This amazing, inspiring speech by the the 44th President of the United States of America, moved many people at home and abroad. It is an astounding moment in U.S. history to election a president that has such a diverse background. I truly believe that change is coming to America.

Remarks of President-Elect Barack Obama
Election Night
Tuesday, November 4th, 2008
Chicago, Illinois

If there is anyone out there who still doubts that America is a place where all things are possible; who still wonders if the dream of our founders is alive in our time; who still questions the power of our democracy, tonight is your answer.

It’s the answer told by lines that stretched around schools and churches in numbers this nation has never seen; by people who waited three hours and four hours, many for the very first time in their lives, because they believed that this time must be different; that their voice could be that difference.

It’s the answer spoken by young and old, rich and poor, Democrat and Republican, black, white, Hispanic, Asian, Native American, gay, straight, disabled and not disabled - Americans who sent a message to the world that we have never been a collection of Red States and Blue States: we are, and always will be, the United States of America.

It’s the answer that led those who have been told for so long by so many to be cynical, and fearful, and doubtful of what we can achieve to put their hands on the arc of history and bend it once more toward the hope of a better day.

It’s been a long time coming, but tonight, because of what we did on this day, in this election, at this defining moment, change has come to America.

I just received a very gracious call from Senator McCain. He fought long and hard in this campaign, and he’s fought even longer and harder for the country he loves. He has endured sacrifices for America that most of us cannot begin to imagine, and we are better off for the service rendered by this brave and selfless leader. I congratulate him and Governor Palin for all they have achieved, and I look forward to working with them to renew this nation’s promise in the months ahead.

I want to thank my partner in this journey, a man who campaigned from his heart and spoke for the men and women he grew up with on the streets of Scranton and rode with on that train home to Delaware, the Vice President-elect of the United States, Joe Biden.

I would not be standing here tonight without the unyielding support of my best friend for the last sixteen years, the rock of our family and the love of my life, our nation’s next First Lady, Michelle Obama. Sasha and Malia, I love you both so much, and you have earned the new puppy that’s coming with us to the White House. And while she’s no longer with us, I know my grandmother is watching, along with the family that made me who I am. I miss them tonight, and know that my debt to them is beyond measure.

To my campaign manager David Plouffe, my chief strategist David Axelrod, and the best campaign team ever assembled in the history of politics - you made this happen, and I am forever grateful for what you’ve sacrificed to get it done.

But above all, I will never forget who this victory truly belongs to - it belongs to you.

I was never the likeliest candidate for this office. We didn’t start with much money or many endorsements. Our campaign was not hatched in the halls of Washington - it began in the backyards of Des Moines and the living rooms of Concord and the front porches of Charleston.

It was built by working men and women who dug into what little savings they had to give five dollars and ten dollars and twenty dollars to this cause. It grew strength from the young people who rejected the myth of their generation’s apathy; who left their homes and their families for jobs that offered little pay and less sleep; from the not-so-young people who braved the bitter cold and scorching heat to knock on the doors of perfect strangers; from the millions of Americans who volunteered, and organized, and proved that more than two centuries later, a government of the people, by the people and for the people has not perished from this Earth. This is your victory.

I know you didn’t do this just to win an election and I know you didn’t do it for me. You did it because you understand the enormity of the task that lies ahead. For even as we celebrate tonight, we know the challenges that tomorrow will bring are the greatest of our lifetime - two wars, a planet in peril, the worst financial crisis in a century. Even as we stand here tonight, we know there are brave Americans waking up in the deserts of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan to risk their lives for us. There are mothers and fathers who will lie awake after their children fall asleep and wonder how they’ll make the mortgage, or pay their doctor’s bills, or save enough for college. There is new energy to harness and new jobs to be created; new schools to build and threats to meet and alliances to repair.

The road ahead will be long. Our climb will be steep. We may not get there in one year or even one term, but America - I have never been more hopeful than I am tonight that we will get there. I promise you - we as a people will get there.

There will be setbacks and false starts. There are many who won’t agree with every decision or policy I make as President, and we know that government can’t solve every problem. But I will always be honest with you about the challenges we face. I will listen to you, especially when we disagree. And above all, I will ask you join in the work of remaking this nation the only way it’s been done in America for two-hundred and twenty-one years - block by block, brick by brick, calloused hand by calloused hand.

What began twenty-one months ago in the depths of winter must not end on this autumn night. This victory alone is not the change we seek - it is only the chance for us to make that change. And that cannot happen if we go back to the way things were. It cannot happen without you.

So let us summon a new spirit of patriotism; of service and responsibility where each of us resolves to pitch in and work harder and look after not only ourselves, but each other. Let us remember that if this financial crisis taught us anything, it’s that we cannot have a thriving Wall Street while Main Street suffers - in this country, we rise or fall as one nation; as one people.

Let us resist the temptation to fall back on the same partisanship and pettiness and immaturity that has poisoned our politics for so long. Let us remember that it was a man from this state who first carried the banner of the Republican Party to the White House - a party founded on the values of self-reliance, individual liberty, and national unity. Those are values we all share, and while the Democratic Party has won a great victory tonight, we do so with a measure of humility and determination to heal the divides that have held back our progress. As Lincoln said to a nation far more divided than ours, “We are not enemies, but friends…though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection.” And to those Americans whose support I have yet to earn - I may not have won your vote, but I hear your voices, I need your help, and I will be your President too.

And to all those watching tonight from beyond our shores, from parliaments and palaces to those who are huddled around radios in the forgotten corners of our world - our stories are singular, but our destiny is shared, and a new dawn of American leadership is at hand. To those who would tear this world down - we will defeat you. To those who seek peace and security - we support you. And to all those who have wondered if America’s beacon still burns as bright - tonight we proved once more that the true strength of our nation comes not from our the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals: democracy, liberty, opportunity, and unyielding hope.

For that is the true genius of America - that America can change. Our union can be perfected. And what we have already achieved gives us hope for what we can and must achieve tomorrow.

This election had many firsts and many stories that will be told for generations. But one that’s on my mind tonight is about a woman who cast her ballot in Atlanta. She’s a lot like the millions of others who stood in line to make their voice heard in this election except for one thing - Ann Nixon Cooper is 106 years old.

She was born just a generation past slavery; a time when there were no cars on the road or planes in the sky; when someone like her couldn’t vote for two reasons - because she was a woman and because of the color of her skin.

And tonight, I think about all that she’s seen throughout her century in America - the heartache and the hope; the struggle and the progress; the times we were told that we can’t, and the people who pressed on with that American creed: Yes we can.

At a time when women’s voices were silenced and their hopes dismissed, she lived to see them stand up and speak out and reach for the ballot. Yes we can.

When there was despair in the dust bowl and depression across the land, she saw a nation conquer fear itself with a New Deal, new jobs and a new sense of common purpose. Yes we can.

When the bombs fell on our harbor and tyranny threatened the world, she was there to witness a generation rise to greatness and a democracy was saved. Yes we can.

She was there for the buses in Montgomery, the hoses in Birmingham, a bridge in Selma, and a preacher from Atlanta who told a people that “We Shall Overcome.” Yes we can.

A man touched down on the moon, a wall came down in Berlin, a world was connected by our own science and imagination. And this year, in this election, she touched her finger to a screen, and cast her vote, because after 106 years in America, through the best of times and the darkest of hours, she knows how America can change. Yes we can.

America, we have come so far. We have seen so much. But there is so much more to do. So tonight, let us ask ourselves - if our children should live to see the next century; if my daughters should be so lucky to live as long as Ann Nixon Cooper, what change will they see? What progress will we have made?

This is our chance to answer that call. This is our moment. This is our time - to put our people back to work and open doors of opportunity for our kids; to restore prosperity and promote the cause of peace; to reclaim the American Dream and reaffirm that fundamental truth - that out of many, we are one; that while we breathe, we hope, and where we are met with cynicism, and doubt, and those who tell us that we can’t, we will respond with that timeless creed that sums up the spirit of a people:

Yes We Can. Thank you, God bless you, and may God Bless the United States of America.

Politics and sex, an apt combination in light of the deep economic and political turmoil currently rippling through the United States.

Controversy abounds in the U.S. with less than a week away from the National Presidential Election. Carl Rove has instigated a last desperate attempt to demoralize voters and disenfrancise Democrats by spinning the hate-mongering wheel he does so well.

From late night comedians to political commentators, the jokes are rampant regarding Sarah Palin’s wink in Obama’s latest campaign ad, further combined with last week’s fiasco with Palin’s wardrobe, which costs the Republican National Committee a whopping $150,000 at taxpayers’ expense.

Rovians working on Sarah Palin’s camp has a few more campaigning days before Election Day, which has edged the party to desperation mode. In the latest attack, Conservatives are calling the Obama camp sexist for including an image of her winking in his recent ad. Nevermind the fact that the underlying message in his ad was the substance, or lack of, in McCain’s choice of VP. Here’s a suggestion, perhaps Palin should just stop winking at the camera.

Calling foul and spitting mad, the Conservatives have now embraced feminism. Their message seems somewhat counter-intuitive, vote for the candidate that you can relate to as a mother, woman, feminist. Counter-intuitive since Palin has little in common with the vast majority of women voters.  Yet, Rovians are resorting to sex and gender to galvanize women voters to empathize with Palin’s model as a wife, working mother of five, and politician.

This pure desperation attack is a last ditch effort to revive a campaign that shows Barack Obama leading in almost double digits in most national poll. Obama has taken the lead by focusing on having a dignified and intellectual stimulating campaign, a position that the Republican Party has been unable to maintain in the last few months. Obama has avoided being drawn into meaningless and distracting discussions of Palin’s exterior portrayal and has consistently stayed on the issues. Not once did he say about his running mate that he was “proud” of him, something that McCain has used in a few instances when referring to Palin. That is sexism.

Sarah Palin is arguable the most unqualified candidate to run for the vice presidential race in US history, which is only to affirm our suspicion that John McCain is a desperate, deeply disconnected man resorting to desperate measures. Palin is not only an ultra social conservative, she vetoed the bill denying benefits to gays as unconstitutional on Aug 2008, deemed it acceptable to deny benefits to homosexual couples in Aug 2006, and in July 2006, she was against spousal benefits for same-sex couples.

Even more egregious is her perspective and policy on women’s rights. While most conservatives are pro-life except in cases where the victim was raped and involved in incestual relations. They make wider exceptions iin situations where the woman was victimized in some way or form.

Palin advocates the illegality of abortion for women who are victims of rape or incest. To put it in pictures, if your are a 15 year old daughter was gang raped, she cannot abort the fetus. If she was raped by a family member, she cannot abort the baby. In an interview with Katie Couric on this matter, Couris asked Palin how she would respond to the scenarios above, and her reply was “I will counsel her to consider life.” What Palin neglected to mention is that her policy would make it illegal for the 15 year old to have an abortion.

As a social conservative, Palin claims she respects her 17 year old daughter’s “decision” to get pregnant while unmarried when in reality Palin has a record of slashing funds for programs to support teen mother.

Moreover, Palin hates fellow Americans beyond the Alaska border. Why else would she be a part of an organization that supports Alaskan secession from the US. Rosa Brooks from The Los Angeles Times reported:

Over the years, Palin has actively courted the Alaska Independence Party, or AIP, an organization that supports Alaskan secession from the U.S. To be clear, we’re not necessarily talking about friendly secession either: As the AIP’s founder, Joe Vogler, told an interviewer in 1991: “The fires of hell are frozen glaciers compared to my hatred for the American government. … And I won’t be buried under their damn flag.”

The Washington Post claimed that the selectin of Sarah Palin smacks of desperation and fraught with peril for the Republican nominee.

CNN commentator, Paul Begala, said that in choosing Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin to be his running mate, he is not thinking “outside the box,” as some have said. More like out of his mind.

Begala continues:

Palin, a first-term governor of a state with more reindeer than people, will have to put on a few pounds just to be a lightweight. Her personal story is impressive: former fisherman, mother of five. But that hardly qualifies her to be a heartbeat away from the presidency.

For a man who is 72 years old and has had four bouts with cancer to have chosen someone so completely unqualified to become president is shockingly irresponsible. Suddenly, McCain’s age and health become central issues in the campaign, as does his judgment.

Irresponsible and a complete mockery to women everywhere, that we are so disenfranchised and intellectually inept that we would vote for a candidate that is against our own rights. The Republicans must be desperate.

Michelle Malkin is at it again, and this time she’s placing the blame on illegal immigrants for the financial crisis with WAMU. This misguided woman has taken her credibility to an all time low, which is evident by her fellow conservatives criticizing her for arguing such a far-fetched, conspiracy theory. Normally, her anti-immigrant, illogical reasoning and prejudicial ranting doesn’t phase anyone, but now, even her own party is distances themselves from her. In her most recent blog, she’s blaming the current financial crisis bailout on illegal immgrants, making fellow conservatives cringe with embarrassment.

You’ve heard a lot about Fannie/Freddie and the minority lending shakedowns, but you haven’t heard most commentators/analysts on either the left or the right talk about the massive illegal alien mortgage racket — a topic I’ve reported on for the past five years. That’s because fault lies at the feet of the crime-enabling banking industry and the ethnic lobbyists and the illegal alien-enabling Bush administration.

Malkin argues that illegal immigration may be the cause of this financial crisis, an issue she has been reporting on for the last five years. This radical argument brought out fellow conservatives such as UCLA professor Stephen Bainbridge, who comments:

“Some of my fellow conservatives are not only embarrassing themselves during the financial crisis, they’re embarrassing the rest of us who share that label.”

There’s a lot of room for legitimate criticism of the bailout and there’s a lot of room for partisan point-making to ensure that the public remembers that the Democrats bear more than their fair share of the blame for this mess, but the raving of people like Malkin and Krikorian should be taking place in a padded room in Arkham Asylum not in the public discourse.

Put simply, the freezing up of the credit markets doesn’t have anything to do with either affirmative action or illegal immigration, and people who believe it does are on a par with the conspiracy theorists who think fluoridation is a Chicom plot.” Read it here

Malkin was not the only anti-immigrant activitist speaking out about the the financial crisis. As Bainbridge referred to above, fellow commentator Mark Krikorian basically implied that the crisis is due to minority employees. Say what??

Krikorian of the Center for Immigration Studies, juxtaposed the downfall of Washington Mutual with its competitive diversity policies and programs, insinuating that minority employees were responsible for the bank’s failure. Read it here.

Bainbridge noted some interesting facts which lead to the crisis, none of which had any connection to illegal immigration or ethnic workers.

When you look at the data, it’s true that minorities are slightly over-represented in the sub-prime mortgage market. Yet, whites (non-minorities) received 72.5% of subprime mortgages. Blacks got 16.2% of subprime mortgages, which isn’t all that different from the 12.4% of the general population that blacks comprise. The Hispanics about whom Malkin is so hysterical got only 6.2% of subprime mortgages, significantly less than their 14.8% of the general population. But you don’t find an analysis of that data at blogs like those of Malkin or Krikorian.

Anti-immigrant haters such as Malkin and Krikorian must be living on another planet. Soon they will blame illegal immigration for the war in Iraq.. hmmm, I think Malkin did that already.

Another arrest and another dark bruise to immigrant advocate groups in the US. immigration system. While most advocate for comprehensive immigration reform, wherein millions of immigrants may be removed from the shadow and consequential abuses by employers and substandard health care, there are those that will abuse and exploit the immigration system for economic profits.

Here’s the Press Release regarding the arrest:

ST. PAUL, Minn. - Two men were sentenced Thursday in federal court for participating in a conspiracy that allowed dozens of Chinese nationals to illegally enter the United States based on sham marriages to U.S. citizens. These sentences resulted from an investigation by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

U.S. District Court Judge Paul Magnuson sentenced Le Guo Wu, 31, of Philadelphia, Penn., to 30 months in prison and three years of supervised release. Houa Vang, 24, of St. Paul, was sentenced to12 months and one day in prison along with two years of supervised release. Vang and Wu each pleaded guilty earlier this year to conspiring to profit from arranging, facilitating and participating in fraudulent marriages.

“These sentences show that admission to the United States is not for sale,” said Claude Arnold, special agent in charge of ICE’s Office of Investigations in Bloomington. “Such marriage fraud schemes not only undermine the integrity of our nation’s legal immigration system, they also pose a potential threat to national security.”

“This conspiracy used lies and deceit to prey upon our nation’s immigration laws,” said U.S. Attorney Frank J. Magill. “In the end, this was about generating a profit by trafficking United States citizens and Chinese nationals through our immigration visa system. The integrity of our nation’s borders must be maintained, and these types of crimes will be prosecuted.”

According to their plea agreements, Wu, assisted by Vang, led a coordinated effort to pay U.S. citizens to enter into sham marriages with Chinese nationals to illegally evade U.S. immigration laws. Both men admitted to committing marriage fraud for several purposes, including: profiting financially from the arranged marriages, facilitating the fraudulent entry of Chinese aliens into the U.S., and facilitating the fraudulent acquisition of lawful permanent residency by Chinese aliens.

Wu recruited dozens of U.S. citizens in multiple states to participate in the conspiracy beginning in 2004 and continuing through October 2007. He ran the operation from Philadelphia, but also operated in the Twin Cities, Minn.; New York; and from within China. Vang recruited U.S. citizens to participate in the conspiracy.

Both defendants assisted the recruited U.S. citizens with completing and filing petitions and visa applications to facilitate aliens fraudulently entering into the United States. Wu arranged for U.S. citizens to travel to China so they could document their purported relationships with Chinese nationals, and compensated the U.S. citizens for their participation in the conspiracy.

Vang agreed to enter a fraudulent marriage with a Chinese national in 2006, and made trips to China to document the sham relationship. Vang was offered $20,000 for his part in gaining his fraudulent wife’s illegal entry into the U.S., but ultimately received less than that amount.

ICE agents investigated this case; it was prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorneys David M. Genrich and LeeAnn K. Bell.

These people are disgusting because as they continue to flagrantly disregard and violate the law, they do it in the name of the ultimate good for immigrant families.  First of all, if a Chinese family living in China can afford to pay $20,000 - $40,000 to have a child married off in a sham marriage, they are not exactly considered disadvantaged in their home country. In situations like this, we applaud the Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers for this keen investigative work in bringing down these criminal mavericks who egregiously flout our immigration laws.

As I said in my earlier post, Hillary Clinton finally stepped aside and expressed her support of Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination for the Presidential Election this November ‘08. It is now the beginning of the Democratic hate-fest sponsored by the Republicans.

In the news, there are numerous articles outlining the beginning stages of the hate wheel rolling all over Obama. For instance, right wing social conservative Fox News headlines that “Johnson Steps Down From Obama VP Team, Marking First General Election Casualty” falsely implying that Johnson, who was on the team Obama is using to vet for his vice president candidate, is somehow plays a bigger role than that. Apparently, by keeping Johnson on the team would indicate that Obama is hypocritical and by getting rid of him, Obama is caving into pressure. I appreciate Obama’s honest response that in this campaign - there’s no time to vet the vetters, especially in this writer’s opinion, there are so many important issues facing America. Nonetheless, there’s no stopping Fox New’s residential hate bomber, Michelle Malkin, from name-calling, innuendos and all around attacking Obama for being “best friends” with Johnson, and through some unnamed sources has managed to get special treatment in one loan in 1998. No revelation of sources, just lots of hating. There’s no winning with these Obama haters.

Another FOX News headline, “Does Obama Really Not Mind High Gas Prices (As Observed by GOP)?” stating that Obama believes that America should shoulder the high costs of oil, when in actuality, he is stating that it should be a gradual increase. John McCain’s campaign has ignored the fact that they just voted for Big Oil profits and their cronies in the White House want to increase the supply of oil, making prices lower, but at the same time, increasing America’s dependence and consumption of oil. Is that really a solution to the problem? Leave it to Fox News to distort and twist the truth. At least Obama is looking for a long term solution to ease America from its dependence and focus on green alternatives and alternative fuels. Where are the right wing conervatives’ solutions? Oh right, they want to reduce gas prices by a few cents, thereby giving them the sound bite to declare they have the people’s interest at heart.

To further distort and spread lies, Malkin has gone on air and called Barack Obama’s wife, Michelle, “Obama’s bitter half.” This is based on Michelle Obama’s comments about how she’s never been so proud of America as she is now. While her husband’s people quickly clarified her statement to mean that she’s proud of the way America has responded to this election year, with record turn outs from young voters and minority voters - Malkin did not miss an opportunity to dispense her hate bombs in the foray to advance her own agenda. Malkin constantly picks on peripheral issues and take things out of context to advance her own neo-nazi conservative voice.

In case you have not heard some of her arguments, here’s a sample -she thinks the Japanese internment was not only justified, but was also necessary in the name of national security. Another issue? Lets deport illegal immigrants, even those who may have professional degrees and lived in the United States for decades, even those who have paid their taxes and have United States citizen children - all in the name of national security. Oh, and she also believed the John Kerry, back in the 2004 election, had shot himself intentionally while in the Vietnam War so that he could undeservingly receive the three purple hearts. All from either unnamed sources, or sources that have since recanted, and further hateful allegations.

I digress. Now it’s just between Barack Obama and John McCain, but don’t think that it will be a clean fight from hereon. Better take off those kiddie gloves because the smear campaign has only just begun.

It’s finally official that Barack Obama will prevail in the Democratic nomination for the Presidential election in November ‘08. Perhaps now the overzealous media will cease chattering on about when Hillary Clinton will concede, how will she do it, and why she has not done it already. Instead of focusing on meaningful issues such as her substantial overhaul of health care, education, social security, and the puttering economy, the last few months has been about irrelevant, superficial headlines aimed at targeting the woman, not the candidate.

While Barack Obama is a strong candidate,with an idealistic attitude about the new direction for the White House, much more publicity has been focused on Hillary Clinton’s other running mate, Bill, her misty eye moment on the trail, her comment regarding Martin Luther King Jr. (which was taken out of context), and debate on her ability to lead because she is a female - rather than Barack Obama’s association and loyalty to his volatile, racist minister and his light experience in politics.

The media outlets have lambasted Clinton and have been screaming for her to quit when statistically, she was leading in the popular vote and had substantial votes from delegates. She was not without bargaining power and her legitimacy was ratified by the strong support of women voters and workers of all ethnicity across the nation.

Rather than target pertinent, contentious issues such as the war in Iraq, commentators such as correspondent David Shuster from MSNBC interviewed two guests about Chelsea Clinton’s role in her mother’s campaign as in some way “pimped out in some weird sort of way.” This sort of language and dialogue is reminiscent of the Rush Limbaugh days during Bill Clinton’s administration where he insulted Chelsea Clinton by calling her ugly and compared her to a dog. This sort of exchange is infantile and belongs in the school yard.

It is a personal attack with sexist undertone to debate an topic such as looks from a candidate’s family, absolutely impertinent to the how effective that candidate may be in office. Further,  Chelsea Clinton is an adult and was supporting her mother’s campaign which has been insinuated that it is in some way a form of prostitution. Barack Obama’s wife, Michelle Obama, who has appeared on numerous news outlets in support of her husband’s campaign was not mentioned in the same program from MSNBC.

Again, we recall that Bill Clinton was dragged into the political foray when he made some comments about his wife’s substantial political experience and a better candidate for the presidency than Barack Obama - yet the media bombarded Hillary Clinton with questions regarding whether she would be able to “control” the other candidate if she were in office. Barack Obama was not attacked with the same furor regarding whether his wife would be a power player distraction in the White House. Not to say that Michelle Obama should be waging war with the media for the same treatment, but lets play fair. What’s good for the gals is certainly good enough for the guys.

Perhaps Hillary Clinton was an easier political target than Barack Obama, and it could be possible that Clinton made a harder sell for the White House due to her previous track record. Yet, throw in there media bias and a journalist’s preference for Barack Obama and we have a sexist, unfair campaign that has run rampant in United States media outlets in the last few months. Now journalists will focus on the divisive effect Hillary Clinton caused because she waited till now to concede - lets focus on this instead of actual issues people care about.

Local: This sucker here, we can make alot of money ripping her off!

Sucker: Did I mention that I understand your language and I have no intention of paying you triple the going rate for a 20 minute car ride to my hotel?

Local: Only $10 and I can drive you the 5 blocks to your destination. Easy money when it comes to these foreigners.

Sucker: What a minute. I can see my hotel from here and do I look like I’m carrying a large bag of money on my back?

Local: You want your shoes shine? It’s only $2.

Sucker: Great price! However, I’m wearing tennis shoes! You want to shine my walking/running trainers?

Local: I need to charge you tax and VAT on top of the taxes that you will be paying. We agreed to this in the email.

Sucker: Your email said that this was the total amount, including taxes and VAT. Do you know what included mean? It means it’s already calculated.

Local: Oh, well I will have to get back with you on that after I look up this word “included.”

Local: Yes, we have a restaurant on the top level, but we don’t serve food up there.

Sucker: Then that’s not a restaurant, is it? You just have tables up there for what reason?

Local: Just tables so you can sit, eventhough our website saids we have two restaurants. Oh and there’s no light up there either so I wouldn’t go up there after dark.

In all honesty, we have better sense than to expect equal services and quality in a less than developed country, but it’s quite frustrating when you are subjected to such a moronic double standard. It’s discrimination in the most demeaning and asinine fashion. Just because we are in another country does not mean we want to indulge you in ripping us off. The obvious reason given is that everyone is just trying to make a living, but my response to you is there’s nothing wrong with making an honest living. Most of us are more than happy to pay up to 40% over the going rate when we travel to modest countries, it’s inherent in being a tourist, but double or triple is absolutely unacceptable.

Haggling has become a mechanism for deceit and a vehicle for dishonesty. There’s no integrity in haggling as one party always starts extremely high and the other party starts too low. The party that wants to sell the service or merchandise knows that it’s not the fair rate and the party that is considering purchasing is uncertain about whether it’s the fair rate. Ultimately, the bargaining party walks away feeling like they negotiated a fair price through the “art” of haggling, when in essence they are paying the fair market value, but only after going through the process of negotiating it. The item is priced based on its value to the purchaser, not it’s actual value based on the economic model of supply and demand. It’s an unfair, unscrupulous system that penalizes the purchaser.

This is what some of us end up doing. We buy substandard souvenirs at inflated prices at the airport, before we catch our flight home. At least we KNOW they are being honest about ripping us off. We both enter the arrangement with the same understanding, seller doesn’t pretend to sell us anything at a discount and purchaser knows that’s the price you pay when you buy tourist items at the airport. Both parties know it’s inflated, unfair, and lining the pockets of big business, but at least we don’t have to haggle.

Bloggers worldwide are rejoicing with the latest news from the Oval office that Karl Rove’s resignation will be effective August 31, 2007. Rove is a political genius, but what makes him this revered and villified, is the notorious and underhanded way that he manipulates U.S. domestic politics. Nonetheless, the past few months Rove was defeated on two controversial and poignant policies; comprehensive immigration reform and the privatization of social security. Both were miserably defeated and hammered by opponents of the Bush administration for its neo-conservative position and overreaching principles. While the spirit of the law was laudable, Rove could not convine the small opposition Republican to come on board.

Rove masterminded America’s electoral process, evidence of which has befallen on the likes of Al Gore in 2000, and John Kerry in 2004, but whether you like or dislike the man, his intellectual manipulation behind the Bush administration has been revolutionary. He relentlessly tormented the left and, at every corner he prevailed. He massacred Al Gore’s reputation and any influence he may have had with the “information highway”, accused former President Bill Clinton of being a mass murder, and accused John Kerry of commiting war crimes in the Vietnam War and questioned the medals of honor that he received for saving his fellow soldiers. Despite reports from his fellow officers that Kerry was an honorable soldier that would risk his life to save others, Rove went as far as insinuating that Kerry was not a war hero but a murderer. The evilness does not end there. Read Al Franken’s book and those of many political experts, and you will find that few people will dispute Rove’s role in history. (Well, maybe FOX News and Michelle Malkin would disagree.) Do I need to mention Rove’s role in leaking the identiy of CIA agent Valerie Plame? Do I need to mention that sources revealed the leak was actually Rove? Do I need to mention that Bush used his presidential powers to reduced the sentence of the man convicted of the leak? Ahhhh.. nice to have friends in high places.

Rove has been friends with Bush for over three decades, from his two gubanatorial elections.

This is quite a clever move on Rove’s part. At a point where Bush’s approval rating is at all time low, Iraq is no longer a source of support, and Americans are sick and tired of hearing about terrorism imbedded in Iraq. Didn’t the latest report disprove that? At the low point in Bush’s career, it would seem that his dear old buddy is abandoning him, think Donal Rumsfield and Colon Powell. This, my friend, is not quite the same.

The political powerhouse has cleverly decided to reorganize his priorities for the upcoming presidential election. Obviously the Republicans will need to vamp up their smear campaign early to defeat the Democrats. So as we bid adieu to Karl Rove, his domestic polictics will continue to live on. You may not see Rove in the news in the next 18 months, but you will defitely feel the effect of his manipulation every time you turn on the television and some Democrat’s being villified. The hate wheel has only warmed up..

In the news, the Strive Act has made some headway, but against the interests of undocumented immigrants.

Congress agreed to a “bargain” agreement and basically gutted the Act from its original platform so to better serve the interests of corporate clients. If passed in its current proposition, it would expose millions of immigrants in the United States to exploitation and drive them deeper underground.

CIR must fix the broken immigration system and protect workers from exploitation. CIR means providing a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants who have been working and paying taxes, but forced to live in the shadows. It means supporting family unity and protecting workers from exploitation and, making sure immigrants come legally with a visa instead of with a smuggler. Is this the way to treat the 20 million undocumented immigrants who are contributing to our economy and labor force?

Many Americans tuned in to the story about the mysterious death of reality star Anna Nicole Smith. Now that her autopsy has been made public, the media reports are moving on to the next tidbit of tabloid, Anna Nicole Smith’s baby’s father and the legal battle to determine who has custody, visitations, guardianship, and inevitably, the claim to the late J. Howard Marshall’s millions. This exaggeration of the truth is a typical ploy by the media to further exploit and insult the viewers’ intelligence. It is not likely that the baby, Dannylynn, will ever receive the millions that the media has been teasing viewers about. On the contrary, legal experts believe the media is perpetuating what is equivalent to a legal myth. What Dannylynn will find is an exorbitant amount of litigation fees associated with defending her mother’s legal claims against the Marshalls.

Here’s the real deal with Anna Nicole Smith’s legal struggle in probate court. When J. Howard Marshall passed away, Smith’s legal claims against his estate was tenuous. After six months of sorting through testimonies and substantial evidence, the jury trial concluded that Marshall’s will and estate plan was not interfered with. The Texas probate court held that Marshall’s son, Pierce, was the legitimate heir to the estate, and substantative evidence support the contention that this was the true intention of the late Marshall.

In the midst of the trial, Smith went forum shopping and filed a bankruptcy claim in California federal court. The judge in bankruptcy court awarded Smith nearly $450 million she claimed her late husband had intended to gift to her, but for Pierce’s tortious interference with the gift. On appeal, the court federal district court in California vacated the $450 million award, reviewed the case de novo, and reduce the award to $88 million. Still with me? How about this extra bit of footnote here. How did the bankruptcy court and the federal district court take such a short time to go through evidentiary issues that the Texas court took six months to review? Well, due to judicial efficiency, the federal and bankruptcy courts did not allow most of the witnesses to testify and it basically reviewed depositions from the Texas court. Not quite the same result, which was what Smith’s legal team was hoping for.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, the highest appeals court in the 9th Circuit which includes California, overruled the $88 million award and held that neither the bankruptcy court nor the federal district court had any ability to make such rulings on this matter because federal “probate exception” denied federal jurisdiction over probate matters. At the U.S. Supreme Court level, the highest court of the land, overruled the 9th Circuit court and stated that their ruling was overly broad and remanded the case to the 9th Circuit to assess the case on its merits. The case is with the 9th Circuit now.

What happened to the Texas probate court’s judgment? Good question. Now that the case is with the 9th Circuit, they will determine whether there was a final ruling on the matter, and most legal experts agree that the Texas probate court jury trial did result in a final judgment. This being the case, Smith’s legal claims are extinguished. Due to the fact that the Texas court had a jury trial with substantial evidence and witnesses, the fact that it was concluded before the federal district court issued its ruling by vacating the judgment award by the bankruptcy court, and judicial efficiency, it is reasonable to conclude that the 9th Circuit will affirm the judgment issued by the Texas probate court.

More importantly, the legal doctrine of “res judicata,” which means in Latin that the matter has already been adjudicated, is primarily at issue here. In this case, the matter was decided in Texas and finding otherwise would violate the intentions of the Constitution, which establishes for litigants a certain finality so that defendants may not have to defend the same claim repeatedly. Why not dismiss the case? Not likely, but the 9th Circuit will probably defer to the findings from the Texas court.

Once Dannylynn’s claims are extinguished, which it inevitably will, what remains is a mound of legal bills incurred by her mother’s legal claims against Marshall’s estate. Lets see how many relatives will fight for custody of her then. Media reports have embellished claims that Dannylyn is worth millions and the biological father or legal guardian, may stake claims to her millions until Dannylynn is of legal age. This headline grabs people’s attention and makes it tantalizing, despite it blatant incongruencies. The media perpetuate this legal myth because no one is questioning the validity of celebrity news. What is specualtion becomes fact, when in actuality, it is pure fiction.

Ever since starting this blog, there’s been apprehension and anxiety about the content and the prose inserted into each post. Words can convey soft images, sentiments, and forgotten memories that are personal and unique to each reader. The selective use of words is a litmus test for the writer’s vocabulary and ultimately, his/her intelligence. Since the inception of this blog, there’s been posts with very endearing messages and those with progressive opinions about this writer’s perspective on varying issues.

Writing is a building conjured up by a powerhouse of words.

While the initial intention of this blog has been to include quirky incites into my world, it has been a hodgepodge of different ideas and thoughts that may not be linked in any order. I aspire to write about relevant issues to which I’m experiencing or pondering.

At the moment, I particularly enjoy just reading. I read fiction and non-fiction, but mostly fiction. I read political satires, autobiographies, memoirs, and an abundance of internet news. Particularly refreshing is when I find a writer that strikes a balance with humor and personality and an injection of originality and insight. I don’t have a single favorite author, I have a handful that changes through the years. Some books are mainstream and some are not. A hodgepodge, like my posts.

Was in London a few months ago and saw the most obscure and thought provoking documentary in as many years, called “Tax the Fat” by Giles Coren. The young, slim fellow on the TV was charismatic and articulate, he had an important point to make and made no bones about couching it in a comedic fashion. His point was succinct and direct, fat people should be taxed accordingly. Coren advanced his argument on the controversial issue on the Daily Mail.

While he claims that fat people place more of a financial burden on healthcare, he neglected to provide creditable sources to back his position. (Making statements regarding the low discipline and morals of those with categorical morbid obesity may trigger explicable backlash unless supported by a renown institution of medical science.) Nonetheless, he made some valid points. Fat people are treated alike and respond similarly regardless of where they live. They require special accommodation, and usually at the expense of the populace, and unabashed about requesting special treatment due to their weight. The problem is most obvious when you’re on a 10 hour flight and the person next to you is spilling over to your seat and making it nearly impossible for you to sit comfortably. Less obvious is how your medical insurance seems to increase every year when your visits to the doctor has not increased in the last five years. What have you done to deserve the increase?

Fat people have excuses for their weight that ranges from slower metabolism to thyroid problems. The documentary guy dispelled these myths by interviewing a nurse practitioner to explain whether these excuses were just that, excuses. She concurred that the inherent problem with overweight people is that they simply eat too much. No one person has a faster or slower metabolism than another. Discipline and exercise eliminate the majority of health risks associated with weight gain. Simply put, fat people need to eat less and exercise more.

There were more said in this documentary, but I was preoccupied with the uncontrollable laughter emanating from the pit of my stomach. After picking myself up from the floor, I discussed the matter further with Hubby, who was adamant that legislation should be passed to execute this forward thinking business of curbing healthcare costs. It’s fundamentally unfair to require moderately slim people who rarely utilize the medical system to have to bear the burden of paying more because some people do not have the same discipline to curb their appetite. We blame the media for promoting super size meals, conventional science for not creating a slim fast pill, and sore joints for not exercising - but we rarely blame ourselves for not controlling our food intake.

The documentary guy was not jesting about this fact, he persuasively demonstrated the danger of not exercising and the need for a quick fix. So the only solution is to tax the fatties. We charge smokers more, polluters are fined, speeders are jailed, so why not tax those that burden our healthcare system? While I was not completely against this novel idea, a part of me prefers to have the option of becoming fat one day and not having to pay taxes for my bonus self. Why should I have to pay taxes twice, first when I purchase that extra pound of Krispy Kreme donut, and again when it transforms itself onto my thighs? That’s simply unfair, I should only be charged once for the pleasure of injecting myself with glucose. Lets tax the skinnies because they make the fatties look healthy.

Seems the US Census Bureau recently released data that more American women are saying no to marriage. This prima facie statement ambiguously indicates that 51% of women are living without a spouse when, in actuality, it also factors in women that have lovers/boyfriends/partners into that figure as being single. Legally this would be correct, however, it misleads its readers to believe that more women are choosing to live alone - which is an unlike phenomenon in an age of co-habitation without matrimony and the distorted media perception of the ideal heterosexual marriage.

Hypothetically speaking, if more women are choosing to live in un-wedded bliss, they should be commended for making that decision without caving to the social stigma or indulging society’s expectations of what is acceptable and not. Why should they have to split their family’s property in half at the time of separation? Why should they pay for family support when the relationship has gone awry? Why should it be fair to split your hard earned money with someone that had probably been smooching off your crappy income for years and now they want spousal support while they subsist with their new gf/bf? Well, that’s why unmarried women should be commended for making such a sound financial decision of not entering into the institution of marriage.

Lets be clear that married people are proffered certain tax breaks (a form of encouragement from the federal government to procreate homogeneously), reduced costs for medical services, and less ostracized stares at social gatherings.

Despite the benefits of marriages, it is further proof that you have membership in an antiquated, stagnant organization that serves to remind you that you are either socially inadequate or physically undesirable because you are not a card carrying member. That’s the sourly crap that is subconsciously infused into our daily dosage of TV watching and pop culture. Not disregarding the biological practicality of procreation, but do we really need another waifish celebrity wannabe?

Lets praise the women that took deliberate action to strike a balance between their financial independence and dogma of marriage. Next year, hopefully, more women will choose to divorce from the pressure to marry, marry, marry.

Early this week the decision was made that New York City was the ideal place to celebrate my birthday, along with Binlaw’s and gf’s birthdays. It seems fundamentally unfair that anyone would have to share a birthday, especially considering there are 300 million people in the US alone. Statistically, it would be impossible NOT to share a birthday with somebody, however, not impossible to share it with someone you know. In my instance, I know at least four people who share the same birthday month, fortunately only two of them are keen on celebrating it with me. Much to my chagrin, the other two had to check their calendar…

Having to share a special occasion, such as a birthday, may diminish some of the sacredness inherent in the day itself. What to do? Categorically ignore them and narcissistically promote the day as yours? Invite them to YOUR birthday party and using a highly amplified microphone, announce that it’s your birthday and insist that they sing to you alone. Tell them the party is at a different location than where it’s actually at, just to deter them from ever making it to your party. If they should inquire later, tell them it was a ’surprise’ birthday party.

Alternatively, go to New York City with the other two birthday people and have a drunken blast! Just make sure you make them wear T-shirts that saids, Happy Birthday to Pinky!

I went out this weekend to a local bar with Hubby and gf. While I was seated with my gf, some guy came along and bought me a drink. Coincidentally, Hubby was at the bar at the time trying to get us drinks. Hmmmmm…. do I drink the complimentary drink or return it to the dodgy guy who had been eye-balling me all night? You can’t miss the rings on my finger, especially the highly sparkly one that took me months to convince Hubby to buy me.

A few months earlier, I was at a different bar/restaurant with the same gf when some anti-pinkite guy bought her a cocktail but neglected to purchase one for me. Granted I’m legal bound to Hubby but he certainly wasn’t there to object and there was no way anti-pinkite knew that from three tables away! When friendly male waiter realized that anti-pinkite guy had only bought one drink for gf and not me - he got me a drink on the house. What’s more pathetic than being ignored at a bar is when the waiter comps you a drink out of pity! I suppose a free drink is better than no drink so I thanked the waiter and gulped down my beer.

Back to this weekend, g/f said I shouldn’t drink the beer since I didn’t know with any degree of certainty that dodgy guy didn’t douse it with some hallucinogen. I agreed that it was a bad idea to drink the beer so I pushed it toward Hubby and said the drink was complimentary from the dodgy guy at the bar. He drank it and gave dodgy bar guy an evil look.

Men rarely get complimentary drinks, at least not the men that I know. It’s possible that it just doesn’t happen often, or maybe the men that I know are not that attractive. Perhaps it’s because most bartenders are men, and it’s not likely that a man would comp another man a drink, unless he wants his phone number, or alternatively, he’s the man’s friend. In any event, I enjoy the double standard, it evens the inequality that women faced historically relative to entry to bars and restaurants. Not to mention the oppression and sexual harassment in the work place.

Later at another bar, while gf and I were lagging behind Hubby, a Blondie female approached Hubby at the bar. Apparently, it was time for him to buy someone a drink, but before I realized what was happening, gf grabbed Hubby and told blondie that he was with us. Hubby was disoriented and did not know what was happening. I saw what happened and thought it was the cutest scene ever. Mostly because it happened so fast Hubby didn’t even get a chance to respond to her.

Is it me or is there little restraints now when it comes to approaching happily married people. I always thought that emotionally unavailable people were legally and socially unavailable. Unapproachable for obvious reasons because you either get knocked over the head by the pissed off/disrespected spouse or setting yourself up for humiliating rejection. What’s most improper is that it disrespects the other spouse and more so if he/she is at the same table or room. On the hand, it takes lots of courage to do something like that. Others might argue that it’s simply idiotic as you never know if the lurking spouse has been twice convicted of attempted murder and is off his meds. You’re taking a tremendous risk with permanent physical disability.

If I can institute a law it would be to allow everyone to marry because as I see it, everyone should be able to join the institution of emotional dependency, financial deprivation, and inevitable decline of personal sanity.

I get so aggravated by some of the minute, redundant things in my life. So much so that I’d rather be jabbed with a needle ten times over than to have to experience the excruciating pain of reliving it all over again. For instance, I find slow moving traffic to be painfully aggravating because there’s no legitimate reason to slow down to gawk at potbellied guy walking on the side of the highway carrying a red gas container. Is that a gratifying reason to slow to 5 miles an hour and suspend my life for the next hour as I navigate through the deplorable rubber-neckers??? Argh!!!!!

Sometimes I am viscerally happy with the smallest things in life. This week I watched as this humongous aircraft lifted off until it became as big as the ant that was about to be squashed under the weight of my shoe. The sight of that aircraft ascending into the high, fluffy white clouds brought tears to my eyes. I was overflowing with inexplicable joy and positive emotions when the plane disappeared into the embraces of the clouds. I grabbed a tissue and dabbed at the tear in my eye and shook my head. Under my breath, when Hubby was a distance away, I said… thank god they’re gone….

There’s plenty to wish for in the new year, but none any different from those we wished for last year or years before, except maybe a few more pounds off than last. Either way, it seems almost pointless to really make resolutions, particularly those we have no meaningful way of sustaining. So why do people do it?

Perhaps people like to have something to aspire to, and afford an opportunity to start over, be it realistic or not. It’s a mental state of reincarnation wherein one is allowed to reinvent what one have already attempted before, albeit without fruition. Not to demoralize or dismiss such futile behavior, providing hope where there might be none is nothing to poke fun at. It does provide people renewed incentive to start over and try yet again. Persistence and determination are key and essential in a well-rounded individual. However, like a child that has behaved badly, the punishment must end at some point for the child to behave badly again. The cycle needs to replicate in order to maintain the chaotic sanity of existence.

Some prefer to disregard and pooh pooh the notion of resolutions, preferring to treat it as another day in the 365 day cycle. This I can truly relate to. Why make resolutions you have no meaningful way of maintaining and no mechanism of sanctions if you should cheat? This seems like a formula designed to fail. No sanctions, no meaningful inclination to succeed, and no gatekeeper to dole out the pain and torture if you thwart the rules. Policing yourself has never been an effective mean of ensuring compliance and deterrence.

I have a friend in particular who likes to list all the things that friend would like to do differently in the new year. Last year it involved losing weight, making more money, and to be more positive. As idealistic as this may be, friend tend to follow true until mid February, when the flurry of making resolutions has died a cold, shivering death and all that’s left is torrential rain and expensive tight jeans. Friend resort to joining a gym and to forking out first month, last month, and initial processing fee so to lose the extra weight. Six months later and almost $600 poorer, friend has gone to the gym once, has resigned to just being happy with friend’s new weight and to buying new more luxurious jeans. Not to point a judgmental finger, but I could have predicted that in January.

The point is this, make resolutions daily. Make it realistic and manageable. I’d like to be super thin and super positive, but at the moment, I’d settle for deleting “super” from my vocabulary.

I’ve decided to blog about a topic I’m quite knowledgeable about because not only am I an in law, I have tons and tons in my family. First of all, why do we refer to our spouses’ families as the in laws, considering it could easily be confused with the word outlaws. Sometimes it carries the same meaning, slated to mean something closer, almost familial, but viscerally it comes across with more stigma then love or affection.

I have some great in laws.

First, they live in another country. It would take them approximately 10 hours to get to my front door, and that doesn’t even include travel time to and from the airport. The blinding blessing is that I never have to worry about an unanticipated visit. Additionally, now that I’m moving to Bangkok, bringing travel time to 12 hours, it’s very unlikely that a visit will be forthcoming any time in the foreseeable future.

I am in a great situation with my in laws. They appreciate my quirkiness because it’s only once a year, sometimes every other year. I appreciate their culture and idiosyncrasies so long as it’s only two-three weeks a year. All in all, they rarely see me and I rarely see them. I think the arrangement has worked well for everyone, except, of course, Hubby.

Hubby enjoys spending time with Binlaw, but Binlaw is usually either too busy or indifferent to visit more than once a year. Probably best since every time they get together there’s an inexplicable coincidence that there’s never any alcohol left in the house. Interestingly, albeit bizarre, they tend to suffer from momentary black out periods, which I have a nagging suspicion is alcohol induced particularly since recovery usually takes effect soon after Binlaw leaves.

I have other in laws - those married to my siblings and those wishing to become a member. Lets talk about the latter.

It’s fascinating to encounter people that have such strong, misguided inclinations to become a part of an in law group. Foolishly, they demonstrate absolute entitlement to be a member despite the lack of any effort or invitation. Mere association with a member of the group does not automatically, indoctrinate, or entitle you to the benefits that existing members have been paying their hard earned dues for. That’s pure arrogance, if not ignorant. Everyone should pay their dues before becoming a member. How else will you earn the respect and acceptance from the group members? Do you go to Costco without paying your membership dues? Can you go to the gym without paying first month, last month, and processing fees?

Some people gain quasi- in law status simply because they have attended all the meetings and over time, have endured to become equivalent to a fixture, such as a secretary takes notes, you come to rely on the member that comes to every meeting. So you can certainly gain quasi-in law status by default. Not a true full-fledged member, nonetheless entitled to most of the benefits. Compare that to people who show up for one or two meetings and foolishly, deludely, think that they are now card carrying members.

Personally, I think to be an in law, you have to commit to the entire looney group and not just the one member you’re associated with. Commitment is a virtue. It requires endurance and hard work - an attribute I find some in laws to be lacking.

So you may want to know why anyone would want to be an in law, let alone one in my family. Well, there’s the food. At every meeting, we eat exotic and comforting foods. It varies from meeting to meeting, but generally it’s an elaborate buffet or some home cooked delicacy. Yummy!

The second reason is the companionship. We are a large, noisy, rambunctious group. We exude warmth and affection, even when we bicker and yell, but the love is visceral.

The third reason is that humans enjoy congregating in groups. Whether socially or otherwise, a group provides strength purely in numbers and confidence as you actually belong to a group. Furthermore, it’s much more fun to be in a group then going at it solo.

Finally, some people just don’t have a choice. You can pick who you marry but not necessarily who they’re related to. Can one emancipate from in laws? Emancipation might be key.

Got McInlaws?