If you are a Dilbert aficionado, you must be familiar with weasel maneuvers. One of the more famous maneuvers is to dismiss any argument with a irrelevant sarcastic quip.
Consider following exchange in a team meeting,
A, "You know, there is some serious flaw in the architecture, may be we should rethink our approach".
B, "Hey, stop being a whiner, OK! Oh, and get laid.
No one can offer a comeback to this, because it is irrelevant.
This can explain this post and also this, I am of course discounting the possibility that in order to get student visa Indians have to go through the same procedure that mummies underwent in
ancient Egypt. Even accounting for Obama crush, the way posts manage to miss the point in its entirety is simply awesome.
The point is not that what Obama said was offensive or not. I, for one, think it was lame. But now I am going to tell you something which is very very confidential. You see, Obama is not just a guy next door, or some blogger, or contrary to what Republican may imply, even some love child of Osama Bin Laden.
He is, hold your breath, "freaking presidential candidate".
Which means if you are concerned about USA or even remotely interested in American politics, statements made by candidates seeking party nominations or by campaign will have importance or you, as reflecting their position as well as their sincerity, and therefore what he or his campaign is saying or disseminating deserves greater scrutiny.
Now if one does "bother" to scrutinize the document which raised the heckles, I am sure he(or she) would find pretty much to denounce and object.
But first I should clarify what is not objectionable. Use of D-Punjab for Hillary Clinton is not a problem, since she herself used it as a joke, neither is raising concern about outsourcing, sure I find protectionism stupid, but there is nothing wrong with taking stupid policy stands. Also there is nothing wrong with pointing out opponent's connection with unsavoury characters.
What is deplorable is his attempt to stoke paranoia and to cast India, and Indian-Americans in a negative light, in other words crass nativism, a cynical ploy coming from someone whose campaign promise is a break from "politics as usual".
From the document,
"HILLARY CLINTON (D-PUNJAB)’S PERSONAL FINANCIAL AND POLITICAL TIES TO INDIA"
Now why exactly are Clinton's ties, as long as they are above board, such a problem, for example would Obama and his campaign care if it were Britain or Australia instead of India. I have a suspicion that Obama is aiming for
Rising Sun treatment.
"The Clintons have reaped significant financial rewards from their relationship with the Indian community, both in their personal finances and Hillary’s campaign fundraising"
Clintons are indicted for relations with whole Indian community not just one or two individual with questionable background, and the criticism is just for having good relations, not for any act of omission or commission. Imagine some candidate saying this about Jewish community and see how quickly the campaigns dies a sudden death.
Clinton has invested tens of thousands of dollars in an Indian bill payment company, while Hillary Clinton has taken tens of thousands from companies that outsource jobs to India."
The document neglects to mention that the company Bill Clinton invested in,
has nothing to do with outsourcing ! Of course since most of the american companies from Wall Mart to MicroSoft have outsourcing as a serious component of their business plan, therefore if accepting contributions from companies which outsource to
India is any criteria, then guess what! It will make most of the Fortune 500 companies
Haraam. This is both anti-business and anti-India at one stroke!
"Bill Clinton Collected $300,000 From Cisco In 2006. Hillary’s personal financial disclosure norms indicate that Bill Clinton gave two speeches to Cisco Systems."
"Hillary Clinton Accepted Almost $60,000 In Contributions From Employees of Cisco Systems, Which Laid Off American Workers to Hire Indian “Techies.” Clinton’s Presidential Exploratory Committee took $39,450 from Cisco employees during the first quarter of 2007. Cisco employees have also donated $18,900 to Clinton’s Senate committee between 1999 and 2006. Forbes reported, in a feature called “A Tale of Two Cities” that Cisco was laying off $60,000-a-year “techies,” while hiring new employees in Bangalore, India. “Cisco used only a few Infosys workers in Bangalore six years ago [in 1998]; [by 2004, it used] almost 300 contract staff, plus 550 full-fledged employees in its own Bangalore office.” In 2006, Newsweek reported that “for Cisco, India is the new frontier, where it’s investing $1.2 billion to build a gleaming R&D campus that will employ 3,000 people.” [FEC filings; Forbes, /12/04; Newsweek, 3/6/06]"
This must be the most absurd assertion, I mean accusing Clintons of hanky panky with Indians because they had perfectly legal dealing with "Cisco", an american IT giant! Hey Bhagwan, Obama should really quit smoking weed.
"Clinton Donor, Sant Singh Chatwal, Cited Clinton’s India Caucus Work Vowed To Raise $5 Million. In March 2007, the Economic Times wrote, “[Clinton] has roped in New York-based hotelier Sant Chatwal as co-chair of her recently formed presidential exploratory committee to run for the 2008 White House race. […] He is also creating an organization called Indian Americans for Hillary 2008.” In April 2007, Mangalorean reported that Indian Americans for Hillary 2008 (IAFH) had already raised $1 million and “aimed to raise at least five million dollars.” A major fund raiser on June 24 hosted by Chatwal, the founder of IAFH; steel baron, Lakshmi Mittal, and businessman SP Hindujas, was expected to pull more than 1,000 guests. In June 2007, The New York Times reported that “two Indo-American receptions have a total of $450,000 in commitments.” In the picture right), Sen. Clinton speaks at a reception hosted to push forward the US-India nuclear deal (Emphasis mine) while Sant Singh Chatwal listens carefully. [New York Times, 6/7/07; Economic Times of India, 3/18/07; mangalorean.com, 4/14/07, accessed 4/18/07; picture, Tribune India, 9/14/06]"
Yes Indian-Americans are pushing for Nuclear deal and better Indo-American ties, and yes Clintons are pushing for it, as are many other Lawmakers of bipartisan basis. What is so sinister about it. It is not as if India is ruled by Obama, oops I mean Osama or
Kim Jong. I mean keeping international trends in mind strong Indo-American ties are a no brainer ! Of course I doubt that Obama has any grasp on International affairs.
"Clinton Co-Founded The Senate India Caucus, A Project Of The U.S. India Political Action Committee. In 2004, Clinton co-founded and became the co-chair of the Senate India Caucus which was coordinated by the U.S. India Political Action Committee (USINPAC). Roll Call reported, “The goals of the caucus, which already has 31 members, include increasing trade with India and improving security against global terrorism.” Sen. Clinton said, “It is imperative that the Unites States do everything possible to reach out to India. This Caucus is dedicated to expanding areas of agreement with India and engaging in a candid dialogue of differences.” [link to photo at USINPAC website, accessed 4/17/07; Roll Call, 4/28/04; PR Newswire, 4/29/04]"
Sorry I take it back, this IS the most absurd assertion. Listen Obama lovers, there is nothing evil or treasonous about advocating strong ties with India. In fact it is for good of both countries. If you think that you can project India as some sort of brown peril, then you are out of touch with reality. Stop listening to Lou Dobbs.
Obama has not acted like a fool for the first time though. His statement after Virgina tech massacre was, hold your breath,
"There's also another kind of violence that we're going to have to think about. It's not necessarily the physical violence, but the violence that we perpetrate on each other in other ways," he said, and goes on to catalogue other forms of violence."There's the "verbal violence" of Imus.There's "the violence of men and women who have worked all their lives and suddenly have the rug pulled out from under them because their job is moved to another country.(Emphasis mine)"There's "the violence of children whose voices are not heard in communities that are ignored,""*
At this point I do have to wonder again, What the hell is he smoking ! Wait, it doesn't end here.
He has blamed his staff three times for some or other miscues. Either he is someone who can not accept his mistake, or he doesn't have the judgement to select the right kind of people.
Of course appealing for sanity or reason is futile when one is besotted with Obama. Listen, both of you, as much as you would wish, you can never be Obama girl. And no, having man boobs or fat behind doesn't count.
As an aside, what exactly is going to be the ticket. Now I think that Republicans are more or less doomed. Unlike useless scholars, I am not going to pretend that I have any knowledge about American politics, but I thought the ticket could be Hillary/Obama (Obama as VP).
Even taking into account that dictum that politics make for strange bedfellows and all, with the present love fest between two, I am not so sure about the possibility.
May be it would be Edwards/Obama, but the question that Americans need to ask themselves is, can they entrust the Republic under command of two good looking guys? I believe that every society should ensure a minimum level of ugliness at the top level, it protects the society.