Politics


The last few days have been tough. Ever since I heard the news about the mumbai terror attacks, my mind has been disturbed as one would expect. It sort of surprised me as to how much this affected me – although I guess I am now surprised that I should be surprised. I think it hit me squarely in the face when I first saw the couple of snapshots of that one terrorist. From then on, I could not rest until the ordeal was over. I was browsing, watching TV all the same time, sort of numb to the details – only wanting to hear that they nailed the bastards. When it was over, there was a bit of relief, but it was very little since anger, disgust and helplessness remain.  It still affects to me so that I am not finding solace even in music. I also did not think I could put enough coherent thoughts together to blog about this, and so I avoided blogging. But not doing it was adding to the angst. So here it goes – incoherent and fragmented.

The Indian TV news channels call it India’s 9/11 – and yes that looks cheaply sensationalistis. But to be honest, it rings true to me. Why? First, I never felt the full outrage on America’s 9/11 when it happened. This was not because I did not fully comprehend the monstrosity of the act, but our family had already had “our 9/11” just a few days leading to it. My dear nephew, 16 years young in age, battled for his life for 2 weeks following an asthma attack couple of weeks prior to 9/11. His funeral was on 9/11. As I was getting ready to go to the funeral that day, already completely drained physically and emotionally, I switched on the TV and saw the gory of 9/11 on every news channel. But it obviously did not register deep enough – it was simply more sh*t on top of a mountain of sh*t  God had rained on us (yes then, I believed in a God who would prevent this from happening to families like us – how naiive).  All of our beliefs, all our philosophies had already been obliterated. Thus, strangely, I mainly found 9/11 to be a endorsement of that sentiment.

I still cannot get over the fact that my nephew is gone, and time when it cannot heal, simply builds walls or protective layers around the wound. So this time, as I was watching the mumbai massacre, I felt the anger and outrage of the event itself – the anger and outrage that I should  have had on 9/11. The anger and outrage so many people felt that day. The pain an entire nation and the (civilized) world felt that day. So this does feel like my 9/11.

I am now confused how this war can be won. I dont think it can be in the sense that terrorism can be rooted out fully that there wont be terror attacks that harm innocent civilians after that. There will always be some people who are disgruntled no matter what, and disgruntled minds will find some thing to latch on and build up anger which eventually vents out in acts of varying degrees of violence aimed at “everyone else”.

So given that it cannot be rooted out, the only way is to find means to temper it “as much as possible”. How Force is the more popular sentiment – but can it work? I don’t know – but it definitely would satisfy the anger and outrage we feel and so even if it doesn’t work efficiently, it feels good to crush at least part of the enemy. I think this is a big part of why it seems attractive to most folks. Now, both US and Israel have tried force – Israel for much longer than any country. I think it has not stopped the attacks in Israel, and they have to be on high alert pretty much forever or atleast till they think they have destroyed all their enemies – which IMO is not going to happen as it is like rooting out terrorism completely. US has been more effective as in no attacks on US soil after 9/11, but I wonder if the reason could be that they have provided easier US targets (as in body count) in Iraq itself.  The geographical separation also helps. For countries like India, the geography is not as favorable. On top of that, many of the terrorists can also blend in easily (and also some are homegrown).

I used to think that fixing the “root cause” – however painful it is to egos of countries and peoples, can produce the biggest tempering of the terrorist problem. I used to think terrorist groups’  thrive because they can brainwash and recruit youth – and they also get sympathy and financing from supporters. While groups themselves have ideological agendas (e.g. Lashkar-e-Toiba aims to convert India to an islamic state), the sympathesizers may have smaller ones e.g. like India’s role in Kashmir. Using that smaller gripe, the brainwashing begins by pointing out how this is symptomatic of a bigger problem i.e. how Hindus, Jews and the Christians are out to screw the people of Islam etc. etc.   But if the smaller gripes are removed, wouldn’t the brainwashing not be effective? Wouldn’t the terrorist groups lose support and financing?  Would’nt they starve? I used to argue along these lines. I still believe in it – but somewhat half-heartedly. While it does have logic to it, I now think that this may be too simplistic. I don’t think groups need  to brainwash lots of of “common folk” for their agenda – while support from common folk helps them, it may not be as mandatory as I had thought. They just need to brainwash a few thousand of the right kind of people (people with money, and youth to supply bodycount) – and this can happen even on just the ideological agenda.  The ideological agenda brainwashing has the power of corrupting minds across regional boundaries. So this is sobering and thus I am dazed and confused.

But still, if there is a significant % of Indian muslim populace which feels it is getting a raw deal, then their voices must be heard – by the others. India needs to do what is necessary to fix this – which could be  corrective measures on the par of the muslim community as well as government (and other communities), as well as educating people out of “reverse prejudices”. One important example of a corrective measure is to demonstrate that the Indian government is serious about tackling human rights violations by Indian troops in Kashmir.

I find western coverage of India buy into this “muslims in India are most oppressed” often (along with almost always equating India to Hindu). I am not 100% sure, IMO this is  misleading. There are many muslims at all levels – high-positioned politicians, celebrities in sports and movies, top professionals, as well as middle class professionals. Percentage-wise it is certainly possible this is disproportionate, and that is what may be really implied, but to phrase it such that it implies that the system is inherently skewed against them – I am not so sure. I am not saying prejudice does not exist, I am just saying that it can be overcome and there are many many examples of this in Indian society. I am not also saying because of that, whatever prejudice exists is ok – just that it may not warrant the conclusions drawn, and of course certainly never warrants taking up arms. But then I think we should listen more to the muslim community itself and work with them.

For the current problem at hand, some random beefs:

  • Pakistan: I read in the news that Pak needs “proof” about L-e-T before going after them?  WTF? Come again? If you think L-e-T is in your country, and you are out their saying “we are in this together”, then you should have already gone after them before  this attack, or you are simply grandstanding. Who you crapping?  You still like to believe L-e-T (or its offshoots) is not a terrorist outfit? And you also say you are serious about terror? You think we are idiots?
    • I think if Pak can demonstrate real seriousness (beyond wordS) in permanently dismantling units there, this would be best move out of this. Now I  can believe that the civilian government does not have full control over all parts of government, and also that the government does not have entire control of its territory. However, these two problems are causing huge, catastrophic effects outside Pak. This is not a Pak internal issue – it is an international issue of the gravest kind. If Pak is unwilling or unable to fix it, it can’t simply wring its hands  (“these are non-state actors”). It also cannot bristle if the others who are being affected want to take care of the problem. It is best to take as much help as needed to fix this problem for itself and for others. I know this puts the government between a rock and a hard place (as any move against the fundamentalist particularly with outside help is political as well as literal suicide in Pak), but who is to blame for that? It is time for reckoning for Pak.
  • Indian Politicians: In US after 9/11, all politicians, democrats and republicans stood together and put their country first. They all had one vision at the time in need. Later on of course they squabbled but at that moment they knew what was important. In India, our a**holes still don’t get it! Advani wants to campaign rather than attend an all party meeting called by his Prime Minister after a major terrorist event!! Campaign can wait for a day – you moron! And Thackeray wants to congratulate Maharashtra police? The bane of India is the lack of unity within. It screwed her during British times, and it would screw her now also if we don’t realize it.
  • Internal Security in India: I also think India really needs to beef up internal security – this would be painful and expensive, but it is most certainly needed. It has to go to the same level as US, Israel etc. We can try to fix root cause etc. – but that is slow and takes a long time to gather momentum. In the meantime, we need to protect ourselves.
    • Get top of the line equipment, get top of the line training (if not already been done) – from wherever it is available. Don’t let vanity (i.e. We are India, we dont need help!) compromise quality in this case.
    • I cannot believe they do not have commando units in Mumbai (and all major cities). I guess that is being fixed. I think local police must also have commando units  that trains with NSG etc.
    • I also cannot believe they did not clear the entire neighbourhood around the Nariman House during the operation. The whole freaking thing was on world-wide television – for others to comment and critique about an extremely sensitive and dangerous national security situation? Yikes!
    • In fact even at Taj, the reporters were allowed too close. I would think in US, cameras would simply not be allowed within atleast a mile in such cases – that would have been standard operating procedure
    • Too many loose lips talking to media. Have one (hopefully sane 🙂 ) voice – otherwise this all affects the credibility of your government. But on the otherhand, the many lips also exposes inefficiencies as well as hanky-pankiness which is good.
      • BTW, why are commandos of the most elite groups even giving interviews? Very nice to hear but also very disturbing. Shouldn’t these guys be as underground as possible?

Today, is truly a new day.

Today, America is awake.

Today, America has wiped a stain.

Today, the light at the end of that tunnel is no longer a dream.

Today, that light is real, and it shines in America.

Today, there is a new dawn in America.

I am not a citizen of America, but I live here. Echoing what someone close to me said, I am proud to be an American today even though I am not a US citizen. It was indeed so special, so overwhelming to watch the US election results, and the ensuing celebrations of thousands of people of all ages, colors and races – particularly the clouded eyes and tears of joy in so many African Americans. Even though I was physically not there in the midst of it all, and this was all on TV, I could sense the gravity of the historic moment. I also take strange pride in the fact that the epicenter of the celebration was in the city I live in. I wish I was there in Grant Park yesterday and soaked in the good vibes up-close and personal. But I shared it with my wife – and isn’t that the best way to share an historic day?

As Obama himself said, he won’t be perfect, and I am sure that America will not set everything it wants to set right today, tomorrow, or even in four years. I just hope that in four years, we can say that he moved America palpably in the right direction – the direction that so many people are longing for. He would be a successful president just for doing that. In fact, even if he turns out to be a less than spectacular President, this still is a huge step for America. People did not want to deal with the issue of race in society, and in this election too much prior to today, but there is no question that it is huge. It is a very persistent, thorny cancer that continually pricks at the society’s conscience. Although this cancer has been steadily pruned over the decades by the progress African Americans have made in society, it still definitely hurts the society. Even after today, the cancer remains, and it would still hurt, but definitely less. More importantly, after today, many people may truly believe that this cancer could be gotten rid of.

The step that US took yesterday in electing a  black leader was a mandatory step that it just had to take. The de facto belief amongst most folks prior to yesterday was “This country is just not ready to elect a black president. I don’t know when it will be ready – probably not in my lifetime”. Today, that belief has been proven as dead wrong! And its decimation was done by one man in a span of just 5 years in national politics! I just cannot get over that fact – just incredible! Yes, the political climate helped him a lot, but so did his charisma, his clarity of thought and expression. US did not elect him just because he is African American. However, at the same time, it is very well aware that he is African American, which definitely was a factor (reflected in the polls as well).  In the end, he is an extremely charismatic, inspirational, intelligent, African American.  I for one, think that he is the right man in US today for all those reasons.

Everywhere I turn today, there is talk of joy, motion, and pride in the step that America has taken. It is easy to ignore that there are millions of people who did not vote for Obama – a significant % of the populace (almost half).  I wonder about them. How many of them are angry, and repulsed by the nature of the celebrations of the “other half of the country”?  I know there will be many such people  (one cannot make everyone happy), but I hope there will be a lot more people who are happy that America matured yesterday, and for that sake are willing to give this man an honest chance. I hope they realize why America had to take this step.

Note however that just taking this step does not guarantee greatness, peace and prosperity as many other nations have taken similar steps long ago (although the case of African Americans in US society is quite unique, and if one looks at it close enough, one can begin the understand the streaming tears we saw yesterday). However, without this step, secure comfort about a nation’s social and moral compass would either be not possible, or would only signal ignorance.  In fact, even after this step, there is at least one more as equally important step – a woman president (which also has already been done by many nations). I am confident, this next step, will also happen in my lifetime.

Ok, a controversial post and one that also reveals my political inclinations although that was made somewhat obvious in my rant long ago (at least Babu saw through that 🙂 ).  This post may not be to your liking depending on your political inclinations, but I just found the connection mentioned below too enticing! But in case this gets your blood boiling, be assured that the connection below could potentially be adapted to a different version that can make you smile too 😉 !

There is a song by Pink Floyd in their Animals album called Pigs (Three Different Ones). It is an awesome song which really should have been mentioned as one of my favorites in my earlier post on the Floyd.

The Animals album’s main concept is to portray different sections of society as animals:

  • Pigs, who are the (scheming, sleazy)  people who influence/control society/system – i.e. typically politicians
  • Dogs, who are the enforces of the schemes of the Pigs
  • Sheep, who are the common folk at the low end at the order and thus helplessly manipulated by the other two.

The song Pigs (Three Different Ones) is an angry, menacing outburst at Pigs. It is in three stanzas, each talking about a (different) pig, a certain politically/socially influential person. A couple of stanzas actually refers to specific people in England (see here).

But I think with a little modification, this song fits three people who have been prominent in the US political spectrum in the last decade or so:

Karl Rove
(Initially thought of Donald Rumsfeld but the lyrics maybe fit Rove better? Or may be I could have picked Rush Limbaugh?)

Big man, pig man, ha ha, charade you are
You well heeled big wheel, ha ha, charade you are
And when your hand is on your heart
You’re nearly a good laugh
Almost a joker
With your head down in the pig bin
Saying “keep on digging”
Pig stain on your fat chin
What do you hope to find?
When you’re down in the pig mine
You’re nearly a laugh
You’re nearly a laugh
But you’re really a cry.

Dick Cheney
(fits him like a glove – except for the hat pin part)

Bus stop rat bag, ha ha, charade you are
You f****d up old hag bag, ha ha, charade you are
You radiate cold shafts of broken glass
You’re nearly a good laugh
Almost worth a quick grin
You like the feel of steel
You’re hot stuff with a hat pin
And good fun with a handshot gun
You’re nearly a laugh
You’re nearly a laugh
But you’re really a cry.

George Bush
Hey you Whitehouse, ha ha, charade you are
You house proud town mouse, ha ha, charade you are
You’re trying to keep our feelings off the street
You’re nearly a real treat
All tight lips and cold feet
And do you feel abused?
You gotta stem the evil tide
And keep it all on the inside
MaryDubya you’re nearly a treat
MaryDubya you’re nearly a treat
But you’re really a cry.

Although very raw and menacing (certainly dicey in the current political climate), the correlation is still interesting isn’t it 🙂 ? I though the second stanza with “Radiates cold shafts of broken glass”, and “Hot stuff with a handgun” was just too good as-is in the orignal. Same with Whitehouse and “house-proud town mouse” – to be funny.

Now, if you are on the other end of the spectrum,  am sure, if you think hard enough, you could come up with three liberals/democrats to fit you needs too 🙂 !

Oh btw, you can catch the (original) song itself here. Even if you don’t enjoy the correlation, enjoy the song!

By now, you probably have heard that the US cyclists arrived at Beijing wearing masks (to protect themselves against bad air pollution there), and how eventually they offered apologies presumably after the US Olympic committee got on their cases.

Almost all the opinions in the US I have read so far seem to be on the side of the cyclists, and take it out on the USOC, IOC, and Chinese govrnment citing various reasons:

  • The USOC for influencing the US athletes to apologize particularly when they are the one to design the masks and provide it to their athletes in the first place.
  • The athletes have very right to protect their bodies.
  • If any, the Chinese government should apologize for having bad pollution in a city where they are hosting an international event.
  • Why should US give a rat’s behind for offending the sensibilities of the big, bad Chinese government.
  • How the IOC sold out to Chinese government pressure by agreeing to hold in China despite human rights records, and pollution etc.
  • How the USOC is selling out by praising the arrangements supposedly just to please the hosts.
  • etc. etc.

In my opinion, the display was done in extremely poor taste because I would expect it to offend the citizens of China, although I would not be surprised if many people in the US give a rat’s behind about that either. The common “comeback theme” to this incident is why should we apologize to a government we don’t approve of? The people of China are generally left out of the picture perhaps because it is presumed that they would be blaming their government too. I mean how could they not?

I think many people in the west usually commit a bad mistake in presuming that the citizens of a country ruled by a regime that the west finds oppressive have no pride in their nation. Or more accurately, that people of that country must think like them, and thus have the same anger and disapproval towards their government in all issues. However, what they seem to miss is that while there may be people in that country who hate their government, hate their leaders, they still love their country, its history, tradition, and culture. That love and patriotism runs deep as one would expect. So I think most of them will still want their nation to be projected in a good light in circumstances like the Olympics, even if it is being projected by those “hated leaders”.

So you may not like China’s policies, and you may think that your displeasure is directed only at their government, but perhaps you do not realize that your resulting actions disrespect the people of China. If you care about distinction, then you may realize why an apology is good even if directed at the hated government. If you don’t care, then that is a different story. Like I said, I would not be surprised if many (not all of course!) people here in the US give a rat’s behind about the sensibilities of the peoples of other nations.

I also think that in general athletes at this level value the medals and the fame more than their bodies – a hell of a lot more. And in cycling? Given its legacy? Come on! Now I certainly do not mean to imply every cyclist is involved in doping, which would be a mean and unfair generalization. I am simply pointing out that cyclists do push their bodies to the extreme – it is part of the sport.

So the US athletes think they require a mask just to walk around, but are going participate in a grueling, cycling competition at the international level? Come again?

In any case, nowadays it is all about winning – and that of course manifests in many ways, and also in many harmful ways. And the fame? Ah – here in the US, that comes as part of the giddy, self-adulation that US indulges in nauseating fashion during Olympics. For mainstream US, I wonder if the only reason Olympics even holds interest is to see US athletes win. In fact, I wonder if it is pretty much the only reason US “needs” the Olympics – just to show others how dominant they are. The operative word there is only, as there is nothing abnormal about wanting your country win in every competition it participates in. But the obsessive nature implied here manifests into the lamest TV Olympics TV coverage possible – mainly about US and more about US. NBC and Bob Costas killed the Olympic excitement in me – and they did not take that long. This obsession also manifests in jingoists sports coverage everywhere you look.

In fact, if that obsessive need is not there, then either all these sports would simply fade away in the US, or become localized events. Of course, then the winners of those local events would still be tagged “World Champion this” and “World Champion that”. For example, the baseball league championship is “World Series”, the NBA champions are the “NBA World Champions”, the NFL is “Superbowl World Champions”. So this urge to say “I am the greatest”, “I love myself – I mean I am great”, “See me. Am I not the greatest?” is already well inculcated. This obsession runs deeper – even the fully “US based” ABC news is ABC World news tonight 🙂 . It is also the country with the “best health coverage in the world”.

I guess this turned into a rant 🙂

A few days ago, there was a big hue and cry here in the US about a US Supreme Court decision that ruled in a case related to the Second Amendment of the US Constitution – usually referred to as the right to bear arms. They basically ruled that the Washington D.C law banning guns was unconstitutional as it infringed upon the Second Amendment rights of individuals. The second amendment is a fairly hotly debated subject in the US, with gun owners and lobbyists (mostly Republicans, conservatives) on one side , and anti-gun activists (mostly Democrats, conservatives) on the other side. The difference of opinion with respect to the second amendment centers around different interpretations of it i.e. whether it applies to individuals vs. state militia. This new ruling is treated as landmark by many, as they argue that the court as slanted (for the first time?) towards inviduals (and thus gun owners and lobbyists).

But this blog entry is not about this subject of guns and gun control. I have a more fundamental question – about the US Supreme Court Justice’s term. Since the Supreme Court Justice’s appointment is by a politically elected official i.e the President (although must be approved by a majority of the Senate), how come it is for life – i.e. survives the changing political climate in which it was appointed?

I am certainly no student of the US constitution, nor even decently informed about it, and hence this is more a question out of curiosity than anything else. To me, the current setup seems to allow for the possibility of abuse (albeit in circumstances that are sort of rare as a few things have to come into being). I am actually puzzled that the U.S constitution would be structured to even allow for abuse. as I hear it is an extremely well thought out constitution and I generally believe that.

Anyway, doesn’t the current setup provide room for abuse – the kind that is feared (and coveted) by both sides, depending on whether the President, and the majority of the congress are on “your side”? I mean that when George Bush had a Republican majority in the Congress, I heard many a rumblings from conservative commentators about how “we are going to overturn Roe vs. Wade and make it right once in for all”. You also had liberal commentators sound the alarm bell. The two George Bush appointees have certainly made conservative choices on big issues as was expected – very much like the Bill Clinton appointees has made liberal choices. Justice Clarence Thomas who was appointed by George Bush Sr. is extremely conservative, and so is Justice Scalia, who was appointed by Ronald Reagan. It seems that the last four Presidents have appointed justices who are either markedly conservative or markedly liberal – as per the plan, from what I can gather. So it does seem to provide a way for a President to leave behind a legacy that easily outlives his/her term by decades. Although clearly part of the process, this seems like abuse to me.

Hence the burning question as to how come the US Supreme Court Justice’s position is for life when it is appointed by politicians? I do know that a judge can get impeached but it has never happened, and probably never will. For impeachment you need clear evidence of ethical misconduct etc. It seems that the makers of the constitution somehow did not perceive any possibility of misuse with such appointments – the kind that seems to have happened.

  • Did they assume that Presidents won’t abuse it even when situation may tempt one to do do?
  • Did they somehow assume that Presidents would weigh the gravity of such appointments appropriately and thus put themselves above partisan politics etc.? In other words, did they think all Presidents would be men/women of great honor and dignity, and above being influenced by minions?
  • Did they not foresee their country ever being so divided as it has been for the last 15 years, a divisiveness that can plague even the top politicians? For issues like abortion, gun control, there are two warring factions, and they will do anything to win – so it seems.
  • Or is it just that, that the current means of appointment is just the most practical solution one can come up with? I mean, you cannot have the justices being “elected” like politicians. You can put a term – but how long? As long as the President? That would make it even more bogus – as it would be just as political. The fact that (a) some judge has to first to retire during a President’s term (b) the President needs a favorable majority in Congress (c) Needs to worry about political fallout – maybe they thought this was enough deterrent against abuse?

But still I would think the constitution should/would have shut the door shut more firmly. Perhaps, the makers of the constitution just underestimated how power can corrupt humans, and thus overestimate politicians?

What’s the real deal here?

I have had this fancy thought for a while. I don’t know whether I have run amock with it but here it goes anyway…

I think a country, any country, is just like an average human, a single person, a macro human if you will. I find that this applies most to a country’s external persona – i.e. how a country behaves/interacts with other countries, and most importantly how the country wants to be perceived by the “society” i.e. all countries in the world.

How does the external persona of a typical person look? We want others to look at us in positive light. I would say we breathe this thought sub-consciously night and day. For most of us, the thought of being looked down as a fool, a weakling, scares us silly and we overcompensate whenever that possibility could be there. I am not that well versed in psychology, but this insecurity simply seems like a reflection of our ego. Basically, we hate to admit we are wrong. When we are resigned to the fact that we cannot get our away – we would rather quietly slip out rather than bring ourselves to say I am sorry with sincerity. Also, in almost always anything and everything we do, if we look deep enough, we will find that there is some personal benefit to us. And that benefit could be This makes me happy but it is very rarely followed just because it made the other person happy. We also find it very easy to likes others who agree with us, and share our interests. When we come across people who are too different from us – we sorta close our shells.

I think all this can be safely applied to your country’s external persona. And “your country”, does not necessarily mean your current government – i.e. the government you didn’t vote for and don’t agree with and hence feel like disassociating with now. The external persona of your country is a collective (but selective) image of all its citizens, and has developed over generations. It is simply a reflection of the collective pulse of its citizens w.r.t how they want their country to be perceived by “foreigners”.

I wager that your pride in your country, your attachment to it, your patriotism – all sacrosanct things in our society, has the most impact on the external persona of your country. And the result is a self-centered, egotistical, hypocritical person, who likes to look good and strong to impress (even if it means intimidation) others:

  • You country generally finds it much easier to like other countries that “look like it”. This means countries whose people have the same race as your country, and it means countries whose people are culturally “not too different”.
  • Your country only gets along with countries that pretty much behaves like it in worldly matters. If it says something that it thinks is important, it likes countries which agrees with it.
  • You country starts acting cool with other countries that don’t agree with it or act/speak differently from it in wordly matters. If it says something that it thinks is important and another country completely disagrees – generally the voices in the country’s mind start speaking ill of the other country.
  • Your country in general will do things with other countries only if it benefits it. If it is giving charity, there is always some strings attached.
  • Your country hates admitting it is wrong. It never wants to blink first in a confrontation. It’s ego will rather make it prolong a bad situation forever rather than saying it’s wrong or more importantly have other’s say “you lost, you are weak”. If at all extricating in a bad situation has to happen, it is done very quietly and with mis-direction and camouflaged words. There is a saying in my native language which translates – even if I fell upside-down, the sand didn’t stick to my moustache (i.e. i didn’t look foolish). This safely applies to a country.
  • Your country likes to think it is very principled, and of course a “better person” than every other country in some respect or other. But inside it (i.e. via some voices within), it knows that it is hypocritical – and principles are broken as often as they are upheld. But in general, it would be caught dead rather than admitting this in public. In some rare moments, there may be a confession here or there – but fast forward a few months and it is back to Mr. Strong.
  • Once your country develops deep hatred for another, it would rather beat that country up rather than be even open to the possibility we can still work out our differences

It is perhaps not a revelation that a country is simply a reflection of its citizens. But is this the one we want? With this kind of a reflection – how proud should we be about our country and ourselves?