myposc121

MEDIA BIAS

2006-12-05T00:56:00.000-08:00

I believe the media is definitely biased. The audience gets to see and hear what both the
government and the elite want us to listen and watch. The media playing the role
of "Gate Keeper's" of the system. Traditionally conservatives and republicans have own
the broadcasting, radio, and newspapers, and have used them as a way to convey their
message and to control the population. Fifty years of fear against communism, came in
the form of "The U.S. protecting the free world. Now the same fear is spread against the
new enemy "The Terrorists" and the way they are trying to change or to finish freedom
as we know it. So every day, at primetime, preferably, we are bombarded against the
enemy. As for the media leanning towards the left, it's hard, because it takes money to
put up a show, and few people will risk their profit, and even their licenses to open up
their mics and screens to allow other views. Now and then we see efforts that come and
go from some committed people trying to make a difference. Nowadays Air Radio
America and on t.v. Bill Maher. However, as audience you need at least to be able to
afford cable t.v. to access to that show (Maher). Some companies won't advertise if they
considered the program might hurt their image more than anything, and more than once
had pulled out of 'open-minded' or 'subversive' films, programs, etc.
Yes, the media is biased and the only color that recognizes usually is green.

POLITICAL AFFILIATION

2006-11-21T22:05:00.000-08:00

I do not belong to any political party, I guess that goes back to my mother's influence. She is an artist (a composer and singer) and she always refused to join the union for either musicians or composers, arguing that all they wanted was her money. She was sure they wouldn't defend her rights if the moment arose. Then when I worked for the government, I was obligated to join the union, and all I saw was the union leaders pocketing money, entering office without a penny and leaving office (if they ever left) with houses, cars, fat bank accounts, etc. while the little people remained little. Then on election times our bosses would try to force us (the employees) to affiliate to a certain political party, whether we liked it or not. So, I grew wary of political institutions.

However, I do identify with the democrats and their stand on social issues such as: the organization of labor unions, in helping and creating programs to better the living conditions of the poor, their interest in minority rights, whether racial, gender, sexual orientation, etc.

Would I ever join a political party, I don't think so. I like my freedom.

FAMILY TIES

2006-11-13T22:40:00.000-08:00

Isn't it nice to realize how the wealthy and priviliged Americans know each other?

Or as some would say "It's a small world."

Since we are going to be listening so much about Nancy Pelosi, I found interesting an article posted online from times magazine, which, I'm quoting extensively in case any of you, my classmates, missed it:

"My Mother, My President
(Posted Sunday, Nov. 12, 2006) Alexandra Pelosi is uniquely positioned to judge how the President and the future Democratic House Speaker will get along. At 36, she is the youngest of Nancy Pelosi's five children, and her famous HBO documentary, Journeys with George, was a backstage "video diary" of George W. Bush's 2000 campaign. She was the first to introduce the two. Her inside take on their relationship:
Back on the campaign plane when George W. Bush was a Governor running for President in 2000, he used to pass me notes to read to the Congresswoman from San Francisco. When a newspaper article touted her prowess at raising funds, he tore it out and wrote on it, "Ask her: Can I have some?" Or when a magazine ran its guesses for his vice-presidential short list, he wrote in "Pelosi," along with, "Can you get her to run with me?"
When my parents came to have lunch with me at an Oakland airport hotel where Bush was giving a speech in March 2000, he did what he did when any member of the traveling press corps was in his or her hometown: he summoned us to his room so he could meet the parents. As he talked about the rigors of life on the trail, my mother politely explained how she was working her heart out to help Al Gore win the state of California.
The next time I saw them together, George was in the White House, and he told me, "You ought to be proud of your mom." At the time she was fighting her heart out on the House floor against the Iraq war. On any occasion that I have seen them together in private, they have appeared to be the best of "frenemies"--campaign-trail speak for politicians who keep their friends close and their enemies closer.
They actually have a lot in common. His father was President, and her father served in Congress and then as mayor of Baltimore. They both came to politics later in life, and they both mean it when they say that elections are not everything; if they lose, life will go on. Bush has the ranch, and my mother has her grandkids. And, of course, some people have made the mistake of underestimating both of them.
During the 2000 campaign, George used to respond to the jabs from late-night comedians by saying, "Let them laugh at me. I am going to be their President." On the trail in 2006, as the doubters were calling the Democrats a permanent minority, my mother repeated her mantra: We have better candidates. When anyone used the tired phrase, "Where are the Democrats?", she explained that everything was going exactly as planned; she was like a submarine on a stealth mission to take back the House.
On the day the President first criticized her at a fund raiser, she knew that he had given her a gift. When the President of the United States mocks you, it puts you on the map. And when he mocks you publicly, the money rolls in. Sure, they have their ideological differences. By now you have heard everything they have said about each other. But plenty of presidential candidates have said worse things about their opponents before they have chosen them as their running mate or their designated successor (witness John McCain).
While reporters like to stir the pot and focus on the catfights, they don't seem to grasp that these are two seasoned professionals working at the highest level of American government with skin so much thicker than the rest of us. As Bush noted in his press conference on the day after the election, "This isn't my first rodeo." Or as my mother has always told me, "This business comes with a free head clipping. Every time you stick your neck out, they come around and cut it off."
George W. Bush and Nancy Pelosi both know that if you want to breathe the rarefied air at the highest echelons of the U.S. government, you have to ignore the media buzzards. When I was watching Fox News recently, and she walked into the room, I had to explain that Sean Hannity was spending the month leading up to the election warning America that Speaker Pelosi would destroy this nation. She asked, "Which one is Hannity?"
So as all of us spectators sit home on our couches watching the bloviators pontificate about the state of American politics, rest assured that George Bush and Nancy Pelosi are so busy that they do not hear a word of it. And if they did, they couldn't care less. They have a country to run."

The Trends, For The Better or Worse That This Midterm Election Reveals:

2006-11-11T20:10:00.000-08:00

This past tuesday elections have shown that America was fed up (not k-fed, well that too) with extremist measures. Topics such as banning abortion, going against gays rights, and even the -before supported, war in Iraq, have no place in the new american way. In all three read, listen, & watch assignments, lay-people, media people and politicians all agreed that we need to turn toward the center, neither too much to the left, nor to the right. Politicians should be accountable when they fail to deliver, and the ultimate punishment is to get them out of office.

For me, however, the most interesting outcome in this midterm elections, the groundbreaking episode so to speak, is that America fi-na-lly will be ready to welcome the debut of a woman as the speaker of the house.

We can but agree that THE PLACE OF A WOMAN IS IN THE (white/ representatives) HOUSE Right?

As good Bob Dylan once said : "The times they are a-changin'.

HOW FAMILY, SCHOOL, PEERS, ETC AFFECTED MY POLITICAL VIEWS

2006-11-07T10:03:00.000-08:00

I always like reading, I remember I was 8-years-old when I began reading the newspaper steadily. We have it delivered at home, so I will run and pick it up and always read the entertainment section, and then whatever headline got my attention. No matter how much I read, it planted a seed that has not die until now. Every day I have to read the paper no matter what.

I remember the first election I went with my mother, I knew one of the guys that was running for president was a Capricorn (and so am I), I was only six-years-old, so please forgive me.

It's funny, because looking back we (my family) always went out to vote, even though we knew it was a fraud (did I forget to mention that I grew up in Mexico, were for 70 years the ruling party PRI always won?) There were actually, at least 3 political parties as far back as the 1930s: The PRI (thieves), The PAN (Right Wing), and the communist party that changed names through the years and now is the PRD. Anyways, election through election we would hear that people in small villages got killed if they didn't vote for the PRI, in bigger cities however it was more about the government promising something good for the citizens, on election day giving away food, construction material, or whatever cheap that could attract people to sympatize for them. It wasn't until the year 2000 when the PRI couldn't openly sustain their fraudulent practices that decided to share the power with the right wingers. We just have election in Mexico last July and it was a big fraud -again, openly backed by international forces toowary of the new leftist wave that's catching latinamerica again.

As for my peers, I saw some of the hardcore leftists of the 80s recently, and to my surprise, they've become CHRISTIANS !!!

So, that prettty much summarizes my experiences through the political world.

MS. SANDRA DAY

2006-11-04T23:54:00.000-08:00

FROM AN INSIDER:
SAN FRANCISCO - Retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said she fears judges are under growing political attack nationwide.

"I'm increasingly concerned about the current climate of challenge to judicial independence," O'Connor told a gathering of state judges from around the country Friday. "Unhappiness with judges today is at a very intense level."
The judiciary is the weakest of the three branches of government, she said, and therefore the one with "the greatest need to be defended."
The executive and legislative branches have become the attackers, so "the principal defenders are going to have to be the people of this country," with lawyers taking the lead, she said.
O'Connor, who retired in January after 24 years on the nation's highest court, spoke day before voters in South Dakota will consider the "Jail 4 Judges" initiative. It would create a citizens' grand jury that could authorize lawsuits or criminal prosecutions against judges based on their rulings.
Colorado voters will decide whether to limit judges on the state's highest courts to 10 years in office, a measure that would remove five of the state's seven Supreme Court justices within two years.

Sorry I extensively quoted this article. I was ready to go to bed when I found it on yahoonews, at 11:40 pm. :)

ON BLACK ROBES

2006-11-04T22:37:00.000-08:00

If you hope to become a federal judge, stand in line now. All our judges (but one) were born in the 30’s so you have plenty of time to wait, study, become literate, enroll in one of the most prestigious universities (if you have the money and the connections, of course),look around, travel, get to know and understand people and their reasons to behave the way they do. By then come back but make sure you’ve made the right connections to the left or to the right, because the job of a judge is not easy and it seems is, almost, a life time commitment. Federal judges are appointed by the president and are generally selected from among themore prominent or politically active members of the legal profession (connections. Many federal judges previously served as state court judges or state or local prosecutors. before the president makes a formal nomination, the senators from the candidate's own state must indicate that they support the nominee. This practice is called senatorial courtesy. Political factors play an important role in the selection of Judges. Since the high court has so much influence over American law and politics, virtually all presidents have made an effort to select justices who share their won political philosophies. So, again, if you think you'll make a good jugde, begin the connection process right now :)

ONE STEP FORWARD, TWO STEPS BACK !

2006-11-04T22:28:00.000-08:00

CHALLENGES TO ROW V. WADE:
Among the most significant modern illustrations of the use of the courts as strategy for political influence are those that accompanied the ‘sexual revolution’ of the 1960s and the emergence of the movement of women’s rights. A series of cases were brought into the federal courts in an effort to force definition of a right to privacy in sexual matters. The effort began with a challenge to state restrictions on obtaining contraceptives for non-medical purposes, a challenge that was effectively made in Griswold v. Connecticut, in which the Supreme Court held that states could neither prohibit the dissemination of information about nor prohibit the actual use of contraceptives by married couples. That case was soon followed by Eisenstadt v. Bair, in which the Court held that the states could not prohibit the use of contraceptive in single persons any more than it could prohibit their use by married couples. One year later, the Court held, in the 1973 case of Roe v. Wade, that states could not impose an absolute ban on voluntary abortions. Each of these cases as well as others, were part of the Court’s enunciation of a constitutional doctrine of privacy.
Not everything was “honey over flakes,” conservative groups as far back as 1973 made extensive use of the courts to undermine the scope of the privacy doctrine. They obtained rulings that prohibit the use of federal funds to pay for voluntary abortions. In 1989, right-to-life groups were able to use a strategy of litigation that significantly undermined the Roe v. Wade decision, in the case of Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, which restored the right of states to place restrictions on abortion.

The president’s most direct influence on the court is the power to nominate justices. Presidents typically nominate judges who they believe are close to their policy preferences and close enough to the preferences of a majority of senators, who must confirm the nomination. Justice O’Connor disappointed conservatives by opposing limitations on abortion.
President George W. Bush was presented with an opportunity to fill two Supreme Court vacancies, one by the death of Chief Justice William Rehnquist and the other by the retirement of Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. Immediately, liberal and conservative advocacy groups mobilized for battle. In particular, pro-choice and pro-life groups saw the two Supreme Court appointments as a decisive point in the long-standing national struggle over abortion. Pro-choice groups feared that Bush would appoint justices hostile to abortion rights while pro-life groups feared that he would not. President Bush had to withdraw the name of one nominee, Harriet Miers, and almost lost the candidacy a second nominee, Samuel Alito.
One of the most widespread efforts to restrict abortions without violation Roe is state requirements that underage females must seek parental consent or show parental notification or, failing that, the notification of a local judge in order to receive an abortion.California will decide in such matter this coming tuesday!
It seems that with the death of Chief Justice Rehnquist and the retirement of Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, the future of Row and of abortion rights may have changed drastically.

ARE WE READY TO ENTER THE VOTING ELECTRONIC ERA? A LOOK AT THE NOVEMBER 7 ELECTIONS

2006-11-03T10:49:00.001-08:00

Can electronic voting machines be set for fraud?

Even though there's no proven evidence of electronic fraud, in a recent poll 2/3 of the population believed hackers could tamper electronic machines, or the machines themselves could deliver some type of mistakes.

The poll showed voters still favor the old fashion paper ballots, or at least having paper verification of their votes.

Fear has raised due to problems that had tainted some electoral results:

Paper 'backup' ballots jammed in the machines (Ohio)

Human error when workers forgot to bring the access cards that activated the machines, forcing voters to wait for hours (Maryland)

Law suit aimed to de-certify an election due to electronic problems (Colorado)

And who could forget Florida in the 2000 Presidential election?

In this era of terrorism, there is always room for a potential hacking, or intentional fraud through manipulation.

The concern is so big that Princeton University conducted several tests with electronic voting machines to prove their potentiality for fraud. Their findings showed that machines are suceptible to viruses that spread from machine to machine and could change the results. Then, without paper proof of voters' choices, there is no way to verify if the votes were really casted the way citizens intended.

Diebold Election Systems (one of the voting machines providers) denied the allegations, arguing that electronic voting machines are never connected to the internet or to each other. Besides, people from both parties are always looking over each other, making it unlikely for somebody to commit fraud. Human error (according to Diebold) was more likely to happen in the old fashion way (putting at risk the results) considering that the same people had to arrive at 5 AM to open the precincts and had to stay there until midnight to count the votes.

For Diebold, such human errors belong now to the past with the improved technology.

In the mean time, the average American, may have to comform with the results and hope for the best. In times when technology seems to have come too soon for quite a few millions still longing for the good, old fashion times, when we only needed a pen, and knew how to cross an X over our favorite candidates.

STEPHEN, THE NAVY GUY

2006-10-21T12:36:00.000-07:00

So, I talked to a young navy guy that just came back from the Middle East. As a navy he is probably in a safer place than the guys that actually go inland. When I asked him whether he landed in Iraq and how was it, he said his unit didn’t landed in Iraq, only 60 miles away, but he went to Bahrain and Kuwait, where “they hate Americans.” When I referred to the 1991 war “Desert Storm” and whether the people from Kuwait probably like us because we freed them back then, he said “Kuwait was horrible”
I assumed he meant they were mistreated, but no, he meant “The weather was horrible, 140 degree, windy and dusty, horrible, horrible…”
However, he loved Thailand where he stayed at the presidential suite of a 5 star hotel for $100 a night! “Could you imagine?” “You don’t get a super 8 hotel room here in San Diego for less than $60 a night!”
“We took elephant rides, massages for 3 hours for pennies, all kind of jewelry, etc.”
His comments let me wondering what all these kids (he is only 23) are doing over there risking their lives for a war they don’t even understand, and when their needs and desires are definitely far from what going to war represents.

THE US VS JOHN LENNON

2006-10-09T22:47:00.000-07:00

THE U.S. VS JOHN LENNON
GIVE PEACE A CHANCE & POWER TO THE PEOPLE, these were some of John Lennon’s radical lyrics.
Lennon’s murder may go down on history as one of the biggest cover up / conspiracy to silence a bigger movement. After all Gandhi was already dead, Luther King was dead too, and people around the world were looking in different arenas for hope.
I still can’t believe his murder was the work of a single crooked mind.
The movie documents the rise of a musical genius that became a down to earth feminist, pacifist, and along other entertainers was shaking the fast food nation in a way so threatening to the government that the FBI began monitoring his activities, writing down his lyrics, analyzing them, labeling “counter-culture” – really being antiwar.
Love, harmony, life, everything that war makers hate, he symbolized.
To counteract, the government began instilling fear on him; big brother began the chore of neutralizing him, open harassment, wire taping, etc.
Before he was even aware of his own transformation he had the hint to compare his band to Christ, declaring that they were more popular than Jesus himself. A thought the right wing didn’t like and made turn on the entire fanatic machinery, instigating religious, young, and ignorant masses to burn his records.

When the guy was telling everybody, around the world “All you need is love,” the American government perceived those thoughts very threatening for the status quo.
As he grew older and wiser, he realized the 60’s were only the beginning, only a glimpse of the possibility. Unfortunately, he was caught between the U.S. fight against communism.
While Lennon kept preaching about peace the U.S. government kept making war in the name of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” although it cost two million lives in Vietnam.
If we were going to label Lennon anything, we could probably call him Utopian. For him all governments were crazy about power. From the British, to the American, to the Chinese, to the Russian; all ideologues were crazy. His stand wasn’t about the right or the left, but for peace and justice. He wanted to awake people. It doesn’t get more radical than that. He understood how the governments use people, "they enlist young men (and women) in the military, make them violent and dependent, and then, they don’t have to worry about those kids thinking for themselves." This is a very fascist way of controlling the population, heavy stress in the concept of nation, romantic nationalism (the importance of local customs and traditions), etc.
Lennon was living in a time were governmental repression was at its highest, and around the world, not only in the U.S. (France, Mexico, Czech Republic) to go around singing about peace and love, when the world was watching, and the media was working for the system or was part of the system.
Like I said, John became very aware of his surroundings, of the world, he was very wise, so, he realized that there were only two products out there, Peace or War, and from these two, governments around the world were not interesting in promoting the former. That’s why it was up to the people to make a revolution: “Power to the People.”
He often question “Give Peace a Chance…Who could be opposed to that?” unfortunately the administration was.
The war in Vietnam was a mistake to promote Democracy, and watching those scenes one can’t but have a Déjà vu feeling with everything going on in Iraq.
How many times did Nixon claim to be defending “Self Determination, and Freedom?” And they used everything that was in their power to neutralize the opposition. The FBI was a political police; wire taping, surveillance, all in the name of Freedom. They went on to investigate the radical left to “protect the nation” -again the symbols to convince the population they were acting to provide protection to the citizens, instilling fear, creating an enemy, etc. And their machinery worked because Nixon got reelected. If only he knew Watergate was around the corner.
As for Lennon, like I said at the beginning, is hard to believe his assassination was the work of a single, crooked mind. Yoko Ono herself clarifies that in the documentary when she asserts: “They try to kill John, but they couldn’t. His message is still alive.”
And with her words Lennon’s Manifesto of the way he would’ve liked seeing the world resounds as the movie ends:
imagine there's no heaven
it's easy if you try
no hell below us and
above us only sky.
imagine all the people
living for today
imagine there's no countries
it isn't hard to do
nothing to kill or die for and
no religion too.
imagine all the people living life in peace
imagine no possessions.
i wonder if you can
no need for greed or hunger.
a brotherhood of man.
imagine all the people sharing all the world
you may say: i'm a dreamer
but i am not the only one
and i hope some day
you will join us and
the world will be as one

FOLEY'S FOLLY

2006-10-06T12:31:00.000-07:00

I won't comment on the political side of Foley's behavior, but on something broader and an issue that if you care about kids, can't but hit close home.

Where do we draw the line when it comes to pedophilia? Unfortunately there's a lot of confusion. Whenever we hear about a guy sexually abusing children, our first thought is "this guy is homosexual." We have to stop labeling people before we jump to conclusions. Statisticaly 98% of pedophyles are heterosexual men, and around one percent are women. The percentage of homosexual men or women that sexually abuse children account for less than 1%, and from that one percent, less than 10% are women.

A sexual relationship between consenting adults (heterosexual or homosexual) shouldn't be equated with a Pedophilic one. Neither a relathionship between consenting teenagers (homosexual or heterosexual) where no one is taking advantage of the other. Pedophyles prey on minors that are usually too young to make a sound judgment as to what type of sexual relationship should they engage into it.

We have to understand that pedophyles take advantage of minors, sometimes as young as only months old! No one would consent or agree that a relationship of this kind is fair for one of the parts. It is as if we think that rapists behavior is o.k., or that men that beat up women are fine. All these types of abusive relationships are wrong, and we as part of society can't allow this to happen.

What Foley has done with young men had nothing to do with being homosexual, and we shouldn't buy his alibi that he was molested by catholic priests, that's all too cheap. By allowing him to hide behind minority groups and trying to buy our sympathy, he is doing nothing but hurting his victims all over again. Pedophyles have problems that can't be solved by locking them away in a jail. Unfortunately pedophyles -unlike alcoholics, can't recover by therapy. There are at least two men here in San Diego that had been labeled "sexual predators" that have spent years behind bars and in therapy and once released had posed a threat again for our children. Neither money, nor his political liaisons should buy Foley the right to get away with his crimes. So, what should we do with pedophyles?

Medical marijuana

2006-09-29T03:26:00.000-07:00

My stand on Medical Marijuana. To tell you the truth, prior to listening to the video and reading some of the articles (Pro & Con) I didn't think much about it. In a way I just thought that marijuana shouldn't be illegal, because whatever is prohibited just makes it more desirable, and I think the narcotics industry has grown to that extent because the 'illegal' status. That happened with alcohol, that happened with tobacco, and that happens with whatever's banned. However, it came as a surprise the billionaire industry that has actually become for the federal government by prosecuting users as well as providers. Not only by growing the prison population, but through the seizure or confiscation of property, etc.

To my surprise, also, was the stance the White House holds regarding marijuana use, and some of the facts that presents in its web-page as "Myths of Marijuana Use", within these myths is also mentioned that "smoking marijuana leads to changes in the brain similar to those caused by cocaine, heroin, and alcohol" So, how come is the use of alcohol legal?

In the other hand, I found interesting that as early as John Stuart Mill times, there was concern with the abuse of power and civil liberties, and how we should prevent the government for overstepping its bounds: "The only purpose to which power can be rightfully exercised against any member of a civilized community is to prevent harm to others. His own good physical or moral is not a sufficient warrant. It cannot rightfully compelled to do so or forebear...the State shouldn't use its police powers to punished those for what they ingest"

So, I know some people would say that by hurting yourself you, also, hurt others, such as family members, etc. But doesn't happen the same way when we drink alcohol, or smoke?

It seems that by banning marijuana, the government is actually violating our sovereignty. And the implications just grow and grow in detriment of our civil liberties:

Restrictive free speech, hypocrisy of those in power, drug testing is an invasion of privacy, monitoring/punishing private behavior, seizure of private property, discriminates (confirmed) against minorities and the poor, disenfranchises citizens: not allowed to vote for life.

What is appalling is that murders and rapists are not subject to this harsh measures.

And then the medical implications, how can we allow patients to use morphine to ease the pain, but not marijuana?

We lost three valuable women this week!

2006-09-17T21:04:00.000-07:00

One of the best known and most important political slogans of the early Women's Liberation Movement claimed that "the personal is political." That phrase was honed in reaction to struggles within the 1960s social movements out of which the Women's Liberation Movement first emerged. It captured the insight that many of what were thought to be personal problems possessed social and political causes, were widely shared among women , and could only be resolved by social and political change. However, it took women themselves to fight for these rights that now a days -surprinsingly, we take for granted !!!

Three women I admired through the years symbolized that hard work and groundbreaking, in short, they paved the way for us, and sadly, all three died this week. To share with you why I've admired them through the years, I'm posting excerpts that appeared last friday and saturday on the Union Tribune pages, and I'm quotting their articles.

"Estelle R. Ramey, The Georgetown University endocrinologist who never hesitated to craft a funny and pointed line to overturn assumptions about the physiological differences and similarities between women and men, died Friday at her home in Bethesda, Md. She was 89.

Dubbed the "Mort Sahl of the women's movement" and "George Burns with and X chromosome," Dr. Ramey burst into the headlines in 1970 when she challenged the assertion of a Democratic National Commitee official that women -with "ranging storms of monthly hormonal imbalances" - were unfit for the presidency or for handling emergencies such as the Cuban Missile Crisis. As a credentialed expert in the field, she said: "I was startled to learn that ovarian hormones are toxic to brain cells." She pointed out that President Kennedy, who had dealt with the missile crisis, had Addison's disease, a chronic, severe hormonal imbalance, and that medications to treat Addison's could result in dramatic mood swings.

"If it's testosterone the public wants in a president, as an endocrinologist I can't recommend a 70-year-old man in the White House. They should get a 16-year-old boy instead." "It seems the only thing the public doesn't want to see in a president is estrogen." U.T. J8, 09/17/06

Wasn't she lovely:)

"Ann Richards, 73: The witty and flamboyant former Democratic governor of Texas, who went from homemaker to national political celebrity and advocate for women, died Wednesday.

Gov. Richards grabbed the national spotlight with her keynote address at the 1988 Democratic National convention when she was the Texas state treasurer. She reminded them that Ginger Rogers did everything Fred Astair did, "only backwards and in high heels." In four years as governor, she championed what she called the "New Texas," appointing more women and more minorities to state posts than any of her predecessors. She said she entered politics to help others-especially women and minorities, who were often ignored by Texas' male-dominanted establishment. "I did not want my tombstone to read, 'She kept a really clean house.' I thind I'd like them to remember me by saying, 'She opened government to everyone.'" U.T. J-7, 09/17/06

And she did, indeed:)

Thirdly, being Mexican-Italian, I grew up reading and admiring Journalist

Oriana Fallaci. "Oriana Fallaci, a journalist whose merciless questioning succeded in making some of the world's most powerful and inaccessible people lower their guard, from Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini to Henry Kissinger, has died. She was 77.

Virtually all of the literary energy and passion of her final years were consumed in vehement attacks on a Muslim world she judged to be the enemy of Western civilization. Fallaci burst into the spotlight after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks with a series of blistering essays in which she argued that Muslims were carrying out a crusade against the Christian West.

The daughter of an anti-fascist Resistance fighter, she joined the movement as a teenager and started her career in journalism at 16. She spent eight years covering the Vietnam War, and at the age of 61, reported on the Persian Gulf War.

In 1968, while she was covering the Mexican army's killing of young protesters in Mexico City, two bullets pierced her body, one stopping just short of her spinal cord.

Fallaci disarmed her subjects with bald questions about death, God and pity, and displayed a sinuous crafty intelligence. Among those who submitted to her grilling was Khomeini, "That's enough. I'm tired. That's enough," the Iranian leader said at the end of the session. Fallaci's interview with Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi in a tent in the desert lasted five days.

Kissinger said of his interview with Fallaci: "Why I agreed to it, I'll never know."

Fallaci died of breast cancer in her native Florence.

By the way, I always thought that if I ever had a daughter her name was going to be Oriana. But that's another story.

See how "The Personal is Political?" :)

Speaking of politics...the Mexican elections

2006-09-12T20:45:00.000-07:00

Coming from Mexico and just having the presidential elections, I found it pretty interesting to see how Niccolo Machiavelli was so clear of governments and human behavior.
Nothing could depict the mexican government better than Machiavelli's "The Prince."
In it, he advices the wanna-be rulers to "Understand the importance of seeming to act morally even when committing immoral acts. " and that "Succesful rulers must be masters of deception. Often they will have to act immorally in order to survive; and they must constantly appear honest and upright, even while practicing 'how not6 to be good'." He also adviced rulers not to keep promises that are no longer in their best interest; to disguise their intentions; to inspire fear, rather than love, and if possible, to cultivate the appearance of generosity while always practicing self-interest.
Unbelievable, that's what's gone on and on for almost a century of Mexico's modern history.
Peruvian writer Mario Vargas Llosa cleaverly called Mexico "The Perfect Dictatorship," because the government's ability to held power since 1910, within, some say only 200 families, that rotate themselves in the government office, while 90% of the population lives in poverty.
So, yes, unfortunately the 2006 Mexican Presidential Election, turned out to be -again, a mockery. Don't be fool when you hear that "Mexico Avanza"

2006-09-04T13:34:00.000-07:00

It's amazing how people that lived so many years ago, had such clarity about governments and the way these views actually relate to our times. Reading Plato, made me think about the theater-like we live in. Politicians certainly know how to play their part, and the people usually seem to accept the shows without much questioning. If the show is definitely too low in quality, it may cause some stir from the audience, but is not very often that the public demand the return of the entrance fee (a revolt) However, if the politicians make the mistake of taking their show to the wrong venue, their profits may not be what they expected. For that, political entities surround themselves with -every time, more sophisticated machineries that take care of every step of their 'productions' to guarantee their success. Plato knew this, Orwell knew this and tarkoff knows this too.