The Problem with Overthrowing Governments

Hi Readers,

With the election of a moderate Islamist party to power in Tunisia, no doubt many in the Western world are breathing a sigh of relief that the Hamas scenario didn't repeat itself in Tunisia. But with the upcoming elections in Libya and Egypt, what will happen there?

Better question: what can we do when the results are not to our liking?

America preached self-determination when it allowed the Egyptian regime to fall, and even provided the political ammunition for the Libyan rebels to overthrow its government, in the form of NATO. Now that these people have seized self-determination (and lost much stability at the same time), it is unlikely that they will consider being puppets to another foreign power. The desire for self-determination and human rights may be a commonality between American culture and other cultures, but the it is important to consider that both are a spread spectrum rather than the parochial black and white.

The overthrow of US-supported Shah of Iran in 1979 led to the democratic creation of the Iranian theocracy. This is not unlike the situation that occurred in Egypt, where Hosni Mubarak has been supported by the US for decades, in order to suppress Islamic extremism and give Israel some breathing room in the Middle East. Now that he is gone, the Muslim Brotherhood are poised for major gains in the government, a notion that already has many Americans worried.

America, along with much of the western world, lacks foresight in their decision making. They assume that just because something worked here, a one-size-fits-all model will work for everyone else. There have been many similar failures in history, where the Western heavy-handedness in treating less-developed countries has resulted in failure.  The Green Revolution actually decreased Africa's agricultural output, as countries abandoned their traditional successful crops and tried to grow "better" crops without success. 

The problem is, when there is no quantifiable result to measure the outcome, who is to say what is "better"? We can say that the Green Revolution failed Africa, but can we say that Egypt is worse off if the Muslim Brotherhood is elected? Are Libyans more satisfied now that they have democracy, even though it came at a price of widespread political chaos and violence?

Sure, to the people who are actually fighting and dying for a cause they are passionate about, such uncertainty is a trivial price they pay for their desire for positive change. But Americans seem more akin to computer gamers who are not actually affected by what goes on in the game. We live in an insulated society and have a relatively naive viewpoint of how the world operates. From that viewpoint, it doesn't seem like we should be dictating how other countries govern themselves unless people's basic rights are being massively violated without their consent.

-FCDH

A Primer on Austin

Hi Readers,

After spending an entire summer in Austin, I thought I would write a blog post all about the awesome city that is Austin. So here goes.

The first thing you need to do is to decouple the words "Austin" from the "TX" that follows it on the address labels. Apart from the constant "y'all"s that are heard around town, I have heard from many Texans that Austin is very different from the rest of Texas. Politically, it is known as the blue dot in a sea of red that is the rest of Texas, and this is very visible all over Austin. The city has adopted the unofficial slogan, "Keep Austin Weird," a prominent sign of its progressive nature. The city is extremely liberal, from the environmental viewpoint with recycling, to its stance on gay couples (i have seen many gay couples holding hands and walking around town.) Unfortunately the Texas Legislature is trying its best to disenfranchise the Austin voters by dividing up the liberal Travis county's political influence among its conservative neighboring counties. However, it does not diminish Austin's star power by much.

In terms of entertainment and recreation, Austin is unparalled in the breadth of activities that it offers. Among all the cities in the world that I have visited, I would rank Austin in the top 3. Tourists can stroll around the beautiful Texas State Capitol building, and watch the daily flying of the bats, as the millions of bats emerge from underneath the Congress Ave bridge and fly off into the night. The awesome Barton Springs allows people to jump in a cool natural spring just minutes away from downtown Austin. The Lady Bird Lake is right smack in the middle of downtown Austin, and it is a great place to go kayaking or boating. All along the lakeside and Zilker Park lies beautiful nature and miles of trails that run all along the lake. You can even stop by the Center for Performing Arts, where they will usually be having an outdoor concert on the vast lawn.

For a great shopping and dining experience, all that one has to do is to walk south along Congress Avenue. The South Congress area features many eclectic shops and boutique stands, as well as food stands and trucks that remind me a lot of the fun chaotic shopping experience that one can find in Asia. The food trucks are my favorite part of South Congress, as it feels like an outdoor food court, surrounded by market stands and serenading musicians. On weekends, downtown 6th street has the most amazing display of nightlife that I've ever seen. The entire road, which is surrounded by bars on either side, is closed down to vehicle traffic, and bar-goers crowd the entire road while searching for their perfect bar. Speaking of bars, Austin's live music scene really is amazing, as pretty much every single bar in downtown Austin will have a different live band playing at any time of night. It is always fun to just walk down the street and hear all the different bands playing, ranging from country music to jazz. Food-wise, there are a lot of great things to eat in the Austin area. My personal favorite is the Texas BBQ, probably one of the best foods that I've had in the US. My two favorites are Rudy's and Salt Lick, and every time I go to these places I always get at least 1 lb of meat to eat. It is somewhat excessive but I just love it so much.

But the most incredible thing about Austin is its surroundings. Drive half an hour north-west of Austin and you'll reach Lake Travis, from where you can watch one of the ten best sunsets in the US at the Oasis, or do watersports, or go to the water park at Volente beach. There are loads of swimming holes around the Austin area, which are all amazing places to chill for an afternoon when it is over 100 degrees outside. Just 2 hours west of Austin lies Enchanted Rock, a giant rock formation that juts out of the ground and makes for a great hike and viewpoint. Austin lies in the hill country region of Texas, and there are plenty of places to go rock climbing or to go tubing down a river.

Austin is such a great mix of activities that it is hard to imagine anybody running out of activities to do here, or being bored here. It should be a crime to waste your weekends on TV or computers here. I have done many things here, including bungee jumping, outdoor rock climbing, swimming, and of course partying. It is somewhat hard to see how Stanford and the Bay Area could be better than this summer in Austin. But I am hoping that California will be a lot better.

-FCDH

The Birth of a New Nation

Hi Readers,

This week, a new nation was born: South Sudan! With its capital city at Juba and investments already pouring in from Uganda and Sudan, its future seems promising, especially with the news that it holds most of Sudan's oil reserves and that Chinese investment is already forthcoming. But in this case, we saw the Sudanese president Omar El-Bashir's willingness to accept the results of the secessionist referendum peacefully. What would have happened had he rejected the referendum?

Realpolitik in foreign policy suggests that nations always act in self-interest. The US and much of the international community has already shown that they do not care much about territorial sovereignty and democracy. This is shown by their tolerance of Israel's occupation of Palestine, the continued NATO bombing of Libya (they might as well just come out and declare open war on Gaddafi), or their rejection of the separatist governments of South Ossetia, Abkhazia, or even official recognition of Taiwan. At the same time, these same governments couldn't wait to jump on the bandwagon when Kosovo or South Sudan declared independence.

New governments and new countries are very malleable, and the western governments know this. That's why they oppose the independence of countries likely to fall under a rival influence. South Ossetia and Abkhazia were territories that belonged to Georgia, a US ally, and likely to be heavily influenced by Russia. At the same time, countries that are likely to fall into the US sphere of influence are heavily encouraged to secede. Kosovo belonged to Serbia, which has been part of the Russian influence since the Cold War. South Sudan belonged to Sudan, which has traditionally been heavily Muslim-ruled. If Taiwan had only not had the unfortunate historical distinction of belonging to China, a mega world player, it would have been accepted as independent decades ago.

For now, it remains interesting to see where South Sudan guides itself in the next decade. With a wealth of oil, it is very possible for corruption to run rampant and bring down the possibilities that come with the surge of resources into South Sudan.

Just a short post today. More later.

-FCDH

Birthday Smatterings

Hi Readers,

TODAY'S MY BIRTHDAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I'm 22 now. SO OLD. Ugh.

Anyways, here is just a short entry about recent happenings and plans, along with a short political note.

Politics first. I hold no grudge toward Republicans that are jumping on Obama's statement about the unconstitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), and the fact that the government will stop defending it in court. However, those Republicans that are flat-out LYING and saying that Obama is not enforcing the law can go to hell. Boehner, this is looking at you.

Obama is required by law to enforce the law until it is repealed by either Congress, or ruled unconstitutional by the judicial system. He is doing exactly what he is supposed to do. But I know that conservative news networks are going to spread this lie like all the other lies, under the guise of the freedom of speech. This supposed "freedom of speech" is what grates on my nerves about the US, and probably the biggest deterrent to me settling down long-term here in the US.

Ok, now updates. First, grad schools:

I found out that I was rejected by MIT, which was not a big deal for me. Actually, it came as more of a relief, because now I won't be plagued by the "California or Boston" debate. It's settled: I'm going to California for grad school. Now, as for where...only time will tell. Apart from Stanford, I've also heard back from UC San Diego (accepted with 1 year fellowship), which I'm 99% sure I will decline. The only way I'll go to UCSD would be if I visited (unlikely since their visitation dates conflict with Stanford's) and fell in love with it. Highly unlikely, especially since the only reason I applied in the first place was because my friend MW at UCSD encouraged me to do so.

I'm still waiting to hear back from Berkeley, UC Santa Barbara, and Caltech. At the moment, assuming I had gotten into all of these schools, I will probably choose between Stanford and UCSB. But honestly, I'm not sure which one yet, but I'll have to see what their offers are.

Now, onto plans.

I'm planning on visiting Stanford during Mar. 10-11, for their DiscoverEE days. I'm so excited! I last visited California when I was 7, and I have long since forgotten that experience. My only knowledge of California right now is LAX, and transferring from the domestic terminal to the international terminal. Horrible experiences there, bleh.

A mere week after the Stanford visit, I'll be heading to California again, this time during spring break. The ECE department is sending 2 students (I'm one of them) to the Google headquarters in San Francisco, and Microsoft headquarters in Seattle, for alumni events. Since that's taking place from Monday-Thursday, I'm hoping to squeeze in a trip to Santa Barbara before it, and an EWB conference in Louisville after it. Here's to hoping everything works out with the trip!

That's all right now. It's 6am. It's my birthday. I've spent 8 hours working on homework today. No parties. I need to go home to sleep ughhhh. Tomorrow will be a tiring day.

-FCDH

The Supreme Court's Impartiality

Hi Readers,

Recently, the Supreme Court has been embroiled in a controversy over the impartiality of two of the Justices on the Court - namely, Scalia and Thomas. What were their crimes? Scalia held closed door planning meetings with Tea Party activists, while Thomas failed to report on 7 years of income for his wife, who had worked for Tea Party activist groups and foundations and earned quite a bit of money from it.

Why are so many people up in arms over it? Because the Supreme Court holds immense power in the US. These powers can be both reactionary or revolutionary. Reactionary means that they can react to anything that has happened - meaning they can overturn any law that is passed by the Congress, or any judicial ruling of any lower court (should they accept the writ of certiorari decision to review the case). Revolutionary in the sense that they can create any precedents they choose, in the forms of their rulings, which will be afterward used as the de facto law of the land in the eyes of the judicial system.

In a sense, the Supreme Court is an authoritarian element, present to counterbalance the democracy that is prevalent in the US. They are the guiding forces of Congress, and sets limits on what is constitutional and what is not. Though the constitution does not seek to intrude into the lives of the individuals, the Supreme Court has the ability to extend or diminish the reach of government as they wish.

It is common for the Justices to have political views - indeed, they are usually categorized by whether they are in the "liberal" or "conservative" bloc of Justices. However, the rulings of the Justices must always be in the best interests of the people, which should always be solidly backed up by their written concurring or dissenting opinions at the end of a case. Because of this immense power, many politicians in the US are worried about Thomas and Scalia's actions, because it brings politics and political games into the neutral ground of the Justices.

Democratic lawmakers are now in the process of introducing legislation to counter this perceived politicization of the court. However, I believe that no matter what Scalia and Thomas does, the Supreme Court must remain impartial and free from the influence of government. Justices will come and go, but the structure will always be there. It is important for the structure to remain untainted by government, or we will be setting a precedent outside of the intent of the Founders.

Now with that being said, I think what Scalia and Thomas are doing is despicable. They are totally dragging the Supreme Court's impartiality through the mud. Imagine if Sotomayor's husband worked for the ACLU, or if Kagan held closed-door meetings with worker unions - the Republicans would be 100% guaranteed out for blood. In addition, their "impartiality", or lack of, is very visible.

The Democrats want to change the ruling on the Citizens United case, which opened the doors to political donations to political campaigns. I don't blame them - I see it as a disgusting intrusion of corporations into government, completely bypassing and eliminating the opinions of the people. As if corporate political lobbies were not enough, corporations can now directly control political campaigns.

I place the blame equally on the shoulders of the conservative justices and the liberal lawyers at the ruling. In my opinion, the defining point was when the justices baited the lawyer with a question involving content regulation, twisted so that the lawyer's response seemed like he was supporting censorship. But regardless of the outcome, the process is done, and we will need to wait until another ruling comes to overturn it...if it ever comes. In another decade or so, the American president could be a simple puppet of corporations, or not. Only time will tell.

-FCDH

On Sarah Palin's Success

Hi Readers,

I want to dedicate this blog post to Sarah Palin. I hate her guts and think that there should be a new level in hell created to house her, her oversized ego, and the hate that spews from her mouth. But despite all that, I have to give it to her - Palin is one shrewd and successful politician. From an absolutely objective viewpoint, without considering the message that she spreads or the initiatives she supports, Palin's rise from a relative political nobody to the national stage has been quite astonishing. Few politicians have been able to achieve what Palin has achieved, but here is a short non-comprehensive list of some of those who have: Hitler, Stalin, and Putin. Three figures that are hated in politics, but three of the most brilliant political geniuses that ever existed. In this blog post, I want to draw historical parallels between Palin and these political stalwarts.

Comparison with Putin

Vladimir Putin was plucked out of obscurity when he was appointed as Prime Minister by Boris Yeltsin, in a surprise move that caught Yeltsin's opponents by surprise and led to Putin's victory in the Presidential elections that were held after Yeltsin resigned as President. As the President, Putin mobilized the people with perceived injustices against Russia's oligarchies and the Communist bureaucrats that remained after the collapse of the Soviet Union. With the Chechnyan terrorists, Putin united the country against these rebels and crushed them. He re-ignited Russian national pride, and united the country behind his leadership.

Palin was plucked out of obscurity from her house in Wasilla by John McCain, and quickly ascended to stardom. Similarly, Like Putin, Palin quickly jumped on the opportunities that were offered to her, and quickly gained a base of support. She transformed from a nobody to a household name within months, held her ground against Joe Biden during the one debate they had (though this is debatable), and quickly developed a political strategy aimed at "small-town USA" and "non-elitists". This quickly polarized the Democrat and Republican bases, and initiated a drift towards political extremism which is still ongoing today.

The parallel would have continued had the McCain-Palin ticket won during the elections. Instead, Obama-Biden won, and Palin and McCain were relegated back to their posts of governor and senator. However, this wasn't the end of Palin.

Comparison with Hitler

Hitler rose to power through pure luck and democratic processes. After his appointment as Chancellor, he slowly began taking the elements of democracy away, one at a time. Nobody noticed, or perhaps nobody wanted to speak up, and Hitler managed to transform a democracy into a dictatorship within 5 years. One crucial element in Hitler's success was his use of propaganda. Goebbels, who was the Nazi's propaganda minister, was able to use propaganda to create fear, use the fear to manipulate citizens's thoughts and objections, with which Hitler could justify the removal of even more democracy. In a few short years, Germany had transformed into an anti-Semitic and populist country.

Palin, like Hitler, came to prominence through luck. But instead of fading away into the abyss, she somehow managed to mobilize BOTH the conservative and liberal medias to her cause. Without the usual political training of keeping quiet, Palin's big mouth drew much of the liberal media's firepower. Conservative media, outgunned by the resources available to liberal media, took it on themselves to advance Palin as much as possible. They don't actually care about Palin, but she is just a tool to distract the liberal media's fire away from the real issues. It worked wonders - liberal media nowadays blindly follow and shoot at Palin's comments, regardless of whether it was uttered from the Alaskan wilderness or a Republican fundraising dinner.

Therefore, Palin is really a tool, being used by both the parties involved. Conservative media has nothing to talk about - so they talk about Palin. Liberal media is so eager to refute these claims and comments that they throw the real issues out the window - continuations of the BP oil spill, Republican senator's efforts to block health benefits for 9/11 responders, or comments that are made by Republicans who were actually voted into office and can actually make decisions for the country. It is a scarily effective strategy. Palin's populist messages, and the liberal media's attempts to discredit her, have cemented populism in the minds of the conservative masses. The constant conservative bombardment of "right-wing radical extremist socialist etc etc" has also created fear in these conservative masses. Populism + fear + Republican politicians = ?

The American political landscape is looking more and more similar to that of Nazi Germany during the pre-war era. The main difference is that the liberal pushback to the conservative message has polarized the population, in order to keep a balance. Therefore, instead of a dictatorship moving more and more toward a radical position, we have alternating governments which flip-flop between extreme right wing and extreme left wing policies. An oscillation that seems to be increasingly in amplitude, if not for the successes in the lame-duck session in this past week.

Comparison with Stalin

Stalin's political genius mainly comes from his ability to eliminate his rivals. At Lenin's death, everybody expected Trotsky (the intellectual) to be the successor. Through shrewd accusations and political maneuvering, Stalin (the populist) managed to create a cult of personality around Lenin (Leninism) and himself (Stalinism). Using this populism, Stalin was able to use the power of masses to "cleanse" the political playing field, through his Great Purges. Until he was the last person left standing.

In November 2008, not many people thought that Palin actually stands a chance at being the 2012 Republican candidate. Sure, there were talks about it...but nobody took them seriously. Serious contenders were Romney, Huckabee, Gingrich, etc. But again, she used mass media to her advantage, to create a cult of personality around herself. I really don't want to call it a cult of personality, but that is really what it is - she even has her own reality show, in addition to being a regular on conservative news networks.

Today, she is considered a serious contender for the Republican 2012 presidential candidate. She drew Huckabee's support base away from him, and is more popular amongst Republicans than Romney (who's a Mormon) or Gingrich (who has remarried several times). In my opinion, there is a strong chance that she will win the Republican nomination.

Conclusion

But that's where my (faint) praise for Palin ends. If she clinches the Republican nomination, I don't believe she can win, unless the Democrats were to field someone ridiculously under-qualified. The biggest difference between Palin and Hitler/Stalin/Putin is that Palin's successes have all come from essential half of the country - the half that she has warped around herself in a populist strategy. The other half has been repulsed away from her, and with an approval rate at 30%, it doesn't say much for Palin's chances when subjected to an actual popular vote.

If Palin were to take a leaf from the books of the political geniuses of the old, she would either want to mobilize the masses against her Democratic opponents, which is close to impossible barring a Watergate-style occurrence, or she would need to unite the masses against an external threat (Hitler with Jews, Stalin with the anti-Leninists, Putin with the Chechnyans). Palin may have succeeded thus far as a tool of the Republican Party, but whether she can use this advantage to her own benefit in 2012 will ultimately determine her success and place in the history books as one of the shrewdest and luckiest politicians ever.

-FCDH

Politics is Useless

Hi Readers,

When I first made the foray into the field of politics and history in high school, I'd periodically run into people who would caution me against digging too heavily into politics. I was destined for disappointment, so they said. These people were almost always the politic gurus - the people who know every details about everything you could possibly ask about politics.

Over my observation of both US and international politics in my 4 years here, I've slowly began to come to the same conclusion. Politics is really a dead-end street for everyone except politicians. The more you dig into it, the more you are convinced about the unfairness of the world, and the absolute stupidity and selfishness that characterizes what was once public office held in high esteem.

Politics was supposed to be a post defined by rationalism for service to the constituents that the politicians represent. The more you look into politics, the more you see - it is filled solely with selfish pragmatic decisions for the politician themselves. Nobody is able to make hard decisions that need to be taken anymore. Instead, politicians bicker and fight with each other, slinging mud and sticks at each other, in a choreographed dance for the sole purpose of leaving the hard decisions out of decision-making. As the media brainwashes and dumbs down Americans, the politicians are increasingly able to hide behind the stupidity of their constituents, in the guise of "this is what my constituents believe".

Politicians are supposed to serve their constituents. This doesn't mean being a slave to constituents - this means doing what is best for them. Constituents don't have the time to meddle in the complex affairs of politics, which is why the task is left up to the elected politicians. The job of the politician is precisely to make decisions on behalf of the constituents who don't understand these details. Personally, I don't want small-town America making my decisions, because they don't understand the potential for long-term implications and problems that may arise. Yet this is increasingly an argument being turned to for politicians.

I can't care about politics anymore. It literally ruins your life, to always be up in arms saying "why is XXXXX so stupid? Can't they see this is a short term solution that will fail in the long term?!?!". This isn't to say that I won't continue following politics - it just means that the next time Palin's spewing shit about Obama or Congress passes another tax cut for the wealthy, I'll just shrug and say "meh". There's nothing I can do about it - yet.

-FCDH

Israel's Slow Leftward Transition?

Hi Readers!

Update first. I went to Tokyo yesterday (Saturday) with two of my French friends, who were meeting their other 2 French friends in Tokyo to go have fun. I ended up being the odd one out, being the only person with English as a primary language, since everybody else was speaking French to each other. But since I could speak some French it wasn't as bad as it could have been. I will admit - it was still a somewhat annoying trip into Tokyo, almost not worth the $14 train ticket. But one thing rescued it from being a complete disaster (in my opinion) - one of the French guys we met at Shibuya station was probably the most attractive guy I've ever seen in my life. Granted he said like 3 sentences to me the entire night and probably doesn't even know my name, but that in itself put the night up from 'complete borefest' to 'barely tolerable'.

Anyways, today's topic: Israel (again as usual). I don't really know why I focus on Israel so much - I mean, there's loads of international issues like Krygyzstan's presidential election, or Poland's presidential election, etc. etc. I guess I find the moral gray area for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict more interesting to blog about. So here goes.

There's one thing about Google News that bothers me slightly. It's that the "international news" sections has a lot of news about Israel, but often from the 3 Israeli News Outlets: Haaretz, Jerusalem Post, and another one (Ynet or something similar). I usually get quite annoyed and pissed off at these...because they have SUCH one-sided pro-Israel viewpoints that it was disgusting. During the Gaza conflict, these were the headlines that read "Gaza War justified and legal despite alleged humanitarian violations"...during the Biden-settlement issue, these were also the ones saying "Settlements justified...Americans can go to hell...blah blah blah." I used to think it was complete and utter garbage, like Fox News in the US.

But lately, since the Mavi Marmara incident (Turkish ship tried to run blockade and ended up with 9 people dead by Israeli commandos), I've noticed that these media sources are surprisingly docile, and even somewhat anti-Israeli government. There are news and opinion articles lambasting the government's response to the ship, the "neutral committee" that has no authority and no international approval, and the current failed blockade on Gaza. Even as Erdogan, Turkey's Prime Minister, blasts Israel for the killing of 9 Turks on board the ship, and as Turkish relations with Israel continues to deteriorate, I actually found many articles on both JP and Haaretz saying "it's not their fault...it's ours". I was quite flabbergasted by the 180 turn from their usual reporting.

I wonder if this is an indication of Israel's gradual shift leftwards. Ever since Netanyahu took over, Israel's only been embroiled in crisis after crisis. Watching their world status plummet over and over again, as Hamas remains as firmly in control of Gaza as ever, as Ahmadinejad continues his flaming rhetoric against Israel, as their biggest Muslim ally Turkey slid away from them...I'd imagine the media is becoming more and more hard-pressed to support the government. As media is probably the most effective method of controlling people, this may be just the first indication of the backlash against Netanyahu's government.

It'd be similar if we saw MSNBC turn against the Democrats, or Fox News turn against Republicans. Though I doubt either would ever happen...but it'd be quite the sight to see.

-FCDH

Israel's Failure at Suppressing Democracy

In life, there are many situations where we must sacrifice a part of what we have in order to preserve the remnants, instead of losing everything that we have. This also holds in democracy. Many countries in the world, including the US, regularly suppress democracy as a means of preserving it. The only difference is, when we "suppress" democracy, we are silencing entire parts of the human population, and forcing alternative choices upon them to choose. It is de facto a page taken from the authoritarian regimes...so why do we do it?

Most countries do not allow political parties to exist, whose goals are to split up the country or compromise its national security in any way. This is true for the USA (no Confederate parties), Germany (no NAZI parties), China (no other parties at all). An exception must be made to Canada - congratulations for allowing for the existence of the Bloc Quebecois party, whose primary goal is to allow the Canadian province of Quebec to secede and become its own country.

However, when the clause for national security is taken farther than the country's own borders, there is an immediate ethical issue regarding it. There are several examples of foreign-fueled overthrow of democratically elected governments: Salvador Allende in Chile, Sandinistas in Nicaragua, and others.

But none of these interventions had the direct human impact of Israel's blockade of Gaza. We must remember that the Hamas government came to power through a legitimate election in the Palestinian Territories. And because of their democratic decision, the people of Gaza were to be punished with a crushing blockade that includes non-weapon items such as canned fruits or notebooks. Israel is hoping that, through punishing the Gazan populace with miserable (see: human rights abuse) living conditions, that they will reject the Hamas government and elect a better government (see: Israel-leaning government).

However, Israel is missing one important point: it is directly punishing the people that it is relying on to make this regime change. And unlike Israel, Hamas is trying its best to provide essentials to the people, to make their living conditions bearable. It is providing goods that are stopped by the blockades (albeit through smuggling), it has rebuilt much of Gaza City after the war with Israel, it has provided healthcare to those who need it. Is it really any surprise that, despite many years of miserable living conditions, the people of Gaza still choose to support Hamas instead of Israel?

And now, with the whole Peace Flotilla issue, Israel cannot stand to lose any more respect and standing in the world. Its human rights abuses are no longer being dismissed by the US, and it has lost Turkey as its most important ally in the Middle East. Hamas has still remained as an immovable force in Gaza, and people are increasingly shifting blame of the Israel-Palestinian crisis to Israel. Is it unfair that world opinions are shifting this way? Yes - but the burden is put on Israel, being the instigator of the blockade and human right abuses, to justify these actions. And since these actions are not shown to be working, they can no longer be justified.

The American founders encoded this "instigator's burden of proof" concept into the Constitution, and it is the way we have always done things. Americans are not "turning against Israel"... they are simply opening their eyes to Israel's actions, and realizing that it runs contrary to our founding principles. Netanyahu probably sees this, but whether or not he can convince the Knesset and the Israeli populace of the need to lift the blockade, only time will tell.

-FCDH

A Glimpse of the Future of US Democracy?

In the US, no matter our political leanings, the major parties have always held that democracy is what keeps the US running as it should. There are always grumblings of "leftist Democratic liberals" and "brainless Republican rednecks", but our democracy seems to have prevailed so far, somehow (though this is also an arguable point). However, as the Republican party continues to shift to the radical right and some Democrats begin to compensate by shifting to the left, can what's left of bipartisanship remain for much longer?

Let's take a look at Thailand, a country in a similar political situation as ours. Two major parties, the People's Power Party and the Democrat Party. A polarized population, between support for PPP in the rural areas and support for DP in the urban areas around Bangkok. A populist leader, Thaksin Shinawatra, who made life better for rural populations but was widely believed to have engaged in corruption activities.

First came the riots in 2008 by the People's Alliance for Democracy. The PAD (or the "yellow shirts"), based upon urbanites who were against the PPP and determined to bring it down, occupied Bangkok and shut down the city for an entire month. My dad was there, and he witnessed the whole thing - the city was dysfunctional, services were cut, and nothing was working. Tourism collapsed, tourists were trapped as Bangkok's international airport was occupied, and it was estimated that Thailand lost $4 billion in tourism revenue during the single month. Eventually, the PAD won their victory - the government was dissolved, an election was held, and the PPP lost. Democracy prevailed...or did it?

Enter 2009 protests. Supporters of the PPP, or "Red shirts", congregated in Bangkok from all over the country. Determined to bring down what they perceived as an illegitimate government that was raised from the ashes of a PAD coup d'etat, they again occupied Bangkok. Again, services cut, shops closed, untold dollars of lost revenue from tourism not to mention unmeasurable and perhaps irreversible damage to Thailand's reputation for stability. All oddly familiar to the events from only a year ago. But the biggest question is - where had the principles of democracy gone, and what is this system that had replaced it in Thailand?

Many Americans could look at this and say - "oh, that's the principles of democracy at work. Protests? Yeah, they're sticking it to the man - rights of free speech, blah blah." We associate protests or unrests with something that is inherently wrong with the system. Civil rights protests (desegregation), Tiananmen Square (anti-Communism), Tibet (anti-repression). I could go on, but I probably don't need to.

What happens though, when two democratic political parties have so polarized the political spectrum, that neither one could accept the other? We should take the unrest in Thailand with a grain of salt and an open eye...Tea Partiers, anyone? Death threats to politicians who voted for the health care bill?

The US is in many ways different from Thailand. We are decentralized, so that the blockade of a single city can not bring down our economy. We have better security forces to deal with unrest issues. Our two parties are not yet so polarized as to incite violence in common folk. But we should note the current trends of radicalization of the Republican party, and with it, the Democratic Party. It does not take a huge leap of extrapolation to link our current state to that of Thailand's current state, and it certainly does not take a huge leap to imagine a civil war that could result from the unrest in Thailand.

I hate to use the phrase "for the common good", because it has an extremely Communist implication - but when will American politicians and political parties begin thinking and acting for the common good of the people??

-FCDH

Israel, Come out of the Anti-Semitism Closet

With the recent assassination of Mahmoud al-Mabhouh in Dubai, and the Dubai police's assessment of the evidence which points to Israeli Mossad Secret Service as having committed the act, Israel is claiming ignorance to the act right now. Which is fine for now...we do try to promote an innocent-until-proven guilty justice system. At least in the criminal courts anyways. But I have a feeling that Israel will be proven guilty, and when it does - I'm betting that they're going to resort to calls of "Anti-Semitism" again.

One thing I cannot stand about Israel, is how easily the words "Anti-Semitic" come to the lips of Israeli politicians.
Goldstone Report? ANTI-SEMITIC!!
Criticism about the deaths of thousands of civilians in the Lebanon War? ANTI-SEMITIC!!
Criticism of settlements? The barrier running through the West Bank? Its nuclear policy? Humanitarian records on Gaza and West Bank? All anti-Semitic, according to Israeli politicians.

I guess Israel's gotten used to countries stuttering and backing out of their comments with these simple 2 words. But sooner or later, there's always a backlash. When these two words don't mean anything anymore, what will Israel hide behind? The post-independence African countries are finding this out...shouts of "Colonialism!! Apartheid!!" are no longer viable for politicians to utter to their constituents to explain their actions. And therefore we have diverging paths for these countries...will Israel become a Zimbabwe or a Tanzania?

Israel, the world is not anti-Semitic. They are merely anti-Israeli, similar to anti-Americanism. We do not discriminate against you because you are a Jewish state, but because you flaunt the rules and laws that are established to try and bring peace, and then use the lack of peace as an excuse to break more rules and laws.

It's a vicious cycle that Israel's caught in now, between a rock and a hard place. While I don't necessarily disagree with the assassination (apart from the subtlety with which it was carried out), Israel needs to be a man and stop hiding behind the anti-Semitic shield. It's going to happen, sooner or later...and you may still be able to salvage your integrity if you do it sooner.

-FCDH

Orwell's Third Pillar is Nearing Completion

War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Power. The famous quote signifying the tripartite columns propping up George Orwell's dystopian government in '1984'. The same principles that kept the Soviet Union propped up during decades of Communist rule, until Gorbachev famously knocked it over with the policy of glasnost and released Russia from a totalitarian regime. Of course, this is not to say that the United Russia party is not rebuilding these columns from the ashes.

But we haven't been standing still in the US during all these years. As we've been advancing into the comforts of the post-Cold War era, we've also been busy constructing the three pillars of a totalitarian regime slowly and silently.

The foundation of the first pillar was laid in the Vietnam War, and completed with the War on Terrorism.

The second pillar was completed with the passing of the US PATRIOT Act.

And this week, the expected completion date of the third pillar just jumped forward, with the Supreme Court's ruling on the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case. United States, we are poised at the gates of an oligarchy! With the floodgates preventing corporate political financing flung wide open, I shudder to think about the blatant manipulation of public opinion by corporations with political agendas.

Are we still United as a nation?

-FCDH

The Biggest Failure of the Republican Party

For any rational person, one does not have to look far to see that the American democratic system is corrupted, not blatantly with money or bribes (though there are arguments here that could be made), but with incompetence and a surprising amount of idiocy. We don't have to look very far at all...just look at the current Republican Party. Once the party of Lincoln, now the party of Sarah Palin. At the same time, the political structure of the USA seems to have settled down for the time being into two bipolar components: the Republican "Right", and the Democratic "Left". Any person who is up-to-date on current politics will know this.

The geopolitical structure in the US is so polarizing, in fact, that we've got nutcases like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck with their talk shows, and FOX news with their infamously biased news articles blasting blatant propaganda everyday. The Republican Party obviously does not support these views outright, as it would be political suicide to do so. But we only have to turn to idiotic remarks by GOP senators and leaders to see that their views correlate very, very well. There's always "socialism", "spreading the wealth", "elitism", "death panel", blah blah blah...such nonsense. And the GOP wonders why they don't get support from people with college educations.

The thing is, Republicans are struggling with all their might to cling onto anachronistic and outdated viewpoints; so much, in fact, that their message on key issues which transcend boundaries are lost in the clamor of things like anti-gay marriage, or resistance to action on climate change. Republicans need to face it: there are issues which are becoming almost prerequisites for support. To support gay marriage is one of these prerequisites...the argument against it is simply outweighed by the argument for it, especially in a secular society like the US. To base civil rights on religion amounts to theocracy, and in that sense Republicans are on the same page as countries like Iran and Israel. This push for "small-town America" support is also quite ridiculous, if not insulting, and it speaks loads about the declining American societal values. Palin's intelligence should be an affront to everybody who calls themselves American...yet some people listen to her brain-numbing interviews and actually believe she is a valid candidate for president. Finally, Republicans can call themselves "pro-business" or whatever (all the good it did during the Bush Era), but when one denies global warming as a fact and continues to prevent any action from being taken to remedy the emission of greenhouse gases, one tends to look EXTREMELY STUPID AND UNEDUCATED.

And therein lies the problem. I supported Obama initially, but I think what the Democrats are doing right now with the government is moving in the wrong direction. Healthcare reform should not be the top priority - reforming the education system should be. I had a talk with one of my friends the other day, and it was not until then that I realized what a black hole the American school system seemed to be, compared to the Canadian education system. On the war - I don't support the surge in Afghanistan, especially with Karzai as the ineffective president. On the financial side - I didn't support the bailout (it's absolutely ridiculous, the way the money moved from the hands of the people to the hands of the corporations). But despite all this, I would still pick Democrats over Republicans. Because they are the LESSER OF THE TWO EVILS.

That's the Republican Party's biggest failure: failing to present itself as an effective platform for the basis of ideas and policies. With opinions in finance, reform, and even foreign policy, there's a lot of leeway in opinions. With social issues such as abortion, gay marriage, the environment, or even the promotion of stupidity (aka Palin), there's a very small leeway for opinions. The Republican Party needs to wake up, retool its image, and present itself as a competitive party to that of the Democratic Party. They need to embrace intelligence, purge the negative social stigma that currently brands Republicans as intolerant rednecks, and only then will educated voters be tempted to vote for the GOP on the basis of more important issues such as finance and foreign policy. The Republican Party seems to be deluding themselves into believing that their current platform is actually competitive against the Democrats platform. It's not, because they don't even have the prerequisites to be in the competition.

America is a multi-party democratic system. The people need different parties, with different policy ideas, to choose from. The Republican Party's failure at this will slowly push the US more and more towards single-party rule, and further and further behind on education, as the GOP continues to blast their incoherent propaganda to the uneducated public in an attempt to remedy the situation. This will only serve to increase the dangerous disconnect between educated and uneducated people, and to make the US more bipolar day by day. I hope the day comes soon when the GOP will realize this, and I am looking forward to the day that the GOP again becomes an effective balancing force against the Democratic Party in US politics.

-FCDH