Connect with us

Features

The battle of the ‘Geezers’ in November:Biden – Trump rematch

Published

on

The Supreme Court delivers for Trump

byVijaya Chandrasoma

On Monday, March 4, the Supreme Court of the United States struck down a Colorado Supreme Court ruling of December 23 that Donald Trump be disqualified from the ballot in Colorado in the November 2024 presidential election. The Colorado ruling was based on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, which states:No person shall…. hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or any other state, who previously having taken an oath…. to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress, may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability. According to a strict interpretation of the Amendment, Trump, who, in plain eyes, incited the January 6 insurrection, and “provided aid and comfort” to the insurrectionists by delaying the summoning of federal troops to quell the violence unfolding before his eyes for 187 minutes, is clearly not eligible to run for the job of dog-catcher, much less the highest position in the land.The Supreme Court ruling was completely at odds with the US constitution.

The 6/3 pro-Republican Court took the path of least resistance by ruling in favor of Trump, for fear of violent political consequences that will inevitably follow if Trump was disenfranchised.The unanimous Supreme Court ruling stated: “States have no power under the Constitution to enforce Section 3 (of the 14th Amendment) with respect to federal offices, especially the presidency”. The unanimity ended there.Liberal Justices Kagan, Sotomayor and Brown-Jackson, argued that “the ruling goes beyond the necessities of this case to limit how Section 3 can bar an oath breaking insurrectionist from becoming President.

We protest the majority’s effort to use this case to define the limits of federal enforcement of that provision”.In simple English, the liberal Justices object that the ruling sets a precedent that will allow an “oath breaking insurrectionist” – an obvious reference to Trump – to once again, violently attempt to prevent the constitutional transfer of power.Even more strangely, the Supreme Court issued the ruling on Monday, March 4, when the Supreme Court was closed. Rulings are invariably announced on days the Supreme Court is in session.

The reason for the choice of this date to issue the ruling was obviously political, to give Trump a public victory the day before Super Tuesday, March 5, when 15 states were scheduled to hold their primaries. As expected, both President Biden and Trump convincingly swept their primaries on Super Tuesday, and all but clinched the 2024 presidential nominations of their respective Parties.

Barring the hitherto unannounced challenge of a Third-Party candidate, the 2024 presidential election will feature the dreaded rematch between two octogenarians.Trump’s last challenger, Nikki Haley, decided to exit the race on Wednesday, after being trounced by Trump in the Republican primaries. In her speech announcing the suspension of her presidential run, Haley congratulated Trump as the presumptive Republican nominee and wished him well.

She did not endorse him, adding pointedly that she hopes that he will bring conservatives in the Party together instead of driving them away. However, she did not quite close the door to playing a role in a future Trump administration.The corruption and the Trump bias of this Supreme Court does not end with the Colorado case.On February 6, 2023, a panel of three justices of the Washington D.C. District Appeals Court ruled on the Presidential Immunity case.

Trump’s counsel had argued that an incumbent president enjoys absolute immunity, civil and criminal, from any legal action while in office. An argument which led Judge Florence Pan of the D.C. panel to pose the question: “Could a president order SEAL Team Six (the most highly trained and elite forces in the US military) to assassinate a political rival? That is an official act?” She went on to inquire if a US president would still be immune from prosecution if, hypothetically speaking, he sold military secrets to foreign adversaries or peddled pardons to criminals?Nothing hypothetical there.

Trump peddled pardons to criminals during his presidency, even after his defeat in November, 2020; and sales of military secrets were freely available, if the price was right, to foreign adversaries, from the toilets of Trump’s resort at Mar a Lago after he left the White House in January, 2021.Neither civil nor criminal immunity is explicitly granted to an incumbent or former president in the Constitution. As the Justices of the D.C. panel stated in their ruling:”It would be a striking paradox if the president, who alone is vested with the constitutional duty to take care that the laws are faithfully executed, were the sole officer capable of defying those laws with impunity”.

The Supreme Court had three options for the disbursement of the appeal for Presidential Immunity submitted by Trump’s counsel. The most impartial option would have been to refuse to take the case, on grounds that the D. C. Appeals Court ruling had covered every aspect of the case with “constitutional text, judicial precedent, history and logic”, to such a decisive level that overturning it would be well-nigh judicially impossible

Such a decision would have ensured that the Washington District Court January 6 Insurrection (sedition) trial against Trump could start as early as April and a verdict reached before the end of June, well before the November 2024 election. An option that did not serve Trump’s delay tactics.The Court decided instead to accept the case for hearing. A delay in issuing the inevitable ruling, that no one is above the law, would postpone the progress of the four criminal trials against Trump, so preventing a possible conviction before the November election.

A despicable act of sycophantic bias, again favoring Trump’s political strategy, typical of the most corrupt Supreme Court in the nation’s history. Trump claimed a “huge victory” with these Supreme Court decisions. He is using these hollow victories to make himself look indomitable in the eyes of his cult. The eternal victim who exudes an orange glow of confidence and strength by overcoming all the injustices thrown at him by leftist fascists.

President Biden may be perceived as a weak candidate for re-election. He is undoubtedly chronologically too old to begin a second presidential term, but he is just three years older than Trump. At 81 and 78, Biden and Trump are both old geezers. Biden’s gait may be slow and measured, his speech sometimes marble-mouthed and unintelligible. But his presidential performance during the first three years of his presidency has been nothing short of outstanding.On the other hand, Trump’s interview at last Sunday’s Meet the Press showed the rapid unraveling of his mind. He made preposterous statements about the 2020 “rigged election”, the January 6 “peaceful political protest”, immigration and “the invasion of 15 million immigrants from foreign prisons and mental asylums before November”, “bacon being five times more expensive than it used to be”, cutting taxes for the super-rich during his first term that created “tremendous jobs” and a booming economy, “the greatest in history”.

His unhinged lies about abortion make it perfectly obvious that he is non compos mentis, Latin for batshit crazy:”Democrats say that after eight months, nine months, even after birth, you are allowed to terminate the baby…..after the baby is born, you will make a determination, and if you want, you will kill that baby”. This moron does not understand the difference between murder and abortion! The Republican Alabama Supreme Court ruled last Wednesday that frozen embryos are “children”, with a constitutional right to life.

Taking this concept to its logical conclusion, it won’t be long before Republicans will deem that conception begins at erection, and ban masturbation, thereby preventing the dissipation of millions of little swimmers, also potential “children”, with each fell swoop. A ban which would cause needless emotional frustration in teenagers and middle-aged married men.

You may think I am kidding, but when you consider the fact that many radical Republicans, including some Supreme Court Justices, seem to be gravitating towards the opinion that contraception is also anti-life and a form of abortion, it doesn’t sound that funny.

The Republicans could not possibly field a weaker candidate than a convicted fraud and rapist, a man who left his first term of presidency with criminal mismanagement of Covid, which cost at least 650,000 avoidable deaths, an economy in recession with an addition of $7.8 trillion to the national debt. A criminal terrified about facing four indictments and 91 felonies, who will be spending much of the next few months playing musical chairs in four federal and district courts.

A bankrupt facing the imminent payment of court-awarded damages, for fraud and sexual crimes, of at least $550 million, and has appealed for time to pay because he is broke. A self-confessed “billionaire” who has used campaign donations to pay his legal expenses at millions of dollars per case and sexual encounters with porn stars at $135,000 per minute. A man whose sole ambition to win the presidency in November is not to serve the country, but to stay out of prison. And to resume stealing the country blind as he did during his first term.

Amazingly, most current polls have Trump with a narrow (currently 48% to 46%) lead over President Biden, as the favorite to win the 2024 presidency. In spite of the fact that under his leadership, the Republicans have not won a single national election since he stole the presidency in 2016. Media obsession with Trump pose a great threat to American democracy because even the most prestigious newspapers and TV channels are no longer interested in providing a public service with responsible journalism. They are only interested in circulation figures and the bottom line, concentrating more on coverage of sensational news rather than dispensing important information on vital political and social issues for the benefit of their readers.

Even the prestigious New York Times has been guilty of such venal journalism in recent times. It covers Biden and Trump with disproportionate standards, placing false equivalence on issues surrounding Biden and his debilities, to Trump, who is himself on the cusp of senility, and also faces 91 criminal counts.

In a front-page article last Sunday headlined “Most Biden Voters of 2020 Fear He’s Too Old To Lead”, the Times dwelt on Biden’s age, with no mention of his presidential achievements, nor of a recent routine medical assessment which deemed Biden in perfect mental and physical health for a man his age, eminently capable of conducting the rigorous duties of the presidency for a second term.

The Times story about Biden’s age and unpopularity appeared the day after a Donald Trump rally rant in Richmond, Virginia, full of slurred lies, non-sequiturs and other absurdities, evidence of a fast-unraveling mind. A speech with his trademark brazen lies and vulgarities, largely ignored by the Times.

As a reader of the Times wrote, “Please drop the pretense that there is anything like equivalency in the choice between the candidates. The real story in this election cycle is the fact that the putative Republican nominee has serious, observable signs of mental decline. Nothing Biden says or does comes even close!”

In 2016, all polls conducted in every country except Russia predicted that Hillary would beat Trump by a landslide. In 2020, polls predicted that the race between Biden and Trump would be close when it was not. Many political commentators argue that “polling is irrevocably broken”, that the polling industry “is a wreck, and should be blown up”. Be that as it may, it is my fervent hope that I will survive long enough to gloat about my prediction, that “I told you so”, when Trump and his white supremacist cult members (sadly sprinkled with a few browns, even Sri Lankans) are driven back into the woodwork, come November.



Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Features

Rethinking post-disaster urban planning: Lessons from Peradeniya

Published

on

University of Peradeniya

A recent discussion by former Environment Minister, Eng. Patali Champika Ranawaka on the Derana 360 programme has reignited an important national conversation on how Sri Lanka plans, builds and rebuilds in the face of recurring disasters.

His observations, delivered with characteristic clarity and logic, went beyond the immediate causes of recent calamities and focused sharply on long-term solutions—particularly the urgent need for smarter land use and vertical housing development.

Ranawaka’s proposal to introduce multistoried housing schemes in the Gannoruwa area, as a way of reducing pressure on environmentally sensitive and disaster-prone zones, resonated strongly with urban planners and environmentalists alike.

It also echoed ideas that have been quietly discussed within academic and conservation circles for years but rarely translated into policy.

One such voice is that of Professor Siril Wijesundara, Research Professor at the National Institute of Fundamental Studies (NIFS) and former Director General of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Peradeniya, who believes that disasters are often “less acts of nature and more outcomes of poor planning.”

Professor Siril Wijesundara

“What we repeatedly see in Sri Lanka is not merely natural disasters, but planning failures,” Professor Wijesundara told The Island.

“Floods, landslides and environmental degradation are intensified because we continue to build horizontally, encroaching on wetlands, forest margins and river reservations, instead of thinking vertically and strategically.”

The former Director General notes that the University of Peradeniya itself offers a compelling case study of both the problem and the solution. The main campus, already densely built and ecologically sensitive, continues to absorb new faculties, hostels and administrative buildings, placing immense pressure on green spaces and drainage systems.

“The Peradeniya campus was designed with landscape harmony in mind,” he said. “But over time, ad-hoc construction has compromised that vision. If development continues in the same manner, the campus will lose not only its aesthetic value but also its ecological resilience.”

Professor Wijesundara supports the idea of reorganising the Rajawatte area—located away from the congested core of the university—as a future development zone. Rather than expanding inward and fragmenting remaining open spaces, he argues that Rajawatte can be planned as a well-designed extension, integrating academic, residential and service infrastructure in a controlled manner.

Crucially, he stresses that such reorganisation must go hand in hand with social responsibility, particularly towards minor staff currently living in the Rajawatte area.

“These workers are the backbone of the university. Any development plan must ensure their dignity and wellbeing,” he said. “Providing them with modern, safe and affordable multistoried housing—especially near the railway line close to the old USO premises—would be both humane and practical.”

According to Professor Wijesundara, housing complexes built near existing transport corridors would reduce daily commuting stress, minimise traffic within the campus, and free up valuable land for planned academic use.

More importantly, vertical housing would significantly reduce the university’s physical footprint.

Drawing parallels with Ranawaka’s Gannoruwa proposal, he emphasised that vertical development is no longer optional for Sri Lanka.

“We are a small island with a growing population and shrinking safe land,” he warned.

“If we continue to spread out instead of building up, disasters will become more frequent and more deadly. Vertical housing, when done properly, is environmentally sound, economically efficient and socially just.”

Peradeniya University flooded

The veteran botanist also highlighted the often-ignored link between disaster vulnerability and the destruction of green buffers.

“Every time we clear a lowland, a wetland or a forest patch for construction, we remove nature’s shock absorbers,” he said.

“The Royal Botanic Gardens has survived floods for over a century precisely because surrounding landscapes once absorbed excess water. Urban planning must learn from such ecological wisdom.”

Professor Wijesundara believes that universities, as centres of knowledge, should lead by example.

“If an institution like Peradeniya cannot demonstrate sustainable planning, how can we expect cities to do so?” he asked. “This is an opportunity to show that development and conservation are not enemies, but partners.”

As climate-induced disasters intensify across the country, voices like his—and proposals such as those articulated by Patali Champika Ranawaka—underscore a simple but urgent truth: Sri Lanka’s future safety depends not only on disaster response, but on how and where we build today.

The challenge now lies with policymakers and planners to move beyond television studio discussions and academic warnings, and translate these ideas into concrete, people-centred action.

By Ifham Nizam ✍️

Continue Reading

Features

Superstition – Major barrier to learning and social advancement

Published

on

At the initial stage of my six-year involvement in uplifting society through skill-based initiatives, particularly by promoting handicraft work and teaching students to think creatively and independently, my efforts were partially jeopardized by deep-rooted superstition and resistance to rational learning.

Superstitions exerted a deeply adverse impact by encouraging unquestioned belief, fear, and blind conformity instead of reasoning and evidence-based understanding. In society, superstition often sustains harmful practices, social discrimination, exploitation by self-styled godmen, and resistance to scientific or social reforms, thereby weakening rational decision-making and slowing progress. When such beliefs penetrate the educational environment, students gradually lose the habit of asking “why” and “how,” accepting explanations based on fate, omens, or divine intervention rather than observation and logic.

Initially, learners became hesitant to challenge me despite my wrong interpretation of any law, less capable of evaluating information critically, and more vulnerable to misinformation and pseudoscience. As a result, genuine efforts towards social upliftment were obstructed, and the transformative power of education, which could empower individuals economically and intellectually, was weakened by fear-driven beliefs that stood in direct opposition to progress and rational thought. In many communities, illnesses are still attributed to evil spirits or curses rather than treated as medical conditions. I have witnessed educated people postponing important decisions, marriages, journeys, even hospital admissions, because an astrologer predicted an “inauspicious” time, showing how fear governs rational minds.

While teaching students science and mathematics, I have clearly observed how superstition acts as a hidden barrier to learning, critical thinking, and intellectual confidence. Many students come to the classroom already conditioned to believe that success or failure depends on luck, planetary positions, or divine favour rather than effort, practice, and understanding, which directly contradicts the scientific spirit. I have seen students hesitate to perform experiments or solve numerical problems on certain “inauspicious” days.

In mathematics, some students label themselves as “weak by birth”, which creates fear and anxiety even before attempting a problem, turning a subject of logic into a source of emotional stress. In science classes, explanations based on natural laws sometimes clash with supernatural beliefs, and students struggle to accept evidence because it challenges what they were taught at home or in society. This conflict confuses young minds and prevents them from fully trusting experimentation, data, and proof.

Worse still, superstition nurtures dependency; students wait for miracles instead of practising problem-solving, revision, and conceptual clarity. Over time, this mindset damages curiosity, reduces confidence, and limits innovation, making science and mathematics appear difficult, frightening, or irrelevant. Many science teachers themselves do not sufficiently emphasise the need to question or ignore such irrational beliefs and often remain limited to textbook facts and exam-oriented learning, leaving little space to challenge superstition directly. When teachers avoid discussing superstition, they unintentionally reinforce the idea that scientific reasoning and superstitious beliefs can coexist.

To overcome superstition and effectively impose critical thinking among students, I have inculcated the process to create a classroom culture where questioning was encouraged and fear of being “wrong” was removed. Students were taught how to think, not what to think, by consistently using the scientific method—observation, hypothesis, experimentation, evidence, and conclusion—in both science and mathematics lessons. I have deliberately challenged superstitious beliefs through simple demonstrations and hands-on experiments that allow students to see cause-and-effect relationships for themselves, helping them replace belief with proof.

Many so-called “tantrik shows” that appear supernatural can be clearly explained and exposed through basic scientific principles, making them powerful tools to fight superstition among students. For example, acts where a tantrik places a hand or tongue briefly in fire without injury rely on short contact time, moisture on the skin, or low heat transfer from alcohol-based flames rather than divine power.

“Miracles” like ash or oil repeatedly appearing from hands or idols involve concealment or simple physical and chemical tricks. When these tricks are demonstrated openly in classrooms or science programmes and followed by clear scientific explanations, students quickly realise how easily perception can be deceived and why evidence, experimentation, and critical questioning are far more reliable than blind belief.

Linking concepts to daily life, such as explaining probability to counter ideas of luck, or biology to explain illness instead of supernatural causes, makes rational explanations relatable and convincing.

Another unique example that I faced in my life is presented here. About 10 years ago, when I entered my new house but did not organise traditional rituals that many consider essential for peace and prosperity as my relatives believed that without them prosperity would be blocked.  Later on, I could not utilise the entire space of my newly purchased house for earning money, largely because I chose not to perform certain rituals.

While this decision may have limited my financial gains to some extent, I do not consider it a failure in the true sense. I feel deeply satisfied that my son and daughter have received proper education and are now well settled in their employment, which, to me, is a far greater achievement than any ritual-driven expectation of wealth. My belief has always been that a house should not merely be a source of income or superstition-bound anxiety, but a space with social purpose.

Instead of rituals, I strongly feel that the unused portion of my house should be devoted to running tutorials for poor and underprivileged students, where knowledge, critical thinking, and self-reliance can be nurtured. This conviction gives me inner peace and reinforces my faith that education and service to society are more meaningful measures of success than material profit alone.

Though I have succeeded to some extent, this success has not been complete due to the persistent influence of superstition.

by Dr Debapriya Mukherjee
Former Senior Scientist
Central Pollution Control Board, India ✍️

Continue Reading

Features

Race hate and the need to re-visit the ‘Clash of Civilizations’

Published

on

Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese: ‘No to race hate’

Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has done very well to speak-up against and outlaw race hate in the immediate aftermath of the recent cold-blooded gunning down of several civilians on Australia’s Bondi Beach. The perpetrators of the violence are believed to be ardent practitioners of religious and race hate and it is commendable that the Australian authorities have lost no time in clearly and unambiguously stating their opposition to the dastardly crimes in question.

The Australian Prime Minister is on record as stating in this connection: ‘ New laws will target those who spread hate, division and radicalization. The Home Affairs Minister will also be given new powers to cancel or refuse visas for those who spread hate and a new taskforce will be set up to ensure the education system prevents, tackles and properly responds to antisemitism.’

It is this promptness and single-mindedness to defeat race hate and other forms of identity-based animosities that are expected of democratic governments in particular world wide. For example, is Sri Lanka’s NPP government willing to follow the Australian example? To put the record straight, no past governments of Sri Lanka initiated concrete measures to stamp out the evil of race hate as well but the present Sri Lankan government which has pledged to end ethnic animosities needs to think and act vastly differently. Democratic and progressive opinion in Sri Lanka is waiting expectantly for the NPP government’ s positive response; ideally based on the Australian precedent to end race hate.

Meanwhile, it is apt to remember that inasmuch as those forces of terrorism that target white communities world wide need to be put down their counterpart forces among extremist whites need to be defeated as well. There could be no double standards on this divisive question of quashing race and religious hate, among democratic governments.

The question is invariably bound up with the matter of expeditiously and swiftly advancing democratic development in divided societies. To the extent to which a body politic is genuinely democratized, to the same degree would identity based animosities be effectively managed and even resolved once and for all. To the extent to which a society is deprived of democratic governance, correctly understood, to the same extent would it experience unmanageable identity-bred violence.

This has been Sri Lanka’s situation and generally it could be stated that it is to the degree to which Sri Lankan citizens are genuinely constitutionally empowered that the issue of race hate in their midst would prove manageable. Accordingly, democratic development is the pressing need.

While the dramatic blood-letting on Bondi Beach ought to have driven home to observers and commentators of world politics that the international community is yet to make any concrete progress in the direction of laying the basis for an end to identity-based extremism, the event should also impress on all concerned quarters that continued failure to address the matters at hand could prove fatal. The fact of the matter is that identity-based extremism is very much alive and well and that it could strike devastatingly at a time and place of its choosing.

It is yet premature for the commentator to agree with US political scientist Samuel P. Huntingdon that a ‘Clash of Civilizations’ is upon the world but events such as the Bondi Beach terror and the continuing abduction of scores of school girls by IS-related outfits, for instance, in Northern Africa are concrete evidence of the continuing pervasive presence of identity-based extremism in the global South.

As a matter of great interest it needs mentioning that the crumbling of the Cold War in the West in the early nineties of the last century and the explosive emergence of identity-based violence world wide around that time essentially impelled Huntingdon to propound the hypothesis that the world was seeing the emergence of a ‘Clash of Civilizations’. Basically, the latter phrase implied that the Cold War was replaced by a West versus militant religious fundamentalism division or polarity world wide. Instead of the USSR and its satellites, the West, led by the US, had to now do battle with religion and race-based militant extremism, particularly ‘Islamic fundamentalist violence’ .

Things, of course, came to a head in this regard when the 9/11 calamity centred in New York occurred. The event seemed to be startling proof that the world was indeed faced with a ‘Clash of Civilizations’ that was not easily resolvable. It was a case of ‘Islamic militant fundamentalism’ facing the great bulwark, so to speak, of ‘ Western Civilization’ epitomized by the US and leaving it almost helpless.

However, it was too early to write off the US’ capability to respond, although it did not do so by the best means. Instead, it replied with military interventions, for example, in Iraq and Afghanistan, which moves have only earned for the religious fundamentalists more and more recruits.

Yet, it is too early to speak in terms of a ‘Clash of Civilizations’. Such a phenomenon could be spoken of if only the entirety of the Islamic world took up arms against the West. Clearly, this is not so because the majority of the adherents of Islam are peaceably inclined and want to coexist harmoniously with the rest of the world.

However, it is not too late for the US to stop religious fundamentalism in its tracks. It, for instance, could implement concrete measures to end the blood-letting in the Middle East. Of the first importance is to end the suffering of the Palestinians by keeping a tight leash on the Israeli Right and by making good its boast of rebuilding the Gaza swiftly.

Besides, the US needs to make it a priority aim to foster democratic development worldwide in collaboration with the rest of the West. Military expenditure and the arms race should be considered of secondary importance and the process of distributing development assistance in the South brought to the forefront of its global development agenda, if there is one.

If the fire-breathing religious demagogue’s influence is to be blunted worldwide, then, it is development, understood to mean equitable growth, that needs to be fostered and consolidated by the democratic world. In other words, the priority ought to be the empowerment of individuals and communities. Nothing short of the latter measures would help in ushering a more peaceful world.

Continue Reading

Trending