We the People, have spoken...

This past Tuesday, the American people stepped up to vote in the mid-term elections, to determine their future for the next few years, and maybe more.

The Republican majority in Congress went into the election with some confidence, yet the inner circles maintained otherwise (which reminds me of India's BJP re-election bid in the last general election which they underestimated the people's real feelings). The GOP's greatest fears were realized when the votes started to be counted Tuesday night. Governors, Senators, and Representatives of the Republican affiliation started losing their seats one by one especially in states where they had built a strong presence.

So what made people change their stance in voting for the GOP in these mid-terms? Well national issues played the major part in the decision making. President Bush's failures with certain policies and with Iraq, along with recent scandals seem to have sealed the fate of the end results.

At the end, the Dems gained control of Congress, splitting the power of the US government. With the House and Senate in Dem hands the GOP now only controls only the presidency. The split control now remains in effect until 2008, the next Presidential election.

A possibility of a lame duck president for the next two years? Perhaps. But Dubya is now doing his best to counter that situation from arising. Today Bush extended an olive branch to the Dems to "work together". This is something similar he had done in Texas, and it worked. Now it is on a national stage, but a little too late.

Some GOP leaders also felt it was time for Bush to make changes. Even Arnold "The Terminator" Schwarzenegger, Governor of "KHALI-FONYA" said that the change was needed , "I think it is good that there are new ideas and new blood because Washington was stuck. They could not move forward, not much was accomplished; I think it was terrible."

Even Bush was taking blame for the defeat. And rightfully so.

Currently Bush is also open to the Dem's suggestions for putting together an exit strategy from Iraq. The departure of the Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, also signals a big change that the Bush administration is looking for in its strategies in Iraq. The resignation came a bit too late in my opinion.

Other policies might be changing too. UN Ambassador John Bolton, who is up for renewal with his position, is finding strong opposition from not only the Dems, but also some leaders within the GOP. The nuclear deal with India, amnesty for illegal aliens, tax incentives, and other issues will come up into question when the new Congress takes over.

The balance of power has virtually been put into 'balance' with this election's results. Bush's final two years in power will be a real challenge for him, as well as the Democrats, as policies and ideologies will be put into question. The general American populace, tired of the Bush adminstration's ineffectiveness, and the constant scare propoganda finally took a firm decision in their hands, and their votes spoke for it.

It will be an interesting conclusion to Bush's tenure as El Presidente.

Truths about dieting....

A nice article I just read on SanjeevKapoor.com, who is India's celebrity chef. Some myth-busters on diets and misconceptions about foods: http://www.sanjeevkapoor.com/monthsp/monthsp.asp

God is not a Republican.....so is he a Democrat?

For the past few general elections in the States, the Republicans have been using religion as way to get into the voter's hearts (more than their minds). Knowing that this wildcard didn't exist in their back pockets, the Democrats lost some considerable amounts of the voting population.

Well now the Dems have decided to use God as source to get voters on their side. Candidates like Bob Casey, who is running in for the Senate in Pennsylvania describes himself as a "pro-life Catholic".

Harold Ford Jnr, a young black Democrat in Tennessee, is drawing on his Christian faith - even recording a TV ad in a church.

Senator Barack Obama has been also been wearing his religion on his sleeve as he campaigns on behalf of fellow Democrats.

In a recent survey though only one in four voters saw the Democrats as "friendly" towards religion.

Since the last 20 years the religious right has, portrayed God as a Republican. But in the wake of sexual and corruption scandals, evangelical enthusiasm for the Republicans has dropped, and the Democrats see an opportunity to bridge what has been dubbed the "God Gap" in political circles.

I'm not sure why politics in America are being geared towards this 'Godly' feature, when in fact there are a lot of issues that don't even have to do with religion. It is true that the country was founded on non-religious grounds (seperation between church and state) yet by some puritanical leaders. Yet over the years since that proclaimation, politicians have used religion to their advantage.

The common man does believe in God, and that is good, but sometimes I wonder if the God fearing people who base their votes on such, really know the reality of what's going on? Just because your candidate's talk about his closeness to God, or being a born-again Christian or what not, does that make you a better person? I mean I could lie for all that matters before the elections, and when I get voted in just forget about God in total.

I've had friends who during high school and college used to say that the Republicans are good cause they believe in God. My question to them always was, so does that make the Democrats devil worshippers? And when quizzed about the issues at hand, they had no idea on what was going on. The sad part was some even sounded like in-the-closet Dems who were agreeing to whatever their parents were telling them at home or worse their pastor. But all in all their viewpoints sounded like they were anti-GOP.

To me neither a Republican nor Democrat should be using God's name in vain for their political purposes. With a diverse country like the USA, God has no business in being in politics.

All you can eat seafood....till 2048!

Nah...It's not a new marketing scheme by Red Lobster, Long John Silver's, Captain D's or even McCormick & Schmicks.

According to a current report, if the current trends of overfishing and pollution continue, the populations of just about all seafood face a collapse by 2048, a team of ecologists and economists warns in a report in today's issue of the journal Science.

So if this hold true, a lot of us seafood lovers will be left with a few options in about 40 years.

Currently the consumption of seafood brings in about $80 billion dollars a year to the industry worldwide. The USA alone has helped these figures grow, since the recent trend of eating healthier alternatives has come into play. Many countries like Japan, Indonesia, China, and India have a major stake in fishing, providing many countries certain types of seafood.

But with overfishing and pollution, the ecosystems are being harmed with the certain fish populations dwindling. So what do the ecologists suggest?

They suggest a need to shift from a single species management to an ecosystem management. They also called for new marine reserves, better management to prevent overfishing and tighter controls on pollution.

In the 48 areas worldwide that have been protected to improve marine biodiversity, they found, "diversity of species recovered dramatically, and with it the ecosystem's productivity and stability."

So this means that there will have to be a worldwide consortium to balance the fishing of certain seafoods in certain regions. That will be a tough thing to do, due to governments being a little reluctant to hurt their general population who rely on this industry for their livelihood. But it can happen if this finding is held to be more than a theory.

If the worldwide fishing community is put under one umbrella, then of course we will see a dramatic rise in costs of seafood. Why? Well for one thing, the quotas of certain types of seafoods being fished, and over that the allocation of those fishes to be imported to certain countries would be affected quite considerably. That would also lead to having the operating costs of the fishermen and the distributors to go up as well. With seafood being expensive already, this will make it more like the rich man's food.

The researchers points on this doomsday of seafood are well taken, and I would hope if their theory is true, then the worldwide fishing community will take heed and do something, BUT it is a huge undertaking. With about 40 years of supply left, to get something like this up and running will take years.

I rather be an optimist and say that some good people will step up and save the fishes for our palates. But for now eat as much as seafood you can by 2048.....We may not have some afterwards!!!