The Polity Post

There was an error in this gadget

Apple Hot News

Thursday, August 13, 2009

Highs and Lows in British Politics: Brown in political turmoil and discontent from the Parliament


by Emil Angelo C. Martinez

Gordon Brown’s popularity was a mere silver lining. Prior to the global financial crisis and prior to his prophecies, his hold to prime ministership was rigorous, unpopular and critically questioned – even his governance was pretty much of a mockery from the opposition and thumbs down from his allies, if there are any. But what saved him from total oblivion and from being Blair’s successor to total political defeat is his economic recession prophecies, solutions and tough actions. At times when the United States, the center of world capitalism and the den of Wall Street executives and foreign traders and investors, merely had no clue to what will come whereby its most brilliant American prophets like Roubini and Krugman have been snubbed and ignored about the incoming economic tsunami (to borrow it from the words of the free-market intellectual, Alan Greenspan), Britain and its Prime Minister took the advantage of cushioning the dire effects of recession – by saving its economy and sharing the “how’s and what to do’s” during the economic downturn. If Bush among others became so unpopular and blamed because of his negligence [to the recession], his Western counterparts made it clear that it is not a joke at all. And again, thanks, Gordon Brown – your time has come to stand out and step up in the global spotlight. His economic overhaul model that had been vigorously adopted around the world is just the first of his global recognition.
The G20: Image Booster
Yes, Brown is the leading icon against the global economic turmoil, not Bush as one would abruptly expect. Merkel and Sarkozy (but less of Berlusconi) are even more popular than Bush in dealing with the crisis, only with a different twist. These two anti-Anglo Saxon model, anti-Thatcherism statespersons were more of anti-Gordon stimulus model. But still, Gordon’s immense global famousness with regards to his solution which is envied around the world is also gaining political support (less local, more international, though) – making him backed by a vast number of supporters that can even just topple down the antithesis of Merkel and Sarkozy.
Following the solution brought by Brown, actions must be put in place to bring it to reality. And so the G-20 was convened. With the principles of “growth”, “jobs”, and “stability”, the summit agreed on general courses of actions to curtail the effects of the crisis and to prevent another one. Yet, this is not just a convention of state heads trying to save their economies and their friends – it is a place and the right time to make popularity points. Who got the highest score? Obama may be the first on the list – but not on the main category which is “highest score in economic leadership”. He was just the first to be popular among the faces – the neophyte among veterans. It’s not Sarkozy. He falls on the category of “defiant deviance”. Nor Merkel. She ranks second from Sarkozy (because both tried to boycott the convention because they didn’t want stimulus). Gordon Brown, British Prime Minister, got the award. Internationally, the G-20 was seen as an image booster for the one who convened it (none other but Gordon). Even locally, Gordon got considerable amount of support and praise because of his global leadership. And this meant that Brown may stay in absolute power where the Opposition lacks power to counter his heavily fortified image.
When in the top, there’s nowhere to go but down
Perhaps, anyone could consider Brown’s popularity as short-lived, pretty much. Just a few months after the success of the G-20 Summit in London, the most surprisingly unexpected events come through. These events are scandalous. They are in fact scandals, not of Brown’s but of his government’s. Recent cases of corruption and misappropriation of taxpayers’ money almost stained Brown’s image – his impeccable office just got messed up, enough for the Opposition to take advantage. And the major issue? The Parliament is weakening in support for him. The recent resignation of the House Speaker (first ever for a lot of centuries since the last resignation) was a preliminary cue for some – Brown may be next. In this case, it is very true that when Brown is enjoying the summit of his salvaged hold on Prime Ministership, he has no way to go but down. Following such scandals, Parliamentarians started to feel that the incredibility of accountability in Brown’s government means that he is an ineffective leader and public servant. If his government fails – ergo – he fails too. However, it might be a very blunt idea to blame it all down to Gordon, but given that Britain’s often unstable politics and aggressively hostile Opposition – it has given much way to just remove someone from power and office when the other side of the pole does everything to cause the downfall of the enemy.
To say, Brown deserves it and doesn’t. He has given much to his country at times of economic crisis, but when it comes to local governance, he just lacks initiatives for “countrymen-first policy”. In fact, his popularity was global, not local – temporary that is. The international community rallies behind him, not the British nation – the world even gained more than what his country gained from his economic initiatives. His economic heroism may be in the long run an advantage to the British nation, yet it's not bothering them. What matters most dearly is that one single mistake is an antecedent of a vicious cycle of boos and smile-less faces. Gordon Brown did fail to establish balance between international and national responsibilities. His focus on saving a global problem had either brought no focus and attention to local issues in Britain or fulfilling his prime duties at home. Either way, he did it.
Too late to spare
It is both rational and instinctive to come up with antidotes when poisoned. Having enough threatening perils of losing his office, Brown has to do something to save his image, again. What must he do? Put focus locally and apply what made the world go rallying behind the British idea. Balance should be the principle. But following the increasing loss of support, strengthening of opposition and loss of EU popularity, Brown’s salvaging actions may be too late to spare. All he has to do is to wait and pray that no more Trojan Horses breaching his weakened fortress. After all, antidotes may not work in all cases!

The Detainee and Prisoner Dilemmas


by Emil Angelo C. Martinez

As more and more crimes come each day, anytime of the day, inflicted to people of different walks of life are becoming not just a particular problem of law and order or security and whatever there is but becomes a problem of prisons, too. In the state of California, overcrowding of inmates are much of a focal problem, where some say the constitutional rights of these "still-humans-who-deserve-respect" are not being served, rather violated because of the condition they are in. It is a dilemma for Congress to face.....legislating fiscal policies to curtail prison overcrowding. Even so, these people deserve some attention and proper care despite of their wrongdoings. But the much "harder" issue to be faced in the not-so-distant-future is that Obama's plan to (1) restructure Guantanamo operations, not totally shutting it down; (2) relocate them to (what for it....what for it) "US territory" and (3) try them in court, is still a heavy and tough matter for debate. Consider the first case: What do they mean of restructuring? Obama's recent resolution on the creation of "proper" bodies to administer detention cases in Guantanamo through reinventing military commissions which are entirely having big stake in the scheme of "who's who, who's to detain" is a bold, sound and justifiable step towards giving proper justice to the detainees. But will it leave out the wrongdoings of Bush Administration and those involved in handling such cases? Either way, plan number 1 is B+. The second case is more of a Republican loathing machine, and Democrat-thumbs down lever - relocation of detainees from Cuba to US is not much of a brilliant idea though, it's a political suicide to Obama and a disgust from the right. So, why is it so unpopular and unacceptable? First, relocation does not solve anything. May it be transferring (which is another plan of Obama's by the way) some prisoners to Palau Islands or to Berlusconi's territory or globalizing and exporting these terrorists (those who are considered ones beyond reasonable doubt) and untried detainees (victims of the AUMF, executive "indefinite detention" and violations of Miranda Rights), it's just applying geography to make it look like "oh, we transported 50% of our upkeep of terrorists". First of, who will ever accept transfer of these prisoners in the first place, worse, some weren't tried and even having worse punishments and treatments compared to what the US government gives? Political benefit or power play may be or crappy realpolitik. Second, relocating them "to US" can be a dangerous security problem. Worse, the American people doesn't welcome it. So what should the government do to the terrorists beyond reasonable doubt and the still-suspected but arbitrarily detained? US should apply its extradition laws. What if no country accepts their own comrades? It's a renewal of principle for these countries. for example, tried and guilty terrorists should be brought home to their homeland. While those who are left should be properly tried. In that way, it lessens the problem of number of detainees in Guantanamo and other detention facilities all over. Though it's understandable to what happened in Abu Ghrahib (stay tuned to this blog for another post regarding extradition problems), making them go home can be a serious security breach. Lastly, making near proximity of dangerous people near paranoid individuals can excite diabolical reactions. Worse, it can even impair and endanger US if we talk about allowing Al Capone to walk the streets of New York free from watchful eyes (if you know what I mean here). So, the last plan is better. What these people need is proper trial. Some of them are accused, arrested, detained, tortured, etc. in arbitrary manner. These dilemmas can only be resolved if and only if proper judicial processes are as a positive and wise actions from Obama's as from the World.

Monday, August 10, 2009

The Tipping Point: What happens when US and the World run out of alternatives?

In particular cases of negotiations, settlements or diplomatic arrangements, the "silver lining" is that amidst the tumults of differing views and judgments, we also tend to settle things if our own views can't simply be agreeable to others. Put it this way, when there is no assurance that I, you or they will win over another party in cases of diplomacy or that one state wants this state to obey them, it's either we throw carrots at them, saber-rattle, give them nothing but pain in the ass no resort at all.....nothing but use of punitive force. Do we hardly want war and use of force just to make people obey us? When Kennedy paid anti-Castro guerrillas to stage revolt (or coup to stop Castro from his evil plans for good under Russia's power), the situation portrays a no-diplomacy, no-negotiation scenario in the part of the Castro government. The fact of the matter is that diplomacy, negotiations, settlements and what not are one in a million shot that you can't just simply repeat by brining the same demands to the table - the things you want to negotiate with. Such things did not effectively work in North Korea. China is not a good place to open up human rights issues because aggression can lead to bloodshed, hypothetically and figuratively. But among US's on-going negotiations, will it be effective given that the states (or groups) they are negotiating with is just as hard as rock and begins to be disobedient?
This is the tipping point of US scare tactics. Consider this case: if US wants to reconcile Israel and Palestine, gift for Palestine through two-state policy and freedom from Israel settlements and another gift for Israel which is just the opposite of that of Palestine. What will US do? There is a stalemate. Another case: what happens when US can no longer impose sanctions and embargoes to Iran (to give full credit, I got the idea from article "Sanctions Unlikely To Stop Iran's Nuclear Quest" by Tony Karon dated 10th of August 2009) Such issue is more of a general question: what happens when a superpower who dictates every action of the lower ones begin to contest, defy and question its legitimacy in terms of power and economic capability? Is this a New Age scenario of balancing of power where the fallen remnants of once powerful societies begin to rise and struggle for freedom from hegemony? What happens when nothing works, no alternatives to settle things? Impunity. War. Use of Force. Termination of the unwanted. It may sound scary, terrible and destructive but such situations have ever happened even before. What's the reason why France and UK waged war with Hitler's Germany? Hitler broke the Warsaw Pact and the diplomatic ties....lost. Contemporary-wise...will it happen to US's containments all over the world? Will Iran forever be a follower of US commands and demands on nuclear capabilities? If US cannot use embargoes or saber-rattlings (which US tries to avoid as of now) and desperate enough for the ending of nuclear proliferation, will they US immediate force to stop it. Another invasion? Is it a good reason to invade Iran just like what they did to Iraq? The problem is that diplomacy can sometimes not work all the time at the same situations or different. The posing threat is that when negotiation ends, settlements sink for good, things must be dealt with expectedly.......a prediction of use of war as the last resort.

.....the tipping point of political engagement is room to settle

Cookies, everyone?

Kim Jong-Il gave US “and” the world some friendly offerings...and don’t expect nothing is to be asked in return.

[A Special Column]

by Emil Angelo C. Martinez

When everyone tried to appease North’s Dear Leader following after its diabolically-construed rocket launch a few months ago and still following “his” aggressiveness to the partly-untimely, partly-the-only-thing-to-do-expectedly condemnation from the UN and many nation-states who see the issue “nuclearly” (which means this could lead to a devastatingly hurtful war of nukes), the hardcore and the hard-headedness of Kim Jong-Il can be a risky price, more of a toxic one – which means nothing will work unless it’s their call....their demand still at the end of the day. This particular case goes with the somehow mysterious arrest and prosecution of two US journalists who allegedly “illegally” slipped beyond the border of North Korea as they cover reports of women exploitation to China. They were “obviously” found guilty – as a means of either having a power “ace” (pretty much the Hearts) which is realpolitik or a form of bargaining flesh-es or maybe their justice system is too democratized (or democratic?) enough to find the accusations justiciable. But anyhow, everyone “construed” it to be the latter – you know – the bargaining chip one. And it is surprising that the North progresses from reluctant agreements and negotiations to informal political play – bargaining, that is – more of a trade, tariff unpredictable, immeasurable. Settling is what Kim sees fit...and clever.
Praise for wisdom. But it doesn’t end there. Following condemnation, the North withdrew from the Six-party talks and demands resume of talks only to US. Why? Maybe US is its formidable foe who barraged them with overwhelming sanctions or that US is much easier to talk and negotiate with. (Standing question: Since the North is pretty much beaten up already and it needs consolation, China is there! So, why not seek support from China that seems lenient and supportive of the North?) It is understandable though that they hold Americans, not Chinese, Russians or South Koreans – ergo-they would return them to their own country. But the point here is that the North plays pretty much better now, using show-offs to gather attention and ring bells of deaf ears around. What does it say to us? Does this mean the North eases up hostility and wants friendship? Will Kim host another orchestra in the future? Or.....pretty much worse. Why did the North withdraw from the talks? Why did they react so agitatedly to the UN condemnation (where they only said that “hey, you got some breaking of rules there, what’s the matter? You know we don’t like that, so did your ambassador – or did he?). Bargain? What for? To be freely nuclear, of course. Simply to be at liberty from international oversights or definitions that says “Don’t go nuclear, we don’t like that. You are not good at handling things, especially “explosive” things. We don’t want your hands get into the “DESTROY” button – you are too playful.” Getting fed up “easily” is natural to hot-tempered. What for? Demands for dangerous toys taken away from them, only to be given back if they behave well enough.
The North is getting too hot already to be nuclear (which they already are technically only that, again, nobody trusts them). And that’s the reason why they want the US to talk to them, US being the major proponent of anti-Nuclear North Korea. They want to be free (less drama, please but cue Queen’s “I want to break free” – for comedy purposes). And does liberty from nuclear ban and sanctions preclude hostility? Totally, it will be a major issue for security. If the international community won’t be hard on this, imminent security problems can be dangerous. And the release of the two journalists meant something? Did Bill Clinton’s charms (I.....I mean to say diplomacy and good talks) work pretty darn good to convince Kim just like that? A snap? Poof!? No, the talks between the two has been scary....and hard, some say. But anyway, what has to be expected from the recent release is that the story never ends up Kim being the one laughed at....or Al Gore gone overshadowed....or still Kim gets international praise....which is temporary, who knows. Surely, something is to be asked in return. What? What could that be?’s among these: “Give me liberty or I give you death” (Nota bene: I don’t mean to use Patrick Henry’s chivalric words nefariously), “Give me gifts and we obey....but still provisional” and “........future tells....”. But the deepest question that needs to be asked is: what do they really want to achieve after all of these? Wipe out the South by waging war with them? Totally annihilate enemies? Be the supreme power like the presently super powers that need not to be easily poked and be scolded? (Of course, states can be bullies,’s hardly avoidable.). Your call.....while Kim waits for a “Thank You card”...with a huge gift, of course. Chop-chop! Better be a good one!

Tea, anyone?

Monday, August 3, 2009

The Dawn of Democracy and Freedom - Corazon Aquino: 1933 - 2009 - A Tribute (Special Post)

Toppling down an oppressively powerful regime is a hard and a challenging risk to take, especially when the regime shows its climactic paramount of subjugation. Although it may be the same case that the oppressed will first cross boundaries of hardship embracing with them the principles of freedom, liberty and democracy, it hasn't been an impediment to do so - it has been an inspiration. As Gandhi crossed seas of salt to defy the oppressors, Ninoy did the same for his country - crossing walls of perils the dictatorship prepared against marches for freedom. Ninoy might have left some unfinished crusades, but his widow, Corazon Aquino, took his chivalry and marched with the people to continue the legacy for democracy against tyrannay. Cory marched all the way through treacherous cliffs and. . . . .fought for the aimed principle with the people. Not much to say and express it but. . . .Cory and the people fighting for democracy got what they deserve. After 23 years, the woman behind galvanizing the spirit of popular freedom passed away. The heroine of democracy left a legacy to be remembered and embraced in perpetuity. Cory Aquino, we salute you.

Thursday, June 18, 2009

Review of Comparative Domestic Constitutionalism: Rethinking Criminal Procedure Using the Administrative Constitution – Harvard Law Review



 Review of Comparative Domestic Constitutionalism: Rethinking Criminal Procedure Using the Administrative Constitution – Harvard Law Review[ii]


by Emil Angelo C. Martinez[iii]


                The author of the note featured in a recent issue of Harvard Law Review entitled “Comparative Domestic Constitutionalism: Rethinking Criminal Procedure Using the Administrative Constitution” solely proposes policy restructuring and modification of procedural approaches in criminal law using the framework of administrative constitutions. The author also tries to delve on the demarcating differences between administrative law procedures and criminal law procedures as well as the praxis of merging and confusing the former and the latter as applications of similitude wherein two different branches of jurisprudence are matters of utmost controversy.

                The author begins the Note by introducing the most important American Law with regards to administrative and criminal procedures done in agencies and courts, the Administrative Procedure Act. The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) provides constitution/s for administrative procedures exercised by agencies, by which such constitution regulates by limiting and/or mandating administrative operations/procedures to be done by agents that separate administrative procedure constitution from criminal procedure constitution. Another major point of the author concerns with how procedures are being applied to a variety of cases like in agencies which deal a myriad of differing subjects. The author discusses the transsubstantive nature of administrative law procedures which are “virtually applicable to all agencies that may be, and often is, supplemented by substance-specific procedures that Congress and agencies establish”. This means agencies execute administrative actions by administrative procedures which are specified only to befit those said agencies. But the author points out that the administrative procedures per se don’t vary from agency to agency but the requirements to be followed to execute such procedures. Hence, what differentiates an agency’s procedure with that of another is only the set of requirements needed to enforce such actions. The author cites the example of the FTC (Federal Trade Commission) and the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) which by obvious reasons are different agencies of fields hence approaches to exercise administrative procedures are not entirely and absolutely the same because cases on trade, say, tariff or quota issues, are different from environmental matters, say, deforestation.

                The Administrative Procedure Act is primarily the magna carta of agencies to exercise federally bestowed executive roles. The law stipulates that the agencies are given the authority to enact rules as exercise of executive function within or without the inner workings of the agencies. Adjudicatory matters are also within the authority of the agency to resolve related controversies. Here, the author entrenches the role of courts in determining the reasonableness of agency decisions through “review/s of reasonableness”. As implicit as it is for the author not to stress its importance (maybe to avoid straying from the crux of the matter herein), we can see the judiciary checking on the executive system. This judicial-executive relation prevents misjudgement on the part of the agencies which could prejudice rights and legalities in the federal state. By which constitutional need of checks and balances, the court if found reasonably agencies’ errors of judgment can overturn the decisions made by the said agencies. The author however finds this judicial check too directly imposing rather than suggestive or commanding because the courts lean towards direct imposition of rules for the agency personnel/actors to follow.

                To contrast administrative procedures with criminal procedure, the author points out that the latter, unlike the former, has no substance-specific supplements out of transsubstantivity, rather a “uniform code of procedures” applicable to a diverse set of matters or fields. Criminal law procedures so uniform leave no room for substance-specificity. To cite an example, the author presents status quo where in the Unites States, criminal procedure for murder is applied to rape cases. For the sake of clarification, the author outlines two important questions in order to resolve such discrepancies: When should procedure be transsubstantive? When should be substance-specific?

                The author presents three (3) benefits of substance-specificity in procedural regulations. First, it “generates a number of interrelated benefits....may be tailored to the particular subject matter under investigation, increasing efficacy”. To put the author’s context mildly, it means closed interconnectedness of matters investigated can benefit future or differently existing investigation due to related findings and/or resources present at hand, hence, increasing efficient procedures. An EPA investigator can scan and use files of previous investigations which have close relation to a present inquiry because APA-provided constitutions offer substance-specific (at times, case-to-case) procedures, not generalized ones, say, previous procedural actions on deforestation can be used to guide procedures for prosecution of illegal loggers, and not that procedures on forest-related concerns are to be used for animal-related issues. Second, it “conduces to efficient resource allocation”. Since agency officials have previous records of cases related to theirs, resources to be allocated are efficiently used because previous related records can lessen expenses of investigators for supply of resources. Last, it “increases fairness by providing interested parties the opportunity to voice their concerns effectively given the substantive issues at play”. The APA requires agencies to afford public opinions prior to implementation of regulations on issues/matters involved. One downside of this APA stipulation is that public views or opinions, no matter how more reasonable than that of the agencies’, cannot overrule agency decisions or have no vetoing power because in the end, the agency has the last say – and whenever public opinions have ruling power, if they are for or against an agency policy promulgation, can impede the rights of the agencies to enact or promulgate policies or regulations, causing stalemate for both sides if cases so do exist.

                The author on his further contentions describes transsubstantive similarity between administrative procedures and criminal procedures currently being exercised by authorities, i.e., courts and agencies. But the author substantively points out that it shouldn’t be the case because administrative law and criminal law are entirely different subjects. In the US, administrative law procedures are transsubstantive and substance-specific, which is a considerably reasonable policy structure because agencies where these procedures are undertaken vary from one another – so specificity is an utmost importance. What the author wants to achieve in the Note is to re-evaluate and/or as much as possible amend criminal law procedures based on given constitutions or guidelines which are transsubstantive but not case- or substance-specific. The author wants to resolve the problem of procedural approach being executed on criminal law and administrative law constitutions. Both branches of jurisprudence in fact have the same elements, that is, both have variety of fields. By obvious title of the Note, the author wants to reconstruct criminal law procedures basing on how administrative procedures are done. The author sees the problematic discrepancy of criminal procedure in relation to the administrative procedure. Criminal law procedures obviously apply to all kinds of criminal offenses and these crimes aren’t all the same, they all vary – criminal procedures don’t only dwell on a single crime or one set of crimes, they encompass every crime in the federal state. Here, we see the close similitude of administrative law procedures and criminal procedures not on transsubstantivity but on case- or substance-specific. The discrepancy of criminal procedure compared to administrative procedure is that its uniformity or transsubstantivity without case-specificity can affect policing mechanisms and court rulings. The author gives the example of issuing warrants to search locations, say, crime scenes in comparison to rape cases. If the police issues no warrant for a specific case, all cases of crimes hence need no warrants since procedure followed by police are uniform as emanated from current criminal procedures. It is therefore clear the major difference of treatment and approach of issues between administrative and criminal.

                Courts of all levels of the Union have major significance to insuring properly executed procedures both in criminal law and administrative law and binding constitutions. As mentioned earlier, intervention of courts can both be reasonably helpful and encroaching. Here, the author projects the courts’ role on administrative procedures and which is problematic. Courts regulating criminal procedure have “process-imposing” rules that either mandate or forbid agency actions. On the other hand, courts regulating administrative procedures have “process-generating” rules that only suggest or aid through recommendation and important outlines of presentation to in order for the agencies to achieve justifications on their own. Process-imposition and process-generation are entirely different because the former is a directly imposed rule from a court that agencies should follow on matters being adjudicated or investigated while the latter is a recommending power from the court to aid agencies promulgate rules to act on. The crux of the problem is that judicial oversight and the use of review of reasonableness can just be judgment out of whim. Unlike the administrative constitution which offers hard look review on administrative agencies, courts contribute more to the efficient procedural process of agencies where they have lesser depth and breadth of expertise than the fields where they have better knowledge. Courts hence tend to be imbalanced on how to review cases on criminal procedures and administrative procedures. Also, process-imposition can impede openness to public unlike process-generation for administrative procedure which offers (however questionable) otherwise.

                In the end, what the author suggests to achieve on his Note is to remake and outline the framework criminal procedure constitution by basing from current administrative procedure.


[i] Contents are entirely interpretations of the reviewer. It is subject to correction, question and response. Review of the author does not encompass all ideas presented on the Note to avoid instance of extremely moot and academic discussion. Limited points presented are factors of the reviewer’s limited ability.

[ii] The author cites Comparative Domestic Constitutionalism: Rethinking Criminal Procedure Using the Administrative Constitution – Harvard Law Review as general source of information.

[iii] Bachelor of Arts in Political Science, University of the Philippines-Visayas

Monday, June 15, 2009

As the world sinks, Singh stays – in power and in popular confidence: why emerging economies are assets, not drawbacks


by Emil Angelo C. Martinez 

   >>>>>>>In global capitalism (un-cue emotional rhetoric or oratory, nay, “attempted” emotional rhetoric or oratory), levels of economic power and capitalist strength and capability are inevitably variant – such diversity, however, balances global competition – but if the system of hierarchy begins to be self-aggrandizing and imperialist, nay, subordinating, the weakest are left behind – some thrive to put themselves in virtually exclusive economic echelons, while some are too beaten up that they just exist under the mercy of those superior to them. But the rising fears of the upper pantheons of capitalist super-powers, would they be principled by communism, socialism, populism and the like or what not, are far greater after the Second World War – rising economies are becoming stronger competitors while economies in the Third World are striving positively to achieve the Utopian pedestal of economic progress. European super-economies like the UK, France, Italy, Germany and the rest of the EU are breaking the streamline of global competition – maybe because these countries are the victors of the Second World War. The West’s best representative to the group of super-economies, the United States, is the leading spearhead of economic dominance while the rest of the Americas like Brazil, Venezuela, etc are entering the spotlight of global recognition in the ambit of super-economies. However, the surprising fact of the matter is that these super-states became flawed (either by reasons of too much globalization or too much confidence that nothing will go wrong) even before the advent of the current global recession. These nation-states embraced the totality of globalization, along with it, global capitalism that transnational marketing, say trade, flow of finance or credit flow, etc, have been fateful facts of economic progress. What they didn’t know is that what caused them to be big can cause them again their downfall. So, being an emerging economy which is not so globalized but self-sufficient rather than self-exporting became invulnerable to the perilous and vicious cycle of economic collapse globally. Protectionist ironclads of some countries shielded their economies against the domino effect of global economic downfall as credit crunch imbalanced capital flow, as transnational banks lost their investments and run out of money that they brought down with them the country they are in. That’s the problem of globalization – yes, it does better off people globally but at the same time, it burdens them. So, being a rising market competitor can have an upside after all in the race for super-economy.

                Talking about emerging economies, the best examples are in Asia, particularly China, India and South Korea. China became a booming economy because of unlikely fair play – they export more but accepts less in credit and in goods/services. South Korea, ironically though plagued with all-out corruption, sought narrow ways to progress their economy. India is the best model of becoming a super-economy because the guiding principles in their thriving for a powerful economic force are based on well-structured policies. One major upside of government policies in India is that balancing globalization and protectionism can be both an asset and a proactive defense against the perils of global imbalances. Government supervision of some firms can regulate economic activities, leaving behind abusive misuse of authority in workplaces and business hubs. The culmination of the Indian election is rather a positive outlook for a fruitful India – Manmohan Singh’s re-election is another set of economic plans for the country where well-crafted economic policies can, in the end, better off economies around the world. As Ms. Moyo of the 2009 TIME Most Influential People would put it, government action always has the largest stake in assuring and reassuring whatever actions they are in the very first place commanded to do. If only governments around the world will leave behind binge-greed and corruption and bury them, nothing will go wrong. If democracy can decide and rule over tyrannical authority of the higher powers, economies around the world are run by principles rather than by political interest.

                But running towards the global stage for protestation of super-economic capability can be a rigorous process. Here, India’s ability to construct and/or reconstruct wise plans on how to cope the demands of the global community is best appreciated as a beauty of good governance and effective economic technocracy. As globalization continues to permeate nation-states, India goes with the trend. Being one of the most-English speaking nations in Asia, India makes safe assets out of the naturally dangerous globalism. India has been an effective and most-sought call center investment. India is making safe profit out of a precarious globalization. As the later centuries (especially the 21st) are technological revolutions where innovation and practicality necessitate human focus to solving predicaments of global warming and recession, India plays better than any emerging economies. India’s technology, telecommunications and to mention the recent rise of the Nano cars proved to  be early responses to the alarming situation the world is in. India, therefore, makes itself globally known both by going with what is deemed necessary and profiting out of it. Say it a wise move but sure will it impact. As Singh rises while the rest heals, India’s wisdom is just a clever investment in times of usual demand-supply operations and at the same time defense system against external threats of globalization.

Power Politics – the vindication of Iran after polls can reshape its future – good or bad


by Emil Angelo C. Martinez

Whoever clinches the nation’s only democratic way to jettison someone to hold the highest position, the future of that country may never be the same again. But choices being made in the table and in every polling station, in every precinct around the country, every ballot cast may not be as expected will turn out to be. Popular democracy and the ones chosen have stakes to sovereign future.

                Iran elections this year have been the most-talked about exercise of citizenship in the country. Iran is worthy of credit for as though being young as a democracy and as a nation, its people took a little time to understand that democracy is important for every individual’s fate, so much more that populism can never make a democracy and an international respect to ground principles as everyone goes to vote – again, everyone must have a stake. And what is significant on this national movement is that people become less gullible to deceit of the relentless manipulators, that the masses and all the rest in its entirety know what necessitates them, their country and the global arena – Iranians are weaving revolutionary versatility and intellectualism when it comes to critical need of leadership that deems righteous credence, not paid vote. But there’s no absolute choice for an entire country to hang on to – but the divisiveness is imminent – it’s either the extreme-right, populist Ahmadinejad or the reformist-moderate Moussavi; either way can craft new paths for Iran to follow through. Consider the cases (for purposes of deeper understanding and in aid of positive prediction): (1) Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s re-election will not be the same with his current hold of power but whatever may come out of it isn’t actually new at all since his unpopular international reputation gets worse before it gets better and his people are responding to the unbeneficial effect of their country’s isolationist behaviour and he may retain his anti-Semite power play that can compel Israel not to make peace with his (Ahmadinejad’s) allies who seek one for statehood, worse, that his agenda of “wanting-to-be-line-North Korea” can bring him down, both local and international; (2) Still, local reactions can gain him no support because most are tired of his backward policies and dangerous “terroristic” verbiage – that’s why the opposition is gaining an even more momentum of support as a hope to replace him. The case, otherwise: (1) Moussavi’s victory can better off Iran in every angle: if seated, the moderate Moussavi can be a good friend of the Knesset and Washington since diplomacy and multilateralism is now a real deal (What makes Ahmadinejad a downside partner is that he still holds anti-Americanism, secretly but obvious.); Moussavi’s “not-extreme but reformist” views can end to nuclear hide-and-seek with the international watchdogs and friends, Iran can rather help combat local and international atrocities like terrorism (to mention, too, state-sponsored) and insurgeny, better, peaceful negotiations can be big alternatives, not always the use of impunity and; if Moussavi takes over, shift of focus from loathing enemies to befriending and intgrating (which leaves us Egypt to handle later), shift from underground source of finance like arms dealing to legitimate market economy, you know, the not-illegal ones.

                There you have it – the lugubriously foreseen and/or predicted events. OH WAIT! BREAKING NEWS! AHMADINEJAD WON, AHEAD OF MOUSSAVI FOR MORE THAN 30% OF THE VOTES CAST! It’s either “Oh crap, damn it! Screw you!” or “Son of a mother-hoe, I just pooped on you!” Either way works. The thing is almost everyone (except Mahmoud’s die-hard fan clubs, pretending loyals and sycophants) is fed up of him – the situation necessitates a new one, the less harsher one -  a new kind of leadership that neither endangers people nor forgets them. All it takes is a dose of honest elections, good choice and responsible discretion that one way or another can make a big difference during elections, not crappy and nasty surge of fraud and selfish interests that go nowhere but to the pig sty. Blimey or no blimey. Rubbish or no rubbish. System: malfunction. Control, out!


P.S.        This note aims to establish clarity and academic discussion regarding serious political activities in                the Middle East/West Asia. Any unintentional and/or deliberate misuse of frivolity shouldn’t be      taken out of context, nothing more, except for addenda of entertainment and what not.

Wednesday, June 10, 2009

Reposted from: "Will Adam Lambert's Rolling Stone Interview Hurt Or Help His Career?" by Lyndsey Parker

So this week, Adam Lambert's salivatingly-awaited, serpentine-accessorized Rolling Stone cover issue comes out. And I mean thatliterally. Yes, it's in this RS interview that Adam comes out of his fabulously appointed, leather-pants-filled closet to announce what all the world already knew: That he is (gasp!) gay. "I don't think it should be a surprise for anyone to hear that I'm gay," Adam correctly states, adding: "I'm proud of my sexuality. I embrace it." (As if there was ever ANYTHING about Adam Lambert's public persona that seemed shy or self-effacing!)

Yeah, yeah, I know--not so shocking. Not nearly as shocking as Lambert losing on Idol, really. It's not like Adam ever even slightly denied that he is homosexual. This is a guy who, on the most excitingIdol finale ever, not only performed in drag-queen-supplied Bob Mackie angel wings and platform Kiss boots from his "private collection," but also took on the Freddie Mercury role for the gay-rights Queen anthem "We Are The Champions," after all.

But Adam's sexuality was likely something he wasn't allowed to officially discuss before now (past gay Idol contestants like R.J. Helton, Jim Verrarros, and Danny Noriega have all publicly claimed that the show ordered them to keep mum regarding their sexual orientation--how very "don't ask, don't tell," huh?). Or frankly, his sexuality just wasn't something he felt was necessary to discuss within the context of the Idol competition. As Adam says in his RS interview: "I was worried that [coming out] would be so sensationalized that it would overshadow what I was there to do, which was sing. I'm an entertainer, and who I am and what I do in my personal life is a separate thing."

However, media attention regarding Adam's personal life has only intensified since AmIdol wrapped up last month, from the jillion tabloid photos of him holding hands with reported boyfriend Drake Labry, to the jillion outcries from gay groups and, um, Perez Hilton demanding that he officially come out and shout, "I AM GAY!" through a glittery, rainbow-striped bullhorn. Such public pressure seems odd, since it's not like anyone ever insisted that Taylor Hicks or David Cook hold press conferences to state on the record: "Hey everybody, I dig women." Go figure.

But anyway, now that Adam has finally addressed all the speculation and the "pink elephant" in the room, in his characteristically flashy and flamboyant manner (just LOOK at that cover photo!), I sincerely hope everyone can just move on and remember what an amazing and unique talent he is. Hopefully, by the time Adam's debut album comes out later this year, the public focus will be back on the important stuff: you know, his music, his voice, his nail polish, his awesome hair, his guyliner, etc. Anything but his gayness. If that turns out to be the case, and this Rolling Stone cover story--which hits newsstands only a few weeks after Adam's Idol season, as opposed to the six long years it took for Clay Aiken to come out on the cover of People--finally puts all the gay gossip to bed (so to speak), then this is a very shrewd career move. But I will admit that I'm worried it could be a career-killer. I had the same worries when that splashy Entertainment Weekly "Is He Gay?" cover story came out only a week or so before the Idol finale, fearing that it would ruin Adam's chances. I'mstill not sure it didn't...

Yes, I know that almost immediately after Adam lost on Idol, the show's powers-that-be went into PC spin-control overdrive, emphatically asserting that his shocking second-place finish had simply come down to a matter of the public's musical taste, and that it had absolutely nothing to do with religion, sexuality, or politics. probably DID. Let's be real, now.

"It shouldn't matter. Except it does. It's really confusing," Adam tellsRolling Stone. Okay, okay. I am sure there were several other reasons why Adam lost on American Idol. I do deeply want to believe that--as Ryan Seacrest also hoped out loud on Late Night With Conan O'Brien last Friday--the majority of Americans simply voted for theIdol contestant whose SINGING they liked best, not whose lifestyle they approved of most. But while it would be overly cynical to assume that Adam's rumored homosexuality (and by "rumored," I mean "completely assumed due to widely circulated, Bill O'Reilly-criticized photos of him smooching other pretty-boys in drag") was the main reason he didn't win, it would also be naive to assume that it wasn't a factor at all. Did the EW story, however well-intentioned (it was penned by openly gay, very respected journalist Mark Harris), make matters worse? I don't know.

I just hope this Rolling Stone article (in which Adam even controversially confesses a Kris Allen crush, saying, "He's the one guy I found attractive in the whole group on the show: nice, nonchalant, pretty, and totally my type--except that he has a wife") helps more than it hurts. I don't want Adam to forever be known as just the "Gay Idol." He's so much more than that. In the end, we'll just have to wait to tally Adam's album sales figures to see if this tell-all article was a turn-off to more conservative record-buyers, or if it indeed refocused the attention on Adam's music. Most successful openly gay celebrities--Elton John, Rosie O'Donnell, Ellen DeGeneres, George Michael, even Clay Aiken--have only come out well into their careers, after developing such strong fanbases that they could afford to lose a few fairweather fans put off by the news of their homosexuality. But Adam, possibly the bravest and boldest Idol contestant ever, faces a unique challenge by (as Kara DioGuardi recently worded it on The View) pretty much being out from the beginning.

I just hope unapologetic statements in Rolling Stone like "I've been living in Los Angeles for eight years as a gay man" don't make it even harder for closed-minded people to accept Adam.

And although Adam insists in his Rolling Stone interview, "I'm trying to be a singer, not a civil rights leader," I still hope that--as Adam so passionately sang during Idol finale week--a "Change Is Gonna Come" in this country, and that this article is a start.

Tuesday, June 9, 2009

Yahoo! News Story - Khmer Rouge torturer recounts baby-killing policy - Yahoo! News

( has sent you a news article.
(Email address has not been verified.)
Personal message:

Khmer Rouge torturer recounts baby-killing policy - Yahoo! News

Yahoo! News

Yahoo! News Story - Will US send envoy after N. Korea jails reporters? - Yahoo! News

( has sent you a news article.
(Email address has not been verified.)
Personal message:

Will US send envoy after N. Korea jails reporters? - Yahoo! News

Yahoo! News

Monday, June 8, 2009

Hostility on the rise - North Korea's power-play through journalists' conviction

Neither a stick nor a carrot works for the North - but the growing hostility and diabolic pressure both for the North Korean regime and the rest of the under-alert nations especially the United States are enough factors that could bring us to an unnecessary war. Kim Jong-Il's nefarious actions, on-going missile tests that had always put his own country and the rest of the world under paranoid provocation that seeks to predict a new-age Cold War are becoming even worse than the last months - worse - the peaceful ways of negotiations and diplomacy are seemed to be misconstrued - Kim is taking it negatively, thinking that the international community starts to bully his country and the need to fight back is imminent - by striking deadly nuclear warheads that could annihilate anyone beyond its border. But the more intensifying and pressuring news is the court verdict of 12 year imprisonment of two journalists caught a few months from now near the China-North Korea border. The even graver news is that the North might be using the sad predicaments the 2 journalists are in to make edge against US threat of sanctions. In such issue, the North may be ahead of negotiation pole as US might bargain the release of the journalists, Laura Ling and Euna Lee, with no sanctions at all to North Korea as a return. But UN and the rest of provoked countries like China and the neighboring South Korea could have less setbacks on their plans to pressure North's hostility - but if these countries are brought to the negotiations with US, the release of the 2 journalists can be a bargaining chip in exchange for no-sanction policies from the said countries. For now, negotiation rather than impunity is the safest move to follow - but the North isn't an easy enemy to caught up with.

Standing way behind something is unfulfilling - why being off the net makes me sick.

Missing a lot of episodes of House, The Office, The Tonight Show and the rest of my fave TV shows is a heavy burden to bear - even heavier to be dramatic and having the feeling of void and missed doses of sacred episodes that just make your life reasonable to enjoy (or live). But by my personal evolution through adaptation and tolerance (due to crappy channels that aren't NBC nor FOX) with full-blown understanding that the periphery is always behind such opportunity, I am relieved at times to have it lived by - by always moving forward with the saying that "Hey, this isn't New York, so get along with it!" Fair enough. Very truthfull and honest - fairly enough - just a mild drizzle, nearly rain in my parade. BUT missing things I usually preoccupy with on the Web (Harvard Law Review, Time, The Polity Post, etc.) is far worse than just a drizzle - IT'S A THUNDERSTORM IN MY PARADE!. The point of doing personal mayhem is this - missing a lot of what's going on aroung the world, news per se, international especially, makes me unfulfilled and unsatisfied. I personally dismiss ignorance out of whim and unpurposive nature, pretentious know-all complex and other forms of self-proclaimed, self-aggrandized intellectuality (which instead are unconscious dumbness)  - the necessitating actions of personal role in global agenda and affairs are important milestones of global responsibility as a global citizen. Anyway, as I was saying, it really pisses me off whenever I am left behind on international news (take note: the unwanted predicament risks my passion on international affairs) - so much as missing episodes of our loved shows, missing "a lot" of them, a lot of the Simpsons, Family Guy or even Chelsea Lately - honestly, everyone feel this once in a while. 

Tuesday, June 2, 2009

Powered by  
 * Please note, the sender's email address has not been verified.
You have received the following link from  
  Click the following to access the sent link:
Get your EMAIL THIS Browser Button and use it to email content from any Web site. Click here for more information.
  *This article can also be accessed if you copy and paste the entire address below into your web browser.

Monday, June 1, 2009

Obama's Vatican Pick: Boosting Hispanic Catholics  
Powered by  
 * Please note, the sender's email address has not been verified.
You have received the following link from  
  Click the following to access the sent link:
Obama's Vatican Pick: Boosting Hispanic Catholics*
Click here to visit our advertiser.
  *This article can also be accessed if you copy and paste the entire address below into your web browser.,8599,1902013,00.html

Yahoo! News Story - General Motors files for bankruptcy protection - Yahoo! News

( has sent you a news article.
(Email address has not been verified.)
Personal message:

General Motors files for bankruptcy protection - Yahoo! News

Yahoo! News

Sotomayor In Constriction: Belligerent past, Conservative backlashes, Supreme Court under pressure

Not so much a surprise for Obama in nominating individuals under the principle of diversity in his administration/government. But the recent nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the nation's highest court somehoe stirred not just packages of surprising revelation but critical and widespread opposition from many, Conservative Republicans, especially. The major issue on the table is very racial, considering Sonia Sotomayor, a former Court of Appeals judge, will be, if ever appointed by the Senate, the first Hispanic to be in line with the justices of the US Supreme Court. The first days of the news were positively treated as another historic integration of government officials under of course Obama's umbrella or whatever that is. But because of some extreme captious behavior of some uncovered ghastly past of Sotomayor herself - that she had some racist and sexist remarks. Such expose' is hurting the process of her appointment - if Democrats get the bait, she could hardly get the prize. Even her centrist and/or bipartisanship didn't divert the disclosure whereby some see it as positive future in judicial rulings because there will be no biases on whatever political view one holds. But the racial and sexist remarks of her (saying that she as a female Hispanic with experience has better judgment than two White males, something like that) is seemingly the hottest and significant factor in her appointment, worse, another negative backlash for Obama - that he wants a racist and sexist justice in the highest court of his democracy. Counter-critics of Sotomayor defends by saying that her past remarks shouldn't be a generalizing factor to judge her competence in the Supreme court, although this argument seems to be weak, defense of Sotomayor is hardly convincing her critics to understand that people err sometimes. But by weighing the issue at stake, critics have the thorny point on this - racial and gender biases can affect court rulings, conclusive enough to say it's futile to put a bipartisan judge but a racist/sexist into the (take note) "highest court in America". Conservatives from every corner are gaining dangerous momentum against Obama and Sotomayor supporters and Democrats seem to have no counter-measure against the influence it may bring to the appointment process. In the end, whoever wins this one, come what may.

Saturday, May 30, 2009

The Valediction of Jay Leno - A Decade Plus 7 in the Tonight Show: A Tribute

Right from the start of me publishing my first scribbles in my blog (this blog!), I was overwhelmingly in full-blown excitement to write something about the best shows in television today (Thank you, Jack TV!). I can remember a little bit of history how I got my way through watching comedy shows - which I appreciate cordially down to the end. I first saw Conan's show - The Late Night. I was quite reluctant (and void and vapid in curiosity) to even bother watching it. Well, a few weeks later, I kind'a liked it -  a lot (on which timeline I was just a juvenile fan of Mad TV). Anyway, as my passion for comedy shows progressed, Jack TV's comedy shows also integrate - there David Letterman's show begun appearing etc. I think it's a good investment in television to broadcast award-winning shows, i.e., NBC shows because a fan like myself would indulge into it - for sure. Anyway, enough of my chronicles about my love of comedy shoes, especially talkshows - let's go to the main issue - an be aware of proper verbiage.
 At first, I didn't consider The Tonight Show with Jay Leno as compelling and comedic as that of Conan's. I mean, of course, they have different styles - Conan's seemingly bewitched me with his ....ahem..... humor - but Jay's was just not enough for me to even smile a bit. I finally, about last year, I think, I tried to move on and try Jay Leno for more comedy aside from Conan (at which point, I begun loving Late Show with David Letterman, The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, The Colbert Report among others) . Unfortunately, the early advent of my appreciation of Jay's show seemed to be short of phase as he is to leave after. I first got the cue in Time Magazine that he is leaving this year, to be succeded by Conan himself who happens to have left The Late Night earlier before Jay and who was replaced by the incompetent Jimmy Fallon. Sorry Jimmy. Anyway, let's put this in focus to Jay. Ok. Before Jay succeded the legend Johnny Carson, Jay was already a rising comedian and celebrity. 1992 when Carson left The Tonight Show, with Jay to replace him. I may not have seen the first days and weeks of Jay's show, but I am sure he did an impact and started effectively to make an imprint of legacy for the show (by the way, I like Billy Crystall's song for Jay, he being his very first guest). So, after 17 years, it was more of a legacy and fulfillment for Jay - it was rather a legacy and an achievement in the history of talk shows. 
Now, let's talk about the last days of The Tonight Show. I was fully immersed and alert for the last few weeks to see the last shows. It was beginning to be a bit nostalgic - but it can hardly be seen that Jay begins to be dramatic. They started to show for the last time what happened in the Tonight Show for the past seventeen years - there was the famous montage of funny Jaywalking moments, Jay's phony news on politicians, parodies etc. The show started to have only one guest. The first to the last show, which guest is the comedian Billy Crystall who as aforesaid is the very first guest of Jay (You aren't familiar with Billy? Uhm, how about Mike from Monsters, Inc., you know, the green, one-eyed/cyclop funny monster?) was very funny and melodramatic (although you can't even see Jay tearing down at the very least). I liked Billy's song, can't wait to have a it. I liked Prince's performance too - a worthy tribute for Jay.  Anyway, the last show with Conan as the guest was more dramatic. The conversation between the two was but pleasing each other, saying good things and good lucks for their individual career. Oh, I have to mention the clip that was shown featuring Conan's first TV appearnce moments after he was chosen to replace David Letterman in the Late Night! I was really amused on how shy and a bit modest and physically different and ridiculous in front of the cameras Conan was (where he had nothing to fire back as Jay begun teasing him). Anyway, at the end of the show, Jay begun to thank everyone, his colleagues, writers, producers, friends and his wife Mavis - it was very sad but fulfilling after 17 years. Gonna miss Jaywalking, gonna miss Arnold Schwarzenneger impersonation, gonna miss everything. To Jay, be the best. ! You are now a legend!

Wednesday, May 27, 2009

UPDATE: North Korea under watchful eye of world powers, UN

The predicament regarding DPRK's antagonistic actions (first, breaching six-party agreement and a UN resolution by launching a missile test last April, followed by detonating a nuclear bomb with equal power as that of the one dropped in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, next, launching more missiles - worse amongst all - they are ready to attack any hostile enemies within their jurisdiction) is smearing global alert on North's possible nuclear attack against its enemies. This week, the North addressed its extreme intention to apply destructive impunity against those who come near and within the nation's terriroty. This was a paranoid response from the Communist nation after some US vessels had reconnaissance, with the cooperation of South Korea, near North Korea's shores. Russia, China, Japan and South Korea, countries nearest to the North's territory are having the hardest alert on this. Being near the proximity of an inimical and bellicose country is definitely an alarm for the national security of these countries. The intensity of negative criticism from world powers and the United Nations is rising as the North is begetting provocation for the rest of the world to respond to their challenge. This is an unexpected situation of possibly resulting to a 21st century all-out nuclear war - and the first to spark it is a poor, Asian country! Following the condemnation of UN, the North became more pugnacious, captious and argumentative against the rest, fuelling both sides with aggression and taunting action witht he use of force. On this matter, we can no longer expect the same patience from the international community as the North is exacerbating international response of disapproval and loathe. There is no room for Mr. Nice Guy! What happens even worse is that there is greater possibility (as I predicted in my early post regarding the April launch) that some will ally themselves to join the North against its enemies. What to further expect out of this is a significant amount of destruction whenever deterence happens. Collateral damage is an issue, and will always be. For now, the North is under watchful eyes under intense alertness of possible missile strike. What to hope for is tha punity shall never reach the agora of politics. But things are getting even worse before they get better.

The over-aggression of some Conservatives (in media) against the Left is unnecessary hostility and nefarious cynicism!

Conservative media blabber-mouths like Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity and the rest of the belligerents against the Left are spending most of their time under cynical will-power attacking the Democrats in Capitol Hill who are under the leadership of their (the Conservatives) archnemesis, Pres. Barack Obama. If you notice, O'Reilly and Hannity are from the Fox News Channel, the often mocked, attacked and considered biased in news journalism - mainly the Haven of the Republicans and the Hot Seat of the Democrats. I admit I am fond watching The O'Reilly Factor, but not the unprovoking Hannity - but I do know what they naturally do: to always be conceited about being Conservatives and have nefarious modus operandi against the Liberals - almost all the time. Rush Limbaugh, the outspoken, cigar-loving, provocative radio host (not affiliated to Fox but a hardcore Conservative himself) is one of the High Circles of Anti-Liberal Ethos - the fiercest of them all - the "unofficial" vigilante for the GOP - and the thin ice for them. Dick Morris, among others (by the way, I subscribe columns from his website - just being curious and inquisitive) is the underground assassin for the GOP. Well, to put it mildly, they all share the same aim: demonize the Liberals and salvage the GOP - and to prove that Conservative views are better than what the Left holds. Anyway, as I was pointing out people like them (much less for Dick Morris though) tend to stray away from a "fair and balanced" (I got this from the Fox News Channel - some sort of mockery out of irony) news coverage, much more on bigotry against Liberal views. Their hostility is pissing me off so badly. I was well aware that Fox News (I watch it, I subscribe from it, etc.) is the Republican media powerhouse, with its counterpart, the New York Times for the Democrats, respectively. I have to give credit in here to colleague of mine for motivating me to have a more critical look at the biased situation going on the channel - by observing how they do their job. Of course, it had a remarkable result - Fox News Channel people, many but not all, do favor Republican views and attack more on the Democrats'. There really is an antagonistic approach (against the Left) when it comes to news analysis relatively. This over-aggression from some Conservative hosts is a matter of attack to demise and undermine and stain the Democrats whenever they are in news. I don't mean to side to either of the parties - what I am expressing largely enough though is the nefarious wishful thinking from the Conservative hosts who prejudice news casting. There is a biased orientation on the matter of news judgment. Simply, they are taking it too far unnecessarily. Last month, Rush, Dick among others took it to the edge by wishing that Democrat-crafted policies and Obama himself will fail. It's an absolute cynicism! What an abominable deathwish they got! Taking advantage of the media expected to be fair (which is always expected from diabolically-motivated attackers) to tarnish enemies isn't just right enough to consider professional, rather personal. Bill, Sean, Dick, Rush, I admire all of you for your eloquence and everything else but pushing setbacks and biases just to win a war are but cowardice. Don't be cynics. guys. Liberals and Democrats in your shows always got the hardest treatment. Just be fair enough.

Monday, May 25, 2009

Tom Hanks with David Letterman - Reasons to admire the "The Forrest Gump"

Ok, first of all, I've been a later fan of Tom Hanks (maybe in my early teenage and later more imminent in adulthood). I haven't watched Forrest Gump yet, but I do mind putting it in the title of this post  - worse - I've seen just a few of his movies, I can't even remember some of the titles. But I'm proud having to see Castaway (standing ovation and lots of rounds of applause for the acting), so as his first, blockbuster hit movie this 21st century - The Da Vinci Code. He didn't only caused uproars and outcries (negative and positive) both from the fans and the critics (to include as well the Catholic Church) but did he empowered his image not just the iconic Robert Langdon from the film but the messianic Tom Hanks! The evolution of Tom's character - from a dimwit to a miraculous surviror of a plane crash to a cerebral, enigmatic academic - is truly a mark of his versatility in acting. That's why I admire his acting skills - he just can play any role in Hollywood - and he is the best suited to play it, no doubt - no room to argue for. Anyway, as I was supposed to talk about, Tom Hank's guesting on the Late Show with David Letterman was truly awe-inducing entertainment. To compare with the roles he played both in the Da Vinci Code and Angels and Demons (where by the way, he no longer has the ridiculous hair-do, speaking of it, Tom himself called his Da Vinci hair-do "diabolical") who is mainly a geeky, adventurous guy with Symbology education in Harvard who happens to have many girls with him all the time , Tom resembles Robert Langdon a lot, only that Tom in real life has more wit and humor than the academically-focused Robert. But the beauty of the two movies and roles he is playing is that you don't see any ramifications and vagrance from the real Tom Hanks. It seems that the character is not Robert Langdon but Tom himself. You just don't see the Robert Langdon-ish essesnce from the movie, rather the Tom Hanks with some typical Tom Hanks personality to, of course, fit the movie fictionally. Anyway, it seems that I am, too, a vagrant. As I was talking about the Late Show, Tom did suck the interview, I mean, he sat there beaming with fame and cerebral aura that he is to be considered one of the best guests in any talk show I've seen. Talking a about his diablocial hair back in the Da Vinci movie to the odd counterpart name of "firemen" in Italy which is by the way Vigilantes of Fire in Italian - he didn't just talk for the sake of talking, he charmed the audience with, again, the best comedic shot from an unofficially and not professionally comedian. That's it: the reasons why to admire Tom Hanks himself - he is intelligent, smart, wise, witty and an accomplished actor. You just can't get away with it. 

N. Korea Against The World: Kim's Hard-headedness Is Everybody's Fear

Only last month that North Korea tried to taunt the global body politic by launching a test missile which they defend it was just a rocket to carry satellites while the rest who doubts considered it a nefarious decision. As a result, many condemned the action - - but North Korea felt bullied, unfortunately. Condemnations from the United Nations even further aggrieved the North Korean government, making them ballistic and "literally" ballistic this time. As a response to the global condemnation of what is ought to be a global threat out of the launch, Kim wants more provocation - by launching more. As aggressive as they get, superpowers like US and China is begotten out of their action - - they, too, are becoming alert against N. Korea. If Kim Jong-Il challenges the world, we expect more from the world - destructively with no more diplomatic tenderness. Diplomacy has reached N. Korea's ears many, many times but it seems no one is listening - no one wants to, nobody attempts to. Then the global community is fed up of Kim's uncooperative approach to global rule of law - as he makes him law itself. But international community knows N. Korea's isolationist character - what is feared presently is its capability to start a war. If you're going to fear fear itself, count North Korea in. Now, North Korea is staging a global popularity out of their resistance and provocative action to draw attention that they are capable like others - while we fear the threats of terrorism, I suppose we have to line Kim with Osama as men of might grandstand ready to blow anyone's asses off. God Save The World.

By the way, to make something horrible out of the missile launch, imagine any present city in the world will experience the same thing what happened in Hiroshima and Nagasaki more than 50 years ago.....coz know what.....N. Korea is capable of making the same destructive force as the bomb did in Hiroshima and Nagasaki during WW II. (Enola Gay was the plane that dropped the bomb.) Think again........

Congratulations, Kris and Adam!

My first impressions on the AI '09 result? (On that very day I woke up early beyond my normal, dramatic late-day oversleeping - a record for the first time since I spent my summer obsessing myself to academic affairs, etc.) I can hardly put it in my vertigo-inducing rage, shock and disbelief. Yes.. I didn't expect the result that way but that's the way it had to be. A damning feeling crawled to my spine (quite literary?), mostly a mixture of apoplectic denial, bone-chilling outcry and stand-up monologue of mockery, ridicule and criticism against Kris. Yes, I admit I was too harsh on Kris, ever since he got into the Top 5. - I'd rather have Anoop than Kris. But damn good 'ol fate seemed to favoring Kris this time, worse, defeating the ever-talented, omnipotently-amazing vocalist and undoubtedly true rockstar of California Adam Lambert. But the shocks and the revolts caught me long ago when Matt Giraud got booted off, to be followed by the less-compelling, vocally-unattractive Allison Iraheta then the enormously-groundshaking result for Danny Gokey to leave the Idol stage itself. Simply put it this way: Giraud, Desai, Lambert and Gokey are far way better than Kris, much less than Allison. Yes, I am writing what I felt for Kris and the rest of the unsung, worthy, deserving artists who are supposed to fill the musical interest and euphoria of the American people and the world. But enough is enough - Kris got it, Adam didnt, nor Danny nor anyone else. Kris may have reached the audience far better than Adam (where Kris uses conventionally mellow, stale vocals while Adam naturally adopts high-note, versatile, provoking, idiosyncratic voices)- the dark horse, underdog, melodramatic smooth vocalist sucked it up. But I recant all my harsh tomatoes against Kris  - I rather give him the best luck out of the contract. And for Adam, there are a lot of fruitful future for you to dominate (with your high-pitching voice that made Katie Holmes cover Suri's ears). Same as for Danny, Allison and the rest - may you suck your way through fame. Congratulations.