The latest BMW ad says it all "0.9% APR for 60 months, BMW will make the first two payments". 6 months back BMW salesmen would have snickered at any customer asking for those terms and politely pointed the customer to some Hyundai showroom. After that they would have giggled over how America is in the throes of a crisis all due to "greed", reminisced about the most notorious movie quote "Greed is good" (Michael Douglas playing Gordon Gekko) and patted themselves on how conservative Europe was riding it out.
So far US has grabbed the headlines on the financial crisis. However emerging information portrays that Europe, paryicularly the Euro zone, is in far serious trouble. European banks were of course restrained in lending to individual unlike US banks. Unlike US banks they lent freely to companies. BusinessWeek (BW) wryly summed it up "how about subprime companies? European corporations are deeply in hock, with $801 billion in corporate debt maturing this year—nearly one-third more than in the U.S "
The real icing, as per BW, is this, "The Continent's banks may not have written subprime mortgages, but it turns out they financed something worse: subprime countries. The former communist East is sinking into recession as Western banks choke off the easy credit that fueled Asian-style growth. Now, some pundits say, the former Soviet bloc countries are headed for a crisis on the scale of Asia's in 1997 and 1998."
Apparently greed is not an exclusive American vice.
The implications are sending shock waves through the continent. There are fear that the Euro zone itself might breakdown. Note that already there is lot of resentment by smaller countries against France and Germany, which act very arrogantly. Again, unilateralism, self-deluded grandstanding are all not exclusive to US as pompous Europeans want us to believe. "Before the introduction of the euro a decade ago, a country such as Spain could have let its currency fall to make its cars, wine, olive oil, and other goods more attractive to foreigners. That's not an option anymore. Instead, as Europe's highfliers are laid low, companies must cut wages to regain competitiveness. "People aren't aware that monetary union requires new ways to adjust to a recession," says Fernando Ballabriga, an economics professor at the ESADE business school in Barcelona"
A more severe implication is for the eastern bloc of post-Soviet countries which might become more susceptible to Kremlin's muscle flexing. Putin would freely use the crisis to further push Russia back to the old ways, snuffing out whatever little democracy there might be.
Already Hillary Clinton declared that in dealing with China, US desires more co-operation to fight the economic crises and that human rights is secondary. If Condoleeza Rice had said it the left would be crying "murder most foul". Its now the beloved Obama administration that says so.
Already the crises is taking its toll on charitable donations, human rights is now by the way side, nations are becoming bankrupt, one wonders:
Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world
----- The second coming ,W.B. Yeats
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Slumdog Millionaire -Self congratulation and some truth too
I had last written on "Slumdog Millionaire" on Feb 9th (http://contrarianworld.blogspot.com/2009/02/slumdog-millionaire-art-or-sell-out.html ). Today, March 1st, I was reading Vinod Mehta's editorial in Outlook and was struck by the parallels and examples we both had picked. To amplify my self-congratulation I'd like to quote Khushwant Singh who said Vinod Mehta is one of the most erudite editors in India.
The most striking parallel was both of us picking Katherine Mayo's book "Mother India". Here is my blog "Katherine Mayo's book "Mother India" published in the early 30's evoked an angry response from none less than the Mahatma who decried it as "a drain inspector's report". Here is what Vinod wrote, "As far as exploitation of poverty goes, Danny Boyle is up there with Katherine Mayo’s Mother India, which Gandhiji dismissed as a "drain inspector’s report". To put it in context, Vinod cited that in the same vein as I did and goes on to say how Indians hate the portrayal of truth than truth itself.
More strikingly he then cites how,from Satyajit Ray to Aravind Adiga are seen as "showcasing poverty". I had picked on the same names too.
Now over to Vinod Mehta's remaining editorial:
We are told Dharavi is a slum of vibrancy, enterprise, the triumph of the human spirit and a model of inter-communal living. Another collateral boon: superpower India has at last come to terms with its penury. It is comfortable with its poverty. If you will pardon my French, that’s bullshit!
The most striking parallel was both of us picking Katherine Mayo's book "Mother India". Here is my blog "Katherine Mayo's book "Mother India" published in the early 30's evoked an angry response from none less than the Mahatma who decried it as "a drain inspector's report". Here is what Vinod wrote, "As far as exploitation of poverty goes, Danny Boyle is up there with Katherine Mayo’s Mother India, which Gandhiji dismissed as a "drain inspector’s report". To put it in context, Vinod cited that in the same vein as I did and goes on to say how Indians hate the portrayal of truth than truth itself.
More strikingly he then cites how,from Satyajit Ray to Aravind Adiga are seen as "showcasing poverty". I had picked on the same names too.
Now over to Vinod Mehta's remaining editorial:
We are told Dharavi is a slum of vibrancy, enterprise, the triumph of the human spirit and a model of inter-communal living. Another collateral boon: superpower India has at last come to terms with its penury. It is comfortable with its poverty. If you will pardon my French, that’s bullshit!
Slums, whatever artistic gloss you put on them, are ugly, dark, squalid, crime-infested locations—a sign of a failed state rather than a shining one. However many Oscars India might collect, we should never lend legitimacy and romance to scars which should make us hang our heads in shame. There is nothing nice about a slum, even a five-star one like Dharavi, and the Indian state must avoid flirting with the myth that a slum is a beautiful place, inhabited by beautiful people doing beautiful things—an example to the rest of the country of how hard work and honest toil can make the rags-to-riches story possible.
In fact, Slumdog Millionaire should remind us of what we try to obscure and sanitise with pretty words. Already, our rulers with votebanks in mind, have, to an extent succeeded in making us accept the existence of slums as an inevitable consequence of urbanisation and globalisation. Slumdog Millionaire could further tranquilise our sensibilities to the distress and despair right under our nose.
I too celebrate the success of Slumdog Millionaire. Pity about the slums.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Eternal wounds - Partition
I just began reading Yasmin Khan's "The great Partition: The making of India and Pakistan". Economist had reviewed the book a year back and commended it as good read. In her introduction Yasmin emphasises that the partition had affected regions of the subcontinent far beyond the eastern (Bengal) and western (Punjab) borders. She cites various hot spots that too saw riots or some form of religious tension. The list includes Meerut, Lucknow, Mumbai, Godhra, Secunderabad (the only southern city) etc. Looking at the list I sadly realised that each one of them remain a communal hot spot till today, more than 60 years later. Each had seen so many more riots decades later, each riot was bloody and cost hundreds of lives.
Often we hear of loud harsh criticism of Iraq's civil war and how Bush was responsible for uncorking it by removing a tyrant who had kept the country...well...corked up. While he does deserve criticism for the hodge-podge post invasion planning much of what happens is entirely the country's own making. Again what is happening in Iraq, though very tragic, pales into comparision before the horrors of what India and Pakistan endured. The 24 hour news cycle with its penchant to give wisdom in a hurry has no patience for deeper historical knowledge.
Often we hear of loud harsh criticism of Iraq's civil war and how Bush was responsible for uncorking it by removing a tyrant who had kept the country...well...corked up. While he does deserve criticism for the hodge-podge post invasion planning much of what happens is entirely the country's own making. Again what is happening in Iraq, though very tragic, pales into comparision before the horrors of what India and Pakistan endured. The 24 hour news cycle with its penchant to give wisdom in a hurry has no patience for deeper historical knowledge.
Science and Americans : A love hate relationship
This past weekend I took my daughter to the American Museum of Natural History in New York City. It was a Sunday and temperature was 45F, sunny, a respite from bone chilling cold. The museum was practically besieged by parents, children, mostly toddlers swarmed every corner. It will not be an exaggeration to say if one felt as if lost in the midst of a school tour.
Natalie Angier in her book "The Canon: A Whirligig Tour of the Beautiful Basics of Science" quotes a friend who suggested that Science museums are for kids. Natalie wonders why adults think so and is perplexed as to why a visit for a Science museum is never an outing for a child beyond high school.
Economist, recently published a poll that 60% of americans do not believe in Evolution, the most in a developed nation. A sweet irony for a country that boasts of NASA, Ivy League colleges, billions in science research, space shuttles, space race etc etc. Americans love Science in a limited way as long as it does not disturb their fairy tale puerile biblical beliefs. When such a clash comes its religion that always wins. Decades after the Scopes trial, when a teacher was punished for teaching Evolutions, even today cases are brought in courts to teach religion in the garb of pseudo-science.
I can bet my farm that 90% of the visitors to the AMNH are religious enough to believe that the world was created in 7 days despite taking a walk along the "cosmic way" that illustrates how the earth took shape across 13 billion years.
Sometime back NYT published an article about two disparate groups visiting Grand Canyon. One group marveled at the rocks, evidence of earth evolving in billions of years. Another group caressed the same rocks and saw the "design" of the good Lord.
I could see only a handful Indians. I guess a visit to AMNH is not as enticing as indulging in cultural associations or bhajans over pot luck dinners that reinforce caste identities. I've seen Indians reading prayerfully Ramayan, replete with casteist references to Shudras. Ah ! Well thats a different subject alltogether.
I need to write a seperate blog on the museum itself. It was a truly wonderful visit. We learned that the moon was formed in a month and much more.
Natalie Angier in her book "The Canon: A Whirligig Tour of the Beautiful Basics of Science" quotes a friend who suggested that Science museums are for kids. Natalie wonders why adults think so and is perplexed as to why a visit for a Science museum is never an outing for a child beyond high school.
Economist, recently published a poll that 60% of americans do not believe in Evolution, the most in a developed nation. A sweet irony for a country that boasts of NASA, Ivy League colleges, billions in science research, space shuttles, space race etc etc. Americans love Science in a limited way as long as it does not disturb their fairy tale puerile biblical beliefs. When such a clash comes its religion that always wins. Decades after the Scopes trial, when a teacher was punished for teaching Evolutions, even today cases are brought in courts to teach religion in the garb of pseudo-science.
I can bet my farm that 90% of the visitors to the AMNH are religious enough to believe that the world was created in 7 days despite taking a walk along the "cosmic way" that illustrates how the earth took shape across 13 billion years.
Sometime back NYT published an article about two disparate groups visiting Grand Canyon. One group marveled at the rocks, evidence of earth evolving in billions of years. Another group caressed the same rocks and saw the "design" of the good Lord.
I could see only a handful Indians. I guess a visit to AMNH is not as enticing as indulging in cultural associations or bhajans over pot luck dinners that reinforce caste identities. I've seen Indians reading prayerfully Ramayan, replete with casteist references to Shudras. Ah ! Well thats a different subject alltogether.
I need to write a seperate blog on the museum itself. It was a truly wonderful visit. We learned that the moon was formed in a month and much more.
Monday, February 9, 2009
Slumdog Millionaire: Art or Sell out?
V.S.Naipaul's first book on India, "An area of darkness" was a withering criticism of the country, practically scalding to a country that was barely 20 years old since it became free. Naipaul followed it with an even more scathing "India: A wounded civilization", he blamed everything that gets labeled "Indian ethos" as root of its rot, his last book, in 1990, "India a million mutinies now" retained the carping but went easy on the bile. By now he had a reputation of selling India's poverty. He joined the ranks of Satyajit Ray, Mrinal Sen et al. Ray, especially, was accused of selling India's poverty in the guise of art. Katherine Mayo's book "Mother India" published in the early 30's evoked an angry response from none less than the Mahatma who decried it as "a drain inspector's report". That we had a drain was of no consequence.
Gandhi's indignence could be excused as one who was defending the honor of a country held in slavery for 300 years by the very race of the author. Breaking its chains until recent times India and its citizenry, while not ashamed of the ill's of the society, would be very hurt to see such portrayals, especially on screen, it gets further amplified when such portrayals get awards. The reactions were always "well we are a huge country, who does not have it, is America any better, why show only these,...."
Since America is often dragged into such comparisons lets look at Hollywood. Yes we have our own bromides of super heroes, comic capers, kid movies, chick flicks etc but come Oscar season a steady stream of serious cinema hits the halls. Movies like "crash" that unflinchingly look at race relations in suburbian L.A., movies like "Monster's Ball" that open old racial wounds, all hit our collective conscious. Note that in these movies the issues are not sugar coated but presented in raw reality, all racially offensive words find mention to bring reality to face.
Reading Aravind Adiga's "White Tiger" I too thought is that all there is to India. But who am I to deny that that too is a part of India. What a creator chooses to portray is his/her own freedom. Whether that freedom has been used with intellectual integrity is all that we can judge.
In this new found "irrational exuberance" the marginalised sections of the society have all but vanished from mainstream discourse. We are now obsessed with Ambani's rank shifting on Forbes list of billionaires, elections are "too close to call", markets are falling on "global cues", "profit taking", many times I wonder how Indian journalese (thats what it is) has comfortably adopted American-speak. In my 26 years in India I've never heard an election prediction phrased as "too close to call", a characteristic CNN phrase.
When a movie like "Slumdog" rubs it in many react with indignation but with absolutely no qualms of conscience about the issue of inequality itself. Yes America had its Katrina, but hurricane Ike was a non-event. Yes America had 9-11 but nothing since. Yes America had a Rodney King case of race brutality, we just elected an Afro American president. Are we ashamed that India's dirty linen was washed in public, was the washing the sin or that our linen was dirty in the first place.
Time magazine did a wonderful story on the picture and hit home on who dislikes it and why:
"You can't live in Mumbai without seeing children begging at traffic lights and passing by slums on your way to work," says Shikha Goyal, a public relations executive who left halfway through the film. "But I don't want to be reminded of that on a Saturday evening." There's also a sense of injured national pride, especially for a lot of well-heeled metro dwellers, who say the film peddles "poverty porn" and "slum voyeurism."........
........This message of hope is something many among India's lower middle class seem to have taken to heart. "The film only shows what is real," says Rakesh Nair, a driver in New Delhi. "It's those who are making lots of money who are cribbing about the film showing the dark side of India. Those left behind are loving it because they can empathize with the film's hero."
Gandhi's indignence could be excused as one who was defending the honor of a country held in slavery for 300 years by the very race of the author. Breaking its chains until recent times India and its citizenry, while not ashamed of the ill's of the society, would be very hurt to see such portrayals, especially on screen, it gets further amplified when such portrayals get awards. The reactions were always "well we are a huge country, who does not have it, is America any better, why show only these,...."
Since America is often dragged into such comparisons lets look at Hollywood. Yes we have our own bromides of super heroes, comic capers, kid movies, chick flicks etc but come Oscar season a steady stream of serious cinema hits the halls. Movies like "crash" that unflinchingly look at race relations in suburbian L.A., movies like "Monster's Ball" that open old racial wounds, all hit our collective conscious. Note that in these movies the issues are not sugar coated but presented in raw reality, all racially offensive words find mention to bring reality to face.
Reading Aravind Adiga's "White Tiger" I too thought is that all there is to India. But who am I to deny that that too is a part of India. What a creator chooses to portray is his/her own freedom. Whether that freedom has been used with intellectual integrity is all that we can judge.
In this new found "irrational exuberance" the marginalised sections of the society have all but vanished from mainstream discourse. We are now obsessed with Ambani's rank shifting on Forbes list of billionaires, elections are "too close to call", markets are falling on "global cues", "profit taking", many times I wonder how Indian journalese (thats what it is) has comfortably adopted American-speak. In my 26 years in India I've never heard an election prediction phrased as "too close to call", a characteristic CNN phrase.
When a movie like "Slumdog" rubs it in many react with indignation but with absolutely no qualms of conscience about the issue of inequality itself. Yes America had its Katrina, but hurricane Ike was a non-event. Yes America had 9-11 but nothing since. Yes America had a Rodney King case of race brutality, we just elected an Afro American president. Are we ashamed that India's dirty linen was washed in public, was the washing the sin or that our linen was dirty in the first place.
Time magazine did a wonderful story on the picture and hit home on who dislikes it and why:
"You can't live in Mumbai without seeing children begging at traffic lights and passing by slums on your way to work," says Shikha Goyal, a public relations executive who left halfway through the film. "But I don't want to be reminded of that on a Saturday evening." There's also a sense of injured national pride, especially for a lot of well-heeled metro dwellers, who say the film peddles "poverty porn" and "slum voyeurism."........
........This message of hope is something many among India's lower middle class seem to have taken to heart. "The film only shows what is real," says Rakesh Nair, a driver in New Delhi. "It's those who are making lots of money who are cribbing about the film showing the dark side of India. Those left behind are loving it because they can empathize with the film's hero."
Monday, January 26, 2009
Thank God for Barack's hypocrisies
Arthur Schlesinger Jr, historian, in his book "The Cycles of American History" admonishes leaders of nations who wish to be saintly, instead advises some pragmatism. Well what often passes for pragmatism is in the strictest sense mostly hypocrisy.
Barack Obama often reaches for high sounding idealism and quietly does what is pragmatic, often in the real good interest of the country. By definition hypocritical but could be charitably called "realistic", "pragmatic" etc.
Obama declared, with a haughtiness that is characteristic of self righteous idealistic people, that he has instituted the toughest ethics rules. Yes he did. He expressly prohibited lobbyists from joining his administration especially in the field they lobbied for. Barely two days later he sought an exception to his own rule when he nominated a defense lobbyist as Deputy Defense secretary sending the national media into chortles. Some idealism.
After ranting about wall street greed, CEO malfeasance. Bush's penchant for lax oversight of markets Obama named Timothy Geithner as Secretary of Treasury. Geithner, like the hated Paulson, is a Goldman Sachs alumni and forgot to pay his taxes. Yet another instance that angered his left wing courtiers who were itching for Keynesian left wingers to take over economic policy.
When he was an unknown candidate he signed, in his own hand, a pledge to take public financing if he got the nomination and challenged his republican opponent to do so in the interest of keeping elections away from being dominated by special interest money. By the time he got to his nomination his campaign, had shattered all records of raising money, very laudably done using technology and other usual methods. His opponent John McCain, struggled to raise money and took public financing while reminding Obama of his pledge. Now Obama slithered away giving some very facetious explanations. Not one of his fawning media acolytes cheered. He was roundly condemned.
Barack jeered at Hillary's claims of experience as First lady "what experience, having tea with ambassadors". Then he chose her as his secretary of state precisely because of her experience. A reporter who dared to question it was brusquely ticked of by Obama who beamed a disarming smile attributing those remarks to a heated campaign how quoting it is fun for press. It was no heated remark, it was a much repeated statement by Obama to deflate Hillary's claims. Either he was hypocritical then or he is one now.
While he railed endlessly on the campaign against Bush's handling of Iraq he angered his devotees (thats what they are) greatly by retaining Robert Gates as Secretary of Defense. The icing was inviting Rick Warren to give the invocation prayer. Rick Warren is one of the most hated figures amongst Gays and Lesbians, again a core devotee group of Obama.
Obama loftily decried the false choice between safety and values implying that Bush adopted methods to keep US safe while sacrificing the liberal values of US. What he forgot to mention was that he himself voted yes to wiretap (FISA bill), again angering his left wing worshippers.
After decrying the Clintons as being divisive, being partisan and above all for just being what every politician is, he promptly named Rahm (Rahmbo) Emmanuel, a foul mouthed and vindictive person as Chief of Staff who had served under Clinton, again his worshipper were taken aback. They, in their naivete, had voted for change. Then came John Podesta, another Clintonite, to preside over the transition. A whole phalanx of Ex-Clintonites were chosen finally capped of with Hillary herself. Some change that is. The fig leaf reasoning was "we need experienced guys in these dark days and Clinton was the last creditable Dem to be Prez. The Carterites are too old".
Nobody disagrees with the quality of each of the above decisions, many are great decisions, good for the country. Its the pompous holier-than-thou attitude that gets my goat.
Barack Obama is no saint, he is just a politician and lets thank him for that.
Barack Obama often reaches for high sounding idealism and quietly does what is pragmatic, often in the real good interest of the country. By definition hypocritical but could be charitably called "realistic", "pragmatic" etc.
Obama declared, with a haughtiness that is characteristic of self righteous idealistic people, that he has instituted the toughest ethics rules. Yes he did. He expressly prohibited lobbyists from joining his administration especially in the field they lobbied for. Barely two days later he sought an exception to his own rule when he nominated a defense lobbyist as Deputy Defense secretary sending the national media into chortles. Some idealism.
After ranting about wall street greed, CEO malfeasance. Bush's penchant for lax oversight of markets Obama named Timothy Geithner as Secretary of Treasury. Geithner, like the hated Paulson, is a Goldman Sachs alumni and forgot to pay his taxes. Yet another instance that angered his left wing courtiers who were itching for Keynesian left wingers to take over economic policy.
When he was an unknown candidate he signed, in his own hand, a pledge to take public financing if he got the nomination and challenged his republican opponent to do so in the interest of keeping elections away from being dominated by special interest money. By the time he got to his nomination his campaign, had shattered all records of raising money, very laudably done using technology and other usual methods. His opponent John McCain, struggled to raise money and took public financing while reminding Obama of his pledge. Now Obama slithered away giving some very facetious explanations. Not one of his fawning media acolytes cheered. He was roundly condemned.
Barack jeered at Hillary's claims of experience as First lady "what experience, having tea with ambassadors". Then he chose her as his secretary of state precisely because of her experience. A reporter who dared to question it was brusquely ticked of by Obama who beamed a disarming smile attributing those remarks to a heated campaign how quoting it is fun for press. It was no heated remark, it was a much repeated statement by Obama to deflate Hillary's claims. Either he was hypocritical then or he is one now.
While he railed endlessly on the campaign against Bush's handling of Iraq he angered his devotees (thats what they are) greatly by retaining Robert Gates as Secretary of Defense. The icing was inviting Rick Warren to give the invocation prayer. Rick Warren is one of the most hated figures amongst Gays and Lesbians, again a core devotee group of Obama.
Obama loftily decried the false choice between safety and values implying that Bush adopted methods to keep US safe while sacrificing the liberal values of US. What he forgot to mention was that he himself voted yes to wiretap (FISA bill), again angering his left wing worshippers.
After decrying the Clintons as being divisive, being partisan and above all for just being what every politician is, he promptly named Rahm (Rahmbo) Emmanuel, a foul mouthed and vindictive person as Chief of Staff who had served under Clinton, again his worshipper were taken aback. They, in their naivete, had voted for change. Then came John Podesta, another Clintonite, to preside over the transition. A whole phalanx of Ex-Clintonites were chosen finally capped of with Hillary herself. Some change that is. The fig leaf reasoning was "we need experienced guys in these dark days and Clinton was the last creditable Dem to be Prez. The Carterites are too old".
Nobody disagrees with the quality of each of the above decisions, many are great decisions, good for the country. Its the pompous holier-than-thou attitude that gets my goat.
Barack Obama is no saint, he is just a politician and lets thank him for that.
Friday, January 16, 2009
Iran burns effigies of........Obama
Recently a huge protest rally was held in Teheran. Usual sloganeering against USA, usual blood curdling cries against Israel, one unsual aspect was the portrait caricatured. Usually it would be the sitting President and Bush would be the one but they were unflattering demonic characterisation of Obama, one pic had his teeth extended devilishly and blood dripping down his chin. Hhmmm this was the country that Obama wanted to have a diaolgue with "unconditionally" and the liberal front rejoiced at the peacemaker while reminding everyone how hated Bush was due to his "arrogance". Its ironic that Obama is treated thus even BEFORE he becomes president.
Ayman-Al-Zawahiri, bin-laden's deputy, rubbed it in by calling Obama a "house slave".A very denigrating characterisation for an Afro-American.
While the Obama worshippers swoon at his ability to change the world, especially contrasted with the much maligned Bush, "Economist" rightly pointed that even Obama by virtue of being President of US would not change key elements of U S policy without which no country like Iran would love ANY US president, Bush or not.
Time magazine when it declared Obama as "Person of the Year" (unsurprisingly) chose a cover photo designed by an artist whose pic became standard campaign photo. That artist gushed on CNN how Obama made people like him believe in the democratic process by rescuing it from money-bags. HHmmm what a jaded view of American democracy, if your guy wins its great democracy else its not. Probably the Iranians understand the limitations of US presidency than blind worshippers like these who do not realise that the more things change they remain the same.
Ayman-Al-Zawahiri, bin-laden's deputy, rubbed it in by calling Obama a "house slave".A very denigrating characterisation for an Afro-American.
While the Obama worshippers swoon at his ability to change the world, especially contrasted with the much maligned Bush, "Economist" rightly pointed that even Obama by virtue of being President of US would not change key elements of U S policy without which no country like Iran would love ANY US president, Bush or not.
Time magazine when it declared Obama as "Person of the Year" (unsurprisingly) chose a cover photo designed by an artist whose pic became standard campaign photo. That artist gushed on CNN how Obama made people like him believe in the democratic process by rescuing it from money-bags. HHmmm what a jaded view of American democracy, if your guy wins its great democracy else its not. Probably the Iranians understand the limitations of US presidency than blind worshippers like these who do not realise that the more things change they remain the same.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)