9th Feb has been a busy day for Obama. He made a trip to Elkhart, Indiana to meet the people at a Townhall meeting. Elkhart has a high 15% unemployment now, the major industry there being production of RVs (recreation vehicles). His objectives for the trip were quite clear-- have a direct chat with the people, hardsell his economic plan, emphasize the need for urgency in action by senate in passing the bill (and thus putting more pressure on the Republicans to act swiftly). Having seen the meeting live on CNN, i would say that he achieved his objectives to a great extent.
( I was reminded of Indira Gandhi who used to go to people and address them directly at huge rallies whenever she had political problems, there by putting great pressure on her detractors. Also, he looked like 'the angry youngman' , Amitab Bachan in zanzeer & deewar.)
Later in the evening at 7pm(EST) he addressed his first primetime press conference at the east room in white house. At this conference he spoke well and answered the 13 questions well. More often, he sounded like a professor and his answers were lengthy. But, it was refreshing to see a man who was well informed, knew what he was talking about and spoke with passion and conviction.
The salient points are----
- this is not your run of the mill recession, it is the biggest one since great depression.
- his priorities are to create 4 million jobs, improve the credit availability from banks, improve
consumer confidence.
- jobs will be created by the private sector, but government has to jump-start the economy now.
- hard to take criticism form those (republicans) who have doubled the national debt.
- inaction is not an option at all.
By his actions today, Obama has taken full ownership of the plan and rightly so. Time alone will tell whether he will succede and to what extent. But one thing is clear, he has a plan and he is a man in hurry. He beleives in change and will do his best to bring in. He is asserting himself as the President showing signs of agression, at times. His popularity is at a high 75%. All this bodes well for america in it's hour of economic crisis.
Good luck Mr. President.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Saturday, February 7, 2009
OBAMA'S STRUGGLE TO BRING IN CHANGE
President Obama put the economic recovery and reinvestment plan before the house about two weeks back.
The plan envisages an outlay of about $ 819 B out of which one-third is tax cuts and two thirds is spending. The plan expects to create / save 3 to 4 million jobs. The proposed spending of $ 550B mainly consists of:
$ 142B - Education
$ 111B - Health care
$ 90B - Infrastructure
$ 72B - for aid & other benefits
$ 54B - Energy
$ 16B - Science and technology
$ 13B - Housing
Obama has always advocated bi-partisanship and wants to bring in change involving everybody.
Right through his campaign he maintained that Washington needs to change it's approach. So when he put the bill before the house he hoped to get the support of everyone -- across party lines. He addressed the house and pleaded for bi-partisanship and full support.
HE GOT A RUDE SHOCK AND HIS FIRST BIG LESSON IN AMERICAN POLITICS AS A PRESIDENT.
The Republicans wanted a lot of changes in the proposal. They want MORE OF TAX CUTS AND LESS OF SPENDING. They strongly feel that tax cuts are the only way for economic recovery. But , Obama pointed out that there have been so many tax cuts last few years and look where it has taken the economy. He told them "...whack me over my head, but no more tax cuts for big business.." The Republicans want less spending because they feel that this spending will not create a lot of jobs.
Let us take just one example of the automobile industry. Obama has been saying all along that the auto industry needs to change and become energy efficient and eco-friendly. The Republicans seem to say that look, things are bad, this is not the time for change, let us pump in more money, so that more cars are sold and more are made (saving jobs). Obama says that such QUICK FIXES wont work. He says that THIS IS THE BEST CHANCE TO MAKE AUTO SECTOR REFORM , WHEN GOVERNMENT IS GOING TO FUND IT.
Most of us who have spent time in the corporate world know what happens there---
WHEN YOU ARE DOING WELL, PEOPLE SAY, WHERE IS THE NEED TO CHANGE?
WHEN THINGS ARE BAD, PEOPLE SAY, TIMES ARE BAD AND WE CAN NOT AFFORD CHANGES.
SO, THE QUESTION IS WHEN DO YOU CHANGE????
If you look at the funds earmarked under various heads , you see that education , healthcare and infrastructure are topping the list. What Obama's team is trying to do is invest for a better tomorrow while creating / protecting jobs in those areas today. He is very clear and focussed on what he wants to achieve.
Most of the Republicans are worried about Obama. They were dazzled by his win ,and, politically, they do not want him to have too much of success. But, they are also worried about being labeled as obstructive. So they are trying to compromise and get the best possible tax cuts in the deal and drop some developmental spending that will not result in immediate job creation.
( ....... to be continued )
The plan envisages an outlay of about $ 819 B out of which one-third is tax cuts and two thirds is spending. The plan expects to create / save 3 to 4 million jobs. The proposed spending of $ 550B mainly consists of:
$ 142B - Education
$ 111B - Health care
$ 90B - Infrastructure
$ 72B - for aid & other benefits
$ 54B - Energy
$ 16B - Science and technology
$ 13B - Housing
Obama has always advocated bi-partisanship and wants to bring in change involving everybody.
Right through his campaign he maintained that Washington needs to change it's approach. So when he put the bill before the house he hoped to get the support of everyone -- across party lines. He addressed the house and pleaded for bi-partisanship and full support.
HE GOT A RUDE SHOCK AND HIS FIRST BIG LESSON IN AMERICAN POLITICS AS A PRESIDENT.
The Republicans wanted a lot of changes in the proposal. They want MORE OF TAX CUTS AND LESS OF SPENDING. They strongly feel that tax cuts are the only way for economic recovery. But , Obama pointed out that there have been so many tax cuts last few years and look where it has taken the economy. He told them "...whack me over my head, but no more tax cuts for big business.." The Republicans want less spending because they feel that this spending will not create a lot of jobs.
Let us take just one example of the automobile industry. Obama has been saying all along that the auto industry needs to change and become energy efficient and eco-friendly. The Republicans seem to say that look, things are bad, this is not the time for change, let us pump in more money, so that more cars are sold and more are made (saving jobs). Obama says that such QUICK FIXES wont work. He says that THIS IS THE BEST CHANCE TO MAKE AUTO SECTOR REFORM , WHEN GOVERNMENT IS GOING TO FUND IT.
Most of us who have spent time in the corporate world know what happens there---
WHEN YOU ARE DOING WELL, PEOPLE SAY, WHERE IS THE NEED TO CHANGE?
WHEN THINGS ARE BAD, PEOPLE SAY, TIMES ARE BAD AND WE CAN NOT AFFORD CHANGES.
SO, THE QUESTION IS WHEN DO YOU CHANGE????
If you look at the funds earmarked under various heads , you see that education , healthcare and infrastructure are topping the list. What Obama's team is trying to do is invest for a better tomorrow while creating / protecting jobs in those areas today. He is very clear and focussed on what he wants to achieve.
Most of the Republicans are worried about Obama. They were dazzled by his win ,and, politically, they do not want him to have too much of success. But, they are also worried about being labeled as obstructive. So they are trying to compromise and get the best possible tax cuts in the deal and drop some developmental spending that will not result in immediate job creation.
( ....... to be continued )
Monday, February 2, 2009
Slumdog millionnaire is trash
I first saw this movie a few days before it won several golden globes. I did not like what i saw. As a matter of fact, some of the scenes were so nauseating that they were repulsive. My first thoughts were....Oh my God, not again, this can not be happening in 21st century, the western movie makers indulging in india bashing, focussing only on it's poverty, its rope tricks and the Taj Mahal, as they used to do in 50s and 60s.
So when it won so many golden globes and won Oscar nominations i was surprised. i wondered if i was wrong in my first assessment. I said to my self..." OK, i will see it once again with a open mind and objectively". I watched the movie a second time and realized that my first assessment was wrong---- IT WAS NOT JUST TRASH, IT WAS UTTER TRASH.
Why do i say that??
1)Let us start with the title.....SLUMDOG MILLIONNAIRE. In india of today we call the people who live in slums slumdwellers not slumdogs. Calling someone a dog is a big insult and abuse. Remember the dialogues of Dharmendra in umpteen films when he cries out loud while bashing crooks and criminals " kutte, my tera khoon peoonga...". (for my western friends, kutta is dog).
When Harbhajan singh reportedly called Andrew Symmonds a monkey everyone called him a racist, they were after his blood and he was fined and suspended. BCCI had to bail him out and rescue him. But if you call the slum living boy a DOG it is not racist ???????????
People are asking a simple question " why not a SLUM BOY MILLIONNAIRE ? Why the DOG?
Not answered till date satisfactorily.
I am surprised our Neta log have not reacted to this racist slurr? Ihave read somewhere that P.Chidamabaram, our home minister praised Slumdog. I would like to ask him if he had seen the movie and his prescription for rags to riches is GAMESHOWS.
2) The movie has several revolting scenes--- let us take the worst one. The boy literally wades through SHIT and fully covered from head to toe in SHIT he gets the autograph of Amitabh Bachan. Do you think boys in india (slumdwellers or others) will wade through shit to get an autograph of AB or SRK ?? Many such visuals were revolting.
3) What is the message of this movie ? That there is something called Destiny and you beat all odds to get from rags to riches. So how do you do it ? Not through hardwork or brillinace etc. but through a GAMESHOW (KBC like) where all the questions are answered based on the boy's various experiences in his young life. OMG, how lucly can you get that a computer generates only such queations that you can answer ALL of them based on your limited experiences.
If the idea is to show the rags to riches success, several movies have done it so well in the past. I readily recall the Amitabh starrer "Muqaddar ka Sikandar" ( Master of Destiny) where it was done so well. I entirly agree with Priyadarshini that a Maniratnam would have made this SDM into a fine movie (recall Yuva).
4) This movie is also an insult to the indian media. Here is a young boy doing well round after round in a KBC and a couple of policemen arrest him and subject him to a third degree to find out if he is cheating or how he is able to answer. Do you think the indian news channels ever hungry would let go a story like that???? No way. You would have the whole lot of them at the police station in a jiffy. And the Human rights people too. Oh my God , David (hope i got the name right) you do not know my india of today.
5) I am as happy as you are that our mastero AR Rehman wona golden globe for his music in SDM. My friends say that he was better in several other movies and i agree. Just recall "Lagan" which was also nominated for Oscars. It had such wonderful music by Rehman. Of course, Lagan couldn't win a Oscar. They said it was too long, too indian, too much about cricket etc, etc , etc. Bla, bla.bla..... The british were shown defeated by a ragtag bunch of village cricketers. How can that be??????
So, folks, i sincerely hope that people back home trash this movie and give it the treatment it deserves. I hope the indian media stops going into raptures on the awards won by this movie and expose it for what it is. The CRITICS may rant and rave about it but i am just a 'aam aadmi'.
Finally, i pray that it does not win an Oscar because it does not deserve one.
So when it won so many golden globes and won Oscar nominations i was surprised. i wondered if i was wrong in my first assessment. I said to my self..." OK, i will see it once again with a open mind and objectively". I watched the movie a second time and realized that my first assessment was wrong---- IT WAS NOT JUST TRASH, IT WAS UTTER TRASH.
Why do i say that??
1)Let us start with the title.....SLUMDOG MILLIONNAIRE. In india of today we call the people who live in slums slumdwellers not slumdogs. Calling someone a dog is a big insult and abuse. Remember the dialogues of Dharmendra in umpteen films when he cries out loud while bashing crooks and criminals " kutte, my tera khoon peoonga...". (for my western friends, kutta is dog).
When Harbhajan singh reportedly called Andrew Symmonds a monkey everyone called him a racist, they were after his blood and he was fined and suspended. BCCI had to bail him out and rescue him. But if you call the slum living boy a DOG it is not racist ???????????
People are asking a simple question " why not a SLUM BOY MILLIONNAIRE ? Why the DOG?
Not answered till date satisfactorily.
I am surprised our Neta log have not reacted to this racist slurr? Ihave read somewhere that P.Chidamabaram, our home minister praised Slumdog. I would like to ask him if he had seen the movie and his prescription for rags to riches is GAMESHOWS.
2) The movie has several revolting scenes--- let us take the worst one. The boy literally wades through SHIT and fully covered from head to toe in SHIT he gets the autograph of Amitabh Bachan. Do you think boys in india (slumdwellers or others) will wade through shit to get an autograph of AB or SRK ?? Many such visuals were revolting.
3) What is the message of this movie ? That there is something called Destiny and you beat all odds to get from rags to riches. So how do you do it ? Not through hardwork or brillinace etc. but through a GAMESHOW (KBC like) where all the questions are answered based on the boy's various experiences in his young life. OMG, how lucly can you get that a computer generates only such queations that you can answer ALL of them based on your limited experiences.
If the idea is to show the rags to riches success, several movies have done it so well in the past. I readily recall the Amitabh starrer "Muqaddar ka Sikandar" ( Master of Destiny) where it was done so well. I entirly agree with Priyadarshini that a Maniratnam would have made this SDM into a fine movie (recall Yuva).
4) This movie is also an insult to the indian media. Here is a young boy doing well round after round in a KBC and a couple of policemen arrest him and subject him to a third degree to find out if he is cheating or how he is able to answer. Do you think the indian news channels ever hungry would let go a story like that???? No way. You would have the whole lot of them at the police station in a jiffy. And the Human rights people too. Oh my God , David (hope i got the name right) you do not know my india of today.
5) I am as happy as you are that our mastero AR Rehman wona golden globe for his music in SDM. My friends say that he was better in several other movies and i agree. Just recall "Lagan" which was also nominated for Oscars. It had such wonderful music by Rehman. Of course, Lagan couldn't win a Oscar. They said it was too long, too indian, too much about cricket etc, etc , etc. Bla, bla.bla..... The british were shown defeated by a ragtag bunch of village cricketers. How can that be??????
So, folks, i sincerely hope that people back home trash this movie and give it the treatment it deserves. I hope the indian media stops going into raptures on the awards won by this movie and expose it for what it is. The CRITICS may rant and rave about it but i am just a 'aam aadmi'.
Finally, i pray that it does not win an Oscar because it does not deserve one.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)