My Southern African Experience-Days 1-4

Well thus far, Africa has been nothing like I imagined and more than I could have ever hoped for. After the seemingly interminable flight chock full of delays and other annoyances, we arrived in Johannesburg, South Africa last Friday evening. Shortly after our arrival, we left for a safari excursion in Kruger National Park in South Africa. FYI-This park is essentially a nature preserve that has camps and bungalows inside the park and permits you to drive through around see all kinds of animals. Though it seems a little touristy since there are paved roads and even internet, the animals are very much completely wild and quite dangerous. To give an example, when we saw buffalo and stopped to photograph them (only 40 feet away!), a large bull decided he didn't like us being there and began to charge towards us. We had to make a hasty departure. They are considered extremely dangerous, so the experience was both terrifying and amazing! In addition, we were told that just last week during one of the guided walks through the bush, one of the guides (who was armed) was mauled by a lion forcing the second guide to shoot it to save his life and those of the other tourists. Moments earlier the lions were simply lazily lying on the ground seemingly unperturbed by their presence. You cannot enter the bush on your own or even leave your car while driving for this reason. The gates for all the camps close at 6:30pm and no one enters the bush at night, at least not if you want to return. However, though it may seem unusual, buffalo and hippos kill more people here than lions, leopards, panthers, rhinos, cheetahs combined.

The most spectacular aspect of the park was how close you can get to these amazing creatures. On a night drive into the bush with a guide, we were brought within 2 feet of 2 lionesses and their 5 or 6 cubs just laying on the side of a road. I was so close I could almost touch them! It was unbelievable and the pictures my sisters and I were able to get are priceless. Maaya was also able to take video of one of the mother lions scolding her cub for disturbing her rest. It was simply grand! Our visit was all too short but definitely an experience of a lifetime as we saw leopards (which are quite a rare sight apparently), buffalo, lions, rhinos, lots of elephants, wildebeest, bush buck, impala, hyenas, a whole host of birds, all kinds of interesting plants, crocodiles (very close up), and even wild dogs! Apparently wild dogs are the most endangered animal in the world. I will be posting some of the nearly 300 photos I snapped on facebook when I return stateside. Needless to say, the experience was incomparable and almost spiritual. These animals are so beautiful living wild and free, nearly undisturbed.

After our all too short safari experience, we moved on to Swaziland where Maaya lives and on our way were able to stop at an amazing waterfall in the mountains. If it weren't for the huge cacti all around, it seemed so similar to the Smoky Mountains in Tennessee. After our short hike around the waterfall we drove on to Mbabane, Swaziland and have been enjoying the wonderful scenery in this city which is nestled in a beautiful mountain range. The views from the local hotel rival any you would see in Rockies.

All in all, the trip has been just great thus far and I am looking forward to informing you all about the rest of our adventures this week. I think I may have to consider moving here. This is definitely the most amazing place I have ever been.

"No-Shock Barack" or "Barack the Hawk"? Some Thoughts on the Second Presidential Debate

So, John McCain and Barack Obama had their second debate tonight. And if you didn't know better, there were times that Obama seemed more like a Republican than McCain. I understand that it has been very important for Obama to pass the commander-in-chief test but is he going above and beyond the call of duty here? Everyone knows that Obama will win or lose by the economy and must simply come across as adequately capable in the realm of foreign policy? So why is trying to seem like a conservative hawk when he describes his plans for Afghanistan and Iraq? Is this really a good thing or should we be concerned? Obama seems to have pivoted from previous unsuccessful Democratic candidates such Kerry and Gore as well as the some of the positions he advocated during the primary to a much more hawkish foreign policy. While his views on Pakistan have always advocated force if actionable intelligence regarding the whereabouts of bin Laden was available, his language in tonight's debate was not only forceful but nearly brutish. He said we would "crush" Al Quaeda and "kill" Osama bin Laden. As a progressive I find these statements concerning not because I support terrorism or Osama bin Laden. Obama's rhetoric runs the risk of continuing the disastrous relationships George W. Bush has managed to create with our friends and allies. We must be able to rehabilitate our relations with Europe especially in order to move forward and turn the page on the ridiculous and dangerous foreign policies instituted by Bush and his cronies. We need a foreign policy that puts our domestic interests first and doesn't get our military slaughtered fighting endless wars that have no upside and cost billions.

In analyzing tonight's debate performance, I cannot help but notice the slew of weird comments, mannerisms, and generally stiff and uncomfortable style of John McCain. He seems to genuinely find Barack Obama distasteful and communicates his dislike rather openly (not a very attractive quality of McCain for voters). McCain, throughout this campaign, on the stump, and in the debates has treated Obama with condescension, disrespect, and general anger. It seems he still can't believe this upstart politician from Illinois dare stand on stage with him. Tonight, in the town hall setting that McCain claims as his forte, these negative feelings seemed amplified as nearly every post-debate poll showed that voters saw McCain as attacking Obama and angry. In contrast, Obama was seen favorably on issues like the economy and as more likable than before the debate. In addition, there were some strange moments where McCain seemed be taking on Tom Brokaw as he told what was presumably a joke, about not appointing him Treasury Secretary which seemed to fall flat. Another odd moment occurred when McCain referred to Obama as "that one." Now, I know much of the mainstream media in post-debate coverage played up this moment as possibly racially tinged, condescending, and the rest of it. I agree with Howard Fineman's assessment that it simply makes McCain look old. Maybe he was objectifying Obama and being disrespectful and trying to diminish him in the eyes of the voters but ultimately I feel the main impact was that McCain seemed weird and very much like a grandfather everyone finds mildly irritating and somewhat erratic. The last moment that I think was odd and should be highlighted is what happened after the conclusion of the debate. Only C-Span showed the video of the forum after the debate was over and offered footage of Barack Obama greeting the guests. John McCain and Cindy McCain did not stay and greet the townhall participants and instead, immediately exited the premises. Now, if you were down in the polls with the election less than 30 days away and the debates haven't been game-changers for you but you are trying to paint yourself as "in touch" with the voters, wouldn't you greet those voters in a personal setting such as the post-debate meet and greet? It seems like John McCain is tanking the McCain campaign; in other words, he is trying to lose when he should be doing everything he can to connect with voters and change the trajectory of this race. Its clear from all the polling that Americans finally want solutions not he said, she said politics. This is a fact that John McCain either doesn't know or has ignored as tonight he spent most of his time attacking Obama rather than promoting himself. Its clear that the only path he sees to victory is the demonization of Obama as a dangerous, untested, lunatic that associates with terrorists but is still ok to talk to in settings like a debate. Apparently, the fact the McCain would associate with Obama is not questionable despite the supposedly dubious friendships Obama had maintained.

All in all, I agree with most of the media in that, the fact the Obama didn't do anything awful and McCain didn't do anything great makes this debate rather boring but a default win for Obama. However, style counts in our elections and for that reason along with the substantive advantage Obama has, he clearly gained in this encounter. He was definitely "No-Shock Barack" as he looked very presidential. Cool, calm, collected, and steady will win Obama this election. All he needs to do is not rock the boat and hope that the secret race vote will not be the deciding factor. As a final point, it was nice to see a fairly substantive debate between the candidates without the ridiculous attacks and the guilt-by-association politics. However, we all know that tomorrow morning John McCain and Sarah Palin and their surrogates will begin the Bill Ayers mantra. After this most recent debate disaster in the context of the economy, the McCain camp must also bring up Reverend Wright and anyone else of questionable reputation to create the idea that Obama is dangerous as a last ditch effort to win. This entire line of campaigning is not only ineffective (Clinton tried this and failed) but rather specious on the part of John McCain who has claimed several times that he would like to run an honorable campaign focusing on issues. I guess what he meant was that issues are pertinent until they drive down your poll numbers. After this happens you need to as one senior McCain campaign official noted, "turn the page on the economy," or lose the election.

Why Sarah Palin is a Big Step Backward for Women

Governor Sarah Palin, despite her career accomplishments, in my view, represents the biggest step backward for women in this country in the twentieth century. Since acquiring the right to vote through the nineteenth amendment, women have steadily gained ground in economic, athletic, political, social, and legislative environments previously not only dominated by men but also completely controlled in structure and content by them. In these arenas, women have clearly marked paths in our both our legislative and social politics that have been transformative. Sarah Palin's candidacy mars this steady progression towards an egalitarian society by moving us back to where our gender alone was needed to advance our interests. She is an attempt at affirmative action by the GOP in the hopes of persuading women, who in many cases would not benefit from John McCain's policies, particularly economically, to vote for the ticket on account of her gender. Her strength as a reformer and maverick seem questionable as many of her "merits" prove to be, in many cases misleading, misstated or even fabricated. And as her claims of reformist politics are debunked all we are left with is a young, attractive rookie Governor from Alaska who earned runner-up in a beauty pageant. She is quick-witted if untruthful and engaging even if abrasive and most importantly it seems, she is a woman. This kind of gender-based promotion is exactly what feminism has fought against since earning the right to vote. Women don't want to be rewarded for being women; they want recognition for meritorious work; a job hard-earned and well-done.

When the "demerits" are compiled about Sarah Palin including her being FOR the bridge to nowhere and earmarks for her state BEFORE being against them. Of course the unbelievable epilogue to this story is that Palin chose to keep the federal money even after Congress canceled the project, which is now being used to build a road to where the bridge was supposed to have been. She is also against abortion in any cases including rape, incest, and health of the mother while proudly commenting on her own seventeen-year-old daughter's "choice" to keep her unplanned child. FInally, her term as mayor of Wasilla left millions of dollars of debt, a severe cut in funding for disabled children's programs despite her own child having down's syndrome, and an attempt to ban several widely read classical works of literature from the library claiming they were "inappropriate reading material." There is of course the concern about her church, the Assembly of God in Wasilla, whose preacher has stated in her presence in a sermon, "You will be punished by God if you vote against George Bush." Currently, she is the subject of a legislative investigation by a bipartisan commission that she along with the McCain campaign are trying to obstruct and obfuscate. These are the so-called "merits" of Sarah Palin, everything she has stated to the public is rife with half-truths, innuendos, and many cases, outright lies.

So a vote for Palin is the institution of affirmative action for women, ironically, by the GOP. We don't want help. Women want to be judged on merit and hard work and be hired for a job because we are the best candidate for that position. Sarah Palin is inexperienced, under-qualified, unethical, not knowledgeable about foreign or domestic affairs, and carries several extremist social positions that would destroy the progress women have made in acquiring the ability to make informed decisions about their bodies and their sexual health. A vote for Palin is the biggest step backward our gender could ever make. I want to move forward and vote for the candidate that actually included reform measures specifically geared towards women’s health and equal pay as part of the party platform. This is a party that gave nearly half its support to Hillary Clinton for president. As a strong, experienced, smart, and moderate candidate who happened to be a woman, Senator Clinton lost on the merits of her platform, not her gender, This is why as a woman and as an American my vote and everyone who cares about the advancement of women goes to Barack Obama and Joe Biden. I’m not saying they are perfect but they care which is more than I can say for the GOP ticket. As women you must not "vote in" a candidate as way to attain a gender-based promotio. Such a vote would endanger us as women's ability to maintain their integrity, to be judged equally with men on merit, and ultimately, progress towards an egalitarian society. Therefore, the only "real" feminist vote in this election must be against John McCain and Sarah Palin.

Due Diligence or Do We Live in a Police State?

The recent news story about Mayor Cheye Salvo and his encounter with the county police during their drug raid of his home in Berwyn Heights, MD is one of the more horrendous breaches of privacy I have read about, particularly given the personage involved.  I am not suggesting that preferential treatment is warranted or positive, its just surprising that it wasn't applied in any form in this case.  Further, and more horrifically, the execution-style killing of the family's two black labrador retrievers begs several questions.  It should be noted that without actually being privy to the "real" facts of the case and rather having to rely on newsources such as CNN, I reserve the right to make corrections if needed to my argument and must insert this as a caveat for this post.  In this context, it must be stated that the facts of the case, in my view, clearly support the Mayor's claim that this was a civil rights abuse and a violation of the code of ethics by the police involved.  The description of the events that would give pause to nearly anyone hearing the story is further supported by the stilted explanations and perfunctory apologies offered by the spokesperson for the county police department.  She could not give a better explanation for the raid team's actions regarding the Mayor's family pets other than, "The dogs must have posed a risk however, the decision to enter the home was made solely onsite by the team."  In one sentence, she claims no responsibility for the police department in the dogs' shooting and provides a questionable explanation for why due diligence was not undertaken to ascertain that the information that allowed them to secure the search warrant was valid.  This matter is not simply something to which we should respond, "Oh, that's just awful."  Rather, each of us as citizens should be incredibly troubled by the actions of the police in this case.  We all want to feel safe and particularly in our own homes and more to the point the police should be harbingers of this safety not perpetrators of vigilante justice.  If, under the guise of "my life is in danger", our law-enforcement can use any means "necessary" to "secure" the area, then not only is our privacy in jeopardy, but our very way of life.

My purpose in relating this incident here is to pose the question, "When does the price of our so-called safety come at too high a price?"  In conjunction with the recent approval of FISA or the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act by Congress, it brings to mind a comment made recently by a friend.  He said to me after the FISA vote, "If the cost of freedom is too high, the move to Iran."  He actually felt all members of Congress who voted for the bill should be removed from office.  The point he raises about the abridgment of our freedoms in the name of the War on Terror seems quite valid and disturbing.  At what point do we simply take the risk of living the freedoms that we fought for in the Revolutionary War and hope those without conscience won't take it away?  Or do we live in bubble, safe but completely devoid of "freedoms" that we actually had been fighting for?  How do our so-called values figure in here?  My view is that Scott (my friend) is correct that at some point excessive curtailing of our civil rights will only lead to a compromise of our ideals and turn the country that we love and would fight for into a vacuous shell of what it is supposed to represent.  It seems that if we love our way of life we cannot continue to remove access to it for regular Americans or we risk becoming the very forces that we claim to fight in places like Iran.

An Introduction and a Bit of a Retrospection: Apathy vs. Urgency; Are We Starting to "Care" More?

As this is my inaugural post I thought I might relay something here I actually wrote a year or so ago regarding a film that really provided the impetus behind my push for a new kind of patriotism.  The film in question is originally done in Hindi and is entitled, Rang De Basanti (Painted Yellow).  I wanted to address it today since it really hit home with a number of personal issues I have struggled with much of my life; including those of national identity, patriotism, and justice.  The mobilization of these concepts as signifiers within the American political narrative has always been troubling for me as it seems to create an atmosphere of slogan politicking and an endless campaign.  This has, in my view most aptly been demonstrated by the Dubya years as perception became more important than reality.  The film set in India, shows a group of young people who live fairly carefree lives until they are initiated into the world of ethnic difference and political expediency through the bitter loss of one of their own.  In the wake of their tragedy they stage a takeover of an Indian radio station to protest the actions of the government and are eventually killed by police officers who manage to storm the building.   Of course, there is more to the film than this brief sketch but what is most interesting is the strong assertion at the end regarding the power of the collective to produce change.

By and large, within the scope of American politics, it seems more and more difficult to define oneself as a ‘patriot’ as the word itself has been developed into a messianic will to power that has grown from disturbing to deadly.  It is the precisely the flaccidity in American political life and apparently the global community as well, which continues all of us on this highly destructive path.   As Americans, apathy, we have in spades, while compassion and concern are bumper-sticker catchphrases whose only value is a virtual one.  For me, patriotism is a belief in the potential of the United States, in what we alone are capable of becoming and achieving.  We have the capacity to transform the world in a way that is positive, progressive, and productive for most rather than a few.  Instead, our increasingly militant foreign policy has alienated us from allies and taken us, in my view, further away from ‘modernity’.  Modernity, in this context, is continually progressing towards economic, social, and political structures that seek to include and improve rather than alienate, the prospect of global citizenship and possibility for successful existence without the threat of extinction.  Instead, through our influences and the collusion of our partners on the world stage, the notions of “virtue” and “morality” are flattened and then "pinballed" into complex political machinations and power structures in order to only advance the interest of a few.  I think this film demonstrates an awakening that must happen to the American electorate in order to move forward.  

My reasoning for initiating my blog with this post is because though I wrote this quite awhile ago (in fact before Barack Obama decided to run for president), I feel its even more true now.  However, I also see for the first time since the release of this film the real potential for its message to be realized.  No matter what happens in this election, as Americans we have swerved from apathy to urgency which can only bode well for our future.