned the Obamacare, which brings the Americans closer to civilised societies, in to the bone of contention of the next presidential election, with the GOP and its candidate Romney wowing to destroy it at any cost.
Twenty five years back as an immigrant from India in France, I was shocked by a scene when a nearly paralysed lady arrived in a supermarket for her weekly shopping, flat on her back, in a stretcher, being carried by two attendants. That day I had realised what universal healthcare really means in a caring society.
Today, I wonder what would have happened to that person if she lived in the richest country after the next presidential election of the U.S.A.

Article first published as Does Obamacare Make Americans Third World Citizens? on Technorati.

Perhaps it is time the Americans considered changing their electoral system for something 'funnier' like the Presidential election of India. In the Indian Presidential election a candidate some parties refuse to declare their support for has more of a chance to be elected as the President of the country than others they chooses to support. It is merely the negative political sentiments which come in to play irrespective of the calibre andsuitability of the individual.
With the trend of latching on to the 'negativity' in every statement, every faux pas the president or his opponents make and blowing it out of proportion, the American democratic process also beckon the question if it is a desirable trait for a free and fair electoral process of a leading democratic nation.
In terms of political power, the two presidencies have no comparison, except in an emergency when the Indian President can assume unlimited and unprecedented executive powers like those of the US president. Yet,the electoral processes which decides the president by an election or a unanimous choice can reflect the political balance in the Indian context.
By all counts, Pranab Mukherjee, India's finance minister fit the bill to be elected unanimously as the country's president. If Mukherjee, despite his three decades of service to the country as part of various governments including that of Indira Gandhi, is not well known outside India it is his own fault for being a thorough, non controversial and soft spoken gentleman politician, which has made him universally acceptable. Yet In the Indian system even an eminently suitable candidate like Mukherjee has to be propped up by negative and partisan vagaries of the political class.
Four years back, when the congress party president Sonia Gandhi chose to install Pratibha Patil as the first woman President of the country, perhaps with a vision in to the future for herself, it was the refusal of BJP, the main opposition, to support the incumbent President Kalam which led to her success.
Interestingly, an open declaration of support of BJP to Kalam this time has simply precluded his chances of ever becoming the president again, as practically ever party rejected the suggestion.
A few weeks back the Indian communists declared their support for Pranab Mukherjee, a native of West Bengal and India's minister for Finance, as the new president. Though this had increased the support for Pranab, Mamta Banerjee, chief of Thrinamool Congress who rules West Bengal did not support, merely because of her opposition to the communists. Such is the nature of egoistic negative politics of India.
However, the communists now have changed their mind and are clamouring for someone outside the ruling congress party as the new president. This no doubt has increased the fortune of Pranab Mukherjee as Mamta Banerjee now has no excuse but to support him.
What is interesting is the credentials and capability of a person to be the figurehead of the largest democracy of the world has no relevance in this incredibly idiotic process which, every Indian needs to be ashamed of.
These ridiculous vagaries of the Indian politics which several regional players play out, may never infect the American system, clearly established in a two party political debate and balance. However, the bickering and wrangling amplified by the media and social web certainly take the sheen out of a process which may inside and outside the country believe must be a model for the fledging democracies of the world.
Article first published as If Only Barack Obama Could Win The Presidency By Negativity, Like Pranab Mukherjee of India. on Technorati

When faced with real issues in life astrology is only the last resort to many people. Yet for millions around the world, it is what gives hope and support to carry on from day to day. Astrology doesn't stand on firm grounds when questioned based on logic and hard scientific principles, but thanks to modern computing software, subjectivity of astrology pundits at least is removed.

It is quite easy for anyone to be an astrologer these days. All you need to do is to download and install a free piece ofsoftware written by Narasimha Rao, an ex software engineer from PictureTel Corporation and feed some basic information like a place, date and time of birth of a person in to it. If you have some basic understanding of the tenants of Vedic Astrology, it could really add to the fun.

So pondering on the question of the birth of Barack Obama, which has been a matter of controversy in the past and which is recently resurrected, it was intriguing to see what the software will produce. The personal details of celebrities were always difficult to obtain, but thanks to the controversy, the long form birth certificate President Obama was published and is available on the US President's website for anyone interested. According to this document also available here he was born in Honolulu on the 4th of august 1961 at 7.24 PM., which is the basic data used to give it a whirl for the fun of it.
A lot of what the software output is really for the expert astrologer but there is also some plain English which states the qualities and positions in life the person will achieve.


Now Barack Obama might have been born or not as stated in the certificate, but the results certainly reveal a lucky individual with some qualities worthy of a president of the United States.

For a discerning believer in vedic astrology, there are also some important and obvious indications in his birth chart like the excellent positions of the planets, enough to explain why he has become the first Black President of the US or why he succeeded in bringing justice to the victims of a great US tragedy.
Obviously for those clamouring about his worthiness to be a US president, despite being born and delivered to a white female citizen of the United States of America, this is no answer, but for lovers of astrology, there is enough evidence.