Shoes

Last week, the outgoing US president Bush paid a visit to Iraq. While there were elaborate security measures to protect the president from terrorist attacks, no one expected him to be hit by a shoe. This act of defiance by an Iraqi reporter has caught the world's attention for the past few days. This is not something seen so often in the news. While Bush has brushed it off, the reporter has been arrested, allegedly beaten and made to apologize. The shoes were also destroyed. Now, almost after a week, I read these lines in the newspaper,

"A new run of 15,000 pairs, destined for Iraq, went into production on Thursday, he said. A British distributor has asked to become the Baydan Shoe Co.’s European sales representative, with a first order of 95,000 pairs, and a U.S. company has placed an order for 18,000 pairs. Four distributors are competing to represent the company in Iraq, where Baydan sold 19,000 pairs of this model for about $40 each last year.

Five thousand posters advertising the shoes, on their way to the Middle East and Turkey, proclaim “Goodbye Bush, Welcome Democracy” in Turkish, English and Arabic."

Ever since the reporter threw his shoes at the president, they have become quite popular. A shoe maker from Turkey, Ramazan Baydan, claims to be maker of those shoes. The result - he's now flooded with orders from around the world for that model of shoes. The shoe's sudden popularity or that the president's unpopularity is proving to be a gold rush for this cobbler.

Strange world ... :)

Here's the news article : ‘Bush shoe’ gives a Turk firm footing

US elections - acceptance speeches

The main leg of the US elections are over. The electoral college has been decided. All that remains is the formal process of the electoral college selecting Obama and Biden as President and Vice-President of USA. I followed the election coverage on TV yesterday. There were a few words that were repeated so often by everyone - Bad economy... Change... New young voters... Once the poll projections forecast an Obama victory, both the candidates gave acceptance speeches in front of their respective home crowds. Both were them clear, courteous and did not express any resentment towards the other candidate.

The poll results started coming out as soon as polling closed in each state. The early closing states on the east coast started giving out the results hours before polling closed in other western states. In addition to this, the news channels gave out their projections and by 11:00 pm Obama was decisively projected to be the winner. Actually both candidates gave out their acceptance speeches even before polling closed in Alaska.

Both of them are very good orators. They did not have notes or papers and spoke as though they feel each and every word that they spoke. The crowd responded to each and every word of theirs. There were joyful tears all around in the Obama meeting. You could see the expressions of pride, happiness, achievement and determination on all the faces as he spoke.

First, McCain delivered his acceptance speech from his home state, Arizona. I liked it very much. He was quite gracious in accepting defeat and then wished Obama on his victory. He termed this to be McCain's failure and not the people's and asked them to cooperate with Obama. There was no complaints, no accusations and no drama. This is a very good example of how a democratic process should go. Here's the video of his speech.

Obama then gave his acceptance speech from Chicago, Illinois. He also wished McCain and Sarah Palin. He gave much credit to Mccain by saying that "the man has made so many selfless sacrifices for the country that many of us cannot even begin to imagine". He then went on to describe the tough days ahead and gave the example of an old lady in Atlanta who voted at age 106 and reinforced the faith that "together as Americans, we can bring change".

Obama's victory seems to carry a new meaning to most Americans here. The African Americans take this as an example of how anyone can achieve great heights in America regardless of race, colour etc. This has given them a lot of hope and energy. Obama has energized the younger generation of voters who had become disillusioned with the electoral process. This election apparently saw record turnout of young voters. Every demographic category seem to find something in Obama to be proud of. Let's wait and see how the next 4 years turn out.

US election - How is it held?

The entire world is now closely watching the US presidential elections. The entire country is caught in the election fervor and as I write this post, the preliminary results have started appearing and all news channels are continuously discussing the outcomes. There has been lots of discussions on the electoral process here. I've made a small attempt to explain the process to all the non-Us folks following this.

1. The United States Congress is the bicameral legislature of the federal government of the United States of America, consisting of two houses, the Senate and the House of Representatives. As the name suggests, the senate has senators and the House of representatives consists of representatives. The number of representatives from a particular state depends on its population. The Senate house has 2 senators from each state.
2. The US president is not elected directly by the people. Through today's election, the U.S. citizens elect an electoral college (They need not be senators / representatives). The number of people elected to the electoral college from each state is equal to the number of representatives and the number of senators from the state. For example, California has 53 representatives and 2 senators and hence has 55 electoral votes. Each member of the electoral college has one presidential and one vice-presidential vote.
3. In 48 states and Washington D.C., all the electoral votes go to the victorious party. For example, let us assume that the democratic party secures majority votes in California. Then all 55 electoral votes will go that party. So, it will not matter if one county in California has voted overwhelmingly republican. Only the total number of votes at the state level is considered.
4. In the states of Maine and Nebraska alone, they are counted on a district level. So, it is possible that democratic party wins a few votes while the republican party wins the rest.
5. Once this election is over, members of electoral college who got elected, will gather on Dec 15 and will vote for the president and vice-president. On Jan 8, these votes will be tallied in front of both the house and the winner will be declared as president and Vice-president. And obviously, the president will belong to the party that has got the most electoral votes as the members of the electoral college will definitely support their party.
6. There are totally 538 electoral votes. Of this, the candidate should get at least 270 votes to be elected as president / vice-president. This system makes it possible for a person to become president even if he/she has got lesser number of votes from the public. For example, the democrats might have got 49% votes in Florida and the Republicans might have got 51%. The margin is very less. But this proportion will not be reflected in the electoral college, as the republicans would get the entire 27 electoral votes of Florida.

Now, some features of this election :)

1. The elections are held by the respective states themselves. As a result, there are different rules.
2. Polls close at different times in different states. For example, polls close at 8:00 pm in New Jersey while it closes at 9:00 pm in New york. Polls close at 9:00 pm in California. But due to time different, it'll already be 12:00 am in New York.
3. As soon as the polls close, the states start counting and release the results. Counting mostly take place in the voting centers itself. As a result, the earlier states start releasing results even before voting completes in others. This sometimes affect the mood of the public and form trends. This has been criticized by many.
4. In addition to this, the different news agencies continuously release exit polls throughout the day affecting public opinion.
5. The candidates campaign even on the election day. They cast their votes and then continue campaigning.
6. Since the states hold elections, each follow a different method. Some of them have paper ballots, some have electronic machines and others have machines with touch screen. If a state has electronic voting, but a voter wants a paper ballot, then he/she should be provided with a paper ballot.

600 km to vote !!!!

Bhutan is a small insignificant country nestling in the eastern arms of the Himalayas and any event there does not capture the world attention. The current political changes happening there is no exception. Bhutan is holding its first ever general elections marking a transition from an absolute monarchy to a constitutional monarchy.

While this is insignificant for the rest of the world, it seems to be an event of great importance to the Bhutanese. They seem to be very enthusiastic about participating in this "historic" event. Their enthusiasm is perfectly captured by this news article that talks about how a 65-year old woman made a 600 km long journey by foot just to cast her vote.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080324/od_afp/bhutanvoteoffbeat

Apparently she suffers from motion sickness and does not prefer travelling by car (which she has done only one before in her life). So, she undertook the 600 km journey to her hometown by foot. She walked for 14 days just to cast her vote. People all over the country have travelled to the different corners of their rugged & mountainous country to participate in this historic exercise.

Bhutan is a very small country that thrives on subsistence agriculture, cottage industries, hadicrafts and such. It has a very low per capita income of around US$ 1,321. In spite of this, it is supposed to have one of the happiest populace. They've used a term called "Gross National Happiness" to demonstrate that the population is infact much more happier than the "advanced" western nations and have emphasized that happiness need not be directly proprotional to the western notion of "development".

Compare the enthusiasm of the Bhutanese to the situation in its gaint neighbour. Most of us do want to walk to the polling booth in the next street and stand in a line to cast our vote. Instead, we ramble about our lack of faith in the democratic machinery and the insignificance of our single vote. Of course, this is the first time Bhutanese are tasting democracy. Let's hope that their faith in the new institution is reinforced and they continue to be happy and prosperous.

World's worst airports

This is a time of huge infrastructural advances in India. I was reading about the inaugaration of the new greenfield airport in Hyderabad. The photos of the airport were quite impressive. The Bangalore airport is also due to open soon. These led me to think of the fate of our own Chennai airport. It has a very old building totally out of touch with the modernity and class of its peers around the world. It is already stretched to the limit and there are frequent build-up of passengers leading to chaotic scenes outside the terminal. The scene inside the terminal is not great either. The decoration is drab and the facilities are sparse. There are very few shop, just a couple of food stalls selling things like samosas and cakes and that too are way over-priced. We've been waiting for years for a new airport in chennai, but the plan has not progressed beyond the paper. Nowadays, Chennai is lagging far behind other Indian cities in terms of infrastructure development. The only things the government is keen on 'announcing' are the mini-flyovers.

Now this line of thought about the state of Chennai airport made me google for the world's worst airport. I came across this article where a number of foreign correspondents share their thoughts on the worst airports of the world.

http://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/the-worlds-worst-airports-760778.html

A lot many of them have listed the delhi airport as one of the worst ones. But there are supposedly "world-class" ones in this list - Heathrow, Paris, Madrid etc. It all depends on the views and experiences of the foreign correspondents. Makes an interesting read :)

This 'Elephant' can dance

The 80s and the 90s were the decades of the Asian tigers (Korea, Taiwan, Hongkong & Singapore). The world then saw the rise of the Chinese dragon which is still continuing to sway gracefully and now the great Indian elephant has finally arrived on stage.

This is the often repeated story of the rise of the two Asian giants. But it is still good to read, that too in "Time" :) (as opposed to reading our own accounts in the Indian media)
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1205374-1,00.html

We still have an extremely long way to go and we will go all the way to the top.

On a different note, I read this article about India's action (or rather the lack of it) towards the Myanmar Junta. We have shifted our foreign policy from one of friendship to pro-democracy forces to a relationship with the military junta. Like so many other rising powers, we've also become opportunists. Myanmar has crucial natural gas deposits which are very valuable to a power-hungry country like us. We also need the co-operation of the Myanmar government to tackle the insurgencies in the North-east. In situations like these, it is quite difficult to say what is right and what is not. Regardless of what actually goes on , this article stings. :(

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1666859,00.html?iid=sphere-inline-bottom

And this article sharply criticises what the author calls India's "bumbling" foreign policy. Here's an extract,

"For those who have been following India's foreign policy, India's bumbling is not surprising. The nation has long clamored for a place on the international high table, citing its democratic traditions, size, and strategic geopolitical importance. In reality, however, its foreign policy is still immature. The problem of Burma (renamed Myanmar by the junta) has suddenly thrust an unprepared India into the field along with the professionals. "

"India's time—and credibility—may be running out. Meenakshi Ganguly, top South Asia researcher for Human Rights Watch, worries that if India does not take the initiative with Burma now, it could lose its sheen as a champion of freedom and democracy in Asia."

http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/oct2007/gb20071019_332887.htm