California Burns, America watches.

Here we go again!

The state of California refuses to lift the ban on gay marriage. Sure
enough, this is a burning issue now, and the evangelists, the
homophobic fools, and a lot of straight couples, many with families of
their own, somehow imagine gay people do not deserve the same civil
rights they enjoy.

Some even talk about what is good for children, and how a child must
have two parents, namely, a man and a woman. Oh, lord! Now, it must
be really illegal to be a single parent, right? How about those kids
who have NO parent? Clearly, concern over a child being raised with
optimum care is not to be scoffed at, but to bring up that point in
order to deny someone a constitutional right is downright low and must
be worthy of our worst condemnation - if not for conniving timing,
then for outright stupidity.

We hear the argument that marriage was originally meant by God to be
between a man and a woman. Duh, where did God come into this
discussion, and where is the rascal when people break their bloody
marriage vows? Let's leave the poor chap out of this, shall we?
There! Now it is between human beings. Actually, this should always
have between human beings, but who can ignore the power of those who
lean on God to enforce their own agenda on the world?

A country that claims to be a secular county that supposedly respects
all religions cannot constantly or predominantly refer to the Bible
and its implications. It should at the very least, refer to texts of
all religions represented amongst its people. This is clearly not
being done, and this is just one example of Americans running with
cattle momentum. Whoever makes the most noise is getting heard the
most, and forget about the rest? Shame on you.

Religion should really be left out of this debate. God did not invent
marriage. If he had an opinion on it, that was invented too, since
all of us do not subscribe to the same God, even if we occasionally
agreed on ONE God! But then, let's move out of the irrational, and
let's examine what we agreed to argue about - the Constitution,
rights, being gay, and marriage.

First of all, it is none of my business who wants to marry whom. Not
because I am heterosexual but because I should have no power or any
part of deciding another person's life or choices, sexual, moral or
social. And it is damn well is none of YOUR business either. What is
criminal about two people of the same gender getting married? And how
does two gay people getting married affect other marriages?

Now, let's spare a thought to the institution of marriage. It has
caused more misery than any other man made institution, so there is
something positive about warning people against it, but then anti gay
rights activists do not have such lofty goals, do they? They want to
"DENY" that right to other people. Isn't it obvious that to save the
institution of marriage, we should have more people getting married
than those guilty of sneaking out of it? So, unless there is a ban on
divorce, there is no justifiable reason for anyone to ask for gay
people to be denied the right to get married in order to protect this
lousy institution. So, this nonsense about saving the institution of
marriage can be summarily rejected, with outright and complete
prejudice, I might add.

All the time, we hear how it would be damaging on children to be
taught that marriage can be between any two consenting adults. Well,
fat load of good it has done to be taught that marriage can only be
between a man and a woman - just look at the percentage of divorces!
If we care that much about how many things children need to be taught
right, let's start with the truth - there is no scientific basis for
theories of creation, and no scientific rational proof of the
existence of God.

Let's give children the choice to decide if they want to have God or
not in their minds. Let's not abuse them by taking them to church and
enforcing upon them a voodoo like spell, all the while mentioning God
like he is the boss of Santa Claus. If children were to be taught
that sort of "truth", they should hear that their parents are working
for the devil each time they fight, and are definitely carrying out
Satan's orders when they file for divorce. Test tube babies were
certainly not in fashion at the time Christ walked the earth, were
they? So, do those kids have a whole new set of rules to abide by?
Should they worship scientists as Gods? So now, out with the
distraction of trying to tell our children the truth!

About being gay - there is nothing here to believe or think about this
one. It is a natural thing, and even if it is artificial, it is
somebody else's choice and hence, should be respected. (Clearly the
people who do not think so were not taught very much about respect
when they were children). There is absolutely no scientific evidence
that being gay is a choice, and is indeed a very natural biological
orientation. The people who call this "unnatural" are just really
badly informed and should summarily disqualify themselves from this
debate.

The campaign to deny gay people the right to marry is multipronged and
very distracting. Why do they talk about enforcing inequality when it
is clearly unconstitutional? What part of the Constitution do they
not understand when it guarantees non-discriminatory application of
the law to all the country's citizens? Why are the emotional aspects
of this issue allowed to gain ground over the clarity of the legal
ones?

The greater debates about the separation of church and state, about
the true meaning of the word "marriage" and things of that nature can
wait. What is at stake here is a much more serious issue - one of a
court upholding a verdict that clearly allows violation of the
Constitution. If the Constitution is a fluid document, can it really
be amended to violate one of the fundamental principles it has always
stood for? And is that what the State of California is endorsing?

For all the good that Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has done, he is
certainly not helping us get closer to the resolution to this issue by
saying, politically correctly, that he respects the decision of the
court, but also respects the rights of individuals. It is appreciable
that he does not want his personal opinion to influence the opinion of
the State, but what part of "HUMAN RIGHTS" doesn't he understand?

If America takes joy in "liberating" Afghan women and letting them
play soccer and parading them on Oprah, it needs to look deep within
its soul and ask how liberated its own people really are. Americans
need to understand something very fundamentally here - all that you
don't like is not wrong. We don't even need to go into the other side
of the coin - all that you like is not right. This institution called
marriage is not a club to which entry can be granted or denied. It is
a right for people to exercise however they want, whether it is in a
church, temple, hall, or even while dropping from a plane.

If one fundamental right is rightfully denied to even one person under
the Constitution, the document is hardly worth the paper it is written
on. This is no different from lynching someone without trial, and
very much like the whole country agreeing to send someone to the gas
chamber, just because they don't like his face. It is not YOUR bloody
face, fools.

This is hardly the time to be pussyfooting around the core of the
problem. The core of the problem is being drowned by the noise being
generated by people upon whom this issue has no bearing at all - non
gay, non lesbian, non bisexual and non transgender people. Whether
they decide to marry or not, people of the same gender have to have
the right to make the choice. It is simply not for anybody else to
choose, and it certainly is not a matter of opinion. It is a matter
of rights. It is a matter of correcting the collective wrong the
State of California has committed.

Dogma, beliefs (especially religious ones), convictions, and opinion
have no place and no part to play in what is essentially a matter of
understanding the big picture of a nation's standpoint. Does the USA
want to stand for bigotry, hypocrisy, and discrimination or does it
actually want to stand for the higher ideals upon which the future of
humanity can be envisioned? That is the question, no less.

What is at risk here is the USA's image as a progressive, liberal,
respectful, non-intrusive culture. There are a lot of people in the
USA that are not progressive, not liberal, not respectful of other
people's rights, and definitely uncaring about other people who are
not like them. But these people, even if they were to be in the
majority, are not the engines to drive America's policy. The
Constitution is a set of ideals to hold and cherish in common. It
cannot contain arbitrary clauses that can deny what the USA constantly
fights for in several contexts.

The Gay rights movement has come to the fore at a time in the history
of the USA when there are many questions that need to be answered from
more than one perspective. This is a test of the USA's evolution in
spirit, in the individual and in the collective. If found wanting,
there is no guarantee that the USA will hold its place on the moral
scale. In fact, it is almost guaranteed to be pushed back several
notches if it comes up inadequate in understanding something as
fundamental as this.

This is the time for the USA to act upon this opportunity to reaffirm
its often touted commitments to all the great causes like liberty and
freedom. This is the time for America to shed its stone age
inhibitions and come out in the clear, unambiguous and strong, and to
have the courage to silence its own ill informed rotten apples.

Gay Sex Immoral? Says who?

Says the Central Government of India, no less!

http://www.ndtv.com/convergence/ndtv/story.aspx?id=NEWEN20080066818

The Centre does not want homosexuality decriminalized! I wonder who the geniuses are who criminalized it in the first place! And now the Centre is showing its reverence to another archaic law.

{{"It (decriminalising homosexuality) may create breach of peace. If it were allowed, then evils of AIDS and HIV would further spread and harm the people. It would lead to big health hazard. It would degrade moral values of the society," Additional Solicitor General P P Malhotra contended.}}

Breach of peace? Oh, yes, this must be it! All the bombs going off must be due to our homosexual people really getting it on these days!

Big health hazard? To "the people"? It isn't as if homosexuals suddenly became "people", right? So, who exactly are we talking about here? Whose health? I would like to ask this moron if he considered urinating and defecating on streets very hygienic and uplifting to the moral fibre of our society. Surely those are not criminal acts?! Degrade the moral values of the society? - Why does this sound like it came right out of an essay competition in a government school? This is precisely the kind of sentence that would get kudos from incompetent slobs allowed to infest the mechanisms of institutions set up to reach idealistic goals without a thought for applicable truths.

This is precisely the kind of carpet under which the essence of India can get swept under, to be forever suppressed by moral policing that doesn't fool anybody but can hurt everybody. This calls for an outrage among all Indians who respect the Indian constitution and our fundamental rights. If we have freedom of expression, then this is an attack on our freedom of expression, no less.

Just because two people of the same gender express their feelings for each other through their physical act, how in heaven's name can it "harm the people"? Is it even conceivable that I look at two homos making out and I suddenly decide to pounce upon the nearest member of my own gender? What morals are we talking about here?

We have an Additional Solicitor General, no less, applying his value system to keep a law that already violates fundamental human rights? Doesn't this fool know India is a signatory to all the Human Rights Declarations in the world? Just because homosexuals are in a minority doesn't mean the rest of us have a right to make them criminals. Moreover, even if it was what is being claimed here, would criminalizing homosexual acts deter the birth of people who are oriented towards homosexuality? This is plain old interference and must not be tolerated at any level.

In fact, this is no different from criminalizing being handicapped! "Hey, look at that guy limping in public! Jail him!" People don't choose to be handicapped, you idiot! And they don't choose to be homosexuals or heterosexuals either. It is just the way we are who we are! Other people's sexual orientation, and indeed preference, if there were such a thing, should not become our business or the business of the government or any kind of collective.

This is not a matter that should be legislated, leave alone enforced. Just because it may be embarrassing to some of the old fashioned coots in government, we cannot stop our country from embracing reality and moving on towards a just and equitable society. We just cannot get into these archaic and barbaric notions of good moral behaviour. We cannot be standing in the sidelines watching the rights of our countrymen and woman get trampled.

After all, we are a country that quietly practices dowry, bride burning, untouchability, casteism, cronyism, corruption, bribery, and various other forms of absolutely illegal, anti-national acts. Which act of homosexuality ever hampered another person's existence like any of these do?

{{Countering the contentions of the gay right activists, the government said that such behaviour is not a natural trait but a reflection of a perverse mind.}}

A perverse mind! I wonder how this guy knows! - How is the Additional Solicitor General even qualified to make a comment like this, leave alone a counter argument? Not a natural trait? If you say so, God! Who is this idiot in this position? A reflection of a perverse mind? Let's see whose mind is perverse here. People who want to go about their business without needless persecution or those who want them to lead secretive lives just to preserve their human rights?

The funny part is, I have never seen or heard of homosexual people anywhere in the world ever arguing for equality's sake that heterosexuality must also be criminalized! As far as I can see, they are not bothered by heterosexuality. So, they must have perverse minds! If they had normal, argumentative, politically sharp minds, they should be asking for this, shouldn't they?

{{"Homosexuality is a social vice and the state has the power to contain it," the government contended.}} A social vice? You mean like smoking and drinking and beating up the wife and gambling and all those silly things people do socially? So, it's no big deal, right? A social vice? Aha! All along I thought this was a moral issue! Sorry Solicitor General, I got all mixed up! For a moment, I thought you were being serious. Phew! Good one!

The Leopard of the Times!

Leopard Dies a Miserable Death in Mysore! People attack a defenceless animal!

These were the headlines and voice bits that screamed at us this afternoon from the Times Now channel. I thought it was very interesting for a few different reasons, the first one being the tone of the reporting that really felt pity for the poor leopard. Fair enough. But...

Too bad the animal strayed onto territory that is occupied by human beings. We care for our safety and we instinctively attack anything that even vaguely threatens our safety. Simple instinct. What's the big deal? Cockroach or dinosaur, same result. We perceive certain threats and we have some idea what we can take on.

If an elephant had wandered into a clump of apartments, we'd most certainly call for qualified help. Because as unlikely as this event may seem, it isn't likely to encourage any number of humans to attack the elephant and take a chance against that kind of size and strength. A tiger, now that would really frighten the crap out of most people, but a leopard, sorry to say, is a bit borderline, especially when it has wandered far out of the wild.

Now, a leopard being called "defenceless"? Come on you Times Now ladies! What kind of children do we have writing news and reading these days? Hello? A leopard is a predator, a wild animal, perfectly capable of killing a human being with one good swipe of its forepaw.

Its bite pressure is enough to snap a human neck in one bite, and is agile enough to challenge any physical human move and tremendously built for the kill! Haven't you watched channels like Discovery or National Geographic? Does a leopard ever look like a panda to you? Please don't tickle one the next time he snuggles into you.

Okay, we'll skip the "defenceless" part. Now, about the reporting - what is so "barbaric" about people whacking a leopard to death, when we whack tons of chickens and lambs just for the pleasure of eating them on a daily basis? Come on now! Man vs. animal - somewhere near human civilization - very little chance for the animal. It's that natural. I suppose things look very different from the synthetic, sterilized corridors of air conditioned television studios. The real world is just a bit different, as the leopard found out today. It happens. He could just as easily have been killed by a tigress in the wild for poaching one of her young.

All the words reserved for cute, rare animals - just amazing how many will come out of the woodwork to defend a leopard or a whale or some animal that we will never get to see most of our lives!
Conservation is for the cute! But pigs and chickens, lambs and pigeons, we can see them all slaughtered by the millions and nobody cares. It's okay to kill some animal as long as its species is not endangered! If it isn't cute, eat it! Talk about the mentality here!

The real story here is the mob mentality of the people of Mysore. This is no different from hammering a pick pocket to death. It takes a mob of humans to bring down a leopard and the Mysoreans were ready to become that mob. That's all there is to it. I actually thought that policeman was pretty brave to whack the leaping leopard a couple of times with his lathi! I never would have imagined a Mysorean cop would have that kind of courage. Kudos to you, Sir!

The Forest Department was there all right, but they were there to control the leopard, not the mob. Tear gas could have been used to diffuse the mob first. And then, the Forest Department could have got down to its job of subduing and capturing the leopard. But then, who can be that clear in the face of two dangers? I am kind of happy the mob got the leopard. The next time we can call one of our damsels from Times Now to reduce the threat or atleast seduce it.

Why mess with Hinduism?

Like we in India need once more incident of this nature.... Today, churches in Mangalore were attacked by Bajrang Dal Activists. Shortly after, a spokesperson for Bajrang Dal came on TV and clearly and dispassionately said their activities will continue, and that they are not against Christians but against conversions carried out by an organization called New Life that has put out publications in print denouncing Hindu Gods as "not gods"! They want this organization banned.

Enough already by way of people refusing to evolve beyond religion and God and tearing each other up in the name of theories and beliefs that have no bearing on life beyond our own intent and behaviour! Enough already by way of throwing one more problem on a country that needs to solve a lot of problems like power, education and heath for all, eradication of diseases, and removal of corruption!

But, we cannot risk ignoring the forces that disturb peace, and those that wake up in reaction, disturbing peace further. There are interesting checks and balances that are not official, and I cannot help but think that in the absence of watchdog groups, however unrefined their purposes may be, there will be others quite happy to run amok with their agendas. Let moral high ground not be the place where we ignore what is real, and let us not run away to an educated escapist's haven of pure but aloof consideration alone. We do have a problem in India - a clash of religions in an imperfect but powerful mix of great potential, for both growth and destruction.

This is the time when we can most certainly look up to a higher existence that we should all subscribe to, grow beyond our petty issues, and really, really, for the last time, stop fighting in the name of our Gods! But this is also the time when we should realize we cannot take so many people with us on a journey that will probably take a few generations of evolution and coming of age, mentally, socially, economically, emotionally, and spiritually. That is a place we should no doubt aim for, but we cannot get there without the rules being enforced in the game we are playing today. Today's reality is that a lot of people have arguments over religion, and right now, before us, the Bajrang Dal has taken strong exception to a Christian group's overture. This incident could spark mistrust, uneasiness, and outright destruction, and once again, we have chaos in our country due to someone's stupidity.

That's what our fight in the long run is going to be against - stupidity. Stupidity in all forms must be questioned and checked and torn to shreds by all and whatever means possible. The longer stupidity goes unquestioned, the stronger it will get and the harder it will come to bite us. We are in too deep into this connected world to remain immune to others' stupidity. It is here to threaten us and it will destroy us if we are not willing to fight it all the way. But we cannot fight it without looking at it in the face.

It would hurt us not to understand the animals that are in this circus, for the cages are being rattled right now, once again.

This one was started by the Christians. The Bishop of Mangalore came on TV and mentioned that he appealed for peace, and has apparently asked for all Christians held in police custody to be released immediately, but I didn't really hear an apology for denouncing Hindu gods. An attack is an attack whether you do it with printed words or with breaking buildings. So far in this specific set of incidents from Mangalore, there have been no sweeping statements from Hindus denouncing these attacks on churches, and I predict there won't be too many of those coming up this time.

Why not? Because - Hindus don't really appreciate this kind of behaviour, but are certainly inclusive enough in their thinking to understand how the Bajrang Dal or any other Hindu group is likely to feel, given the actions of "New Life". As far as I'm concerned, New Life attacked and are now feeling the heat of retaliation.

There was plenty of Hindu outrage over the destruction of the Babri Masjid, and to this day that incident remains a really sad reminder of what the country will have to suffer if one group of lunatics is allowed to go that far. Since then, we have seen terror attacks, religious riots, destruction, loss of productivity, and countless acts of insanity in the name of religion and God. Your God vs. my God. Ours versus theirs. Stupidity, most certainly, but in a country where the majority is overwhelmingly Hindu, no matter our stated secular ethos, you cannot forgive the minority for their stupidity and hope the majority won't react to it. So, it wouldn't hurt the minorities to understand what Hindus are made of, if only to make informed choices on whose Gods to denounce the next time.

Religious conversion is really not something that necessarily irks followers of the Hindu way of life, for we understand religion is a personal thing, and people are indeed free in a secular country to choose whatever religion they want. But we also understand and respect that there are unspoken but clear lines that people should not cross. We know that such a line was crossed when a religious body or organization made a spectacularly stupid statement denouncing Gods of another religion. If this line was crossed, then that's what started these "incidents" in Mangalore. No smoke without fire.

Hindus understand that not a lot of converts to Christianity are signing up because of their love of Christ. In fact, walk into most churches around the country and you will see only poor people from bacward sections of society who have come to find at the church, not in Christianity or in the soul of Christ, whatever it is they are looking for. I went to a church once for a non religious reason, in the rather posh 6th main road in H.A.L. 2nd stage in Bangalore. I was thoroughly disappointed when the pastor, a fairly slick man who was clearly not used to being slick, addressed the crowd and said they must all love Jesus for the Hindus needed to shower their Gods and dress them and what not, but you don't have to do any of that to Jesus! Huge cheers went up! This guy was a riot! That's the kind of mentality that signs up for being "converted" to Christianity in India these days, so if you want to feel great about recruiting this kind of sheep, they're all yours, baby!

At the end of the sermon, I noticed a lot of people were dressed in festive looking clothes, and they all looked like villagers who were in the city for the first time! Sorry, but that's the impression I got looking at them. They looked rather gaudy, they were rather noisy, and completely sold on the joy of being in that church, while the church was busy collecting money from all of them before they could leave their benches! If they didn't have to shower and clothe Jesus, wonder what they need their money for.

While we shower our Gods and want to make life really comfortable for them, I wonder how Jesus really feels about being nailed to the cross and having to hang there for centuries after the crime was committed. I don't subscribe to the "Jesus died for us" theory, so save your reaction. Why should Jesus die for us? He has already lived a live of great example, and we should pick up after him and follow what he preached, not expect him to soak up our sins! What baloney! And the gall to still hang more sin on Jesus! No wonder he doesn't want to show up anytime soon. Of course, this is all none of my business, but heck, don't you Christians want everyone to embrace Jesus? So, what's wrong with my interpretation? If I robbed a bank, I wonder if the pastor who made fun of me showering my God will be wiling to go to jail in my place. There, the answer to that question tells me how fake you Christian zealots are.

There is this mistaken notion that somehow Hinduism and non-violence are inextricably linked. Gandhi is partly guilty of propagating this image, but looking at Kali Mata, Maha Vishnu, Shiva or Narasimha in their fastest recollected avatars, I wouldn't think they are in any mood to negotiate peacefully. Our Gods have weapons! And they're all known for vanquishing a lot of fools! How do you expect me to worship them and not follow in their celebrated footsteps? Here's the part you Hindu bashers really, really need to worry about - there's not ONE story in Hinduism where one of our Gods magnanimously forgave a grave wrongdoer on the battlefield. Not one who begged for mercy got away with it at the last moment. The bad guys were ALL vanquished, killed, obliterated, destroyed or eliminated. So, don't you dare fool yourselves that we will keep on taking shit from others. Gandhi is not worshipped as a God either, so make your choices wisely.

Our Gods don't move easily. They wait and watch, rather endlessly. Even Ravana had his chance to reverse the wrong he had committed. We will give you that chance. But if you push it, you know what happened to Ravana. We may choose violence late, but we will pick up arms, and not feel guilty about one thing we do after that point.

Now, that doesn't mean we go looking for trouble and trashing other people's religions. The funny thing about Christianity is that I have immense love, respect and regard for Jesus Christ, for the life he led, for the compassion he showered upon the world, and for the unbelievably superior example he set for purity of soul. Whether he is the son of God, or God himself, or a distant cousin, doesn't matter to me. He is Jesus, and he is good enough for me to accept him as God. But Christians I have come across aren't quite worthy of a soul this good to be their saviour. I am always disillusioned rudely by the kind of nonsense Christians stand for in the name of the one and only Jesus Christ.

He isn't quite the God that my clan goddess Malaiamman is, and he certainly is no Lord Krishna. But he has a place in my heart. For sure if Jesus asked something of me, I'd be more than happy to do it for him. But he's not quite the God I'd give up other Gods for. I love the dispassionate warrior that Krishna is, and he has the entire universe in his mouth? Now, that's my kind of God. The kind of God nobody can mess with, nobody can question, and he won't even look at you if you are being petty with your stupid squabbles and being a little shithead around your stupid little planet. Krishna demands some serious understanding of the cosmos and your insignificant little corner in it. Yet, there he is in The Gita, urging you to fight the good fight, regardless of the consequences. After all it was he who informed Arjuna, "I'm the beginning and the end, and all that lies in between". Now that's a God I'd bow to. Confidence, mastery, all encompassing knowledge, absolute power! I surrender. Krishna, you have me absolutely hooked. Even if you're entirely fictional as some people might have the gall to claim, you're still greater than all other Gods I know!

Yet, neither Krishna nor Jesus found it necessary to trash each other. So, when I don't find it necessary to trash Jesus as a fake, what right do these Christian shitheads have to trash any of my Gods? These monkeys are fair game, Bajrang Dal. Don't let them get away. I'm cheering for you, no matter how you choose to retaliate for the attacks on your sentiments. Now, don't go around breaking mosques with stupid claims of some temple being buried underneath, for that is totally wrong, but this time, you have no need to prove you're on the right side. Stupidity should invite ire.

What is interesting is that never in history has any Hindu organization ever trashed the Gods of another faith. Sure we have jokes about Jesus and Allah, and every God we are familiar with, but we are ready to slap the face of that Danish cartoonist who drew The Prophet as a bomber and the idiot who published it. That's a line we'd never cross. And please, for the love of your own God, don't cross it, especially in a country that is over 85% Hindu.

One Max Arthur Macauliffe, a highly placed British administrator serving British India, once famously told Sikhs that Hinduism was like a "boa constrictor of the Indian forests," which "winds its opponent and finally causes it to disappear in its capacious interior." Hinduism has an enormous capacity for love and tolerance. It has a capacity to assimilate everything around it. You will have to study it for ten lifetimes to understand it just a little bit. You cannot escape the Hindu influence over you if you are in India. Do not fight it and encourage it to digest you entirely. That is simply the way Lord Krishna will tell you it is!

A Shout out to American women!

I have been following the American Democratic presidential candidate
nomination process closely and I predicted a long time ago (when I was
in Nepal last year) that Barack Obama would be the winner - putting
more into hope than into any intuitive process, but more than Obama
coming up ahead, I amnow glad Hillary is not going to be president.

Nothing do I have against a woman becoming president, but America
always seems to be picking women with a lot of male hormones for top
jobs. Be it Madeline Albright or Condi or Hillary, they are all women
who somehow want to walk in the corridors of male power, who want to
be in a playing field level with men, and hold no charm for me as
women in their own evolved selves.

On the other hand, I look at women who have held top jobs in India,
Pakistan, Sri Lanka and even Bangladesh, and I notice none of these
eastern women ever competed with their "woman" status and begged and
pleaded to "make history" as Hillary did. It was pathetic to watch
someone who at once proclaimed she would be ready on "day one" to be
"presidential" and yet, repeatedly played the "woman" card! Hello?
Does she want to be the president first or does she just want to be
the first woman president?

There was an article in Newsweek a year or so ago, that spared no
effort while mentioning that India, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Pakistan
were all British colonies in the same breath as the one that informed
the reader that they have all had democratically elected women as
leaders. It of course forgot to mention that the Brits elected
Margaret Thatcher a long time after India elected Indira Gandhi and
way after Sri Lanka elected Bandaranaike!

Neither Thatcher nor Indira Gandhi ever played the "gender" card in
their politics. Bandaranaike never even came close to it. In fact,
these ladies seemed to care two hoots about it. They were all strong
willed, articulate and could hold their own on the stage of
leadership. Indira Gandhi was far sharper at criticism and by far the
more enigmatic of the lot, but in a country that is supposed to
suppress women culturally, Indira Gandhi simply did what she had to do
as a professional, and everybody quietly followed their leader.

Hillary owes a lot of her notoriety to her marriage to Bill Clinton
but more importantly, she stood to lose from it as much as she gained,
if not more. It isn't easy to measure up to Bill Clinton. Fair
enough. But she rode that distinctive Clinton advantage as much as
she could. Sure Bill Clinton would have done a lot for any other
Democratic candidate had Hillary not been in the fray, but where does
that leave Hillary as the capable strong woman?

Quite simply, she is no stateswoman (or statesman!). She is a shrill
and manipulative product of Washington politics who can gleam once in
a while like a shiny automobile from GM that doesn't have to show its
lousy gas mileage in the commercial. She manouvers more than she
manages, she presents more than she professes, and she certainly tries
to win more than she tries to convince. She played victim on so many
occasions during her campaign, I doubt if anybody would use their
sympathy to vote for someone who feels so victimized to a position of
immense implications.

Sadly, I doubt if Hillary ever truly felt victimized. I think she is
crooked enough to see that as an opportunity to mark up her appeal to
morons who would fall for that. I think she is enough of an
opportunist to take advantage of something like September 11th and
uncouth enough bring a great nation down to its lowest undignified
stance in the name of going to war, every bit as much as Bush. No
doubt she would be a better candidate than Dubya, but then, who
wouldn't?

Hillary would have done much better if she studied her support base a
little more carefully, even if she wanted to manipulate them as she is
capable of. Instead of mud slinging Obama, she could have simply
refused to play dirty, and stayed above it all - that would have
brought out the best in her voter base, and won her admirers from the
Obama camp. Hillary has never come out swinging against the lobby
culture. She must know, atleast in a cerebral kind of way, that the
new generation or two of voters are sick of all the things she has
been bred in! Why did she choose to give us all a taste of what we
already know and do not quite care about?

Where is that self made American woman politician? If Arianna
Huffington can have so much fun being who she is - a woman, an
immigrant, and with a hell of a funny accent, why is Washington so
full of men? There is no excuse except that American women haven't
wanted to be there as much as we would like to see.

It isn't as if no American woman has ever been head of state. Janet
Rosenberg who hailed from Chicago was prime minister and later
president of Guyana. >>Her political career started in 1950 and she
held many positions. In 1997 her husband, Dr. Cheddi Bharat Jagan,
died, and she was chosen to replace the Premier who succeeded Mr.
Jagan as President. Janet was chosen as her party's candidate in the
following Presidential elections, which she won. Afterwards she
re-appointed the former President to the post of Prime Minister after
being sworn in as President. She was born as Janet Rosenberg in
Chicago and mother of two children. (b. 1920-).<< class="nfakPe">Gandhi, the leader of the Congress Party in India, which is now in power, is of Italian origin. She married Rajiv Gandhi when he was a pilot for Air India. Later, after Rajiv Gandhi's assassination, she
was quietly requested to assume party leadership and today she is
every bit Indian as anybody else. She is simply fondly referred to as
Soniaji.

I cannot believe there are so many countries in the third world that
have so easily ignored bias of gender, color and even national origin
while choosing their leaders. It is high time America got off its
high horse of presuming it is in some kind of position to advice the
rest of the world on freedom and civilized behaviour, while it can't
find one real woman to fill any post of real substance and example.

I cannot believe there are so many naive American men in positions of
tremendous power and influence. GW is a glaring example, which nobody
can deny, so we will leave him out as an exception. Look at the rest
of the stable and you will find a lot of asses, some mules, and a few
horses. Stallions, none at the moment. And this is an eight year
presidential term? All in the name of fighting against a bunch of
nincompoop terrorists?

My question is not - so the most powerful country in the world has a
bunch of idiot politicians. What's new in a democracy? My question
is - when the men have had such a long tradition of being in politics
and have trashed an illustrious past with the below mediocre present,
where are the American women to challenge their men and put them in
their right places?

There are any number of societies in the world where men are worthless
drunks and the women do all the work and manage everything. They
don't let their men boss over them, and don't take crap from anyone.
At the same time, they don't function like men. They are stalwarts of
dignity, and beautiful and feminine all the way. What is it that
American women seem to be so wary of?

I think American women are extremely beautiful beings, caught in the
stupid need to fight for their rights and be equal to American men.
Your men aren't such great examples, darlings! Why the hell would you
ever want to be equal to them!? Leave them to do their grunting macho
stuff, and simply take the quick path past them to tremendously
evolved planes. Leave it to them to catch up if they want to!

Seriously, if Hillary is the best you ladies can come up with, I'm
glad America is not ready for a woman president. I hope the roles
that you American women will choose to play in the century ahead will
have more to do with your own essential substance than having to play
within designs men put in place. America needs that, and the rest of
the world would love it.

Oh, by all means, vote for a woman, but please make sure she is woman enough.

Peace and love.