What's On My Mind?

Well, thanks for asking... here goes...

1. I don't watch the Sopranos, but if you read Adam Cohen's article in the NYT, you too may wonder if Anton Scalia's real name is Tony Soprano. The guy appears to have taken a dive into the deep end.
2. Is Britney Spears really preggers... again? She is looking "pleasantly plump" in her latest pictures, but PEOPLE.com still hasn't reported anything. And one has to ask themselves, would she be dumb enough to get it on with KFed again? Well...
3. So all we ever talk about in BSchool is "shareholder value". But is there a limit to what shareholders deserve? I mean when is enough enough? Do they really deserve the millions of dollars in returns they are getting from the likes of Exxon, Chevron, etc. that they are getting the expense of the average American. I think not! (But admittedly, I am kicking myself for not buying XOM 4 years ago... sigh.)
4. Yesterday, I went to a lecture (talk? it really felt like a lecture though... a long, stream of consciousness, hard to follow kind of lecture) by Noam Chomsky. I am inclined to think I disagree with him. But he was interesting. Other than the rabid hate he inspires and his security detail, I was struck by Chomsky's belief that the US government is violently opposed to secular nationalism is (oil-rich) developing countries and in favor of extremist dictators. He pointed to the US's distaste for Sukarno in Indonesia (and it's support for Suharto arguably one of the worst despots in Asia behind Pol Pot) , pan-Arab nationalism under Nasser, etc. I wonder if perhaps one could add Cuba under Castro and the Congo (where the US supported Kabila) to the list. If so, I argue that the US is not opposed to secular nationalism but rather the communist/socialist bent of secular nationalism, which was particularly popular among the masses post-colonial independence. Given the time period 1950's-60's and the prevalence of the 'Domino Theory', in trying to destabilize popular secular national regimes, whether rightly or wrongly (and I am inclined to think wrongly), the US was trying to stop the spread of Communism (and perhaps, I will concede to Chomsky, in certain cases ensure a friendly dictator who would allow them access to oil and other natural resources). -- Wow that was longer than anticipated. I highly recommend reading The Poisonwood Bible, which is set during the Congo's struggle for independence.

Jay Leno is too Funny!

I really like this particular one-liner about China's Prime Minister meeting President Bush.

So China's president meets America's president. It will be President Hu meeting President Huh.

Ah. Too funny! President Huh? Personally, I like President Tweedledum.

China, Democracy, and World Peace

Today's Kennedy School Forum was on the "Rise of China's Soft Power". It was super crowded (China is in demand whether by Asians living here in America or American's seeking to make some quick $$s in China). Although the title appeared to hint at a complex issue, it can really be boiled down to the point that China is gaining power and influence (especially in South East Asia) and what does this mean for us.

What surprised me was the notion expounded by one of the panelists that rule by an elite can be beneficial... He argued that an open democracy like the one the US has is susceptible to forms of corruption. While this may be all too true! especially today with the politics becoming the new nexus of power, money, and special interests, I fail to see how a group of elected elites or technocrats would not fall into the temptation of corruption. You would have to believe that these elites, who either seized or were handed power, will act in the best interest of the people/country. Human nature alone leads you to believe this would be a challenge unless the interest of the elite were aligned with the majority of the country (which seems unlikely). At least in a democracy if there is corruption, there tends to be more transparency, so the issue can be surfaced more rapidly and there is a mechanism in place (known as a free election) to vote out the guilty parties.

Another comment I found particularly "off" was in the context of China's growth and relationships with its neighbors. A KSG student mentioned that Chinese culture was "peaceful". While Buddhist and Confucian teachings may preach and admire peacefulness, I do not understand how China as a nation can be deemed peaceful. Within the past century they have engaged in a Civil War (KMT vs. Mao), mass revolution (Cultural Revolution), the seizure of Tibet, shooting missiles towards Taiwan, skirmishes and seizure of Indian land, and on-and-on the story goes. I do not believe that China's growth will be peaceful. Based on past behavior, it is virtually assured that China will be forced to take strong military action in the future to quell either rural unrest or defend their position as other developing countries begin to grow.

In other news:

• Scott McClellan resigned. Woo hoo! (Now if only Rummy would too.)
• Karl Rove is back to focusing on midterm elections. Bummer! I wonder which new paraplegic Vietnam vet he plans to tar and feather with his dirty, dirty lies.

It's Here!

The *TomKat* (god! talk about the worst ever name for a couple - it's worse than Bennifer, and that was pretty horrid) baby is finally here! Ooooh! The anticipation is finally over. And it's a girl. Named Suri. But honestly, does anyone really care? I for one am all TomKat-ed out. Perhaps Oprah will have them on her show again... perhaps I won't watch.

Conspiracy Theory

My friend shared this link with me. The documentary is called Loose Change 2nd Edition. Although I did not watch the whole movie, it asserts that 9/11 was not caused hijacked planes hitting the World Trade Center or the Pentagon. Rather they filmmakers pose that the 9/11 was orchestrated in tandem by the Bush Administration and Osama bin Laden.

Personally, while I do not believe their premise, the documentary is quite interesting. In addition, it also provides some interesting information (some of which I seem to recall hearing earlier) -- why did members of the administration cancel trips scheduled for 9/11, how is it that Osama bin Laden a wanted fugitive was treated at an American hospital in Dubai, is it just coincidence that in years previous members of the administration (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz) argued that the only way to restructure the armed forces was to have a "new Pearl Harbor", how is it possible that after the Pentagon crash the plan was incinerated, but bodies were still idenitifed? While interesting factoids, I refuse to believe that our government would perpetrate such a hoax on the American public and the World just to gain political leverage. I am no fan of the administration and believe that they have been guilty of some vile actions, but this is just too much! Maybe I am just naive?

Still if you are interested... check out their website. Like I said. It's interesting.

News and Buzz

1. Wow! Oprah has gained some serious poundage. Last week she announced that she was no longer going to act as the cover girl for her magazine "O", because she wanted to give others the opportunity (read: I am too fat to be a cover model). But until I watched today's show I did not realize how much weight she had gained. It was weird. Also weird was her unexpected (read: totally and completely staged) phone call with Jennifer Aniston during. Please they have been running bloody promos advertising the episode for the past week.
2. So I started watching this new show "What About Brian". Now after watching the lead guy, Barry Watson (I had to Google him to find out his name -- please believe me!), in the stellar flick "Sorority Girls", I wasn't expecting all that much. But it wasn't nearly as bad as I expected it to be. Okay, so the storyline about the open marriage is stupid and kind of freaky and I am not old or mature enough to understand the challenges of being infertile, but the other three characters are fairly likeable.
3. Tom Cruise and Katie (should I call you Kate?) Holmes totally creep me out! Infinitely reliable sources (e.g., "Life & Style" and "In Touch") have pictures showing the size of Katie's stomach fluctuating on a daily basis. One day she looks bloated and the next day like she is giving birth to a football team. What gives?? And Tom Cruise? Where to begin with that nut job. I caved and saw "War of the Worlds" last summer, but I will remain strong this summer and not see "Mission Impossible III", not much of a sacrifice considering how much the last one sucked.

Three Thoughts of Tuesday

Should President Bush Be Censured?
Surely, if a Republican controlled Congress attempted to impeach President Clinton for sleeping with a very willing, albeit not terribly attractive, intern, they should certainly exercise similar judgment towards President Bush. At this point, in terms of seedy and illicit behavior, Bush has engaged in the declassification of information that directly lead to blowing the cover of an undercover agent (for political gain) and blatantly lying to the American people (about only wiretapping with a warrant). Still it seems unlikely that the Republicans will support any sort of censure (McCain "the Maverick" has been acting like a mute, declawed puppy-dog). This seems to suggest that either the Republicans enjoy eroding civil liberties in America and damaging national security or don't like sex (with (ugly) interns). I am inclined to think that Republicans given they family and pro-life stance believe in procreation (hence sex) and therefore must simply be inclined to engage in an Orwellian like coup on the public.

See Senator Tom Harkin's note on why Bush should be censured.

Is Oprah Winfrey Shallow?
Judge for yourself.

"I was coming back from Africa on one of my trips," she said. "I had taken one of my wealthy friends with me. She said, 'Don't you just feel guilty? Don't you just feel terrible?' I said, 'No, I don't. I do not know how me being destitute is going to help them.' Then I said when we got home, 'I'm going home to sleep on my Pratesi sheets right now and I'll feel good about it.' " -taken from People.com

With statements like this one, I find it hard to believe that American women consider Oprah to be so very empathetic.

Illegal Is Illegal
I grew up believing (and still do) that if something is illegal, that means it is illegal and against the law. (Yes, the analytic reasoning used to get this insight is phenomenal. I know!) I fundamentally fail to understand why people who entered this country illegally should be allowed to "cut in line", and get citizenship ahead of those who have waited patiently and applied through the appropriate channels. As far as I am concerned everyone pushing for this "immigration reform" has their own agenda.

• President Bush: wants to strengthen GOP control of the Hispanic voter base which has grown from 2% to 8% of the population in the past 20yrs.

• Unions: giving illegal immigrants guest worker status would force employers to pay them a fair wage (at least minimum wage) and limit the price advantage they have vis-a-vis union labor.

• Catholic Church: within the US the largest growing portion of the church's ministry is the Hispanic community

• Businesses: so this one I don't understand. Shouldn't business want their workers to stay illegal so they can pay them lower wages?

Any change to the immigration code allowing undocumented workers to gain citizenship without properly securing our borders will lead to an increase in illegal immigration, and place additional strain on already over-burdened border communities. And the notion that illegal immigrants will pay their back taxes is nonsensical. Few of them have the funds necessary to pay back taxes and the scheme is an enforcement nightmare. Regardless, the principle holds true that you do not reward "criminals" with citizenship. What about illegal immigrants makes them more deserving than Hatian boat people who are routinely turned away? or individuals who apply for a visa and citizenship through legitimate channels?

Don't Leave Me Hanging

Though it was no condemnation, today Arlen Specter, stated that the Bush Administration "owes a specific explanation to the American people." At least it is a start. Specter rightfully cited that the President has lashed out at (as part of full disclosure, Specter did not actually use the word "lashed" but instead used something along the lines of "justifiably criticized") Congress for leaking information, yet has done nothing to diffuse this situation.

While Specter has showed some courage to go against the party line, the supposed, real "maverick" of the Republican party has been totally MIA. McCain, we are waiting for your principled stand on the issues. But instead of calling on the Bush-Cheney mafia to explain themselves, he has been making nice with the boys at Liberty University. I fear the McCain has taken a rightward turn for the worse from which there is no return. He has turned into a total brown-nosing, ass-wiper who caters to the likes of the CC and Jerry Falwell. Apologies for the language, but I am just so frustrated that a politician who I actually admired seems to be content with betraying what I (and many others) believed were his ideals. Give the man some pom-poms, a wig, and a pleated short skirt, and let's call it a day.

Gag Me With A Spoon

I hate to resort to Valley Girl speak, but err! I am so frustrated with the Bush Administration. Since when is it considered to be "in the public interest" to disclose the identity of a *potential* (I use potential here since it is apparently still a contentious issue.) undercover CIA agent? Clearly it is not in the interest of national security. Why would anyone want to be a CIA agent if the government could turn on them? Talk about open season. Not to mention the fact that governments both rogue and friendly must be suspicious of anyone who came into contact with Plame. Either Scott McClellan is another one of Bush's less than stellar appointees (remember Brownie... "New Orleans is drowning... oh, but does my tie look good?") or he hasn't just been drinking the kool-aid, he has been inhaling it.

PS. To add insult to injury, McClellan said the information was disclosed to refute "irresponsible and unfounded accusations", which I believe we now know to be true... hmmm...

PPS. If McCain does not make a statement calling out the Bushies on this, I will be forced to re-demote him to "bad bad man" status.

A Bad Bad Man

You know how I said McCain is a bad bad man. Well, scratch that. McCain is just a bad man. Bush is a bad bad man.

In Court filings, Scooter Libby stated that President Bush authorized his leaks related to the Valerie Plame Affair. Great! So our president has turned into a Russian tyrant (ala Vladimir Putin) and is now seeking to destroy his enemies through the media. As President Bush does have the ability to declassify information, what happened may not be illegal per say. But the actions of the Administration are very clearly pushing the line of what is acceptable legal behavior. They thoroughly, in my opinion, violate the spirit of the law. At the very least, it is certainly unethical and very reprehensible. It is interesting that the Bush Administration chose to "declassify" such sensitive information about a political enemy's wife. I for one would advocate, at the very least, censure for Bush and Cheney if these allegations turn out to have even an iota of truth.

I Don't Even Know Where To Begin.

Paris Hilton playing Mother Theresa on the Big Screen? Has someone been smoking crack? Clearly, yes. An Indian director making a biopic on Mother Theresa is hoping to cast Paris as Mother Theresa. (See the article in People Magazine for details.)

Why does this casting make sense? Well is you believe Mother Theresa made sex tapes, slept with a string of Greek shipping heirs, and collected 20+ carat diamond rings, well then clearly Paris was born to play here. Not to mention that Paris really does care for the poor...

Perhaps the movie is a parody on Mother Theresa's life?

It's Been A While...

But I'm back... with some thoughts (fancy that!)

1. How *awesome* is it that Tom DeLay is not running for re-election? That's right you slimy little varmit, run back down to Texas with you tail between your legs and go exterminate some bugs.
2. How *sad* is it that Florida seems to be heading towards a big time blow-out of UCLA? I guess this is what happens when you ignore your own rules about always betting against the Pac-10.
3. Why was Failure to Launch like the worst movie ever? I love MMc and SJP has a certain charm. But the movie wasn't just bad... it was god awful!
4. How can people not believe in global warming? How can educated, in school with me people not believe in global warming? It is unfathomable. Perhaps they have read too much Michael Crichton.
5. Apparently Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes are going to get married this summer. Ew gross! I wonder if premarital sex is illegal for Scientologists?
6. Eerrr... that Noah guy from Florida totally annoys me! Although it is kind of cool that his father won the French Open way back when. Oh... poor poor UCLA.
7. I hope Rory forgives Logan on Gilmore Girls. He is really cute and rich and amusing and full of himself. And her dad likes him! I better tune in tomorrow.
8. Is it bad that I watch America's Next Top Model? And does Tyra Banks sometimes look super scary? I wonder if that is why Chris "I used to be a kick ass basketball player and destroyed the UMich bball program" dumped her *fierce* ass.
9. It kind of sucks that Drew Brees got traded to the Saints. I bet he is going to suck there. Well at least the Patriots will continue sucking now that they lost Vinateri. I *hate* the Patriots.
10. I do like the song called "It's been awhile...", I have been trying to remember the rest of the words while writing this post... (it's been awhile since I could hold my head up high, it's been a while since I first saw you...)

Stay tune for my next post (tomorrow) on why John McCain is a bad bad man