United States Politics

I DO believe that this coming (US) presidential elections is the worst ever. I am not talking by way of ideological standpoint or party-politics dogma. Just saying as per my honest observation. The “worst” election in US history, I think, was the presidential election of 1836 when Democrat Martin Van Buren narrowly won over William Henry Harrison of the Whigs via strategic placing/planning and not via popular vote. It may happen again next year. I am not leaning towards any candidate or aspirant though. More than ever, energy not just brilliance will figure a lot in the next presidency. The US President will have to need “superhero” energy to travel globally and talk/negotiate with other significant political and economic players in the advent of an ever-changing global order. Foreign policy is utmost.

       Hillary Clinton seems more "exposed" and experienced than the rest. Bernie Sanders seems people-friendly but the overseas community is another issue. I don't think Mr Sanders can last the backbreaking kick and mentally-gruelling grind. Donald Trump is dangerous in the sense that he tends to be stupidly careless, mouth-wise. I don't want to judge his capability to lead but leadership also concerns the ability to control what comes out of one's/his mouth especially that we are crossing cultural sensibilities and sensitivities. If it matters at all, the coming of women leaders in other countries may also prove useful and relevant to Hillary's ascent to power.

       Meanwhile, as per current surveys, Trump leads the GOP pack while it's a close fight between Sanders and Hillary on the other side. Why do I call this race “worst” as per people's choice, for the moment? The polar extremes (and the stacked-up probables on the Republican side against the Dems' two-person tilt). Trump followers project what the world fears about America—supremacist, brinkmanship arrogance, anti-minority/immigrant etc. The Bernie side conjures a socialist idealism that while it is populist and what could be the best answer to America's present-day woes, it is also quixotic in the sense that the 1 Percent that controls America and the West is sure to object. Whoever the Gods of Profit chooses wins in the White House—and that is the Great American Interest, whether we adhere to that or not. Although such installation of power isn't that “blatant.” The Masters of the Universe is closely watching who their choice is but they are strategizing, watching closely—as ever. But the 1 Percent isn't budging, historically, in regards foreign policy...

       Hint: The US (and China) are two of the world's largest drinkers of oil—and when I say China, think US/West-controlled factories. Socialism doesn't work for the Koch Brothers and AC Morgan Chase, I reckon—and how'd The D sit with the Muslim-controlled OPEC, insult them?

       Hillary's anti-this and pro-that stance, what political pundits call “polarizing” persona, could spell difference though, aside from the fact that she has the personality and experience to strike deals with China and Russia, India and Brazil, and the European Union. The US as a world power exists because the rest of the world believe so—and since many peoples of the world have elevated woman power up there, Hillary could be a more effective charisma than an aging Bernie and a rude Trump.

       Moreover, Sanders can be the true voice of the people. But would the people vote for him? And would the 1 Percent install a leader who voted against NAFTA, CAFTA, and PNTR with China, saying that they have resulted in American corporations moving abroad. He is also against the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which he says was "written by corporate America and the pharmaceutical industry and Wall Street." True, very true. But would that belief and position work out?

       Meantime, Hillary continues to do well in Gallup's most admired man and woman poll and in 2015 she was named the most admired woman by Americans for a record fourteenth straight time and twentieth time overall. Her favorability ratings dropped, however, after she left office and began to be viewed in the context of partisan politics again. What would that say? If Hillary kind of distances herself from party-politics and project herself as the true independent voice, she may just win it.

       Trump? I got nothing to say because there's nothing to say.

Cultural Superiority?

I CALL it more “misjudgment” on the line of “cultural ignorance” (reinforced by historical miseducation). But the most blatant of this flaw is the feeling of racial superiority over others, just because one has larger ship (ie Queen Isabella's over Li Zicheng, Chinese peasant leader in 1600s), bigger house (castle over nipa hut), mastery of a language (English, French etc over Kirundi, Cebuano), or physical features (tall vs short etc). Or an Irish settler telling a Cheyenne long time ago: “In exchange for a better life, you must give me your land—I'll give you a Smartphone in return...” to which he was told, “Who told you you have a better life that I do? Smoke signals are fine with us.” 

       Hence, the most ruthless of “racism” is to force people to submit just because we want more of what they have to expand our narcissism and megalomania... “Racism” can also be gleaned by careless takes on people's cultural preferences from worship to clothing choice to food. For example, Jesus Christ's spirituality is no different from Siddharta Gautama's or the wind to a Cherokee and wooden “anito” to an Ifugao. I also sense racism in some of us in the West for sweepingly judging that a Muslim woman who wears a burqa is subservient (to a man); hence, they may also judge us that a visible thong in an American or British lady's butt or an ample cleavage as signs of subservience to man's sexual whims, etc. Or just because a tribe in Peru dines on bumblebees and a village in Kenya eats hippo meat, we call those “disgusting” or what we popularly say, “bizarre.” 

      If a Mongol tells a French person that eating raw veggies make them look like cows, that wouldn't sit well, I reckon. Hence, all these can be fixed by education, ie Mexico owned most of West Coast long time ago—and it was Spain who ceded those territories to America, not the Mexicans, same case with Hawaii and the Philippines to Spain/US, or Haiti and Vietnam to France long time ago. Or if we dig deeper why the Japanese eat fish and not hummus, and that the word “organic” doesn't exist in Nauru or Bolivian hinterland because food aren't processed in some hi-tech plant—we must not say they don't know good shit as gluten free gourmet chow. When other perceived stronger nation with shining garments invaded one “weaker” country just because the strangers need more silk and gold (ie mercantilism etc), then racism is such a sinful human act.

I am a writer and I write about what's going on

I AM a writer and I write about what's going on. My persuasion and drive, both fused by journalism not a figment of my imagination. So I need to explore the internet as I explore humanity (that's why I travel a lot and organize community events)... The internet is a given and it is very helpful for new immigrants like me who's family are so far. But what ticks me off is the unmitigated annoyance and distraction of having to deal with the world's insatiable obsession with--not having everything easy and handed-down. It's like trying to convince someone that, hey, it's only winter, it's spring next week--and this person insists that it's still winter next week, so he/she closes her/his doors to any possibilities and believes that I am just full of my spring-shit, LOL!

       In fact--which is fascinating--English or language isn't really utilized the way it was before, including in argumentative discourse. These days, it's all cryptic, acronyms, one-liners, and snappy remarks. Those are not even English. Those are all Attitude, which is annoying.

       That is the scary part of humanity. Kids are bludgeoned by these "models" of pop culture, day in and day out. No respite. It's all over. Reality TV, iPhones, even some school programs point to individual spunk than communal wisdom. The youths are lost--so it's our (older ones) responsibility to bridge the lessons of the past with the disconnect of the present, and hope tomorrow is a better day. But when the middle forces, today's younger parents, refuse to abide or listen to their own dads and moms, it's a mess. And the victims are the kids.

       Yes, today's life also redefined behavior and language. Bad is good, bitch is good, slut is good... Language is important, it is communication. Communication bridges people. These days people are judged by choice of vocabulary and how often his/her voice rises up--but not the overall character of the person... because how do we study a person's character when everything is googled and idealized? Not many go out there and hang out and talk. We scare ourselves with the world out there and womb in--within the short-attention span reality of the Net.

       Everything is second or third hand data, not the real deal that reaches to us as individuals, first hand.

       We are individualistic individuals that ironically abide by a mechanized truth. A truth that is actually sold to us via credit.