After we have kids, we don't really have much private moments or entertainment. I don't like leaving the kids behind to babysitters. I don't like to have maids (even part time) walking around my house. We watch and take care of the kids all by ourselves. It's busy and hard work, but it's worth it.
One of my main entertainment these days is watching DVD's at home, at night, after the kids have gone to bed. So, you can imagine I appreciate more of a Hollywood escape than depressing, realistic movies. But I like movies of all genres. So, I watched Mystic River and some such, and tonight, it's Monster - the 2003 movie that won Charlize Theron an Oscar.
I've delayed it time and again to watch this movie. I know the details are depressing, of Aileen Wuornos, an otherwise ordinary story of a highway prostitute, except that she turned murderous. It's more a story from her vantage point. It's so sad and tragic, of this woman who tried to find love, and be loved, and be good, but life dealt her a bad hand.
Every time I watch movies like this, or read news/stories, about unfairness in life, child abuse, women's issues, I would get fired up. When I was little, I have this idea of becoming a policewoman, so that I can go out and help people - the people who really need help. If Wuornos had not been so broken since she's 8 (raped by family friend for years), got thrown out on the street, with no one to turn to, and no other means to survive but to sell her body, she would probably out completely differently. It could happen to any child. And the sad thing is, it could well be happening in the family next door, and we won't even know it, let alone trying to help the helpless and the ones in need.
When I was about 9, I was almost raped by a total stranger - this young boy probably 14 or 15. I was lucky to have my family discovered me missing soon enough, called out for me, thus scaring the boy off to let me go. Even though I've internalized the trauma, I still remember details of that one event. I would watch for dark alleys or hidden corners (cuz there's where the boy came out). I cannot possibly imagine how it's like, if it has been someone you have trusted, to repeatedly abuse that trust and to abuse you, and no one is there to help you. That's why I feel so strongly against the child sex abuse in church, by priests whom the families have placed their trust, and so on.
I've gotta find some way in which, as an ordinary citizen, I can help to alleviate situations like this, other than just hoping and praying that God will deliver the children and women out of the evil's hands. I'm still trying to find my way to help...
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Deconstructing Obama....
I've promised myself I'll try to ignore all those media reports on the ongoing fight of Democratic nomination between Hillary Clinton (HRC) and Barack Obama (BHO). I'm so disgusted by the sexist tone and the disparaging of HRC, that I've decided to pretty much tune out from all those reports. Still, from time to time, I can't help myself. I still talked to my kids (even though they're way too young to vote), about these two candidates, and why I strongly believe in HRC.
I'm particularly disgusted by the Dem establishments that have dumped on HRC since the campaign season starts. There was the New York Times endorsement of HRC, arguing that she's the best and most qualified and competent candidate for Dem. And then, the whole thing was pretty hijacked by vocal interest groups of college kids (who dominate blogs), blacks and affluent elite whites. Main media loves to have a good story, and nothing looks better than a good story of how BHO comes from behind and grabs the mantle from HRC as nominee. So we see pretty much HRC evaporates from main media coverage, even though she won BIG TIME in West Virginia and Kentucky, among other swing states like Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania. All of these are must-win swing states for Dem in Nov, in order to get the White House; not to mention the major battleground of Florida and Michigan that HRC carried. Amidst all these, New York Times switched allegiance to BHO, with the switch in tone and in coverage of HRC.
But now, as the main media would have me believed that HRC's hope is fading in getting the Dem nomination, only two days after her big win in KY in which swing votes of working middle-class whites continue to be turned off by BHO, New York Times is changing gear again. It's time to deconstruct BHO. It makes good story. There's the story of Jews continue to reject BHO. There's also the demeaning tone that main media is turning on Michelle Obama, telling her to "toughen up, sweetie" (alluding to remarks of BHO in calling an ABC reporter "sweetie" when he tried to deflate and evade her questions). And now, NY Times is showing us more stories about how other Dem core groups of Jews express serious doubts about BHO. I can see it already, that similar stories are going to emerge on Hispanic voters, working middle-class whites, and women voters, all of whom are solidly behind HRC.
Naturally, there's continuous call to make BHO the nominee, and have him choose HRC as running mate, to make the so-called "dream ticket." While it's a welcome change to have new voters (college kids) coming on board, BHO's youth appeal would not be able to make up for the lost grounds of the Democratic core groups of voters. BHO, Howard Dean and the Dem establishment know it damn well. Without HRC, BHO would suffer a loss worse than McGovern in 1972 when the far-left candidate lost 49 states (amid hopes from the youth, not unlike BHO).
I'd say, HRC should be nominee, and BHO can come on board as veep. BHO won't stand a chance to McCain, even though McCain is weak, in comparison. But the real McCoy is HRC who has the stuffs to be the Iron Lady on this side of the Atlantic.
I'm particularly disgusted by the Dem establishments that have dumped on HRC since the campaign season starts. There was the New York Times endorsement of HRC, arguing that she's the best and most qualified and competent candidate for Dem. And then, the whole thing was pretty hijacked by vocal interest groups of college kids (who dominate blogs), blacks and affluent elite whites. Main media loves to have a good story, and nothing looks better than a good story of how BHO comes from behind and grabs the mantle from HRC as nominee. So we see pretty much HRC evaporates from main media coverage, even though she won BIG TIME in West Virginia and Kentucky, among other swing states like Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania. All of these are must-win swing states for Dem in Nov, in order to get the White House; not to mention the major battleground of Florida and Michigan that HRC carried. Amidst all these, New York Times switched allegiance to BHO, with the switch in tone and in coverage of HRC.
But now, as the main media would have me believed that HRC's hope is fading in getting the Dem nomination, only two days after her big win in KY in which swing votes of working middle-class whites continue to be turned off by BHO, New York Times is changing gear again. It's time to deconstruct BHO. It makes good story. There's the story of Jews continue to reject BHO. There's also the demeaning tone that main media is turning on Michelle Obama, telling her to "toughen up, sweetie" (alluding to remarks of BHO in calling an ABC reporter "sweetie" when he tried to deflate and evade her questions). And now, NY Times is showing us more stories about how other Dem core groups of Jews express serious doubts about BHO. I can see it already, that similar stories are going to emerge on Hispanic voters, working middle-class whites, and women voters, all of whom are solidly behind HRC.
Naturally, there's continuous call to make BHO the nominee, and have him choose HRC as running mate, to make the so-called "dream ticket." While it's a welcome change to have new voters (college kids) coming on board, BHO's youth appeal would not be able to make up for the lost grounds of the Democratic core groups of voters. BHO, Howard Dean and the Dem establishment know it damn well. Without HRC, BHO would suffer a loss worse than McGovern in 1972 when the far-left candidate lost 49 states (amid hopes from the youth, not unlike BHO).
I'd say, HRC should be nominee, and BHO can come on board as veep. BHO won't stand a chance to McCain, even though McCain is weak, in comparison. But the real McCoy is HRC who has the stuffs to be the Iron Lady on this side of the Atlantic.
Sunday, May 11, 2008
On the reversal of fortune of Clinton and Obama...or is it?
Of late, there's been this seemingly reversal of fortune in Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama's pursuit to the Democratic nomination for the 2008 election.
I've been following the primaries closely. I've donated to Clinton's campaign more than once. Amid all these calls for her to drop out, due to the waning support from superdelegates, from what I see it, Clinton is getting stronger support from the the Democratic core groups (working-class whites, hispanic votes, older voters), with the exceptions of newly registered younger college crowds, and black votes. This was further validated in her win in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Indiana.
I'm flabbergasted, that anyone could have ignore that powerful fact, that Clinton is the one who can go toe-to-toe with McCain. If I put myself in the hat of the GOP attack machine, I can easily put together an easy attack list that could take down Obama (which I'm sure anyone with average intelligence can do that too), what with all the racial controversy of his association with Rev Wright; his failure to denounce Wright until Wright turns to become a baggage to his campaign, thereby validating claims that deep down, Obama really endorses the racist views of Wright; his lapse of judgment in tainted deals with Renko; his wife with a chip on her shoulder for claiming she's proud of America for once in all her adult lifetime, ONLY AFTER her husband won a primary. The list goes on and on.
It's never a question, that Obama supporters are much more vocal in their criticism of Clinton, their chanting of the (non)experience of Obama, with nothing more than "inspiring". To me, Obama is all style over substance (cuz he has none). While he might be a decent person, Clinton would prove to be a much, much more qualified to be nominee and President.
If I were to say, it's more like Clinton should be the nominee, and Obama (with much lesser support of Dem cores) should be veep, should they both in on the ticket, rather than the other way round. The Dem party knows damn well, that Obama will not be able to win the nomination outright, unless Clinton bows out. Everyone's criticizing (or praising) Clinton for having the same last name as Bill Clinton, and that they don't want another 8 years of Clinton in White House. But I'd say, I'd love to see that.
I'm just so sick and tired to seeing Obama in the news, and the bashing of Clinton for no valid reasons. As an Independent, I'm going to go for McCain, if Clinton is not there for me.
I've been following the primaries closely. I've donated to Clinton's campaign more than once. Amid all these calls for her to drop out, due to the waning support from superdelegates, from what I see it, Clinton is getting stronger support from the the Democratic core groups (working-class whites, hispanic votes, older voters), with the exceptions of newly registered younger college crowds, and black votes. This was further validated in her win in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Indiana.
I'm flabbergasted, that anyone could have ignore that powerful fact, that Clinton is the one who can go toe-to-toe with McCain. If I put myself in the hat of the GOP attack machine, I can easily put together an easy attack list that could take down Obama (which I'm sure anyone with average intelligence can do that too), what with all the racial controversy of his association with Rev Wright; his failure to denounce Wright until Wright turns to become a baggage to his campaign, thereby validating claims that deep down, Obama really endorses the racist views of Wright; his lapse of judgment in tainted deals with Renko; his wife with a chip on her shoulder for claiming she's proud of America for once in all her adult lifetime, ONLY AFTER her husband won a primary. The list goes on and on.
It's never a question, that Obama supporters are much more vocal in their criticism of Clinton, their chanting of the (non)experience of Obama, with nothing more than "inspiring". To me, Obama is all style over substance (cuz he has none). While he might be a decent person, Clinton would prove to be a much, much more qualified to be nominee and President.
If I were to say, it's more like Clinton should be the nominee, and Obama (with much lesser support of Dem cores) should be veep, should they both in on the ticket, rather than the other way round. The Dem party knows damn well, that Obama will not be able to win the nomination outright, unless Clinton bows out. Everyone's criticizing (or praising) Clinton for having the same last name as Bill Clinton, and that they don't want another 8 years of Clinton in White House. But I'd say, I'd love to see that.
I'm just so sick and tired to seeing Obama in the news, and the bashing of Clinton for no valid reasons. As an Independent, I'm going to go for McCain, if Clinton is not there for me.
Thursday, May 1, 2008
On the Bush mantra of "Mission Accomplished"...
There is no doubt that, while successes have many fathers, but failures would remain orphaned. Just look at the latest claim of the "Mission Accomplished" debacle of the Bush administration. At the time 5 years ago, when the Bush administration is at the height and swimming in its glory of military operations, with Karl Rove and all the neo-cons in full swing, Bush landed the USS warship in a fighter jet (hey - it's a commander-in-chief!!!), proclaiming the wars on terrorism is near, and that infamous "Mission Accomplish" banner perfectly positioned behind Bush on the podium.
How ironic, now that we know the mission is FAR from accomplished. In fact it's more like a hornet's nest, and US has no other plans to work the situation, other than to throw more bodies (armies) to the situation. And now, Donald Rumsfeld came out saying it's HE who edited out the actual "mission accomplished" statement from Bush's speech. Does Rumsfeld really and truly believe that ANYONE would believe him? If he had been so insightful, he would not have marched the country into Iraq in the first place. It's all stinky BS.
As to the stupid Bush, for his eight long (TOO LONG) years in the White House, it was only after Karl Rove moved on that he seems to come out from some "compassion" in his lame-duck agenda. But hey, it could very well be his desperate hope to turn his legacy around, that he's coming out in favor of climate talk, admitting to economy woes that every average-joes know about for more than a year now.
But the history that will go down with Bush is the turnaround of the country from big surplus to humongous deficit, 9/11, then two wars (Afghanistan and Iraq - he dropped the ball in Afghanistan, and started a totally unnecessary Iraq war), then lax government regulatory environment (isn't that what GOP's always want?!?), resulting in a subprime mess and more, that drags the economy into recession when he goes out of office.
Man, just mouthing Bush's legacies tires me out. I'm so sick of him.
How ironic, now that we know the mission is FAR from accomplished. In fact it's more like a hornet's nest, and US has no other plans to work the situation, other than to throw more bodies (armies) to the situation. And now, Donald Rumsfeld came out saying it's HE who edited out the actual "mission accomplished" statement from Bush's speech. Does Rumsfeld really and truly believe that ANYONE would believe him? If he had been so insightful, he would not have marched the country into Iraq in the first place. It's all stinky BS.
As to the stupid Bush, for his eight long (TOO LONG) years in the White House, it was only after Karl Rove moved on that he seems to come out from some "compassion" in his lame-duck agenda. But hey, it could very well be his desperate hope to turn his legacy around, that he's coming out in favor of climate talk, admitting to economy woes that every average-joes know about for more than a year now.
But the history that will go down with Bush is the turnaround of the country from big surplus to humongous deficit, 9/11, then two wars (Afghanistan and Iraq - he dropped the ball in Afghanistan, and started a totally unnecessary Iraq war), then lax government regulatory environment (isn't that what GOP's always want?!?), resulting in a subprime mess and more, that drags the economy into recession when he goes out of office.
Man, just mouthing Bush's legacies tires me out. I'm so sick of him.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)