Uma's Thoughts

Right, Left & Idiotic

2009-02-20T22:43:00.000-08:00

Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey reportedly said that there were no left-leaning intellectuals. He is alleged to have pooh-poohed the idea of there being such creatures. Mr. Armey and his legion can be forgiven for this uncharitable opinion. I, on the other hand, seem to be diametrically opposed in my perception. What right-wing intellectuals are there? Ann Coulter has proven herself off so out in right field that she is in foul territory. The people at the National Review think being intellectual means writing about errors in the New York Times or commenting on some leftist authors article. Rush Limbaugh (where did this man come from?)thinks yelling and saying anything that comes to mind at the spur of the moment is bright. And Fox News (views? or noise as one journalist called them) is the worst of the lot. When Bill O'Reilly yells and screams and does not let his guest speak and defend the charges against him, how can he be intelligent? After all to paraphrase Bernard Shaw, the true test of an intelligent mind is to hold two distinctly differing ideas at once and still retain the ability to function.

Why am I musing on the subject intelligence from the right and the left? It so happens that there is a local paper that has been polling people on President Obama's performance before he has even completed 30 days in office. Readers were asked to rate Mr. Obama's performance in a variety of areas as satisfactory, non-satisfactory or a dud (the good, the bad and the ugly in my version). How does one rate a person who has barely come into a new job before he even gets his feet wet? And one must remember that this is no ordinary job - he is the President of the United States of America. What kind of buffoon thought of grading Mr. Obama's performance on a daily basis before his "apprenticeship" is over? And who are those idiots that call him a dud even before he has a chance to do anything? Compared to the last eight years of Mr. Bush's presidency, the President is doing a magnificent job.

There have been snipings about him by conservative journalists in both the print and TV media. Some have already grumbled that he has not done anything yet about Iraq or Afghanistan. They snipe about his stimulus plan which has not yet had a chance to take effect. Fox News in the guise of being the devil's advocate is the most hypocritical of all. I am only too glad there are more balanced columnists around who are in no haste to judgment.

I have always felt that the main difference between conservatives and liberals is that liberals are far more tolerant. Calling names, rushing to pre-judgment, confronting people and intolerance seem to be the core requirements of the right. So be it. We'll always be the opposite and have bleeding hearts because we care. At least we believe in giving people a chance.

New Jersey Hall of Fame

2009-02-04T05:50:00.001-08:00

As I was penning my last article, I came across a news report of the 2009 inductees into the New Jersey Hall of Fame. After perusing the article in the newspaper, two questions came to mind. The first was the query from my earlier essay - my quandary as to who is a New Jersey native. The members of the Hall are supposedly New Jerseyites. The second concerns the choices made this year and last year (the inaugural induction ceremony).

Chosen for membership into the New Jersey Hall of Fame last year were Frank Sinatra, Bruce Springsteen, Albert Einstein, Toni Morrison and Yogi Berra. Of the five inductees, only Sinatra and Springsteen were born here and raised here qualifying them as "natives" in my book. Yogi was born in Missouri but settled there since his debut with the New York Yankees in the 1940's. He also has the qualifications to be a native. But neither Morrison or Einstein was born in New Jersey and came to the state after age 50. Do they both qualify? To me they would qualify as semi-natives since Einstein lived in the Garden State for the rest of his life and Morrison has lived here long enough.

This year's list of inductees has thirteen names. All are associated with the Garden State either by birth, death or the fact that they lived here long enough to qualify. Of the thirteen, I have quibbles about Walt Whitman, Guglielmo Marconi, Shaq O'Neal and F. Scott Fitzgerald. Of the four, only Shaq was born in New Jersey but left too early in life to qualify him as a native. He only rates a "friend of New Jersey." How the other three even got listed as being from the Garden State leaves me dumbfounded. Their only qualification seems to be that they lived there for a brief period of time. Talk about stretching the definition of "native." Can someone please explain their relevance in the Hall of Fame? Do they truly qualify as people from New Jersey? I have the greatest respect and fondness for them but not as Jersey people.

Last of all, the newspaper column mentioned that failing to make it this year were Woodrow Wilson (ex-President of the United States), Jack Nicholson (male actor with most Oscar wins and nominations), Count Basie (jazz musician) and Philip Roth (author of Portnoy's Complaint and Goodbye, Columbus to name a few). Now what kind of a Hall of Fame omits its native-son President or the world's greatest actor but mentions Shaq, Jerry Lewis or Abbott & Costello? Yes, we puzzled people truly want to know. What are your thoughts on this? I would love to know.

New Jersey and Its Idiosyncracies

2009-02-04T05:07:00.000-08:00

I have been living in New Jersey since 1983 and like living here. Yet there are a few things that we do or have here which irritate and puzzle me. I think these are exclusive to my beloved state because I have not found examples of these elsewhere. My friends and I discuss these "quirks" often and are baffled as to what the people in charge were thinking when they envisioned these ideas. I have two special topics that leave me shaking my head - road signs and figuring out who is a Jerseyan.

First, let's deal with road signs. While driving in our state (in most places), you have to make a jughandle turn to go left or make a U-turn. Yet there are just as many places where there are left-turn signals. By now, at least around my area, I know (more or less)which lights have left-turn signals and which have jughandle turns. But how is a person from another state or even a New Jersey resident from some town far away know whether to stay on the rightmost or leftmost lanes? Yes, many highways and state routes have signs which tell you what to do. Still there are a lot of areas where the signs are shown at the last moment. How does one change from one end of the highway to the other end without causing a major accident? Even after my 26-year residency, I have almost caused just such accidents when driving in Northern or Southern New Jersey. Why not standardize all signals? Where are you, Congressman Howard, when we need you?

Second, I have been trying like heck to find out what make someone a New Jerseyan. Is it the fact that he/she was born here, died here or resided here for some time? Why am I so confused? Albert Einstein was born in Ulm, Germany but is a New Jersey native because he lived (and died) here. Shaq O'Neal is a native because he was born here. Bill Bradley is a native because he was a three-term Senator from our state. Joyce Carol Oates is a native because she lives here. Walt Whitman is a native because he came here late in life and died here. So it seems that any connection with New Jersey makes you a native as long as you are famous. Nobody cares about people who are not well-known. (Does driving in the New Jersey Turnpike validate you as a native?)

So I have a a favor to ask of the people in the New Jersey Department of Transportation and the people responsible for "knighting" people as natives. Can you please clarify your rules? Let's have one norm for both of my peeves. Let's have left-turn signals everywhere or make people use jughandle turns. And let us have a set of rules to identify a "native." I will sleep all the better for this as will many others.

Name Changes in Nepal

2009-02-02T09:27:00.000-08:00

It does not seem as if there are more pressing issues in Nepali politics than the changing of the name of the Maoist party. The factions withing the Maoists have been contradicting each other on whether or not the name is being changed. Of course, Nepal is no longer referred to as the Kingdom of Nepal since the Maoists took over. So now the powers-that-be want to change to a more self-respecting name. Hasn't anyone in power read Rome and Juliet? I would suggest reading Act II, Scene ii, line 43. Or is Shakespeare a monarchist (he was English!) and not fit to be read by Communists?

There are a myriad of pressing issues that should be dealt with - lack of electricity for more than half the day, the "secession" talks from the Terai and, of course, the usual problems of hunger, poverty, housing, etc. But how can the average Nepali (who supposedly voted in large numbers for the Maoists) fare well from these leaders when inconsequential issues seem to command more attention And what is the deal with the one-named leaders? Are they Brazilians? For example, take Mr. Pushpa Kamal Dahal known internationally by his single moniker Prachanda? It would have been much more fitting if he had added an "l" at the end? After all the bloody and wanton killings his party was responsible for, how dare he not add the "l"? Believe me, it would have been more appropriate.

Mohandas Gandhi set about gaining independence from the British through non-violent demonstrations. Martin Luther King, Jr. followed his teaching by using the same means to try and end racism and segregation. Neither of these great leaders advocated violence or preached hatred. But Prachanda and his cohorts threatened, harassed, bullied, beat, tortured and killed people to overthrow the monarchy. These included not only soldiers and policemen but also innocent civilians and teachers. Nice move, Mr. Dahal, now go teach school in the villages. What about all those bombs which went off in crowded Kathmandu? He, of course, claims that it was the people who followed him who were responsible. He never discouraged all these thuggish actions but tries to distance himself from them. And this is the leader of my country!

It's amazing what changes have taken place in peaceful and bucolic Nepal since these idiots came into being. As for the landslide election victories, I don't believe they received all those votes as claimed. Nepal is still very much behind most countries in education and per capita income and modern technology. The king was still regarded as the incarnation of Vishnu by most rural, uneducated Nepali people. Do you really believe they wanted to see the king ousted to be replaced by Prachanda's goons? I think not. But fear and reprisals can work wonders against most innocent people much less the uneducated, superstitious villagers. People should start thinking about the consequences of what might come next especially if the Maoists win in a landslide next time. Are you listening, opposition parties?

Bipartisanship with a Twist

2009-02-02T07:51:00.000-08:00

President Obama has appointed two Republicans to his cabinet. Robert Gates, Mr. Bush's Defense Secretary is staying in the same post with the new President. And Republican Congressman Ray LaHood who retired in 2008 is the Transportation Secretary. Now here comes the "twisted" bipartisan bit with New Hampshire Senator Judd Gregg. Mr. Obama wants Mr. Gregg as his Commerce Secretary. This seems to be amenable to the New Hampshire Republican but with a caveat. Senator Gregg wants his replacement to be a Republican or caucus with the Republicans in the Senate. It seems that Mr. Obama and the Democratic Governor of New Hampshire are in line with that.

This is not only mind-boggling but also outre. Senator Gregg is willing to work for a Democratic President but does not want to cede his seat to a Democrat. Why work for Mr. Obama then? This is a case of having your cake and eating it too. Mr. Gregg should just stay a senator and decline the Chief Executive's offer. There are many capable people who could do this job. When President Clinton chose Senator William Cohen of Maine as his Defense Secretary, it was accepted with alacrity. Of course, the Governor then was a Republican and likely to choose another of the same party as Mr. Cohen's successor. But Mr. Cohen probably accepted the job regardless of who his replacement would be. It seems a little petty of the Senate Republicans and Mr. Gregg to demand this.

Mr. Obama has been openly talking about bipartisanship and has gone out of his way to demonstrate his feelings. Why can't the Republicans reciprocate? Why does he have to make a deal to form his Cabinet? Not to belabor the point but why does the New Hampshire Senator want the job if he is uneasy about Democratic control of the United States Senate? And what happens if the Governor appoints an Independent as the next senator? Is this still agreeable to the GOP or will they throw in another monkey wrench in Mr. Obama's plan? As Mr Brynner said in The King and I, "It's a puzzlement."

Let's hope matters sort themselves out soon. This haggling over who would replace Mr. Gregg were he to join Mr. Obama's Cabinet is farcical. The President has been in charge for almost two weeks. He should have his people in place by now. So, Messrs McConnell and Gregg, stop worrying about the next senator from New Hampshire and let Judd Gregg take the job. After all, Mr. Gregg will have to toe the line as his boss is now a Democrat. Let the Senate take care of its own problems.

Hard Fought Majority Whittling Away

2009-01-28T09:26:00.000-08:00

In all the other major democracies of the world, candidates for public office come from many different parties. In the United Kingdom, the Tories and Labour constantly battle it out to lead the country with the Liberals as a real threat. In Germany, the Social Democrats (left-leaning) do battle with the Christian Democrats (right-leaning) with the Green Party (environmentalists) also joining the fray. Such is also the case in Ireland, Australia, Spain, India and a host of others. But that is not so here in the US of A.

The United States is basically a two-party democratic republic. Yes, there are a number of other parties but their candidates very rarely win any national or statewide office. Though there are two Independents in the United States Senate, there is only one true “outsider.” One is a former Democrat who ran as an Independent when he was denied his party’s nomination in the primary election – Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut who caucuses with his former party members. The other is Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont who ran as an Independent. He is the only representative of another party other than the Big Two. The Democrats and Republicans are always at loggerheads to try and “keep” both houses of the federal government. The Democrats control the Senate these days with a large majority. So what was the rationale behind President Obama’s selection of Senator Hillary Clinton of New York as Secretary of State?

With an all-out assault on the Republican Party, the democrats turned the table on them and ushered out quite a few Republicans and gained a clear majority. They did the same in the House of Representatives. Since the Democrats control both legislative bodies, it should be easier for the President to push through his agenda. But the Senate is the “pricier” of the two since there are only 100 members. Since Mr. Obama won the election, he and his Vice-President Senator Joe Biden no longer represent their respective states. But, as both states have Democratic governors, the replacement of the Prez and the Veep will also be Democrats. The same goes for Mrs. Clinton. But the fact that three incumbent Senators have now been taken out of the Senate and have been replaced should be a cause for concern for the Democrats. Mr. Obama, Mr. Biden and Mrs. Clinton were popular senators who would have won re-election easily. But what of their replacements? Unless they are popular and famous figures in their states, the chances of keeping their seats are fifty-fifty. The power of their incumbency might be their only hope.

It is astounding that Presidents continually think that the best choices for their Cabinet Secretaries come from the Senate. What ever happened to choosing former Vice-Presidents, former Secretaries and even Congressmen? Governors are also good as well as college professors and CEO’s of certain corporations. So, President Obama, don’t meddle with the Senate where you have a clear majority. Some people you might consider in the future are Mario Cuomo, Al Gore, Andrew Young and Bill Bradley.

An Inaugural Observation – A Rose by Any Other Name…

2009-01-21T06:28:00.000-08:00

While watching the inaugural of Barack Obama as the 44^th United States President, I heard something which sounded incongruous. George Bush, who was still the president, was introduced as the Honorable George Bush. Being mentioned as the Honorable so-and-so is fine but lacking in dignity for the President. A mayor of a city or town, a senator, a congressman, a governor and even a college or university president can be introduced as honorable. But the President of these United States? Isn’t that a bit plebian? Mr. Bush may not be everyone’s favorite but he WAS the President. Could he not have been mentioned as the Right Honorable George Bush?

In the British Commonwealth, a sitting Prime Minister, the Governor-General, the leader of the Opposition, the Speaker of Parliament, the Chief Justice and ex-Prime Minister, ex-Governors General are referred to as the Right Honorable because these people have been leaders of the country either as Heads of State or Heads of Government. Giving them the honorific Right Honorable distinguishes them from every mayor, senator, et al, who is or has been. After all, Mr. Bush was only the 43^rd President of this country while there have countless other local and state dignitaries. But, in a country where a five-year old can address a person many years his senior by the first name, adding the “Right” might be too ostentatious.

In other countries of the world (yes, even in the Western Hemisphere), older people are addressed as Sir or Madam. In Asia, they are addressed as Uncle, Aunt, and even Father or Mother. This is not to show blood relationship but just as a sign of respect. Poor Mr. Bush was not even accorded this small modicum of respect on his last day. If he had had a Ph. D., at least he would have been called Dr. Bush. My parents would have had an apoplectic fit if I had addressed any of their friends (or any elderly person for that matter) by his or her first name. Well, Mr. Bush, people will still address you as Mr. President for the rest of your life.

Historic, Fun but Sobering

2009-01-19T18:55:00.000-08:00

Tomorrow is an historic day in the United States. Not only will we swear in an African-American president but also one whose father was not an American citizen. Since Mr. Obama was born of an American mother in Hawaii, he, of course, is a legitimate American who has every right to carry the mantle of the presidency. This was contested by a disgruntled voter who went to court to overturn the election results claiming the President-elect was ineligible for this office. The lawsuit was rightfully dismissed by the court. Many Americans had not expected a minority president so soon. A woman president was thought to be “next in line.” But Mr. Obama obviously had not been informed of this beforehand. He seized his moment and made the best of it. I feel proud and ecstatic that this event has occurred within my lifetime. It’s always nice to be a part of history. It is fun and sobering when I realize that the Ku Klux Klan still exists and that African-Americans were still beaten and killed up to the 1960’s.

I remember a TV show in the 1970’s called Good Times about a black family (the Evanses) living in the projects in inner-city Chicago. Their daily routine and travails were the gist of the show. Every week featured the hardships they encountered and their efforts to overcome them with “Dynomite!” thrown in every now and then. I specially recall a show where there was a discussion about a black man attaining the presidency. The youngest child of the Evanses comments that even if a black man became President, the mansion he would live in would still be called the White House. Hmm. Now I wonder if the writers of the show knew that within 35 years of this episode, we might have to reconsider the name of the President’s abode. And isn't it coincidental that the President-elect is from Chicago? Any thoughts?

MLK Day and Inauguration Day

2009-01-17T14:33:00.000-08:00

What a great coincidence it would have been if today were the 20^th of January. We are celebrating a national holiday for the great Civil Rights leader Dr. Martin Luther King. Almost 40 years after Dr. King’s assassination and Robert Kennedy’s prediction that there would be a black president within 40 years, we will actually be swearing in Barack Obama as President. What a great event this would have been – Mr. Obama’s ceremony on Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. day. It is almost unbelievable that these two great events that are related are to be celebrated in two consecutive days. This almost borders on the miraculous. The gods must have had a lot of fun in arranging their calendars. A mere coincidence or was this foreordained? What do you think?