The race for the POTUS post in 2016 has been anything but conventional so far, and we are only mid-way through the primary season. By all indications, it will ratchet up to reach new highs and lows in the coming months. Both major parties' primaries have seen the rise of an unconventional, anti-establishment if you will, candidate.
The Tycoon
In the case of the Republican party, we have the bombastic and brash businessman Donald Trump. He was born with a silver spoon in hand and progressed the Trump empire to the point where organizations now pay him a substantial amount of money to simply license his name. By his own account, he knows the art of the deal, and there's even a book about it. Judging by the way he has worked the Republican party and galvanized his supporters to this point, he is certainly a shrewd tactician. His freshman entry into politics is described as being out of the love for the country and the desire to make it great again. He speaks his mind, regardless of whether or not it is abrasive, thereby angering both the liberals and the Republican financial supporters.
The Activist
In the case of the Democratic party, we have the self-described mild mannered Democratic Socialist Bernard Sanders. He was standing at the picket line out of the womb, standing up for the rights of those who have been wronged by society, government, etc. He spent his early life struggling and writing, before entering politics. He has been, if nothing else, consistent in his career. He stands up for the poor and the middle class, using his vote to surgically pursue his agenda while striking down any notion to help the wealthy and the elite. He doesn't get into mud-slinging exchanges, even when provoked. He is financed largely through social media (crowdfunding), thereby posing a threat to both the Washington Lobbyists and the Democratic colleagues who are backed by corporate sponsors.
Dividing Bulworth
Both candidates bear resemblance to the fictional character Jay Billington Bulworth, a disillusioned senator played by Warren Beatty in the 1998 movie "Bulworth". In this movie, the character finds a purpose to his life by becoming a beacon of hope to the minority population that has become apathetic toward the political process, convinced that the government doesn't care about them.
Trump certainly brings the open speech with blunt sledgehammer statements that became the trademark of Bulworth. He is willing to attack the establishment status quo and its sponsors without fear of retribution. He has a plan to deport illegal immigrants, build a wall on the Mexican border, tax imported goods at a high percentage, temporarily suspend immigration of Muslims, and revise international trade deals in order to reduce the deficit. He does not believe in political correctness and believes we have become too sensitive to small issues, while being desensitized to the larger problems. The bravado and flamboyant orator skills of Bulworth, without a question belong to Trump.
Sanders has been an activist his entire life and is relishing the moment to speak during his campaign about the existing injustice on a national stage. Just like Bulworth, he aims to disclose the minority discrimination in both the legal and economic arenas. In addition, he attacks the insurance companies and their close relationship with the government. He also attacks the big businesses and bank industry for destroying the incomes of the poor, middle class, as well as the income race to the bottom that has been spawned by businesses exporting American jobs overseas. Furthermore, he insists that public colleges and universities should roll back their tuition to close to small fraction of their current cost. The initiative of Bulworth to protect minorities, poor and the middle class certainly belong to Sanders.
Establishment Opposition
Both parties wanted to oust Trump and Sanders as soon as they saw their candidacy being viable. It is worth noting that both Republicans and Democrats initially laughed at the rookie politician coming from real estate industry and the socialist activist independent. However, when they gained sifnificant momentum, both parties started 'greasing the wheels' in order to stonewall both campaigns.
For the Democrats, who have the most undemocratic means at their disposal in the form of 'superdelegates', it is a simple task. Therefore Sanders' only opponent, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, began to kiss superdelegate ass right away, and now has a gigantic lead over Sanders in this aspect - virtually assuring that Sanders will not be the Democrat nominee, even if he wins the popular party vote by the time of the Democratic convention. But if he wins the popular vote, the outcry against Clinton nomination will be justified and could turn the predictable outcome the other way.
For the Republicans, they came to realization that Trump is a real contender way too late. Now that he has a sizable delegate lead heading into March 15 primaries that will put 25% of Republican Delegates up for grabs, they have poured tens of millions of dollars into negative ads against Trump, has senior party members speak out against him and use the media to place him in negative light every step of the way (even when the spin is a far stretch from reality). But if Trump runs the table on March 15th, his nomination is almost guaranteed.
The Conclusion
For far too long, both parties have enjoyed their status quo lobby money and corporate sponsorship. For far too long, we the public have been sacrificed for the good of the corporate America by the very politicians we elect. And we have all grown apathetic towards the election process for this very reason. We now stand on the precipice of a tremendous event in politics - where our next President is not guided by the corporate sponsors nor influenced by lobbies in any way shape or form. Our elections could have a deep meaning again, if we can only reject establishment candidates.
Obviously, your vote is yours and so is the decision you make when your state votes in the primaries/caucuses and the general election. But I urge you for the sake of our country, please consider the non-establishment candidate when you go to the polls.
Monday, March 14, 2016
Sunday, January 24, 2016
Diversity and Oscars
Let me start off at first by saying that judging any form of art, cinema included, is a highly subjective endeavor. What may appeal to some critics and individuals, may well be intensely disliked by others. Unlike running a 100 meter dash or swimming a 100 meter freestyle, where the winners are without dispute clearly evident, the art of cinema is subject to scrutiny by its critics and fans. In addition, the nominations and winners of the cinematic pinnacle of excellence (Academy Awards) are determined by the voting panel chosen by the Academy itself.
You may think that this voting panel has the ability to improve the diversity of the Oscar winners and nominees. However, they are bound to select the best out of the available pool of performances and movies for any given year. There's no dispute that the diversity of the panel is important, but it is also important to consider the variety of performances and stories that are being considered for the awards. After all, voting diversely for the sake of diversity is wrong, because it will ultimately leave a deserving performance out of the running for the awards.
People this year will argue that there are certain movies featuring black actors that should have been nominated. In my subjective judgement, the movies Beasts of No Nation and Concussion deserved a better fate. But to be fair, a lot of movies featuring white actors also suffer the same fate at times. In addition, don't forget that Slumdog Millionaire and Life of Pi didn't feature any white actors, while being raging successes at the Academy Awards. There is no concrete formula that leads from a performance to the receipt of the Oscar statue. But there is strength in numbers. And the numbers throughout the Academy Awards illustrious history tell us that there are very few African American movies or movies featuring African American actors and actresses that get any love at all from this organization.
The key is diversity. Not in forcing the Academy to nominate African American actors for the sake of it, but in planting the seeds of diversity across the board so that there is a larger and more accepted selection of diverse performances to choose from.
1) Offer the scripts with the highest chances for success to a diverse group of actors, producers and directors. This step is aimed at achieving a greater degree of diversity in terms of quality position in the entertainment landscape.
2) Improve the diversity of the voting panel at the Academy. Since all performing arts judgement is subjective, those judging should represent the diversity of those being judged.
3) Promote the creation of original story lines for diverse groups. Let's face it - a lot of story lines on the Oscar docket this year were written for white actors and actresses (whether historically or fictitiously). The only way to achieve fairness with this respect is to have original quality story lines that are well written for African-American, Hispanic, Asian, and other minority groups.
You may think that this voting panel has the ability to improve the diversity of the Oscar winners and nominees. However, they are bound to select the best out of the available pool of performances and movies for any given year. There's no dispute that the diversity of the panel is important, but it is also important to consider the variety of performances and stories that are being considered for the awards. After all, voting diversely for the sake of diversity is wrong, because it will ultimately leave a deserving performance out of the running for the awards.
People this year will argue that there are certain movies featuring black actors that should have been nominated. In my subjective judgement, the movies Beasts of No Nation and Concussion deserved a better fate. But to be fair, a lot of movies featuring white actors also suffer the same fate at times. In addition, don't forget that Slumdog Millionaire and Life of Pi didn't feature any white actors, while being raging successes at the Academy Awards. There is no concrete formula that leads from a performance to the receipt of the Oscar statue. But there is strength in numbers. And the numbers throughout the Academy Awards illustrious history tell us that there are very few African American movies or movies featuring African American actors and actresses that get any love at all from this organization.
The key is diversity. Not in forcing the Academy to nominate African American actors for the sake of it, but in planting the seeds of diversity across the board so that there is a larger and more accepted selection of diverse performances to choose from.
1) Offer the scripts with the highest chances for success to a diverse group of actors, producers and directors. This step is aimed at achieving a greater degree of diversity in terms of quality position in the entertainment landscape.
2) Improve the diversity of the voting panel at the Academy. Since all performing arts judgement is subjective, those judging should represent the diversity of those being judged.
3) Promote the creation of original story lines for diverse groups. Let's face it - a lot of story lines on the Oscar docket this year were written for white actors and actresses (whether historically or fictitiously). The only way to achieve fairness with this respect is to have original quality story lines that are well written for African-American, Hispanic, Asian, and other minority groups.
Friday, October 16, 2015
Misguided Power of Social Media
We live in world flooded by information. Technology has made it very easy for us to receive alerts from Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, Twitter, and others. In the past we just had news outlets to acquire information. Flawed as they were and are, these outlets attempted to fact-check and give you as accurate information as possible. Now everyone armed with a cellphone and an observation can report their opinion to the masses on social media without a shred of accountability. What is sad - is that media outlets are beginning to compete with these "citizen reporters" and their often uninformed and reaction-only biased opinion. What is even more dangerous is that these social media reports can be easily manipulated to stir up violence by terrorist organizations like Hamas.
The current spate of violence in Israel has such roots. The terrorist organization Hamas was not content with the recent period of calm between Jewish and Palestinian people. So, this organization decided to spread rumors via social media about the Israeli government planning to restrict Palestinian access to the Noble Sanctuary. These rumors were quickly used as a spark to light the fire of the current violent clashes.
The Palestinian people took these rumors at face value, despite no indication from the Israeli government of these rumors being anywhere near reality. What followed was a series of stabbing, shooting, and vehicular attacks by Palestinian individuals on Israeli Jews. Now the situation has spiraled out of control with stones, burning tires and Palestinian mob setting fire to Joseph's Tomb in the city of Nablus (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-34547523). There was one reprisal stabbing as well by a Jewish settler, as well as shooting of Palestinian protesters that threw stones and homemade gasoline bombs at riot police.
The Israeli government has put more police and security forces in and around Israel in order to protect its people. Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas stated that Palestinian people are not interested in further escalation of violence. However, he has no real power against the Palestinian governing party Hamas. And what Hamas has done is put out instructional videos (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-34513693) on how to stab Jewish people, fueling the hatred and violence even further. Now they are spreading the rumors of a third uprising (intifada).
This is an extreme case. And not every rumor or opinion misrepresented as fact on the internet will cause loss of life. However, glancing at the headlines of posts and blogs does impact people's thinking at a subconscious level. With the bombardment of multiple information sources we have, it is impossible to have time to research every headline you come across. The next time you feel like posting an uninformed fact-less opinion or support a sensationalist story that has no merit, remember that this is a technique that has been usurped by terrorist organizations. Don't be ignorant and don't be an accomplice. Do a little research and know the facts.
The current spate of violence in Israel has such roots. The terrorist organization Hamas was not content with the recent period of calm between Jewish and Palestinian people. So, this organization decided to spread rumors via social media about the Israeli government planning to restrict Palestinian access to the Noble Sanctuary. These rumors were quickly used as a spark to light the fire of the current violent clashes.
The Palestinian people took these rumors at face value, despite no indication from the Israeli government of these rumors being anywhere near reality. What followed was a series of stabbing, shooting, and vehicular attacks by Palestinian individuals on Israeli Jews. Now the situation has spiraled out of control with stones, burning tires and Palestinian mob setting fire to Joseph's Tomb in the city of Nablus (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-34547523). There was one reprisal stabbing as well by a Jewish settler, as well as shooting of Palestinian protesters that threw stones and homemade gasoline bombs at riot police.
The Israeli government has put more police and security forces in and around Israel in order to protect its people. Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas stated that Palestinian people are not interested in further escalation of violence. However, he has no real power against the Palestinian governing party Hamas. And what Hamas has done is put out instructional videos (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-34513693) on how to stab Jewish people, fueling the hatred and violence even further. Now they are spreading the rumors of a third uprising (intifada).
This is an extreme case. And not every rumor or opinion misrepresented as fact on the internet will cause loss of life. However, glancing at the headlines of posts and blogs does impact people's thinking at a subconscious level. With the bombardment of multiple information sources we have, it is impossible to have time to research every headline you come across. The next time you feel like posting an uninformed fact-less opinion or support a sensationalist story that has no merit, remember that this is a technique that has been usurped by terrorist organizations. Don't be ignorant and don't be an accomplice. Do a little research and know the facts.
Tuesday, May 12, 2015
Culture of Cheating
It's easy to pay the price via a lost draft pick, cash, or a suspension after you have won the Super Bowl and don't have to give the Vincent Lombardi trophy back. History is written, and the NFL has shown its incompetence in terms of taking action when it would have actually mattered - before the Super Bowl was played.
The NFL, New England Patriots, Bill Belichick, Tom Brady, and cheating. These words have been bound together over the past decade, and perhaps even earlier. Whether it is spygate, deflategate, or something the Patriots have committed (but haven't been caught for), the verdict is clear - there is a culture of cheating in the New England Patriots organization and it is tolerated by the NFL's lack of decisive and appropriately harsh action.
Despite a plethora of evidence against the Patriots, the NFL and the comissioner Roger Goodell decided to allow the Patriots to play for the title against the Seahawks, stating the the investigation would take place after the Super Bowl. Now, if you want to take decisive action to preserve the integrity of the game - you halt all festivities and work overtime to find out if the NFL equipment has been tempered with and the process of verification of football pressure has been violated before the game. Furthermore, if you find that the Patriots cheated before the game, it makes it that much more simpler to disqualify them from Super Bowl contention.
That is the path you take, if you actually care about the integrity of the game and truly believe that cheaters never prosper. But that did not happen, and the Patriots wound up winning the Super Bowl over the Seahawks on the game's last play. The punishment has to be harsh enough to send a message that you can't win through cheating, as the first punishment for Spygate years ago did not seem to do the trick. After the game is played, unless you take away the Super Bowl title from the New England Patriots, suspend Brady and Belichick for the year (as they are multiple offenders), the only message you're sending to the rest of the league and the fans is - Cheating is a perfectly OK tactic to win the Super Bowl.
Cheaters never win... unless their owner is a really good friend of the NFL Commissioner.
Friday, April 17, 2015
At Taxpayer's Expense
Let me start off by saying - I know it is my obligation as a citizen to pay my fair share of taxes and I make sure my employer withholding every year is right on target to meet my tax obligations. I may not like the amount of money chopped off my paycheck, but neither does any other citizen. It is one of those things we know we must, but wish we didn't have to.
My problem revolves around the "wonderful" legislation that dictates the Highly Compensated Employees (HCE) rules. These rules are applied in a blanket manner across this country, whether you live in Wyoming, Texas, New York or California - you become an HCE if you either own 5% of the business or earn more than $115,000.
Once you become an HCE in the eyes of the IRS, you are no longer eligible for several education related tax deductions - and that is right, because those deductions were designed to protect the lower income population.
However, there is another side to the HCE rules. That side relates to the 401K and IRA tax deductible status. Ordinarily, employees are allowed to contribute money from their earnings towards these retirement plans. For 401K, the contributions are pre-tax and for IRA the contributions can be deducted from your taxable income when filing your return. Both plans allow investments to grow tax-deferred for the life of the plan.
When applying the HCE rules, which were advertised by our Washington legislators to the public as "making sure lower income individuals benefit from retirement plans as well as the HCEs", they were actually trying to apply the proverbial 'defibrillator' to the US Treasury investment (as most safe components of any retirement plan contain a healthy dose of Government Bonds and Treasury Bills).
Their crazy way of thinking was explained - each company will have to undertake a 'stress test' to make sure that their lower earners benefit in no lesser proportion than their HCEs. Meaning if the lower earners don't contribute to the 401K plan or don't contribute enough, the HCEs become ineligible for the tax-deductible status of their 401K contributions and will have a refund of those contributions issued (which will then be considered taxable income).
The rationale was - the company HR and the HCEs should encourage the lower income employees to participate fully in the 401K program. Sounds like a collective social pressure applied to a work environment in order to pump up the Government's Treasury bottom line. Don't worry, comrade, the government has your best intentions in mind.
But this idea backfired - you cannot convince lower earners, some of whom live paycheck-to-paycheck, to contribute to 401K the money that they simply do not have to spare. As a result, the lower earners will not contribute because they cannot afford to and the HCEs will not contribute because they have been flagged as ineligible. In conclusion, unless this legislative mess is corrected, the 401K and IRA plans will suffer a contraction - one which will negatively impact the US Treasury investments (the exact opposite of what this legislation intended to do).
P.S. Consider the inconsiderate nature of this legislation - the HCE 'stress test' will surely pass an Investment Bank or a Law Firm, where every HCE will remain eligible for 401K's tax deductible status. Then consider a consulting company, where a lot of workers are per diem, don't earn enough to be considered an HCE and typically do not contribute to the company's retirement plans. The people who just barely meet the HCE criteria (through pulling in a lot of extra overtime) will now be unfairly punished simply because of the per capita income composition of their company. Also, geographically a non-HCE employee earning under $115,000 will probably be able to contribute to a greater degree in remote areas of Texas and Florida (where there is no state income tax to chop off your paycheck and the cost of living is relatively low), as opposed to New York and California (where state taxes are quite high and so is the cost of living).
My problem revolves around the "wonderful" legislation that dictates the Highly Compensated Employees (HCE) rules. These rules are applied in a blanket manner across this country, whether you live in Wyoming, Texas, New York or California - you become an HCE if you either own 5% of the business or earn more than $115,000.
Once you become an HCE in the eyes of the IRS, you are no longer eligible for several education related tax deductions - and that is right, because those deductions were designed to protect the lower income population.
However, there is another side to the HCE rules. That side relates to the 401K and IRA tax deductible status. Ordinarily, employees are allowed to contribute money from their earnings towards these retirement plans. For 401K, the contributions are pre-tax and for IRA the contributions can be deducted from your taxable income when filing your return. Both plans allow investments to grow tax-deferred for the life of the plan.
When applying the HCE rules, which were advertised by our Washington legislators to the public as "making sure lower income individuals benefit from retirement plans as well as the HCEs", they were actually trying to apply the proverbial 'defibrillator' to the US Treasury investment (as most safe components of any retirement plan contain a healthy dose of Government Bonds and Treasury Bills).
Their crazy way of thinking was explained - each company will have to undertake a 'stress test' to make sure that their lower earners benefit in no lesser proportion than their HCEs. Meaning if the lower earners don't contribute to the 401K plan or don't contribute enough, the HCEs become ineligible for the tax-deductible status of their 401K contributions and will have a refund of those contributions issued (which will then be considered taxable income).
The rationale was - the company HR and the HCEs should encourage the lower income employees to participate fully in the 401K program. Sounds like a collective social pressure applied to a work environment in order to pump up the Government's Treasury bottom line. Don't worry, comrade, the government has your best intentions in mind.
But this idea backfired - you cannot convince lower earners, some of whom live paycheck-to-paycheck, to contribute to 401K the money that they simply do not have to spare. As a result, the lower earners will not contribute because they cannot afford to and the HCEs will not contribute because they have been flagged as ineligible. In conclusion, unless this legislative mess is corrected, the 401K and IRA plans will suffer a contraction - one which will negatively impact the US Treasury investments (the exact opposite of what this legislation intended to do).
P.S. Consider the inconsiderate nature of this legislation - the HCE 'stress test' will surely pass an Investment Bank or a Law Firm, where every HCE will remain eligible for 401K's tax deductible status. Then consider a consulting company, where a lot of workers are per diem, don't earn enough to be considered an HCE and typically do not contribute to the company's retirement plans. The people who just barely meet the HCE criteria (through pulling in a lot of extra overtime) will now be unfairly punished simply because of the per capita income composition of their company. Also, geographically a non-HCE employee earning under $115,000 will probably be able to contribute to a greater degree in remote areas of Texas and Florida (where there is no state income tax to chop off your paycheck and the cost of living is relatively low), as opposed to New York and California (where state taxes are quite high and so is the cost of living).
Wednesday, December 24, 2014
Righteous, Pretentious and Dangerous
I often do a thorough job of exposing the media and its ratings-fueled buy-me-a-sponsor sensationalist broadcasts. The entertainment news outlets rarely fact-check, promote divisive opinions and rarely provide an objective journalistic perspective that Edward Murrow or Walter Cronkite would approve. Having said that, it is important to note the types of individuals these news outlets serve - those who feel their efforts and opinions are righteous, but in the end are just pretentious lemmings who try to ride the coat-tails of what they believe will be the next great revolution of consciousness.
While there is a great deal of people who actually know that there is more to a story than the headline, these people are highly analytic calm individuals who will not jump in Al Sharptonian fashion on a platform of Racial Divide and 'Great Injustice'. As a result, we are left with the bottom-of-the-barrel knee-jerk reactionaries who are willing to perpetuate uninformed feelings-based divisive opinions to wave their flag of righteousness. Not many actions can be more pretentious than to carry forward the ignorant opinion of others in the name of outrage and/or seeking justice.
Which is why my column is a bit delayed, respective of the events it addresses. I take pride in my due diligence of research before any analysis is performed... plus I have a day job. I try to provide an objective analysis, and express my feelings in the form of question(s) at the end. That way I am not predisposing my readers to any conclusion. I am not saying that I am completely impartial, but I always try to reach that mark and constantly improve my approach to reach this goal.
But there is a higher level of responsibility that exists, beyond the bloggers, beyond the news outlets. It is the responsibility of Publicly Elected Officials to protect the people they serve. A large part of that responsibility falls into what such an official says and doesn't say. With respect to the Eric Garner death, where the Police Officer (Daniel Pantaleo) used an illegal tactic to subdue the suspect, there was clear misconduct on the part of the officer. There is no question that he is responsible for the suspect's death and I wrote about this incident in my December 10th column (Real Crime). Regrettably, the mayor of New York City, Bill De Blasio, decided to dive into the racially divisive outrage head-first and fuel the fire further by sharing his feelings, instead of doing his job - isolating the incident as an improper action by a police officer and attempting calm the situation to a peaceful end.
This kind of commentary by the city's leader validates the reactionary sensationalist vigilante feelings of a mob of people. These people were already on edge and now they have the city leader's validation of their feelings. These feelings of vigilante justice manifested themselves in the 'Dead Cops' protesters in New York City. Eventually, such validation reached the mentally unstable youth, Ismaayil Brinsley, who wound up ambushing and executing two NYPD Officers this past weekend.
While Mayor De Blasio has the right to share his feelings as a citizen of New York, he has a higher obligation that trumps that right as the Mayor of New York. And this month he has proven unwilling or incapable to fulfill his obligation as Mayor. Being a leader means you have to do and say things that are in the best interest of the people who elected you, which don't necessarily reflect your own feelings or agenda. Bill De Blasio - you failed the people who elected you.
While there is a great deal of people who actually know that there is more to a story than the headline, these people are highly analytic calm individuals who will not jump in Al Sharptonian fashion on a platform of Racial Divide and 'Great Injustice'. As a result, we are left with the bottom-of-the-barrel knee-jerk reactionaries who are willing to perpetuate uninformed feelings-based divisive opinions to wave their flag of righteousness. Not many actions can be more pretentious than to carry forward the ignorant opinion of others in the name of outrage and/or seeking justice.
Which is why my column is a bit delayed, respective of the events it addresses. I take pride in my due diligence of research before any analysis is performed... plus I have a day job. I try to provide an objective analysis, and express my feelings in the form of question(s) at the end. That way I am not predisposing my readers to any conclusion. I am not saying that I am completely impartial, but I always try to reach that mark and constantly improve my approach to reach this goal.
But there is a higher level of responsibility that exists, beyond the bloggers, beyond the news outlets. It is the responsibility of Publicly Elected Officials to protect the people they serve. A large part of that responsibility falls into what such an official says and doesn't say. With respect to the Eric Garner death, where the Police Officer (Daniel Pantaleo) used an illegal tactic to subdue the suspect, there was clear misconduct on the part of the officer. There is no question that he is responsible for the suspect's death and I wrote about this incident in my December 10th column (Real Crime). Regrettably, the mayor of New York City, Bill De Blasio, decided to dive into the racially divisive outrage head-first and fuel the fire further by sharing his feelings, instead of doing his job - isolating the incident as an improper action by a police officer and attempting calm the situation to a peaceful end.
This kind of commentary by the city's leader validates the reactionary sensationalist vigilante feelings of a mob of people. These people were already on edge and now they have the city leader's validation of their feelings. These feelings of vigilante justice manifested themselves in the 'Dead Cops' protesters in New York City. Eventually, such validation reached the mentally unstable youth, Ismaayil Brinsley, who wound up ambushing and executing two NYPD Officers this past weekend.
While Mayor De Blasio has the right to share his feelings as a citizen of New York, he has a higher obligation that trumps that right as the Mayor of New York. And this month he has proven unwilling or incapable to fulfill his obligation as Mayor. Being a leader means you have to do and say things that are in the best interest of the people who elected you, which don't necessarily reflect your own feelings or agenda. Bill De Blasio - you failed the people who elected you.
There are columnists who consider themselves righteous and try to protect the right to hateful speech of the 'Dead Cops' protesters. Fact is, those rights have not been infringed upon by anyone - the group was allowed to carry on, demanding the indiscriminate death of Police Officers unopposed as they marched down the streets of New York. But as advocates of hate speech, these same columnists validated the broad target of the vigilante mob outrage, which has been irresponsibly placed on the heads of the men and women who protect your sorry asses.
Furthermore, these same columnists are pretentious enough to point out the comments of the PBA president (who was furious at Mayor De Blasio for his actions) are meant to incite reprisals by police. This conclusion is so pretentious, so far-fetched and ridiculous, that I am actually angry that I have to teach the ABCs of reason and rationale to people who claim to be intelligent. The Police department is trained to serve and protect. They arrest and imprison criminals, including vigilantes. They possess a professional tolerance that prevents them from seeking out "vengeance". They will protect you, regardless of your pretentious and dangerous rhetoric that incites and validates those who do harm to others.
While I disagree with some of the comments made by the PBA president Patrick Lynch, for the most part he was looking out for the welfare of the police force. I will strike down the 'blood on the hands of mayor' inference, but it is at the very least irresponsible to fan the flames of racial divide as the Mayor before any fact of racism is even confirmed with respect to the Eric Garner case. But to say that the PBA president incited police vigilantes is an ignorant statement in itself. The PBA president has a responsibility to his police officers, while the Mayor has a responsibility to the entire population of New York City. PBA president has been locked in a battle with the Mayor regarding the treatment of officers for some time now - attempting to protect his officers.
Carefully crated words that evoke strong feelings disseminated through media in the modern world can be powerful - they can start movements and bring governments to their knees. And there are people who believe they are pursuing a just cause, because it "feels right", writing opinions that fuel the racial divide using history and presumption of guilt. However, remaining ignorant of factual evidence and drawing far-fetched parallels to suit their narrative, they are simply pretentious and, in the case of the two slain police officers, dangerous.
While I disagree with some of the comments made by the PBA president Patrick Lynch, for the most part he was looking out for the welfare of the police force. I will strike down the 'blood on the hands of mayor' inference, but it is at the very least irresponsible to fan the flames of racial divide as the Mayor before any fact of racism is even confirmed with respect to the Eric Garner case. But to say that the PBA president incited police vigilantes is an ignorant statement in itself. The PBA president has a responsibility to his police officers, while the Mayor has a responsibility to the entire population of New York City. PBA president has been locked in a battle with the Mayor regarding the treatment of officers for some time now - attempting to protect his officers.
The excuse being used by advocates who badly want to see a vindication and rightfulness of protesters here is that - "it was just a couple of dozen protesters who chanted Dead Cops Now, the rest did not promote violence". A question to those advocates - Did you witness the rest of the protests in New York City to make that statement or are you pulling another ignorant opinion from your blooming ass?
Carefully crated words that evoke strong feelings disseminated through media in the modern world can be powerful - they can start movements and bring governments to their knees. And there are people who believe they are pursuing a just cause, because it "feels right", writing opinions that fuel the racial divide using history and presumption of guilt. However, remaining ignorant of factual evidence and drawing far-fetched parallels to suit their narrative, they are simply pretentious and, in the case of the two slain police officers, dangerous.
Sunday, December 21, 2014
The Root of Evil
Recent Events
Many of you are well aware about the recent Taliban attack in Peshawar Pakistan that has killed 145 people, including 132 children. This unspeakable atrocity has been treated as a planned operation to oppose the Pakistani security force activity against Taliban in Pakistan. Taliban is essentially targeting the children of the people who are fighting them. However, the Taliban has been targeting the Education system in Pakistan for a lot longer.
Poison in Education
The root of all evil in this world can be found in the degree and scope of education a society provides for its youth. One of my classmates in college once told me - "my parents did not want me to be educated in Lebanon, which is why I went to school here (Hartford)". The reasons that Syed's parent's didn't want him to be educated in Lebanon was due to the narrow view of humanity, a steady dose of hatred, and the lack of value for a human life that the local education set for the young. His parents did not want him to see his neighbors as sub-human, hate those who are unlike him, and sacrifice his life in the name of some holy war. So they smartly shielded their child from this poison and immigrated overseas to provide a better chance for their child to succeed. The result - when I met Syed he very much valued human life and treated his peers as equals regardless of race, sex, ethnicity or religion. But not all children of Radicalized Islamic areas of the world are as fortunate.
Taliban
There is no better example of education specifically catered to Radical Islam and Terrorism than that of the Taliban. The very name translates to 'Students'. However, the material they disseminate among their own followers is nothing short of repressive Jihadist propaganda that teaches a very narrow sliver of Islam, skewed toward fostering hatred. They teach a repressive diet of conservative Islam with a repressive view of women's rights and intolerance toward those who do not conform. The Taliban are so opposed to female education in Pakistan, that they were inclined to shoot a defenseless girl, better known as the Nobel Peace Prize winner Malala Yousafzai, in the head. This organization is so opposed to freedom of education, that they are willing to kill their young to get the point across. And, sadly, this vile commitment has again manifested itself in Peshawar this past week. The Taliban, 'Students', know very well that their poisonous rhetoric cannot hold up to scrutiny when confronted by freely educated youth and they are afraid.
Enlightenment
Golda Meir, the former Prime Minister of Israel, once said: "Peace will come when the Arabs start to love their children more than they hate us". She was specifically talking about opponents of Israel using children as front-line soldiers and/or shields. These actions epitomize the Terrorist mindset of taking the value of even a child's life as a 'shahid', a martyr, dying for a cause and rejoicing in the death itself. This concept is not unique to the Arab-Israeli conflict. The Taliban itself advocates such acts of martyrdom for their own purpose and regard the militants who died in the Peshawar School siege as such martyrs. We must seek a higher level of understanding as human beings across this world - such atrocities have no place on this planet.
As people of the earth, each an every one of us must fight to provide free and independent sources of education to every corner of the earth. We live in the age of the Global Internet, where such collective action should be possible. We must similarly fight to expose these false prophets (Taliban, Al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, etc.) for the scum of the earth they are and eradicate them from existence - for they are the true poison of this planet.
Many of you are well aware about the recent Taliban attack in Peshawar Pakistan that has killed 145 people, including 132 children. This unspeakable atrocity has been treated as a planned operation to oppose the Pakistani security force activity against Taliban in Pakistan. Taliban is essentially targeting the children of the people who are fighting them. However, the Taliban has been targeting the Education system in Pakistan for a lot longer.
Poison in Education
The root of all evil in this world can be found in the degree and scope of education a society provides for its youth. One of my classmates in college once told me - "my parents did not want me to be educated in Lebanon, which is why I went to school here (Hartford)". The reasons that Syed's parent's didn't want him to be educated in Lebanon was due to the narrow view of humanity, a steady dose of hatred, and the lack of value for a human life that the local education set for the young. His parents did not want him to see his neighbors as sub-human, hate those who are unlike him, and sacrifice his life in the name of some holy war. So they smartly shielded their child from this poison and immigrated overseas to provide a better chance for their child to succeed. The result - when I met Syed he very much valued human life and treated his peers as equals regardless of race, sex, ethnicity or religion. But not all children of Radicalized Islamic areas of the world are as fortunate.
Taliban
There is no better example of education specifically catered to Radical Islam and Terrorism than that of the Taliban. The very name translates to 'Students'. However, the material they disseminate among their own followers is nothing short of repressive Jihadist propaganda that teaches a very narrow sliver of Islam, skewed toward fostering hatred. They teach a repressive diet of conservative Islam with a repressive view of women's rights and intolerance toward those who do not conform. The Taliban are so opposed to female education in Pakistan, that they were inclined to shoot a defenseless girl, better known as the Nobel Peace Prize winner Malala Yousafzai, in the head. This organization is so opposed to freedom of education, that they are willing to kill their young to get the point across. And, sadly, this vile commitment has again manifested itself in Peshawar this past week. The Taliban, 'Students', know very well that their poisonous rhetoric cannot hold up to scrutiny when confronted by freely educated youth and they are afraid.
Enlightenment
Golda Meir, the former Prime Minister of Israel, once said: "Peace will come when the Arabs start to love their children more than they hate us". She was specifically talking about opponents of Israel using children as front-line soldiers and/or shields. These actions epitomize the Terrorist mindset of taking the value of even a child's life as a 'shahid', a martyr, dying for a cause and rejoicing in the death itself. This concept is not unique to the Arab-Israeli conflict. The Taliban itself advocates such acts of martyrdom for their own purpose and regard the militants who died in the Peshawar School siege as such martyrs. We must seek a higher level of understanding as human beings across this world - such atrocities have no place on this planet.
As people of the earth, each an every one of us must fight to provide free and independent sources of education to every corner of the earth. We live in the age of the Global Internet, where such collective action should be possible. We must similarly fight to expose these false prophets (Taliban, Al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, etc.) for the scum of the earth they are and eradicate them from existence - for they are the true poison of this planet.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)