Burma Close to a Boil

Events have escalated, and so has the media coverage.  A part of the world that has suffered for longer than we have cared to acknowledge is finally receiving the attention it deserves...although it may be too late.

Burma's Junta is holding its saber steady above the heads of the protesting monks, whose respected position in society has kept them alive.  That, and the influence of neighboring China, who has tried to keep the peace, even though their own human rights record is more laughable than The Simpsons at its zenith.  Why has China, a country who worries more about amassing regional power than individual rights, become a champion of civil disobedience at this time?  Many believe it is all about geopolitics: a stable region is a profitable region.  It could also give China some brownie points with all the rich countries, and their 'Western' ideas on freedom and human rights.

Whatever the reason, the attention the event is now receiving may end up saving the monks and the region, or amplifying the ripple effect a massacre would create.  The call for a just end is increasing in pitch.  If we see a bloodbath or a dove on the 11 o'clock news will be a last minute call.

Want Me to Speak English? Pay Up!

I have about three minutes to write out an argument against all those who get pissed off when they encounter someone at a resturant/store/office who can't speak English. Here I go.

Pay for it! Language is a skill as much as being proficient at 10-key or making a Whopper. If someone applied at Burger King, but obviously is not proficient at speaking English, it is the duty of the employer to train them to do so. Do they not train them to understand the proper way of deep frying chicken nuggets? Did these un-Englished employees know how to do that beforehand? Unless they are professional fast foodeers, they probably did not. That is my point.

The nay sayers will say, But English is essential not just for working in the United States, but for LIVING in the United States. Negative. Depending on where you live, the prevalence of English is variable. California: Spanish trumps English in most of the state. Detroit, MI: Having the highest Muslim population in America, I am sure English is not the tounge of taste. English is not the official language of the US, and the Engli-philes have tried many times, and failed, to make it such.

Pizza is done.

Black or Female: Pick your Democrat

"I'm in", were the blunt words used by Hillary Clinton, letting the political world know she is a contender. Barack Obama, the other Democrat waiting to wage war against the Republican contender, came out of the closet last week. The stage is set for one of the most interesting presidential elections in our history. Who would you vote for: a black guy with a funny last name, or a woman with a controversial last name?

The pundits have noted for some time the obstacles a black or female Democratic candidate will face. If Obama ends up being the party's candidate, racism, bigotry, traditional roles, and racial tension will be in his way. If Hillary obtains the party label, her last name will be as much of an issue as her gender and her reputation of being a "career-oriented" woman. Both face uphill battles in the South, and considerable challenges in the other Red States. Like Borat, this race will reveal the prejudices our country loves to dismiss as nonexistent.

Besides the eminent obstacles these two candidates will face by the bigots in our country, are they worth voting for? Obama is a Senator with only 3 years under his political belt, a novice in comparison to other Congressmen. The Senator from Illinois has a record that makes labels stick very easily. Hillary is politician that has a Bush complex--you either love her or hate her. She is guilty by association because of former President Clinton, and has never fully recovered. Many see her as a feminazi, a calculating wife that manipulated the presidency to her whims. Of course, these are the same people who will have an issue with Obama's "color".

The lack of record in Congress can serve as an advantage for Obama. John Kerry, being the lifetime member of Congress that he is, saw how his voting record was a liability over Bush's blunt positions. Hillary is on similar ground. Her years in Congress have not been too many, and she has been able to maintain a steady record to avoid a "flip-flop" label. And although they are both considered liberal and to vote liberal, that is not a sufficient characterization of them.

Barack Obama is Pro-Israel, Hillary Clinton is gaining reputation as a bit of a war hawk. Her stance on national security is stern, his stance on Israel is not a typically liberal one. Although many will want to deny it, Hillary has been moving to the Right, becoming more of a Republican than a Democrat. She is reconsidering her position on abortion, and she has calmed down on Universal Health Care. Obama, on the other hand, has made himself to be a consistent lefty. He is stern on gun control, against the death penalty, and a committed pro-choicer. Who is the biggest boogey monster for the Republican? A notorious liberal, who is shedding her ideological scales, or a young liberal who has little record to pin him as such?

In the end, the battle will not be focused on voting records. The battle will be over what bugs the bigoted American the most, a black or a woman president? If Democrats win the White House with Obama and Clinton on the ticket, the greatest dilemma for a redneck/sexist will be presented: taking out a black/woman president will bring the black/woman vice-president to power. Racist and sexist, to be or not to be?