Random thoughts

The semester is going on full swing despite Gustav and labor-day interruptions. Politics is keeping me hooked on to the net and television too. So all in all, life is busy without much busy-ness. A few, random things that caught my attention:

1. Reading Indian female bloggers is great. I find a lot more women are ready to express themselves without the fear of being judged(the anonymity of internet sure does help, but then..it is never easy to pen/type down the most personal and intimate feelings in public. Kudos to that!). However, sometimes I find blogs talking about sex or other reaction-inducing issues - without making any point. I wonder if this is just the result of random musings or is an intentional attempt to keep the readers interested? Are blogs being used as a means to connect/communicate/express or to fulfil that inherent desire to be known/recognized/popular by being entertaining OR is it a mix of all of this and more?

2. Teenage pregnancy in America is not too uncommon. It seems dishonest then, that some people would want to scrutinize a woman running for VP for her being the mother of an unwed pregnant daughter. I wonder if people would cut-ties with their next-door neightbors(which ofcourse effects them in a more personal way) if they found that their neightbor's daughter was pregnant before marriage?

3. Breaking the glass ceiling is great, but should someone's gender alone be a reason to vote for them? Should pro-feminism be about 'gender alone' or is it more about shared values and concerns to bring the best to the womankind?

4. What really is the 'relevant experience' for a position as powerful as the President of the United States? A Community organizer, who happens to be the 'first Africal American' running for the president/Good Orator and writer/A person of mixed cultural heritage? First 'female' republican VP candidate/Most 'popular' Governer among 50 'united' states/A high-achiever mother who is pro-life? A seasoned ex-POW politician who also happens to be a 'too-old' to run for the president ? A much political 'Roman catholic' who happens to talk-too much?

Aren't these all, in one way or the other, biased qualifications - meaning the qualification depends mostly on who is looking? Isn't it an irony that the pioneers of democracy are still devided over what they really want from the system they hail? The saving grace is that they don't have a multi-party system - a sabzi-market where big parties go hunting for cheap, unsold parliamentory votes to make another non-functional coalition government.