21st Century Politics

21st Century Politics
Peace
To Bloggers Everywhere
1
2
Contents
The Perils of a Righteous President 13
Challenge for BJP 14
American Sovereignty and Globalization 15
The Long War of the 21st Century 19
Globalization and Outsourcing 22
America's Blind Spot: Pakistan 24
Bill's Fiction 26
Wake Up America 27
Book Review: State Of Fear by Michael Crichton, 2004 28
Response: NYT Editorial "Are We Stingy? Yes" on Dec 30, 2004 33
Second Term Inauguration Speech by President Bush 33
N. Korean Problem and Bush Administration 35
Medicare Silence 36
Folly of Comparative Analysis 38
F-16 Fighter Planes to Pakistan 40
Bolton Nomination to UN 41
The Vicar 41
Benedict XVI 42
Past Wounds 44
Time for Next New Deal 45
Feedback: 'Banglore: Hot and Hotter' by Tom Friedman 50
Hard To Believe Mr. Advani 53
America’s Iraq War in June 2005 54
London Attacks and War on Terrorism 55
3
Time To Give Up Nuclear Orthodoxy 57
Nuclear Orthodoxy of Other Kind 59
Bush – Singh Pact – Continued Commentary 59
Mr. Osama Saeed, you are not helping 60
Seductions in Democracy 61
Mumbai - Where does she go from here? 63
Dr. Singh, we have a dream… 63
Opinionated Democracy Watch - August 2005 Edition 64
Inability to solve Oil Problem 68
Merck Fallout 70
Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme – Yet another “Garibi
Hatao”? 71
Why not supply Water and Food from air? 71
Katrina Relief Work – Actors on Stage 72
Tragedy Katrina Brought 74
Katrina Commentaries 78
Functioning Government 78
What A Standard! 79
End of Bush Era? 80
Advantage India 82
India Falls in the Line 83
When Tom Friedman is wrong 84
The sword of Damocles – Job Reservation in Private Sector 84
Parochial Politics of Banglore 87
Big Oil, Fat Profits and Politicians 88
Feedback: Prejudice Beyond Borders 90
4
Comment: Bangalore vs Bangalore 91
Iraq War Justification – An Exercise in Extreme Intellectualism 93
To Not Question Your Government….. 94
Having it both ways – Republican and Democrat styles 95
Iraqi Crystal Ball 96
Spring in Indian Politics 98
Immoral Backers of American Drug Companies 100
Iraq – Beyond December 15, 2005 101
Road to Lawless Land 102
Resistance – Yankee Style? 103
Happy Holidays 104
Feedback: Bush Fade by MJ Akbar 104
India – No Democratic History? 105
G8 Relevance? 106
Running Away From Banglore? Wrong Way Then! 108
Psychoanalysis – Do we need it in policy debates? 109
Vindication by Supreme Court 111
Bush Spin of Spreading Democracy and Hamas 112
Danish Cartoon Controversy 114
Google – Tomorrow’s Dresdner Bank? 117
Danish Cartoon Controversy - Follow Up 118
Mea Culpa by NeoCons? 118
Restless Conservatives 121
Bush – Singh Nuclear Accord: Will the Fat Lady (Congress)
Sing? 123
Angry NYT Editors Bristle 125
5
Conservatives across Atlantic – Get off America’s Free Ride 126
Writing on the Wall 128
Is Iraq War Arabic Vietnam of America? No. 129
Nuclear Energy - Where are we? 130
H1B Immigration Issues 131
Congress and Indo – USA Nuclear Deal 132
Myopic view of Iraq War Backers 133
Changing Mind on Iraq War 133
Long Wait To Solve Iran Issue 135
Iran - Continued Commentary 136
Worst President? 136
Dr. Singh – Time To Get Bold? 137
Problems for Democrats 140
Dollar Devaluation and Global Economic Stability 142
More Immigration Please 143
Da Vinci Code and Church 143
Israel – Palestine Conflict: Hawks Don’t Get It 145
Indian Media’s Obsession – NRI Success 146
Inflation and Interest Rates 147
Better Party to Execute the War 149
Indo-USA Nuclear Deal: Not So Subtle Hints and Larger Picture 150
Advani Hammers 152
Global Warming and Conservative Response 152
FIFA World Cup 2006 – The Roller Coaster Ride 153
2006 FIFA World Cup Conclusion 155
Israel’s new war 156
6
Misguided Indian Foreign Policy 157
Troubled World and Challenges to American Leadership 158
Decoupling from American Economy? 161
Hopeless Conservatives 161
Iraq War Mess and Beyond 162
The Battle Israel Did not Win 164
Undemocratic Democrats 165
Old Line Media, Internet and Politics 166
Pervert CNN 167
Post Blair Britain 168
Papal Failure 168
America – Shine and Shadow 169
Living with the Nuclear Renegade 170
Death of Indo-USA Nuclear Deal 170
Incompetent Editors 172
Course Correction by Indian Supreme Court 173
Dramatic Victory for Dems 174
Resurrection of Indo-USA Nuclear Deal – Thumbs Up For India 176
Option ‘Go Home’ 176
Chuck Hagel – Right on the Money 177
Last Stand of Bushies and Challenge to American Political
System 178
Season’s Greetings 179
Desperate Attempts by Pres. Bush to Salvage Iraq War 180
American Culpability in Iraqi Civil War 181
Sen. McCain – Following Foot Steps of Pres. Bush 181
7
Non-EU Doctors in UK 182
Unfortunately Cynicism is the Only Answer 184
Damn Presidency 185
Indian Politicians and Strained Public Policy 187
Good British Act 188
Sour Grapes, New Hampshire Style 188
Sustaining Cricket in Global Market 189
Washington Post Getting Hammered 192
Limits of India Story? 192
Forcing Pres. Bush on Iraq – Primary Responsibility of Dems 193
Iraq Debate – where are we? 194
The Sole Outstanding Cricketing Team – Australia 196
Here Goes WaPo Again 197
Classic Parliamentary Dynamics at Works in Congress 198
Offshoring Debate on Daniel Drezner Site 198
America’s Military – Grounded by Bush not by Al Qeda 200
Immigration Bill 2007 201
Family Based Visa – Reality Check 203
Bush Victory 205
Dems or GOP – Who is Bad for Global Warming? 205
Immigration Bill Impasse 207
Pathetic Suckers of Pakistan 208
On Board, Sen. Lugar 209
Shining Great Britain and its Parliamentary Democracy 209
Monday, July 09, 2007 211
GOP – The War Party 212
8
National Elections of Turkey 213
Naked Uncle Sam 214
India at Sixty 215
America’s Primary Problem 218
The Deal Gone Sour: Indo-USA Nuclear Accord 218
Democracy Farce by DNC 220
A Movie Star? 221
Osaka 2007 221
Demented AB Bardhan 223
Zero Leadership 224
Alan Greenspan – Epic Mismanagement 225
Tale of Two Chess Champions 225
Types of Roger Cohen and Fred Hiatt 226
Israel Palestein Conflict and Tourism 227
Burial of Singh - Bush Nuclear Accord 228
America’s Trillions 229
Letter to Tom Bevan of RCP 230
India Commentary 232
Regan’s Ghost 233
Technological Competence 234
Nuclear Iran 235
Abolish CIA 236
Missing the Point 237
Pakistani Mess 238
China Ascendance 239
Pakistan – American Failure in Nurturing Long Term Strategy 240
9
Destruction of Test Cricket 242
Kerry’s Right Decision 243
America’s Worst Choices for Presidency 243
Coming Soon - Swiftboating of Journalism Studies? 244
Solution to Economic Crisis 245
NYT for Hillary 245
Fed – Finally Some Action 245
No Dynasties 246
McCain winner? 247
Queen Maker – LA Mayor 247
Irresponsible Doris Lessing 248
Feminism and Hillary 249
NYT – Buyer’s Remorse? 249
Cold War – Is it not over? 249
Shameless Journalism 250
NAFTA – Deception by Obama and Hillary 251
Thoughts on Looming Obama Losses 252
Politicians and Lust 253
Bush’s Parting Shot – Recession of 2008 254
Tibet – Some Thoughts 255
Psycho Path Naipaul 256
Missing the Point 256
Quota Raj – Prosperity Delayed 258
Swatting Flies? 259
Pope Visits USA 259
Failures of American Media 260
10
Drama in Balkan 260
Oil Shock 261
David Brooks – Cool Cultural Commentator 262
Clinton and Feminism 262
History Made 264
Oil Crisis 264
Hillary – Leaving in Grace 266
Emerging Markets 266
Classic Move by Bush Administration? 267
American Economy at Crossroads 268
Useless Adherence to Ideology Terms 268
Speculating Oil Price Speculation 269
Wall-E 270
Spaniards on Tear 271
Oil Prices – Speculation Cause? 271
Capitalism – Are we at the end? 271
What if Cramer is Right? 272
America’s Iraq War – Where we are 273
Obama’s Iraq War Contribution 274
Ezra Klein – Crate and Barrel Theory of Iraq war 275
Dr. Singh’s Victory 275
Drug Lord Karzai? 276
Spanish Winning Streak 277
What worth a CDO is? 277
America’s Energy Responses 278
John Edwards 279
11
Bush’s Dangerous Legacy 279
Beijing Olympics 2008 282
American Media 283
Elephant in Sara’s Glass House 283
Singh – Bush Nuclear Accord 284
Bible Talk 285
America’s Possible Train Wreck 286
American Bailout – Unanswered Questions 287
Sounds Familiar? 288
America at Nadir 289
Global Money – Road Ahead 290
Singh Bush Nuclear Accord - Now Proud Legacy 291
How will we overcome 1800 points drop? 291
Paul Krugman 293
Corrupt Politicians 294
Charles Krauthammer – A Senior Fool 294
Need for a strong GOP 295
Job of a Politician 296
Classic Narration 297
Yes, we can! 297
12
The Perils of a Righteous President
Thursday, December 23, 2004
The Perils of a Righteous President
(TIME: Sunday, May 09, 2004)
This is one of the finest columns I have read at TIME in long time. As usual very
articulate, cerebral and quite logical. I want to join this particular discussion by adding few
more points to what Joe Klein mentions here. It is most likely that such columns would
not be reaching on President Bush’s desk. We know that he does not watch much of TV
and does not read newspapers as well. I think he would not be bothering about
magazines too. So we do not have much reactions from him about such columns and it is
unlikely to come forward. What I am arguing is if the Bush Administration were to reply
back, what would they say and still how that could be totally wrong.
Basically, the column tries to fathom the baser instincts or motivations of this
Administration for the current Iraq Policy. What it contends is not flattering and I definitely
agree what Joe makes the case here. But the Administration could argue that imagine
the days after 9/11 and before Iraq war. It was, and is still, well known that there is no
silver bullet to stop Terrorism and the threat of Islamic Terrorism to America. I do not
doubt that the Administration would know this fact. Given that, logically there are two
responses – one at the generic level get prepared for all sorts of possibilities and remove
the systematic failures of American State and Institutions and at the specific level start
identifying the real life potential threats in advance. Creation of Home Land Security
Department and Transportation Security Administration are the responses of the former
category. For the latter part, when one starts to inspect the world around, it is
unavoidable to point that Iraq and Saddam could pose that danger. Keep in mind that I
am not saying that it was the case, but it was logical and prudent to be suspicious.
This is where the things get interesting – what if Saddam drops the regular or dirty
Nuclear Bomb on America? You are talking about potentially tens of thousands or even
hundreds of thousands of American civilian causalities. As President of America, Bush
has to think this possibility. My understanding is this Administration would have reached
to the Iraq policy possibly by this route as well. Not necessarily only the baser instincts
which Joe mentioned. I believe in what Joe is saying but do want to point that there is
possibly this additional reason which would have prompted the Administration to think
about containing Iraq. It does not matter this possibility has probability of 2 to 5%.
Because if it were to happen, the whole world and history would have blamed this
Administration that why did they not take the care earlier? Why did they not take the risk
of attacking Iraq? Howsoever cynical this administration is; I think Americans can be sure
that this “what if” scenario would have been on the minds of this Administration.
The real failure of the Administration is in how they decided to deal with the “baser fear”.
This fear monster has played the role. The sad part is this Administration did not
demonstrate any intelligence whatsoever in dealing with this fear monster. As elected
rulers of a strong democracy, you want your leaders to feel this monster. What you also
want the rulers to have is the basic sense of how to deal with this monster. You want
these leaders to deal with rightly. President Bush did the first part well, but miserably
failed in the second part. And I think it will be instructive to look into why did he fail in the
second part.
13
If you want to logically deal this fear monster, what would you do? First and foremost,
ensure that indeed the risk is real. It is well known that this Administration did not fulfill
this basic requirement as is clear from David Kay’s testimony that there were no WMDs.
So they did not do this basic check. Next, the administration assigned itself the right to
preemptively attack Iraq. It is true that legally one can do so in self-defense. But why such
delusion that America can remove every possible risk from this world for it’s own people?
American rulers need to understand that the world is a dangerous place. American
people are no exception. It is wrong to take literally that this is “God’s chosen land” and
American people are descended from heaven. Everyday, many states in the world live
with all sorts of risks and they have been doing so for long. Why then everyone else is
careful in taking on this risk? As for any human endeavor, there is cost versus reward
equation applicable for what you do to take on this risk. There is no escape from that.
There are so many risks in life which simply do not warrant such massive and misguided
efforts like Iraq. Almost surely they do not bring the intended results. Killings of 9/11 does
not change this cost-reward equation. This Administration believes the threshold of what
Americans can risk after 9/11 has reduced dramatically. President Bush and
Administration is in fool’s paradise here. You never want the leaders to loose this sense
of cost-reward ratio in dealing with these emerging risks.
As such American leaders are always vulnerable to project how American’s are special
than rest of the world. Invariably they do the sin of cementing this belief among its
people. In addition to this usual susceptibility of American rulers; this Administration
thinks that 9/11 has morally empowered them to have zero tolerance for any risks of
modern life. Well, nothing is lost for the rest of the world; but it is the stupid America
which squanders it’s own resources and it’s future. Many in the rest of the world know
how to have a measured response to risks in order to achieve the ultimate objectives.
America under this Administration has lost that ability.
It is amazing how American leaders are ignorant of their own past. We know that it is in
the character of this country that political debate is not unduly burdened by the History
and no one denies that it is one of the noblest aspects of American ethos. But do you
take that to the extreme where American leaders fail to learn from their own glorious
past? Knowing Auschwitz and Genocide under Nazi, America never perpetuated what
they did at Abu Ghraib. We know the Japanese encampment during those times, but still
there is no stupidity and immorality like as displayed at Abu Ghraib. And don’t tell us
about the monster of WMD. This country has weathered that with Soviet Union for around
five decades. It followed a wise policy which would never make the cost – reward ratio
skewed in dealing with that thread. America did not loose the nerve in Cold War. Is this
Administration trying to tell us that 9/11 is more dangerous than what America lived
through the Cold War? They are wrong. So sad that there is no sense of this wisdom as
manifested by the country’s glorious past. The same shameless President and his lackey
will attend glibly upcoming WWII Memorial at Capitol Mall in coming days but not learn
anything from that. It is a tragedy of Homerian proportion.
Posted by Umesh Patil at 10:31PM (-08:00)
Challenge for BJP

In the history of Indian Political Parties after independence, there are certain historical
blunders which these political parties have committed. For Communists, the split of the
14 party; for Socialists never able to stand firmly behind one single leader and host of
mistakes for Dramuk and other regional outfits. But for all these mistakes there are FOUR
mother of all blunders by the main players. Those are:
For Congress – Emergency and complete over throwing of Democracy and Democratic
principles in 1977 by Indira Government and Delhi riots in 1984 after the death of Indira
Gandhi. The culpability of Congress in both these incidents will never go away. As these
events start receding more into History; one stands to understand more the deeply
divisive and immoral nature of Congress roles in these incidences.
For BJP – December 6 1992 Babari Masjidd mayhem and Gujarat riots in 2002. Again
thoroughly unjust and wrong role played by BJP in these incidents will only get
highlighted more as History continues it’s march.
Basic maturity of any institution and especially of a political party is demonstrated by its
ability to own its mistakes. I guess humanity has come to realization that mistakes are
part of the game and part of Politics too. The only question is how do you learn from that.
It is the holy grail of an ability to make the call where to be steadfast to continue a
particular agenda to get the results and where to adopt the radical change or admit the
mistakes. It is not sufficient for us to know how political parties all over the world learn
and admit the mistakes. Some would be doing right, some many not.
What is important is what do Indian Political Parties do. Do they admit their mistakes and
move on after learning the right lessons? The record here is not good. With Congress,
the case is hopeless. I doubt fundamentally, the party has the DNA to admit what is
wrong with it. Just because they are ruling now and it may be a right and moral thing for
India in the present circumstances; does not mean that Congress can be forgiven for
their lack of admitting these two grave mistakes. It is just that there is no hope that
Congress will ever do that. As long as Congress leadership revolves around Gandhi-
Nehru family; there is less likelihood of admission of these mistakes. It is not that some
one from that family can be enlightened enough to undertake that. Remember Rajiv
Gandhi’s speech in Mumbai in 1985 at Congress 100 years Anniversary Plenary Session.
That was when he was almost there for that “Midas touch”. Well, alas Indian Politics
again missed the opportunity.
This is where BJP has the golden opportunity to differentiate itself from Congress. How
do we tell to our leaders that it is not that when you are ruling then only you are doing
good for your country. Atalji is and should be a great leader in the opposition too. His role
might have changed, but not the function. Here is the chance for BJP to discuss Gujarat
riots in Mumbai session, remove Modi Government and make a run at learning the
lessons. This could be one of the biggest services to the nation – that a mature political
party does analyzes it’s problems and learns from those. June 22, 2004.
American Sovereignty and Globalization

Ideologues like Pat Buchanan have been debating for long that Globalization and Global
Organizations setting framework for such nation to nation interactions are limiting
American Sovereignty and how they are encroaching upon USA sovereign rights. It is a
complex debate where one sees validity of these conservative thinkers on one hand, or
at least seriousness of the issues raised, and at the same time other dynamics which
leads one to think that it is inevitable that there will be some limits to what America can 15
decide on it’s own. Other countries are accepting these limits with less fuss than America,
especially European countries and then one wonders what is with America?
The latest incident which sparked the criticism from these critics is the withdrawal of US
proposal in UN for continued immunity for American soldiers from legal actions in
International Court by other countries whenever these soldiers are engaged in combat
operations in other countries. These critics argue that this is one more typical
manifestation of US abducting it’s sovereign rights. It is another matter that some of the
criticism from this quarter about Iraq is that this war has compromised America’s ability to
resist rest of the world about this issue, especially in light of Iraq prison abuse. To be sure
I understand that these critics do not take sovereignty as full freedom only to do whatever
one wants. They consider it as taking our own responsibility, being answerable to our
own standards and our own rule of law. It happens to be the case that USA rule of law is
probably much more creditable than rest of the world; that is what these thinkers argue.
Not so incorrectly also. In the most fundamental sense Sovereignty is the onerous
responsibility of defining “what is morally right” on your own rather frivolously renouncing
this responsibility to some other anonymous global organization. This is especially true of
global organization where there is no people’s representation. Take UN for example.
People of the world do not elect any representatives to this body. Granted that elected
leaders of respective countries represent in this body. But this argument does help in
bringing any democratic legitimacy to this body when one considers that more than half
of the countries represented in this body do not follow any democratic practices internally.
It is the same UN where you get Sudan like country on Human Rights Panel and it is the
same organization where one has to deal with China as the major rule setter. For that
matter there was Soviet Union as well for so long, that “Evil Empire”, as a legitimate
power center in this setup.
It will be wrong to forget the insistence of these thinkers on following one’s own standards
and self defined rule scrupulously. They are one of the most stringent adherents of
internal rule of law. Their contention is why else do we elect our Congressman,
Presidents and Governors for? They are there to set the rules and American’s follow that.
People’s conduct within the country and outside the country is subject to the same set of
rules. Just because some one goes out of USA does not mean that the person is free of
USA laws. This is because a person is defined as a political entity because of the
framework of American Law and American Constitution.
It is nobody’s case that Americans have not made mistakes any time in adhering to one’s
own laws. But do you have any other example in this world where there is any better and
consistent implementation of Law and Justice System for it’s people over such a long
period? Also the state which has tried hard to keep it’s contract to it’s own citizens and to
keep it’s treaties with other countries. Very unlikely. Soviets vanished in seven decades.
Europeans, except British, lost their own systems in two world wars. Many others are
learning the ropes and coming up. Given that why should one think that organizations like
UN, International Court, WTO, IMF, World Bank, etc. would offer better legitimacy than
what American system has been able to provide in last 200 plus years? Why should
American people leave a system which has served them well over two centuries to a
system which is yet to prove fully over longer period of time? Indeed these are tough
questions and unlikely to prompt any thinking American person to opt out of what they
have, into what they may not be sure of. May be rest of the world is spooked by it’s failure
to build and sustain their own nation state systems for so long on consistent basis. May
be this failure makes them inherently inclined to go for multinational systems which could
16
provide them crutches to help them withstand thorny issues of international relations and
the associated contentious discourse. So one needs to be very careful in trying to apply
willingness on behalf of other countries in accepting internationalism to USA or to nation
states who may have maintained their own legal systems for long in thoroughly stormy
waters of nation to nation relations. Willingness of other countries may have their own
reasons, may be due to their own peculiar histories and should not necessarily translate
into thoughtless joining by America to this fashionable Internationalism. Simply on the
basis of system efficiency, why would one throw an old system which has proven over a
period in favor of something which is still work in progress at the best?
European countries in particular have strong historical reasons for coalescing towards
Internationalism as reflected in their consummate European Union discourse. Because of
it’s own history and the status of unbroken state and law enforcing entity in continuous
existence, Britain’s ambivalence towards EU is quite understandable and clearly
demonstrates the tension due to conflicting forces. Rest of the world – from point of view
of nation-state-law does not have any sparkling record. Unless one wears the looking
glasses of non-western (like Asian or Oriental or Eastern or many other names) ways of
identifying and assessing political systems, one can hardly find any mature political
system. And in any case this “alternating” point of view looses it’s relevance when one
sees that what the world wants as international organizations are all modeled on Western
concepts of political entities. Countries like India, Japan, Australia could be regarded as
stable democratic political systems. But these are young systems on their way to become
mature and some of them like India still faces the danger of faltering. So all in all, given
this context there is some merit in the claims of Buchanan like ideologues that American
nation state is superior to all others and there is less reason to subvert our sovereignty to
other international organizations. Does it sound arrogant? No doubt. But does it reduce
it’s significance? No. One does need to grant some credibility to this point of view
howsoever jingoistic it sounds.
So does it mean that all forms of internationalism are bad and America should simply go
into the shell and forget about rest of the world and not waste it’s time in getting involved
with others? Keep in mind that for these thinkers Terrorism and what prompted 9/11 are
the results of simple reactions from other people when America tried to intervene and
meddle in their internal affairs when it has no business to do so. In fact their argument is
America is like an addict; addicted to foreign oil, foreign capital, foreign goods and as an
addict for his substance abuse, it starts making more blunders in international politics and
gets drowned in all that mess. For them, America is on down hill due to this addiction to
what is foreign. It is not for nothing that Bush doctrine of “preemptive strikes” does not
resonate with this group. Islamic Terrorism is symptom of the disease of intervening in
other’s affair when you are not invited.
But things need not be so simplistic. There are so many reasons why America does need
to engage with rest of the world in nation to nation mode more than “isolationists” would
like to see. Global environmental issues for one are simple and straight forward set of
problems where international cooperation is must. There is no reason for America to turn
away here to address these problems on it’s own. Environmental issues do not see the
country boundaries, for these issues the whole globe is the only one domain. Whether
countries follow any democratic principles within their own state or not; it does not matter
while dealing with these issues. Does that mean America needs to sign Kyoto Protocol?
Well, it at least mean America needs to come up with it’s own plan what it wants to do if
current fossil fuel policies are contributing to Green house effect. It is kind of irresponsible
to say that America does not want to adhere Kyoto protocol because it is sovereign to
17
decide so and not to give any credible plan to address the risks involved in current oil
consumption.
The more contentious domain of internationalism is participation in Global Economy. the

way global economy is currently unfolding; Western world and America are at the
receiving end – losing large number of jobs to China and India and losing the competitive
edge in one after the other industry. As everyone knows, this trend may very well
accelerate with devastating consequences for American Economy [1]. The conventional
thinking is such Globalization would help America. But the risks are not fully addressed
as the famous economists Stephen Roach (Morgan Stanley, New York) point out in the
next quote. “The problem is that some of the oldest assumptions of globalization are now
being drawn into serious question. In their simplest form, "open" economic models can be
decomposed into two sectors — tradables and nontradables. For rich developed
economies, the loss of market share in manufacturing activities to low-cost developing
nations is "fine" — as long as there is a secure fallback to the nontradable services
sector, which is effectively shielded from international competition. The new complication
arises out of the IT-enabled transformation of nontradables into tradables. To the extent
that the knowledge-based content of the output of white-collar workers can now be
exported anywhere around the world with the click of a mouse, the rules of the game
have changed. And that’s exactly what’s now happening — not just at the low end of the
value chain with respect to call center operators and data processors but increasingly at
the upper end of the chain for software programmers, engineers, designers, accountants,
actuaries, lawyers, consultants, and medical doctors.
Services-driven development models, such as the one now at work in India, cast
globalization in a very different light. Most importantly, they broaden the competitive
playing field, thereby bringing new pressures to bear both on job creation and on real
wages in the developed world.” [2]
Clearly our Political class as a whole is completely unaware of what is happening here. In
addition the short term interests of many opinion makers (Wall Street and large share
holders who disproportionately cast a huge influence on American Policy) are propelling
policy makers to ignore what is at stake here. Given this, thinkers like Pat Buchanan are
on the right side of the debate that such Globalization is compromising American
Sovereignty and it’s ability to decide according to what is good for itself. But the issues
here are not crystal clear. The debate is not complete, consequences are unknown and
the underlying dynamics is still not fully known. As Stephen Roach continues in the article
“Globalization is very much a moving target. The rules of globalization are dynamic — not
static. They change as the world changes.”; the whole affair is work in progress. America
and the western world can afford and should in fact undertake – patience. It needs to
engage fully in all these Globalization efforts and not simply get out since it is something
which ties down it’s sovereign decision making. One may be on the guard; but getting out
simply without knowing convincingly what is happening could leave America stranded
alone with detrimental effects on it’s economic well being.
The final domain where internationalism poses challenge to American sovereignty is the
realm of human rights and criminal law. It is the same domain where the issues like
exemption of American Soldiers from any law suites when engaged on foreign soil belong
to. I believe this is the domain where the arguments of “isolationists” are strongest and
they have real rational arguments against internationalism. Simply put how come an
organization like UN that is not directly elected by American people ever decide about
their fate? There is no substitute here for letting American sovereign rights to take full
control. The appropriate way here for any internationalism will be only within the group of
18
countries or states which follow the democratic rule. May be America lead the way to
form a group of countries and nation states which have a stable working democracy and
open the way for interacting on nation to nation basis within this group. UN and other
arbitrarily founded organizations or organizations founded on weaker basis, do not qualify
for deliberations of democratically run nation states. May be forming and engaging such a
new group effectively is where the American leadership lies in coming years. If it means
snubbing UN, so be the case then. Only in such a forum of countries does it make sense
to talk conceding certain sovereign rights if decided collectively.
Umesh Patil, San Jose, California

July 2004.
Reference:
[1] Ted C. Fishman – The Chinese Century, The New York Times, July 4, 2004.
[2] Stephen Roach – What About Us? Morgan Stanley, New York, July 4, 2004.
The Long War of the 21st Century

(Speech by James Woolsey at Commonwealth Club on July 21)
It is little hard not to get impressed by the analytical and comprehensive speech given by
Mr. James Woolsey (former CIA Director) at Commonwealth Club on July 21. Substantial
early part of the speech attempts to put the context on the war on terrorism and subtle,
but rightly distinguished, strains of different threads of this whole gamut of problem set.
However, quite erudite the speech is; it does smack smell of the worldview of “a power
monk” from Washington. In the end one does wonder how small is the distance between
a fanatic cleric running a Madrassa and a Washington Power Monk.
The first problem one comes across with Woolsey’s analysis is of postulating radical
Islamic movement of Al Qaeda type regarding USA, and the USA State, as the primary
hindrance in the existence of Islamic society based on their world view. Mr. Woolsey
compares this assumption of the Al Qaeda with Hitler regarding USA as the final barrier
for the Thousand Year Reich. Let us keep aside the historical accuracy of this proposition
(because Hitler was also obsessed with the Russian/Soviet power which in the end as
well undid the Third Reich) and go ahead with Mr. Woolsey’s assertion about Hitler and
the Thousand Year Reich. If so, it becomes apparent then that Bin Laden and Al Qaeda
are looking to rule the whole world and they are simply not ready to accept the existence
of other ways of life and civilization. Do we have the conclusive proof of that? Let us not
confuse attacks of 9/11 with the ambition to rule the world of the order of Hitler. Do Bin
Laden and Al Qaeda have this ambition? Just because they have declared war on USA
does not mean we can attribute their motives to rule the world. Or is it because they
come in between the covert program of “Washington Power Monks” like Mr. Woolsey to
continue to dominate the world affairs in the American ways?
The truth is Bin Laden and Al Qaeda are saying that USA and corrupt Arab Rulers are
disturbing a way of life which these radical Islamists want to practice in their own lands. If
one thinks harder, one will realize that in the end it is less important whether this
argument of these extremists holds any water or not; than some reflection on the part of 19
USA to check and verify whether indeed that is the case. Now the question is do we ever
have that kind of debate in American Politics where we inspect and evaluate whether the
American Foreign Policy is indeed not meddling in the affairs of these conservative and
traditional societies or at least groups who want to stay that way – rightly or wrongly?
American soldiers on Saudi Peninsula – are they really required? It is indeed a right step
that Defense Secretary Mr. Donald Rumsfeld proposed to reduce the American military
presence there and there is no reason for America to be apologetic. It is a smart move
and who cares whether it panders Bin Laden or not. Our goals and our lives are much
more precious than anyone’s ego-trip whether it is Bin Laden or President Bush.
So why America cannot think of a way of life where America bothers least these societies
and let them resolve their own problems and issues? Oil dependence. Well, America can
buy less oil from these countries and more from other countries. It has been doing that
which proves it is possible to do so along this path. So should we not accelerate that? I
am not talking here life changing Green Way of Life – non-oil environment friendly green
economy. Let us leave that discussion for some other time. I am simply saying that
America can get away from any dependence on Arab oil in specific.
The other part of the argument from Bin Laden and the company is American support to
all these corrupt rulers in the Arab world. If America cares less about that mess, it is
better. The situation is America lands up backing some not so authentic rulers in these
parts of the world (some would say rather all parts of the world due the over enthusiastic
Washington Power Monks of Mr. Woolsey type - that is a different matter) for the so-
called reasons of “real politick” and botches their internal dynamics. Is it worth all this
trouble? Or just because Bin Laden asks USA not to meddle into their affairs means it
becomes all the worth to put the American prestige behind precisely doing that! Imagine
in 1863 if other countries and societies would have meddled in the American Civil War. I
doubt America would have taken it lightly. Same should apply to other countries too.
America should be always advocating democratic principles and adhere to that agenda in
it’s foreign policy but that does not have to descend into meddling in internal affairs of
other counties. One wonders whether justification for all such meddling comes from the
Washington Power Monks.
The final part of the argument from Bin Laden and the company is about the American
Foreign Policy in the Middle East Conflict. Mr. Woolsey has rightly pointed that American
Foreign Policy – with bipartisan support – have resulted in creating the impression
successfully that America sides with Isreal and does not care about Arab societies. So
does it mean we ignore any reevaluation of this policy just because Bin Laden says so?
This is the second failure of Mr. Woolsey’s analysis. He acknowledges that the American
Middle East Foreign Policy is a failure but does not take the other logical half – that
changing that policy is the core part of the solution and the major step towards the war on
Islamic Terrorism. Why this coyness on the part of Mr. Woolsey? He is right to say that
policy has been crafted over the years with the bipartisan contributions. But does some
one need to point out the esteemed contributions from CIA as well over all these years,
the contributions of which Mr. Woolsey was the proud participant at the highest level? Or
is it because this being particularly not so glorious part of CIA’s contribution to the world
peace, Mr. Woolsey avoids to discuss it? It is indeed disappointing, and in the end
dishonest too, that Mr. Woolsey drills quite deep into the problem with the help of logic
and analysis but just stops short when it would enable the USA Power Establishment to
embark upon the real solution.
Another instance of Mr. Woolsey not elaborating on his own right thoughts is that at some
point in the speech Mr. Woolsey signals out correctly that this war of USA will be long
because USA has been caught in the midst of a civil war within Islam? Mr. Woolsey what
20
would you like a sane person do in that situation – not to complicate it further by taking
sides overtly and participating in that fight. You want to give “space” to the players
themselves instead of hogging limelight on your own. Does that mean if some one of the
fight hits the innocent bystanders unnecessarily (the 9/11 attacks) you still ignore that?
No, you do take all the remedial solutions for that – in this case clinically finishing Bin
Laden. But not leaving that job half finished (anyone remembers Afghan war of 2001 –
2002 and Tora Bora); and run after some hypothetical participants of Islamic civil war
(Saddam Hussein) with the pretext that “but we are proactively eliminating a future
attacker on USA”. Mr. Woolsey, why this failure to analyze and debate the appropriate
course of action when the situation dignosed is of “civil war among Arab societies”? What
is the use of these Washington Power Monks when they do no tell America what is really
important and crucial? I thought the deal of the American people with these power monks
has been American people to tolerate the “power trips” of these Washington Power
Monks in return of getting precise, actionable policy and successful execution of the
same. May be America has relied too much on the “slam dunk” arguments of these
Power Monks.
One example of how the meddling into others affairs happen for those who play such
power games is Mr. Woolsey’s reference to Arab societies as “try to run a decent society
where a mother can’t even read to her children…”. Mr. Woolsey you are right to the point
when you mean that a large number of Arab mothers cannot read. But jumping from
there to the inability to run a decent society – that is the leap I guess we have been
talking all these centuries which is called as “applying Western standards to make
judgments about other societies”. As I read History, British Parliamentarians and East
India Company officials were oozing with the descriptions of how barbarian Hindu way of
life had been in the 19th century. If you read History, you will find that it was all
inconsequential and in many ways counter productive in the end. It is hard to escape the
strong motivation behind such characterization in the British Parliament apart from the
pure power lust of the British Empire to rule India. In the end it required the truly
revolutionary social reformer like Rajaram Mohan Roy to stop the barbaric practice of
“sati” (burning the widow alive along with the corpse of the husband). What does the
American History show? America solved on it’s own the issues of slavery and Civil war. It
did not need outside prompting. It is better that it did not happen. It is better in the long
run to let people solve their problems on their own rather than any external intervention.
Is it so hard to learn these lessons? The history of British Empire is full of pitfalls of trying
to judge other societies on the criteria of Western Civilization. Mr. Woolsey what we need
is the “restrain” from the Washington Power Establishment to avoid committing the same
mistakes of History.
This does not mean justification of characterization of American family as incest infected
dysfunctional family system as done on Saudi Government’s official web site. That needs
to be raised to their Government and America should explore all legal and rightful
approaches to ask the Saudi Government to remove that. That is the part of this war and
that is why it is the war of long haul. This war is in the end cultural conflict and we do not
want America to commit the mistake of imposing a cultural hegemony. It is naïve to
underestimate what is already imposed on the world via Hollywood and other cultural
exports of America. We do not need to supplement these exports with guns and military
imposed orders. Let the Commerce determine what rest of the world wants to consume
of America at their pace, not some kind of drunken foreign policy of USA to dictate terms
for the world. This being a cultural conflict and there being internal turmoil within many
societies of the world; this war is long. This war is long because the American Foreign
Policy takes the detours of removing Saddam Hussein and looses the focus on Bin
Laden. This war will be for a long haul because the American Forces are institutionalized
21
in a mold where they can only “see” nation state enemies. It will be long to the extent
American Forces fail to crystallize a laser like focus on the enemy which is not manifested
in the traditional nation state structure. This war will be further elongated because
America does not show the willingness to avoid falling into the traps of “imperial
ambitions”. And in the end one wonders whether this war will be kept festering for long
because that is one hell of a politically cheap way (but expensive to common man in
wealth and life) to extend the maniac grip of Washington Power Monks like Mr. Woolsey,
Mr. Paul Wolfowitz, Mr. Donald Rumsfeld, Ms. Condoleezza Rice, Vice President Mr.
Dick Cheney and the self declared war time President Mr. George W. Bush. We hope it is
not.
August 29, 2004.

Globalization and Outsourcing

The key to come out of recession is job creation. Until the national economies were fairly
closed; the increase in the demand due to pro investment and tax cut policies were
fulfilled by the production within the national borders. And as long as the production were
taking place within the national borders; it used to result in increased employment. This
no longer works. As soon as the demand increases; it gets fulfilled by production done
outside the national borders using the foreign labor. Effectively American demand fuels
the employment in labor abundant economies like China and India. Last few years have
shown Alan Greenspan may be wrong when he remarked that it does not matter where
the jobs are created as long as the demand is created and fulfilled. Many economists are
studying this phenomenon in larger details. Anirvan Banerjee from Economic Cycle
Research Institute in New York has been pointing out for a while why the classical
economic stimulus policies may not be effectively showing results in these times. (He has
probably the best record in the business as far as predicting the recessions is
concerned.) Stephen Roach from Morgan Stanley is another one. The point is at this
inflection point of Economic Theory, the American Government needs to be flexible in
terms of policies and as usual Bush Administration is adamant and applying policies
almost in the rote fashion.
As a consequence of this new phenomenon of absence of job creations in response to

simulative policies, explicit focus on employment generation is a possible policy. Well, it
is so Socialistic to talk about “exclusively job creation”; it is obvious that died in wool
conservation party like Republican Party would mock such policies. For them,
employment is “a result” of Capitalism and it comes as long as Capital is allowed to flow
without any hindrance. But the problem in today’s world is when America can not
compete with rest of the world on cost basis and at the same time lukewarm internal
demand is created due to weak employment; there is no alternative than to have an
explicit eye on the employment generation policies apart from constant efforts to attack
underlying cost within USA. Otherwise the society would land up with large swath of
population on street. China and India follow such employment oriented policies. It is
delusion to think that Globalization would propagate unfettered market mechanism
everywhere. Rest of the world does not have the strong legal system and property
ownership which USA has. Large part of rest of the world is under developed and their
22 policies are employment generation oriented rather priming capital. This invariable
distorts the pure market mechanism. So any faith in that pure market mechanism in the
rest of world is misplaced. As a result; middle and poor class in America would continue
hemorrhage as far as gainful employment is concerned. There in lies the true significance
of Senator’s Kerry’s policy inclination in inspecting all Trade Treaties and evaluating them
again from America’s employment point of view and in devising mechanism which would
provide incentives for companies to generate employment in USA and provide the
breathing time for labor which is under the gun of “outsourcing”. Somewhere along the
lines, I guess large sections of middle class in this country have given up any hope for
such subtle and fundamental understanding of Global Economy from the Bush
Administration. Frankly speaking with their preoccupation with the so-called war on terror,
with their doubtful intellectual abilities to comprehend the new complex world of
Globalization and perhaps inherent biases against certain well needed policy measures;
it is not possible to have any meaningful policy initiative from the Bush Administration.
There seems to be no presence of issues like “effects of Globalization” on the radar for
the current Administration. As Senator Kerry talks about the impacts of Globalization,
outsourcing and certain policy measures to deal with these phenomena; people will start
realizing gravity of the situation.
Talking of outsourcing, in my company we lost ten more engineers this week due to
outsourcing. At least our executives were honest enough to admit that publicly and put
forward the humane severance package for the affected employees. And this is not the
only job loss. We have been loosing jobs every quarter. In the spirit of honesty our
executives made it plain that this will be the case in coming days too. For a 1000+
employee public company, you are talking about 100 to 150 engineering jobs being
affected in this wave of outsourcing. One of the reasons the severance package has
been good is to make the remaining employees to hang around. I almost joked to my
executive that he is in the spot – how does he tell the last engineer to die for the loosing
war (courtesy Senator Kerry’s rhetoric 30 years back); the war wherein engineers have to
impart all of our work to the foreign worker and vacate the positions. May be Senator
Kerry would narrate a personal story in the coming debate about a family completely
devastated by outsourcing. He must have come cross many such tragic tales while
campaigning across America. It needs to be authentic. President Bush mentioned about
such a tale when the family lost the husband in the Iraq war. People need to know how
tragic the job situation is.
Outsourcing also has the impact on this country in terms of loosing the talent in
engineering fields. I have not come across any parents in Bay Area where they want their
sons or daughters to become engineers. More than half of students in Engineering
courses across America are foreign students who would go back resulting in lesser and
lesser engineering pool in this country. In a way, Software Programming and Engineering
in general is a sunset profession in America. Around 440,000 jobs in IT were lost in USA
due to outsourcing. More than half of these after the deeper part of the recession, after
2002. Bay Area is most affected. San Francisco and San Jose lost around 80,000 jobs
permanently in IT in last four years.
San Jose Mercury News Editorial has officially accepted in it’s editorial that - saying
Education and Retraining would help unemployed engineers to find new jobs - is more
likely not to work in today’s times. The basic competition is for Knowledge Economy
professions. So unless an engineer learns to go into Health care industry or Construction
industry; he or she may not be employed again. It is not the question of learning new
engineering or alternating engineering discipline. So all this talk of Retraining Policy of
Bush Administration is meaningless and bogus. It does not solve the problem.
23
Engineers are not dumb enough to know that legally outsourcing can not be stopped.
However, what can be done is creating right policy environment where retaining
engineering, manufacturing and other jobs is advantageous to business. Trade
negotiations are done in such a manner so that the torrential pace of wiping out in no
time the entire employment base of large professions is decelerated; giving the economy
time to adjust and people to adjust their lives. And finally public financed initiatives are
instituted in new technology areas where there is potential for forming entirely new
industries as happened in Computer industry. It should be made possible for those
affected engineers to get an opportunity to participate in these initiatives. These
engineers should not be rejected on the basis of insufficient background in these new
industries. On the job training within these new industries should be possible. This way
there will be huge lateral movement of capable technical talent to these potentially new
research areas; areas like Alternative Energy, Aero-Space (new startups like
SpaceOneShip in Southern California), Nano Technology, Stem Cell Research, Security
Technology, etc. Senator Kerry is taking about many such policy initiatives and that is the
way to go including a measure to extend retraining grants to engineers and white collar
employees affected by outsourcing which are not included in the current measure which
is restricted only for manufacturing workers.
The importance of Alternative Energy Research can hardly be emphasized. With oil at
$50 and with potential to reach $100 by 2010; alternatives to oil will not come any sooner.
What is needed is to provide vision and program in this regard. If America can put a man
on moon in 1971; it is not beyond the reach of America to come up with new technologies
where it is not hostage to foreign oil as well as is on top in many new areas so as it can
successfully meet the challenges brought by competing economies like China and India.
October 3, 2004.
America's Blind Spot: Pakistan

After Tom Brokaw declared his retirement from the active TV Anchor career, Time ran his
interview. One of the questions was - was there anything about which Tom Brokaw had
any regrets. Tom answered that he wished the media were more forthcoming as far as
connecting the dots of dangers of terrorism. I wondered are there any such things at
present which are slipping through media's glare which Tom Brokaw may be tempted to
castigate as media's failure in future. Despite 9/11 attacks, the 9/11 commission and a
deeply divisive election surrounded around these issues; failure of America in taking
certain precautionary measures to secure America’s ports, checked in luggage during air
travel and other continued security lapses merit one such continuous media attention. It
is clear that media continues to fail in that. The other such topic that comes to my mind in
this respect is America's Foreign Policy towards Pakistan and how it is America’s blind
spot.
There are few columnists who have bought President Bush's Iraq policy story line that it
is a struggle for democracy and it is America's duty to support these efforts for
democracy and pay the necessary cost. Charles Krauthammer, William Safire are the
24 names that come to my mind in this category. President Bush argues that paying price in
the struggle for democracy is a good policy for America because it secures America as
well as it is the right step in the direction of responding to "America's calling in supporting
Freedom". It is indeed the act of a political genius to shift the justification of Iraq war from
the war against terrorism, the war to stop WMDs and the war to enforce UN resolutions to
a pure, simple and elegant formulation of war for spreading Freedom. May be for this
sheer demonstration of political acumen and deftness American people awarded
President Bush with the second term. All these esteemed columnist think that 3 million
more votes vindicate their position of buying into President Bush's Iraq war justification
based on love for Freedom.
The only small problem with such a fantasy theory is how to reconcile this purest love
and urging for Democracy and Freedom with hosting a dictator at White House. It is one
thing for a Pakistani General to say that Pakistan is no more than a condom of America;
but is another for an American Administration to continue the policy of sleeping with a
dictator while still singing the song of Democracy and Freedom in Rose Garden. I do not
see anything apart from total failure, again the failure to connect the dots as Tom Brokaw
may call; in the media coverage in pointing out this colossal contradiction in President
Bush's foreign policy. We know that this president would hardly listen or be sensitive to
any idea which does not fit his fantasy world. This presidency in its second term is
structurally incapable of evolving any of its policy including the foreign policy. The entire
basis for the mandate and "the earned political capital" is this adamant political
philosophy cloaked as the epitome of unwavering worldview and strength. But why would
media fail to point out this continued contradiction and cave in to President Bush's fairly
tale of "march of freedom"? Charles Krauthammer cannot even wait there and wants to
chastise every one else for stopping only at Ukraine and not backing Iraq struggle. Folks,
we are yet again to miss yet another opportunity to connect the dots.
The problem with hosting the dictator Musharraf at Rose Garden is a moral problem too.
With this presidency riding so much on “values”; it is astonishing that how this value
contradiction is not pointed out. The moral problem is as follows. Democracy in the end is
not “fair”. 55 million voters who did not vote for President Bush are aware that they have
to endure all the policies in next four years which they precisely wanted to avoid.
Everyone knows how much water this talk of “national unity” holds. Politics in 21st
century America is divisive, brutal and winner takes all bloody battle. A perfect Gladiator
Game of Post-Modern flavor. Welcome to the new world. There is full understanding with
this looser block of voters that President Bush will be all busy in trying to fulfill
expectations of those 58 millions who voted for him. Busy in fulfilling at least what he
perceives as expectations of those who backed him. This is fair game in this ruthless
world of politics. Then on what basis such a large body of society endures such a pain in
Democracy and does not jump off into Atlantic and Pacific from their costal homes? The
basis is those elected would not stray from the Democratic norms and would not huddle
with those who follow the non-democratic politics and do not accord any sanctity to such
brutes. In today’s Global World, expectations of adherence to Democratic norms extent
well beyond domestic elections and applies to which jokers an elected president should
deal with. It is as if President Bush does not even want to think that there are 55 million
voters in this country and they are still living in this country to accept his commandments
only due to something called Democracy and that very same process he wants to trample
along for his simple urge of a song and dance in Rose Garden with a tin pot dictator. It is
shameless behavior.
In President Musharraf, we have a wily dictator who has gone backward effortlessly on
many of his promises to turn the Pakistani presidency to a duly elected president. He is
25
one of the smartest dictators around to have the gumption to turn away Pakistani soldiers
from South Wazaristan and abandon the search for Osma as soon as President Bush is
reelected as if he was waiting to carry the farce until the election. He is the person who
wants rest of the world to believe that all along his active military and political career he
has been associated with Pakistani Military and Intelligence establishment and yet he
does not know who is Dr. Khan and what he was doing in his spare time. Alas the world
would have been different only if the brotherly love which Collin Powell and President
Bush have showered on dictator Musharraf because he had had so many attempts on his
life; was available to many other worthy souls in this world. The truth is dictator Musharraf
has been simply swindling Bush Administration, has been simply fooling America and
meanwhile President Bush wants American People to turn away from this obvious
contradiction when he is pontificating about "march of freedom in Iraq" and many
intellectuals like Kruammanther and Safire buy into this whole hypocrisy.
The core issue is - is this hypocrisy of any benefit and advantage to American people in
real terms? When one sees the illustrious achievements of Dr. Khan in the rarified filed of
Nuclear Proliferation; we realize the true loss for America of this crazy policy. When one
understands the role of Pakistan in supplying the crucial talent to the over achieving,
immensely destructive team of 9/11 attacks; one realizes the future potential of such
talent crop and their possible profound contribution to the world terrorism due to a non-
democratic regime in Pakistan. When one understands that like a drunken and
incapacitated Westerner, America is simply babbling "Osma - wanted dead or alive", but
in reality American people have to hear from the dictator Musharraf that Osma may not
be there in Pakistan. Why, why the American people are expected to show the dumbness
and callousness, as like which is on full display by this administration; while realizing the
dangers of "pampering Pakistan"? Why is the media quiet about this? Why do Charles
Krauthammer and William Safire of this world do not raise this issue but want others to
join the chorus of this administration's Christmas jingle of "march of freedom in Iraq"? To
William Safire, is this "Chicken Pakistan" of the American media? We know Bush
Administration is Chicken on this issue but it is not acceptable that media too is chicken
about Pakistan. Or is it that these esteemed critics and media are completely dazzled by
the shine of Bush victory in Election 2004 accompanied by the heavy drumbeat of "march
of freedom in Iraq" lyrics written by that, that other worldly genius mind named Karl
Rove? May be they need to ask Indians how to get out of the spell of this heady and
powerful drug called "Pakistan as a partner in War on Terrorism".
December 7, 2004.
Bill's Fiction
I do not believe it is helpful to readers and the general discourse about Iraq war, the way
Bill (Roth Plot II, William Safire, New York Times, December 20, 2004) is trying to spin
the wheel here. The basic debate here is whether the ones who opposed the war had in
effect derelict their responsibility or the ones who have been backing the war in effect
being irresponsible aggressor. Facts play important role in the debate. Those who
opposed the war received all sorts of invectives until the facts came out. When all the
facts regarding the rationale for the war in the end indeed surfaced and the reality of Iraq
26 war started to unfold in a seriously wrong way; the war supporters are now resorting to
the “mind game” of “what would have happened if there was no Iraq invasion”. There are
two trends now for the war supporters to continue to justify the war and postpone the day
of History when they have to accept that this war has been a mistake. Remember, it took
around 25 years for Robert McNamara to admit that Vietnam war was indeed a mistake
and a wrong war. ('Yet we were wrong, terribly wrong. We owe it to future generations to
explain why." http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0125-01.htm). I can not say
about longevity of anyone, including myself; but hope that many of these supporters will
be around to admit this mistake. Better, if they do not take this long to admit it. The first
line of defense is President Bush’s line that the war is now about Democracy in Iraq.
Well, true but we did not start the war with that view. Moreover, there are possibly far
more appropriate candidates for inculcating Democracy than this mess of Iraq. I mean
President Bush falls flat on his face when on the one hand he says Americans are dying
in Iraq for Democracy but at the same time goes out of his way to host many dictators of
the world, likes of Pakistani President Dictator Musharraf, in White House. There are far
more worthy and more effective steps American Government can undertake to spread
Democracy in the world than spending Billions of American Tax Payers and letting kill
young Americans in Iraq.
The other line is what Bill is advocating here – fictionalizing world events in a direction
suitable to his argument if there were no Iraq war. I have all the respect for Bill’s
imagination and his abilities to speculate. But he needs to understand that it is in the end
worthless piece of some babble to which war opposition can retort back in equal numbers
and strongly. Where does that lead to us? Bill is grown up during the Cold War and so he
should know that there were far more serious and sinister plots build, practiced and
followed to act upon by Soviet Union. How did America handle that? How was the Cuban
Missile Crisis handled? Bill and supporters of war like him need to come down from their
hyper plane ride of high morals and need to put their feet on ground. Such a speculative
account is no justification for war. The other side can go on and on in terms how Saddam
would have been strangled with the active forces in Iraq; how the life would have been
made miserable to UN and Food for Oil Program Managers to reveal what was
happening there; how unfretted access to multinational forces within Iraq would have
completely strangled Saddam in terms of pursuing any WMDs.; and so on. Bill, we are in
the 21st century where this Defense Secretary wants to create the advanced Army and
hence America should have taken the challenge of how to “fix” a dictator like Saddam
without needing the messy and incompetent current Iraq war. Then we would not have
required Bill to invent fiction to justify the war.
December 21, 2004.

Wake Up America
On March 27 2002 the “Passover Massacre” occurred at Netanya. More than 20 people,
eating religious meal, were killed. That massacre shook the Israel and started to turn the
Israel policy in a different direction. Yesterday’s Mosul attack on American Army is
similarly shaking up America. It is one thing to loose your brave soldiers in the combat
and another to loose these young Americans when they are trying to have a simple meal,
probably the only luxury in a war.
The real issue is whether President Bush and his Administration are doing right things to
complete the mission or not. Some of the more successful political battles Democrats 27
fought in last few years are - to force Bush Administration to come straight on Home Land
Security and to set 9/11 commission along with follow up of Intelligence Reform Bill.
There is no reason for Democrats to loose any such possible initiative about Iraq policy.
In the current circumstances America needs to address the Iraq problem squarely. It is
the test of political leadership and the good part is despite the losses in election, the test
does not preclude Democrats from trying the real solution.
The obvious thing here is to beef up American Forces. Let us ignore whether the Defense
Secretary remains or resigns, but bother much more about how armor protection and
weapons are made available to soldiers. It is clear that Secretary Rumsfeld and President
Bush do falter in this task. Force them to take the right action. This Administration has
been reluctant to increase the strength of Army. But as all officials admit publicly,
including the President, that American forces will have to be in Iraq well past the election
on Jan 30; it is clear that the current rotation policy will hit the bump. Besides there is
clear requirement that America needs to have forces on hand to deploy any where else
while the Iraq war is continued.
The world is watching from outside all these failures of America in Iraq. As such there are
growing challenges to American ability to project it’s strength all over the world. Could
this failure in Iraq would unhinge America’s ability to set the global agenda permanently?
Again it is a mute point that the world would have helped if there was some one apart
from Bush. That is not the case is the reality and a fact. There is no Santa Clause around
– no UN, no Germany, no Pakistan and no Indian troops. For all these countries America
is a kind of laughing stock. It is now the issue of America’s credibility. Let us put more
troops, let us give whatever they need. Still not convinced – try watching death of young
soldiers on TV and yet try to celebrate Christmas with your family.
It is the fundamental realization needed here that apart from few handful allies, no other
countries in the world are going to lend the helping hand of contributing by way of troops.
All other discussion about what President Bush needs to do so those countries can come
along is useless. It does not matter that President Bush is adamant and hence others
hesitate to help us. But we Americans are stuck with this President. What do we do? Let
us do what we can. Democrats need to forget their losses in election and come forward
to address this issue head on. Whether you want or don’t, the reality of war, destruction
and death even on solemn holidays lie in front of America. Let us not wait what President
Bush does or Republicans in Congress do. May be Republicans will be all busy in
savoring their moment of glory in Congress and newly found power and running after
more Tax Cuts and what not. But Democrats do not need to loose the focus. That is the
moral value. There is no more need to undertake that elusive search of “Republican
Moral Values”; the moral value is right there for grabs – do not worry where the chips fall,
but come forward to tell the nation what we need to do so that America has gumption to
sustain these attacks on it’s will and complete the mission in Iraq. December 22, 2004.
Book Review: State Of Fear by Michael Crichton,

2004
Monday, December 27, 2004
Generally it is difficult to put down a book by Crichton once you start it and the new book
“State of Fear (SOF) is no exception. This is bit of a problem for a slower reader like me
since I land up piling up lot of essential tasks when I am engrossed in the book until it is
finished! But the book is worth all the time and I am happy that my this year’s quota – one
good book per year – is consumed by such a stunning thriller. I am a modern day blue
28
color worker by profession in USA; I mean a software engineer in Knowledge Economy,
trying to keep my job in a global, outsourcing threatened world with a family to support.
So I do not get much time to read a whole new book. In a way I cannot afford extensive
book reading. So it is satisfying that I was able to read a good book whatever time I can
afford for that activity.
A really frightening thing happened when I finished the book. I turned the last page of the
book after paying all of my available time, including lot of sleep deprivation and then
decide to catch up with my mundane personal things. I hooked to the Internet to check
my emails, opened Yahoo and then saw the news of devastating Tsunami hitting South
and South East Asia due to the 9.0 Richeter scale earthquake on December 26, 2004 in
Sumatra Sea. It took me a while to understand that it is not some kind of Internet / Reality
Game where I am continued from the book on to the web pages, but rather a true tragic
incident has indeed happened. No wonder my belief in the solidity of the central plot of
the book is fully entrenched. I liked the plot from the start and this particular tragic news
enforced the plausibility and possibility of what Chrichton is talking here.
I hope this devastation in Asia is not related to some kind of extreme environmental
organization as what the author talks in the book. After 9/11 and this book, I am sure that
many Governmental Organization will be looking into such possibilities. Rather they
should, even if such things are highly unlikely. If not anything, I think this is very positive
contribution of the book – laying out a possible terrorist game plan. In real life, it may not
be an environmental organization who may try to pull such a stuff; but potentially a
regular terrorist organization. I guess, it is incumbent upon the citizens and media to grill
our policy makers about whether they are ready for such terrorist plots. It is serious stuff
and now the policy makers cannot have any excuse for not “connecting the dots”. This is
one of the advantages of techno - thrillers and in the case of SOF it is fully on display.
So the plot is quite tight, plausible, strong and that is the best part of the book. What
about the Science? Aha, that is tricky and a difficult issue. Many of the references are
from the journal “Nature” and you cannot get any more authentic than that. So Crichton
has done exemplary homework here. Of course there is always room to question or
wonder how Crichton uses some specific information. For example, one of the central
arguments of the book is about James Hansen’s research and his findings. On page 246
the author ridicules Hansen for predicting 0.35C increase in the temperature within next
10 years starting from 1988 where as in reality it has been only 0.11C. I checked the
source data (http://www.giss.nasa.gov/data/update/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.txt) and it is
not that straight forward. The annual mean has changed from 0.29 to 0.56 above average
during 1988 to 1998. The figures are Global Land+Ocean Surface Temperature Anomaly
which I think is what the author is talking about. In any case that is the measure used at
the broadest level to measure the temperature change (and the site explains why that is
the case). The data on that site is in solid shape, up to date and publicly available. In the
same table (2nd column) the figures are 0.37 and 0.31 for the year 1990 and 2000
respectively, meaning global temperature was effectively higher by 0.37C in 1990 over
the normal (global average over a long period) whereas it is higher by 0.31C in 2000. So
it is hard to take selectively only one piece of data and base your argument on that. In
fact the author implicitly criticizes such tendencies among many environmentalists. But I
get the feeling that on many occasions that has happened in the book as well.
So do I think that data is really manipulated in the book? Not really, I just want to argue
that cherry picking of data may not be the best way to put your case. I would say in this
case in fact if one looks at the data in terms of 5 years mean change and lot of graphs
29
presented on that web site; it is obvious that global temperature is indeed increasing.
There is no mistake about that. Just go to that NASA web site and it is all there. Then
does it not destroy one of the central thesis of the book that data about Global Warming
is at best unclear and fuzzy? Well, there are serious challenges the way Crichton is trying
to portray the insufficiency of the temperature data in the book when one is exposed to
the comprehensiveness of data on that NASA web site which is the de facto global
source of data in this area.
The larger issue is what are the causes of this increase. Here I believe Crichton is on bit
stronger grounds – to take with pinch of salt the stated reasons of global warming by
many environmentalists. That is the real bone of contention and as things stand the
evidence of human activities contributing to this global temperature increase still needs
more ammunition. Point well taken and I believe that is quite strongly argued in the book.
This is because it is pretty well known (and those references are given in the book as
well) that between two glacier periods, temperature on earth increases dramatically. This
is even admitted by James Hansen. I subscribe to Scientific American and in the article
none other than by James Hansen himself in March 2004 issue, graphs on page 71 show
the temperature and green house gases (CO2 and Methane) changes over last 400
Thousand years. The graphs depict near equivalence for two interglacial periods –
Eemian and the current Holocene as far as temperature and volume of green house
gases are considered. Meanwhile, it is also true that human activity adds green house
gases. So the question is, in this naturally observed increase of green house gases
during interglacial periods how much addition is by humans and how damaging is that.
Answer to this question is not clear and Crichton hammers this point home.
In the same article (and I suppose in general) Hensen argues that man made increase
(what he calls human forcings) “will” cause the sea level to rise. Again the real argument
here is, in the Eemian interglacial period the sea levels were way higher than what we
have today so if we exceed the equivalent level of green house gases, the sea level
eventually will go much higher. But then why is it not high at present? That is the question
Hansen attempts to answer. He says that melting of ice is abrupt and if these man made
forcings (even if those are small) remain for sufficient longer period; suddenly glacier
melting will start and sea level will increase. Now, this is the part which is not very
convincing and I agree with Crichton’s stance here that we need to get more information
and see what happens rather than jumping to the conclusion.
This gets further complicated in Hansen’s article. Hensen depicts two more graphs where
the observed CO2 and Methane levels are less than IPCC projected levels and argues
that he is happy for the progress done and he is hopeful that we may be able to avoid the
possible bad consequences of global warming because we may be able to control our
share of addition of green house gases. This is good news but on the scientific level it
can also be interpreted as Hansen is buying an “insurance” here. We know that anything
which cannot be submitted to the Falsification Criteria (Karl Popper) is susceptible
Science. In this case if the claimed bad effects of green house gases (say increase in sea
level) are not observed, there is no way to falsify Hansen’s theory that control in human
activities have reduced CO2 and Methane and that has helped to avoid the disaster of
global warming. I am sure Crichton will be delighted to read this article of Hansen in
Scientific America as well as presumably Hansen’s recent work. The reason I am
mentioning all this is it is indeed lot convincing when Crichton is arguing that on many
cases in this debate of global warming, large number of people are jumping the gun
ahead. Still many cases needed to be proved solidly.
30
Another interesting point I found well articulated in the book is about the philosophical
argument for taking action to address global warming. The environmental case is,
knowing that human activities are adding green house gases in the atmosphere, we
should control those activities because we do not have any moral right to disturb the
nature (or say moral right to disturb what Jesus has given to us). How can we add
something to Nature (or what Jesus has offered)? Our ancestors were not doing that.
Well, Crichton strongly argues that our ancestors were indeed altering the environment
as suitable to their needs. And of course there is complete materialistic or hedonistic
aspect to this argument – unless I know what I am contributing to the damage don’t beat
me to stop my consumption. Do I personally subscribe to this argument? No, but I believe
there is still inadequate basis to stop others from doing that? Crichton is not hesitant in
exploiting this fact to bolster his case.
But of course he is not dumb not to articulate what should be investigated as far as Man –
Nature relationship is concerned. One of his characters – Morton – in the end puts quite
vividly his vision of what kind of right environmental organization he would like to run
instead of the current morbid organizations which jump to the conclusion while skipping
certain crucial steps. I wish Crichton funds one such organization with the millions which
he will get by selling this book. In fact I believe it is a moral necessity for Crichton to do if
he wants to substantiate his statements at the end of the book - “Everybody has the
agenda. Except me.” Why would Crichton not have an agenda? I mean his agenda is so
obvious – to rake in millions by selling this techno thriller which he does so well. He
knows he is a part of this politico-legal-media (PLM) complex. He is an author is fine but
as a part of his profession it is lot more important how his books play out in media.
Substantial monetary stakes are involved in publishing it right way and carefully
launching such a techno thriller. To borrow the cliché, today’s authors are perfectly aware
of the Post Modern world in which they operate; where not only the plot of the book or the
core merit of the book is important (this it is solid in this case, no doubt about that); but
the ripples which the book generates are as well carefully calibrated. This book is not
something where the author writes it and gets detached as far as reader reactions and
literary criticism are concerned. All these aspects are inclusive in the commercial
planning. For example, the total movie script style format of the book (so the movie
making / script development is pre-wired in the writing), web sites, internet forums and so
on. And still all this is legitimate. This is how things are done in the Post Modern, fully
Internet connected world. The only requirement is we all are aware of it and so do not
make the statements like Crichton does, that he does not have an agenda. He has an
agenda and it is financial gains. Perfectly legitimate and he does that so well,
professionally and deservingly. Again I am not arguing whether the author should gain
financially or not. Simply that he should not claim other wise. So his claim that he does
not have an agenda can be true only when he puts some of the monetary gains where
such right environmental organizations exist. Not acknowledging existence of any such
environmental organizations and narrowing down the focus to only dumb organizations
as portrayed in the book is one of the shortcomings of the book. Also there is complete
pass given to the environmentally damaging activities undertaken by industry with profit
gain as the agenda. I am sure Crichton is not denying such incidents – those are all
extensively documented and thoroughly investigated. In general, it does not go very well
when Crichton’s financial motives are evident while he is pointing out agenda’s of other
players of the society who are involved in the welfare of all of us and yet he claims that
he is above the fray.
I wish all those sections of the books – Author’s Message and Appendix I (Why
Politicized Science Is Dangerous) – were not there. These sections raise the kind of
31
questions discussed above. I guess that is how the self reflective books are in the Post
Modern world. Indeed in that sense this is not a usual book where one can apply
classical literary criteria of judgment. (May be all techno thrillers are like that.) For
example, no character sounds authentic in the book. Character development is so poor
or rather completely absent. I do not know if the author has done it purposefully so as not
to over shadow the main plot and action part of the narrative. If the author did not want to
invest in character development, I believe the format of the book could have been
collection of journalistic or media stories or Internet blogs or TV news where it is does not
matter who an individual or the character is but that the narrative develops through
collection of news pieces. May be the structure of traditional “fiction / novel” is not a right
medium to what the author is putting forward. Attempts to do that give kind of emptiness
feeling to the reader despite the strength of the main plot and solid arguments in the
book. It results in so many awkward conversations to express various ideas which the
author wants to put forward. It is unlikely that people in real life would have conversation
in this manner.
Despite this handicap of the format, some concepts have surfaced quite well. The
concept of “ecology of ideas” is quite appropriately capturing the mode of collective
thinking in current societies. Also Crichton is right to point the central role of “fear” in
today’s life. We have all seen in the recent election how the Vice President claimed that
electing Democrats would bring new terrorist attacks on America and how Democrats
claimed that this administration would bring the draft. I guess this politico-legal-media
(PLM) complex is emboldened after 9/11 to play out fear among people unabashedly.
One minor point – in the footnote on page 370, population of 3 American cities is
mentioned. But it is incorrect.
Printed the book According USA Census 2000
LA 14,531,000 3,694,820
Berkeley 6,250,000 102,743
New York 19,345,000 8,008,278
(http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/SAFFFacts?_sse=on)
So it is clear that even if population increase of last four years (from 2000 to 2004) is
included in these number; the actual numbers reported in the book are incorrect. The
New York number in the book is more close to the total population of the entire New York
state, though still it is not accurate. I live in San Jose near Berkeley California and I know
that the entire population of Bay Year could be around 4 million so it cannot be the case
that the population of city of Berkeley is 6.2 million. Same applies to LA, it is way
overstated. Yes, it is relatively minor point; but when the author is taking the high moral
grounds of beating everybody else how hard facts are used incorrectly, it is bit tough to
sallow author’s errors. I guess Crichton would have to add the errata in next reprints or at
least need to publish all these corrections on his web site. Also it will be quite useful if
Table of Contents, Name Index and Subject Index are added. Generally those are
needed for a technical book and Crichton do want to make this book a technical book
apart from a thriller.
On the whole I liked the book and I believe it enters some of the unchartered areas of our
collective policy debate fearlessly. Kudos to Crichton and I think it will be regarded as a
milestone fiction in terms of societal debates about larger questions. In a way it is good to
see that the some of the recent forms of literature like techno-thriller are traversing the
32
complete circle and coming back to address the larger societal issues. I suppose in good
old days regular good novels used to do that and now the larger canvass is back. I am
sure considering the preeminent position of Crichton in this genre, others in this genre too
would start using such larger and global canvass. That could be a substantial impact of
this book.
Umesh Patil
San Jose, California
December 27, 2004.
Response: NYT Editorial "Are We Stingy? Yes"

on Dec 30, 2004
I want to applaud NYT Editorial Board in being fearless in calling the spade for spade.
Whichever way one tries to cut, America and this administration do not come clean. I fully
agree with the argument and sentiment presented in this editorial. It is sad that America
has not been more forthright and proactive in all of this aid affairs. They need to be. It is
not pleasing to read the way other editorials (Times of India in particular) around the
world are chastising and criticizing this administration. Indeed unpleasing and
embarrassing.
The only good part is American people on their own are not waiting. They are coming
forward and helping the affected people (yours truly included) whatever in his or her
abilities. As more private donations come over the web, it will send the message to the
world that regardless of what our politicians do, American people do understand how to
come forward in need, remembering how the world came to them on 9/11.
As some editorials are pointing (TOI in particular); we are in the global world. Even in this
tragedy, substantial Western visitors have died. More and more, we have to think in
terms “one world one people” and act accordingly. NYT editorial is the right step in that
direction.
Second Term Inauguration Speech by President

Bush
Sunday, January 23, 2005
True to his form of being bold at least in articulation of a vision, President Bush explicitly
formulated the idea of Liberty at large as the guarantee of Freedom at home. In itself the
concept is obvious and no brainier after 9/11; but he deserves the credit to formulate and
espouse this concept from the bully pulpit of the inauguration speech; possibly one of the
few presidents to do so if not the first one. He also deserves the credit of upholding the
honorable tradition of being above the fray of partisan politics and to touch universal
themes in such inauguration speeches. Indeed the speech was not much about his
politics or his Conservative ideology.
33
However, there are certain objections to President Bush’s assertions on the basis of his
actions in the first term, his approach to such problems and his overall conduct and
justifications so far. The President walks the talk in case of the Afghanistan war. But it is
bit of less convincing when the case of Iraq war comes up for introspection. The basis of
WMD to go to the war overshadowed any argument for Liberty while selling the war to
America people, the people who are essentially footing the bill of this war in terms lives
and dollars. Given this history, it is hard to suppress the thought that the justification of
the Iraq war as implanting the Freedom is a kind of after thought. Or is it an attempt to
make best of the circumstances which developed later or an attempt to gloss and cover
the misjudgment in starting and conducting the war? It is hard to know exact answers
here, and it is equally hard to refute the charge of being opportunistic here.
Certain specific policies, if followed by this administration, would make everyone to

accept the truthfulness of the president. The president needs to show the zeal in
confronting tyrannies of the world instead of cohabiting with them. This means the
president refuses to grant sanctity to dictators like Musharaf of Pakistan, the president
makes honest efforts in bringing the Middle East peace (he is nowhere near to what the
Clinton Administration spent it’s political capital on this problem), the president does not
hesitate calling upon China to give freedom to it’s citizen backed by more concrete
American sanctions and does not tolerate dictatorial tendencies of Putin like state heads.
President Bush’s conduct in this regard in the first term does inspire any confidence to
believe that he is doing what is in his capacities to promote Liberty in many non-
democratic states of the world. Unless he demonstrates such a shift in the second term,
his words in the inauguration speech would remain empty.
The next thing the president needs to acknowledge is that America has been engaging
with many rulers who have not been following such democratic norms. Without
acknowledging mistakes of the past presidencies, including policies of his administration
in the first term; the talk of America backing democratic struggles of other societies rings
hallow. Just look at how the presidency of the first Bush encouraged Shitte community in
the Southern Iraq to revolt against Saddam after the first Gulf War but chickened out the
last minute which resulted in the massacre of Shittes in Iraq. In fact one would argue that
American conduct was immoral and the blood is on it’s hand for that episode. In a way it
is quite easy to talk about Liberty and America’s support to Freedom struggle but to
forget when America did not leave up to this lofty goal resulting in duplicitous behavior. Is
it not that many in the world at times feel betrayed by America’s hypocrisy? The president
who wants to proclaim so boldly about America’s unflinching commitment to Freedom
owes to accept the responsibility of those occasions in the past when America failed to
do so. It is no excuse that it happened in past presidencies. It is the other side of the coin
– the same legacy which otherwise lends the weight to the pageantry of Inauguration and
which offers the bully pulpit to President Bush in delivering such an overreaching sermon
to the world. Possibly this awareness of circumspect past of America is what might have
prompted earlier presidents to refrain from making such sweeping assertions. But then
American presidency is a live institution and one expects each president contributes in
taking it higher. It is legitimate, and even admirable, for President Bush to take this
opportunity to evolve further the American Presidency in leading America to engage in
this noble task of advancement of Liberty. It is just that he does that without any
acknowledgement of the past. It is bit confining the nobility of the principle of supporting
advancement of Freedom to say that events of 9/11 starkly activated America to renew
it’s commitment to this principle. It is not to diminish the importance of events of 9/11, but
it is more of universal truthness of the principle which is beyond any single incident.
Given this understanding, it cannot be argued that America did not require to adopt this
34
principle explicitly in past. So missing those opportunities in the past needs to be
accounted in a way, at least acknowledged when a president wants to make the case of
centrality of this principle in going forward.
Finally, there is one more realization needed by the president at the start of the new
century – it is that America cannot be and should not be alone in this noble task of
cultivating Freedom all over the world. Looking into the future, it is inconceivable to
abrogate the role of custodian of Liberty only to America in the coming globalized village.
Being the oldest functioning democracy for past 227 years alone does not justify that role.
The world is different in the 21st century. It means America needs to work with like
minded Democracies of the world to lead and establish a common front which acts the
global custodian of Liberty. Younger democracies of India, Australia, Japan and older
ones of Europe do need to be part of a coalition of free societies working together in
advancing Liberty all over the globe. The real value of American Leadership is in shaping
such a coalition of free societies instead of bit of an arrogant posture of a single crusader
of Freedom. One does not get such a sense of cooperation in President Bush’s speech.
Without emphasizing such a collaborative efforts along with the record of his first term,
the inauguration speech leaves much to wait and see instead of whole hearted throwing
ones lot behind President Bush. May be President Bush would get strength and wisdom
in coming days to vigorously bridge these gaps. At the start of a new presidential term, at
least that is the minimum that we all (political supporters and opponents included) can
wish for President Bush and for our Nation.
Umesh Patil
San Jose, CA;
January 23, 2005.
N. Korean Problem and Bush Administration

Friday, February 11, 2005
After public declaration of having nuclear weapons and not wanting to continue 6 party
talks, it is logical to think what should happen and what will happen. Let us go with the
simple part first – what should happen.
1) USA starts to talk with N. Korea on bilateral basis.
2) USA realizes that NPT and similar anti-proliferation ideas are no longer working and
relevant. Countries around the world will not accept the monopoly of few nations on
Nuclear Weapons. Any structure based on preserving this monopoly is doom to fail.
Moreover, USA realizes that any attempt to resurrect such framework is going to be with
diminishing success. Just look at how Indians ignored NPT and eventually were able to
avoid ever signing the treaty. As overall USA power declines in the world, any ability to
force this orthodoxy down the throat of other nations will wither away. Any such attempts
are waste of American political capital and even may start damaging it’s global interests.
Democrats, traditional American Liberals especially, need to understand this; given their
propensity to try traditional anti proliferation measures always.
3) Long term USA needs to focus more on a global structure where there are multiple
nuclear powers. It can be a successive treaty to NPT so the current signatories are
carried as they are. The focus should be on building and establishing a new inspection
regime which prevents nuclear weapons landing in the hands of rouge trans-national
entities. 35
4) USA also needs to give up the duplicitous behavior of ignoring nuclear dangers of
Pakistan and letting Israel free. Days of bullying other nations are over. True changes will
come only on the basis of American credibility. Duplicitous behavior is anathema for the
credibility.
5) The administration also needs to de-link the talk of Democracy, both at policy level and
public posture level, from the security to be obtained by containing the spread of nuclear
weapons. Don’t get tangled with Democracy in N. Korea when the focus is to prevent it’s
nuclear weapons going in the wrong hands. America’s elected politicians owe to the
American Public that they are not so inapt in inviting the danger by mixing these two
things.
But one can understand what will actually happen:
1) Bush Administration, despite the need to change it’s policy of 6 party talks will stick to
it’s hard line policy.
2) Meanwhile it will escalate the issue of Iranian Nuclear Weapons and bury the Korean
problem.
3) As it winds down the engagement in Iraq; it may threaten a war with Iran. It will take
that problem to Security Council and will try to repeat what it did for Iraq. In the rhetoric of
war against Iran, the Korean problem will be on the back burner.
4) China and S. Korea will not mind Nuclear N. Korea in their backyard (nuclear India and
Pakistan as a model?). How so ever hard Bush Administration shouts that Nuclear N.
Korea is a problem to neighbors, these countries will live happily with Nuclear N. Korea
and in a way be happy to watch how it becomes a thorn for the American overbearing
attitude.
All in all Bush Administration will not initiate and conduct a serious discussion with
Congress to radically change the framework of Nuclear Proliferation so as to move away
from the current rigid approach as well as get away from the box in which it finds itself. It
is almost certain that in the end Bush Administration would have committed the immoral
and dishonest task of risking the security of American people for it’s hubris in regards to
the Korean Peninsula problem. There is very dim chance that we can see any realistic
improvement on this problem unless until a new administration comes. It just does not
unfold in any other way when you have politicians who do not want to change non-
working policies and who base their entire political standing on such inflexibility. Let us
wait for next 4 years and pray that Kim Jong II does not get a kick to play with lives of
American people.
Umesh Patil
San Jose, CA 95111
February 11, 2005.
Medicare Silence
Monday, March 21, 2005
Editorial after editorials, commentator after commentators mention that Social Security is
a problem, but not a crisis and in the same breath add that it is the Medicare that is in
crisis. What is strange is nobody elaborates further on this issue. Clearly facts are –
Medicare is indeed going to be burst much earlier than Social Security and if Social
Security is an atomic bomb to Federal Deficit in some decades to come, Medicare is the
Hydrogen bomb in next five to six years. On this background it is indeed missing the point
when USA Today in it’s editorial (March 20, 2005) chastises Democrats for being quiet on
36 the Social Security issue even though it mentions in passing that Medicare is the real
crisis.
(http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-03-20-our-view_x.htm)
Some time back Time ran an issue about detailing President Bush’s Social Security
gamble. It also provided all the charts, graphics and usual impressive statistics to point
out that it is really the Medicare that is a problem. What was missing was the analysis of
why American politicians are behaving as if they are living on another planet when the
issue of Medicare is concerned. I have not come across any media outlet that is really
trying to dig out all the facets of the Medicare problem and what is the politics behind
Medicare so as it is emerging as the real “third rail of America Politics” since no political
party wants to talk about that. I mean one completely fails to understand the approach of
Media – knowing that Medicare is in crisis it keeps on playing the piper for President
Bush’s Social Security song. Why not for example Time or Newsweek run the entire issue
with a cover story about Medicare? Why not USA Todays and New York Times of this
world splash this issue day after day on their front page and editorialize relentlessly?
Where are the reporters who ask the simple question of how to fix the Medicare to
President Bush and Republicans? Where are the interviewers how ask President Bush
and Republicans why should American people allow Congress and Administration to
spend resources on the second distant problem than the first urgent issue of Medicare?
Why not Congress undertakes hearings about this issue? Who needs the babble of Alan
Greenspan about Social Security when we all know Medicare cost and Uncle Sam’s
commitment about that are going to bankrupt us all? Where is the progressive media who
understands that they are getting into the mousetrap while spinning the wheel about
Social Security but not talking seriously about Medicare?
The real political failure on behalf of Democrats, which is what USA Today should have
criticized, is that they are not using this natural opportunity of fighting Social Security
juggernaut of President Bush by raising the fundamental crisis of Medicare. The failure is
not coming forward with any positive plan for Medicare to blunt the advantage of
President Bush on Social Security. One got to fight the fire by fire. The strategy of
Democrats in opposing strongly and to remain united about Social Security is the right
one. One of the most impressive and effective things Congressional Democrats have
done is to remain steadfastly united in opposing President Bush’s privatization plan of
Social Security. It does not matter if some criticizes this as an obstructionist stance, so be
the case. My wish is this new found cohesiveness among Democrats is long lasting. I
hope they look at the mature Parliamentarian Democracies and learn that the opposition
in those democracies is like a monolithic block. Nothing is going to save Democrats from
the Republican war machine and total Republican control of power, except being united.
And then imagine with that same unity Democrats come forward and present a solution
or strategy for the Medicare problem. It is bound take the shine from President Bush’s
unceasing chanting of Privatization of Social Security and it is bound make American
People aware of what is more important. It will give the initiative to Democrats.
Democrats need to be fearless in sticking to the position that the Social Security is indeed
an issue that can be addressed by some adjustment – as they have been saying so far.
No one will say Democrats are irresponsible about these entitlement programs if they
come forward with a Medicare plan. Today, it is post-Clinton politics; so there cannot be
any phobia for proposing solutions about Medicare. Just because a decade back
President Clinton and Hillary Clinton had to retreat back on this issue does mean that
Democrats should not talk about it now. In fact now is the need to talk about solution for
America’s medical problem. Senator Kerry is trying to surface this issue through a bill to
provide medical insurance coverage for children. Why not even Senator Hillary Clinton?
Why is she attempting to do the delicate posturing on abortion issue when the real
37
leadership is being fearless while articulating a strategy to address the Medicare cost,
medical coverage and overall ultra high inflation in medical services. It is no brainier to
see that American people are going to be pushed towards poverty with these medical
bills, increasing costs and lack of coverage. Almost the entire politics can be built around
the Medical related issues. Shame is Democrats are not trying that and shame is Media
is missing this point to highlight as well. If people are wrong about this issue, including
this author, then again Media needs to clear these alarmist opinions. I do not find any
illuminating coverage and analysis of this issue. Well, one more incidence where the
master of lower expectations - President Bush - has successfully stirred away Media,
American Politics and American People from what is really the critical issue for America.
Umesh Patil
March 21, 2005
San Jose, CA 95111.
Folly of Comparative Analysis

Wednesday, March 23, 2005
Rajjev Srinivasan, I read your “India can be creator of the future” article on Rediff
(http://www.rediff.com/) published on March 23, 2005 and I have following comments.
- You like being blunt so I will start with the first comment – You are racial. There is no
other way to interpret your categorization of America as “White Americans”. Obviously
you have no clue whatsoever of how the demography is shaping in America, how levers
of power are getting spread across multiple sections of society and how likely the politics
is going to shape away from traditional categorization.
- You are still caught in the ivory tower, armchair, lofty, warmonger type of worldview.
World is more integrated, forces of Globalization are changing everything in
unprecedented way, old categories of sovereign states with all the trappings of the
tradition power are under attack, new alignments are coming up, new institutions are
getting formed and states are realizing the limits of sovereignty – including USA and
China. Obviously you are intelligent, but when will you stop such fascist worldview? And
by the way, if your objective is being rational so as to come up with an abstract concept
framework in order to understand world happenings and further predict future
happenings, just do introspection to understand how inadequate such highly partisan,
one sided, narrow minded and obstinate your conceptual framework is. The framework
where you are obsessed with which nation states control the world affairs. The problem
with this formulation is it is too simplistic when nation state identity and it’s eminent
domain power is getting constrained in many different ways.
- Why are you so dated to talk about AT&T? I mean people keep on making the so called
wise crack comment to indicate that many assign higher market cap to Yahoo than GM
and how wrong it is. It is not wrong but reflective of reality. Common on, GM is almost
bankrupt (read it’s last quarter); it no longer represents America’s strength. The days of
what is good for GM is good for America (I think 1953 or 1956, some time around
38 Eisenhower time; you are history fact junkie; you can find that) are long back gone. GM
stopped mattering to America way back in 1980s. AT&T stopped mattering to American
Economy in 1990s. Just keep forgetting about Apple, Yahoo, Google, Juniper,
Genentech, Adobee, Autodesk, IAC and so many new and upcoming companies. And
then there are future companies like Scaled Composites. Well, I guess as long as smart
people like you are not finding the new strength spots in American Economy; you will be
stuck in this 5th grade game of who is powerful and who is rich. I mean, Rajeev really it is
all childish and useless analysis to read all these geopolitical events through the kind of
lenses you are using.
- About While America – which is the fastest growing demographic group in America?
Hispanics. Which are tomorrow’s battle ground states in the perennial war of Red and
Blue States? Arizona, Nevada, Colorado and New Mexico; all Hispanic states. Muslims in
Ohio did not go with Bush. Bush Administration rejects Modi’s visa and attempts to tone
down anti-Muslim image in many different ways. Why are there so many Hispanic
appointments in the current Administration? Senator Mel Martinez (Republican), the first
Cuban-American Senator gives the first Spanish Speech on the Senate Floor. Rajeev,
which world do you live in? Open your eyes. America has it’s problems and granted that
it’s Democracy needs to expand and progress further (for example, election laws). But
remember that it is one of the most vibrant Democracy on this planet. It is alive and
kicking and it is taking all people forward with earlier White Americans. Not for nothing
representatives like Bobby Jindal can make a splash in Republican Party or Barak
Obama gets to Senate. Rajeev, stop being racial. In the vein of Barbara Boxer, I would
say looks like your loyalty towards your screwed up ideology is stronger than your loyalty
towards Truth.
- It is foolish to measure America’s strength in terms of the fleet of air craft carriers. Yes,
they did add state of the art attack submarine named Carter and state of the art aircraft
carrier named Regan recently; but they are canceling many old Cold War type projects
too. Rumsfeld may be controversial, but if you are serious student of American War
Machine, watch which projects he is funding and which he is canceling. Trying to prepare
the machine for the war of 21st century and not the old Cold War. There is another smart
man – Senator McCain who is trying to stir American War machine in the right direction.
- In the end if you indeed insist in trying to quantify America’s strength and weakness;
measure the strength in terms how many Nobel Prizes Americans win every year. How
many Field Medals are there for American Mathematicians. How many patents are filed
every year. How many new companies get formed (companies sprouting and dying –
including AT&T – is the normal process). Whether America addressed the 2000 stock
market problems by Sarbanes Oxley and other SEC reforms or not. Compare that with
reforms in Indian Capital Markets when UTI scandal happened and just imagine how
transparent Chinese Capital Markets are. Further, where does the VC money go in USA
and so on. The day you will see less and less number of American Physicists and
Economists getting Nobel Prize; you will know America is weaker compared to other
nations. Not for nothing National Science Foundation complains to the Congress that
large number of papers in Physical Review and Physical Review Letters are coming from
Chinese Academicians.
The larger point is first of all this exercise of trying to measure “power” of Nations is
lamentable, regressive and backward looking with no benefits. Needless to say the
exercise of how India would do that is useless. There are so many things Indians are
doing right and great (like trying to throw away the sectarian politics of RSS and BJP.)
And secondly, if you really insist on such Comparative Analysis; try using correct
yardsticks, not how many war ships and racial demography.
39
Umesh Patil
San Jose, CA 95111 March 23, 2005.
F-16 Fighter Planes to Pakistan

Thursday, March 31, 2005
It is sad that American public never bothers about what happens in South Asia or what is
Administration's policy towards South Asia or how contradictory President Bush's rhetoric
and his policy is. The hope is about Media, which will remove this shroud. So far they
have not, but there are couple of good articles in San Jose Mercury News by it's Asia
reporter Daniel Snider. NY Times also wrote a good editorial about this. Whichever way
one looks at it, this development is very sad, cynical and definitely set back to India.
Suddenly it shows the vulnerability of India. All said and done F-16 will provide an edge
to Pakistan. Tough part is it can carry Nuclear weapons. India's government kind of failed
to prepare Indian public for this development - it was writing on wall that America would
offer these planes at any time to Pakistan. Further, knowing all these years (more than a
decade) India did not prepare the alternative systematically and continued to kill literally
many of it's pilots in the aging Mig 21s (so many of them die in test piloting those old
planes). I do not believe French or Swedish fighter planes could be as powerful as F-16.
The reason being overall except America and Russia to certain extent; fighter plane
building industry has dramatically declined all over the world. There are no true
competing alternatives in Europe (well, they do not want to spend on R&D of weapons
and they do not need as well). So the only realistic viable option to get something of
standard of F-16 is Sukoi from Russia. But India has not moved substantially on that part.
It will be really risky to hold to America's promise of providing advanced F-16 to India as
well. I think Congress approval is needed and it means lot of pork barrel politics and
delay. Anyways the process will be long with danger of dropping the ball at any time.
Some how this whole development does not leave a good taste and something ominous
is suggested. It is bound to push India in the catch up game so politicians are engrossed
in that and at least $3 to $5 Billions will be shelled out. Classic example of what happens
when a country does not prepare itself for the strategic challenges knowing those are
coming. If India sees a road without all these weapons, it needs to articulate that vision
too. In absence of such a vision, India is at a risk in terms potential attacks and it's
security vulnerable. On this background, it is bit hard to imagine how there could be a
confidence created in minds of other countries when India wants to stake the claim for a
seat on UN Security Council. Here is a country which struggles to address it's own
strategic challenges and we want it to play a leading peace keeping role in the world. It is
same with Japan in a way, but Japan has firmly decided to play a second role to
American Leadership in strategic matters and their claim for Leadership is more rested
on their Economic might and the foreign politics of Aid. India needs to go after Strategic
Independence since Economic development is a bit long road.
About Pakistan - not much can be said. That country has less and less chance and
desire to come out of this vicious grip of Military based culture and politics. The rational
approach for thinking Indians is not to expect anything from Pakistan and go about your
own life. I guess same with America. You become so numb with such blatant
contradictions in American Policy. Administration after administration (Democrat or
Republican) have followed this policy of utter insensitiveness towards India that Indians
get used to it. In fact lot of Rightist criticism in India is about how Indian governments
40 from time to time fall for the empty charms of likes of Secretary Rice and sometimes one
wonder may be there is a merit in this criticism.
Umesh Patil San Jose, CA March 30, 2005.

Posted by Umesh Patil at 10:13AM (-08:00)
Bolton Nomination to UN
As debate for Mr. John Bolton’s nomination as US Ambassador to UN rages, it will be
wise for Democrats to keep few things in mind. The basic point is being depleted in their
strength and firepower, Democrats need to be choosey in picking up their battles. It will
be wise for them to avoid filibuster in this case. I think Senator Russell Feingold line of
thinking is on a solid ground here – generally speaking President should get all the
freedom in choosing his ambassadors and his officers. Only in extreme case does one
need to object such nominations.
It is quite understandable that objectively Mr. John Bolton is obviously not a best choice
for America in representing it’s interest at the world body. He has been way too critical of
UN and his past remarks hardly give any impression that he cares for UN. To that very
same world body we are asking Mr. Bolton to attend. So it is quite natural for people to
have doubts in their minds.
It is for this reason there is this Congressional confirmation process and Democrats can
vote against this nomination in block. Throw in some Senator Boxer style statements at
Secretary Rice confirmation process or Senator Clinton rebuttal to Fed Chairman
Greenspan in one of hearings and then you get all the right political points what
Democrats need. But they do not need to filibuster here and waste that precious little
ammunition left with Democrats. They can use it for other fights. By registering their “nay”
votes; their objections are well taken, registered and in case any Republican also agrees
with them it might even block the nomination. All the better without loosing the political
capital. Congressional Democrats really need to be careful in picking their battles and
nomination of Mr. Bolton to UN is not worth it even if the choice stinks. Besides UN is still
in very early stages of building it’s credibility, if at all that process has started or not.
Hence, the effectiveness of this world body in furthering American interests is still
questionable. Beyond all this, Democrats will be get another chance in replacing the
nominee down the line when political balance goes in their favor. All in all, not a worthy
fight to pick up.
Umesh Patil
San Jose, CA
March 31, 2005.
The Vicar
Saturday, April 02, 2005
Excellent article in Asian Age (http://www.asianage.com) by M.J. Akbar. Once again it
demonstrates how a great writer can pen difficult to articulate ideas as well as put the
things in a context that literally spans over a century. 41
I am in a country where there are many, even faithfuls, who believe President Regan
brought down the Iron Curtain single handedly. But as MJ Akbar has rightly pointed out,
this Pope was one of the most critical elements of forces to bring down the evil empire.
He is one of those rare Popes who has been on the right side of the History – not by an
accident, but by his faith and intellect. It is perfectly in the character of this Pope - been
there, did what required and moving ahead leaving History to worry about what role he
played.
There are many people in today’s world, including truly yours this author, who are
fundamentally rationalists but are slowly understanding limits of a rational attitude in
dealing with Life which is full of other humans, emotions, politics, job losses, tsunami,
one’s own limitations and constraints. It is like, gee I have beaten this rational path to
death; but that promised land of Happiness is still effectively not reached. There is some
one standing along the road named Faith, should I ask her? May be my road, the very
same road, would become bearable if I talk to her and take her help as relevant and
continue my journey. This Pope had been in that illustrious tradition of wise people, like
the Faith waiting on the treacherous road, helping anyone who may need help. May be,
after all we do not have to celebrate the Stairway to Heaven only in the music of Led
Zappelin; but it is something possible in real life if are open for Faith.
How true when MJ Akbar says - you do not have to agree with Pope John Paul in order
to respect him. That is right. The guy was with guts and possessing something which is
hard to find and describe; something like “non arrogant moral superiority”.
How pleasing to read this article.
Umesh Patil
San Jose, CA
April 2, 2005.
Benedict XVI
Tuesday, April 19, 2005
Christian Theology and worldview is at times like Euclidian Geometry – once you accept
the premise, everything else follows logically. Once you accept that the Lord is the true
Master of the Universe, the humble response after getting elected to succeed a strong
papacy of John Paul II is to convey a feeling that ‘I am handicapped or short to the task
involved; but it is still the decision of the conclave to put me in the service and that is what
I am doing’. When Cardinal elect Ratzinger said ‘The fact that the Lord can work and act
even with insufficient means consoles me’; he very effectively conveyed that he may not
be the best choice, but he is doing the duty here. He said this in excellent words. And that
seems to be the strong point of this new pope – Pope Benedict XVI. As the head of
French Bishop conclave mentioned, this pope is excellent in clarity of expression. It was
also evident when Cardinal Ratzinger said ‘we can be sure that our beloved pope is
standing today at the window of the father’s house, that he sees us and blesses us’ at the
funeral Mass for John Paul II. It was a poetic, yet logical, evocation about the departure of
a much beloved Pope. It seems that such direct, clear descriptions, logical expressions
and lucidity in thinking may mark the new papacy. It is very tempting to speculate that
42 Germanic style of deductive reasoning may influence his way of thinking.
Does that mean there would clarity in the reforms? As many have commented, obviously
that is not going to be the case. Roman Catholic Church will continue the orthodox
approach of Pope John Paul II. After all Cardinal Ratzinger was his ideologue (if you will,
as like what Paul Wolfowitz is to President Bush or NeoCons). As like everyone, I do not
expect there will be any change in this orthodoxy. But where I would differ from many
Liberals is trying to judge the Church solely on that basis. Modernism or Secularism is not
the agenda for the Church and surely not for the one who is vocal in pointing the dangers
of ‘dictatorship of relativism’. So expect to continue the orthodoxy as set in by Pope John
Paul II.
When one considers the aim of the Church is to further sphere the of Faith in the
contemporary world, conclave of Cardinals did the logical thing to elect someone who
has been handling the global Media in a profitable manner. The media exposure which
Cardinal Ratzinger got during last few weeks, his strength in articulating ideas of Faith
Realm, his practically imploration of the conclave on Monday Mass in formulating
challenges of the church before cardinals started the election; all made it easy for the
conclave to select him. Besides the age is on his side – unlikely to have a long papacy
giving time for the conclave to see the longer-term challenges and solutions. The point is
in today’s Media dominated world, it is a perfect Marketing strategy so as to further the
momentum the Church has got over the last one month. To put it differently, any
Marketing Manager would not have approved any other election. Election of Cardinal
Ratzinger is bang for the bucks in the current situation. Quick election also projects the
unity within the Church and puts forward it’s best foot in this post Pope John Paul II world.
The political impact of Benedict XVI could be phenomenal despite the potential for a short
Papacy. Cardinal Ratzinger published a book, came out earlier last week, which kind of
questions the EU project of Ultra Secular Constitution so that they do not want to mention
God and Christianity. And now he is the head of the church, potentially playing the
lightening rod of opposition to the project of Ultra Secular Europe. Judging his past, Pope
Benedict XVI would use words like dictator, relativism, etc. lot more in his speeches,
homilies and masses. Imagine all of this constantly played on the Global Media, to the
point of saturation in Europe and on this background French citizens would vote in the
EU constitution referendum. Already they are opposing by 53%. I would think Messer’s
Chirac and all other secular politicians would be nervous by this papal succession. If
French vote no to the referendum, Dutch might not continue with the vote and next year
Tony Blair (if gets reelected) would thwart British referendum as well since he can not
have the vote for ‘nothing’. Are we talking the end of EU Constitution as it is proposed?
Possibly. The parallels are stark – Pope John Paul II pulled down the Iron Curtain. Pope
Benedict XVI wants to challenge the Ultra Secular European Union. Would he loose this
opportunity to play this role? Judging by his training and utterances, looks like Benedict
XVI would not hesitate to play this critical role. Something is really going to cook here.
I am not so sure about Church’s responses to challenges all over the world. Benedict XVI
may not get involved that much if he gets preoccupied in the European business. But
sure it is that Cardinals thought the European challenge serious enough to address and
now we may observe very interesting, and important, battle of ideas.
Umesh Patil April 19, 2005

San Jose, CA.
43
Past Wounds
Saturday, May 07, 2005
In the inauguration speech of his second term, President Bush laid down the case for
Freedom and Liberty all over the world, America’s renewed commitment to these
principles and articulated the case that these principles are the true bulwark against
Terrorism and America’s security in general. It was a dramatic and highly moralistic
formulation of American Foreign Policy. After grasping the nobleness of that policy, when
one analyzes it in more details it becomes apparent that President Bush’s past has not
been particularly in compliance to those principles. The reasons on which the Iraq war
was based in the first place and was started; were anything but Liberty to Iraqi people.
The primary motivation was finding WMD and perceived security concerns. However,
granting that American President wants to make a fresh start and another run for these
lofty goals; President Bush needs to do at least two things: acknowledge the past
deviations of American Foreign Policy from these principles and formulating
contemporary foreign policy responses based on these principles.
President Bush’s speech in Riga on May 7, 2005 shows the light as far as the first
expectation is concerned. With a kind of pleasant surprise, he admitted that it was wrong
for America and in effect for FDR to yield to Stalin at Yalta. These are classical
Conservative reflections for a Republican President and Republican Leader. He dared to
make it open that many Americans kind of felt their sacrifices in WWII were not fully
accounted or wasted when entire Eastern Europe just changed the hands of tyrants at
the end of that war. It is the cathartic process for America and quite natural for a
Republican to take the lead in this respect. There was one earlier Republican President –
Regan – who worked with many others to wage the subsequent Cold War doggedly to
end that tyranny. So it is remarkable and admirable for President Bush in being bold to
acknowledge America’s failing in holding the principle of respect for the freedom of
people of many smaller nations in Eastern Europe. Indeed, he is coming well on the first
part of what he has been trying to make a lynch pin of his second term. It is truly a good
start to pursue such policies in a coherent manner.
Of course there are a political calculations of not letting an opportunity to make a dig at
an icon of Democrats. But that is how in the end politics works for people – two
competitive political forces / parties not letting go mistakes or failures of the other side. It
is one sided from each party, but balances out for the people. Democrats may find
indirect criticism of their beloved leader on foreign soil, sort of low in taste. But they need
to over come such feelings. Presidency is probably one the few or almost the unique
bully pulpit that can offer the revisionist reading of actions of past. Americans,
Republicans and Democrats alike, can not worry where the chips fall when a sitting
president decides to reflect on past decisions and intends to make good on setting the
record straight. What matters is Presidency fulfilling the obligations of expressing
American morality in fair manner; even if it is late for History. It is also President Bush’s
second term, so he has started his dialogue with past American Presidents. May be bit
early, but this obsession with ‘legacy’ will start soon to surface in speeches of President
Bush. Riga speech could be the first glimpses.
It was also right for President Bush to reject suggestion to work out any kind of political
arrangements for other Russian satellite states (for example Belarus) in consultation with
Russian. It is obvious that you do not make such a simple mistake – on one hand criticize
44 that past secrete dealings at the expense of common people of smaller states are wrong
and at the same time work for one such in present times. It is almost the sigh of relief
because on many occasions President Bush has shown to fall for such simple mistakes
and contradictions.
Does it mean Russia would get the message and will be more respecting to sovereignty
of its neighbor? Not likely, simply look at Putin’s message in a French Newspaper. He
rejects any further apologies for past Russian actions. I do not know how significant this
business of ‘apology’ is. Unfortunately contemporary International Politics has been
driven lately too much by this ‘apology’ business – China and Korea demanding apology
from Japan, former Russian satellite states expecting apology from Russia and so on.
Politics of apology has always been played through out History but is not known to solve
the true problems all the time. So one needs to be wary of starting such politics of
apology again in the 21st century. Instead of any apologies, it could be more productive
for Russia to start respecting sovereignty of all these East European states going
forward. A speech like the one at Riga by President Bush makes the ground clear to set a
framework where actions by Russian government are hold accountable.
Now, we are waiting for President Bush to come good on the second part – avoiding the
traps of being circumspect in dealing with many other dictators around world: his partner
in War on Terrorism, President Mushraf of Pakistan; his oily friends from Saudi Arabia;
dictators in Middle East like President Mubarak of Egypt and Sirian regime and most
importantly mother of all dictator regimes – Communist Party hegemony in People’s
Republic of China. It is all right to ignore the circumstances which might have forced FDR
to comprise with Stalin while letting go Eastern Europe behind the Iron Curtain. But then it
becomes imperative for President Bush not to allow those very same petty calculations to
blind him from not taking the high road.
American people may even accept the nuclear weapons of Kim Ill Jong of North Korea if
President Bush makes opposition to open talks with a dictator as matter of principles.
Yes, it is ultra risky policy route. But then as a leader it will be President Bush’s job to lay
down all the consequences of such a policy for American people. As long as President
Bush avoids coming clean in all these dealings with these dictators; American people are
ill prepared to take this risky route. Coming clean involves stating a clear and consistent
policy regarding NPT and nuclear weapons; not simply sustaining increasingly ill suited
arrangements of history after WWII. Without such a comprehensive framework, it will
prohibit President Bush to take any principled stance against Kim Ill Jung.
In any case it is a remarkable transformation for a political leader to take on the religion of
‘popular mandate’ after what happened to his mandate in Election 2000. Finally, America
gave President Bush the popular mandate in Election 2004 and then he is all set to
realize his vision. So far he has avoided to give any ting of a ‘crusade’ to this campaign of
Liberty all over the world and that is good.
Umesh Patil May 7, 2005

San Jose, CA
45
Time for Next New Deal
Monday, May 23, 2005
Tax cuts of more than trillion dollars over a decade has been the primary response of this
Bush Administration for the economic challenges faced by the American society in last
few years. Though it is one of the standard responses in recession times, the structure
and distribution of this tax cut have been much skewed than what it could be for better
economic impact. Other prominent policy actions of this administration include No Child
Left Behind Act; expensive expansion of prescription drug benefits for elders under
Medicare (unfortunately achieved by misleading Congress); stricter Bankruptcy control
and limiting medical malpractice liability. Beyond all this extending these tax cuts
permanently and basic changes in Social Security have been follow up policy initiatives of
this administration. Based on this incoherent set of policy initiatives, it is difficult to
describe them as a part of proactive Economic Policy. Conservative instincts of letting
market forces drive the economy and not to disturb market mechanism is clearly at play.
But may be it is the case that this administration is missing out on a thorough policy
towards the economic challenges of America in coming decades.
It is quite natural for the Administration and supporters of President Bush to feel that the
policy centered around tax cuts and doing nothing else is quite adequate. Vice President
Cheney has gone on record to say that Regan rule has proven that deficits do not matter.
Hence any critique of this economic policy based on deficits is not relevant for this
administration. However it is well known and widely accepted economic wisdom that any
deficit of more than 3% of GDP cannot be sustained for long without consequences.
Administration is very likely to point out the reducing deficits in the month of April 2005 in
support of it’s working policies. Employment generation of more 240K jobs in the month
of April 2005 is yet another proof for the administration that it’s policy is working. But
despite these encouraging news, this Administration itself points out the grave long term
challenges of increasing Federal commitments on account of Medicare and Social
Security. So it should be reasonable to argue that the recent trend, howsoever
encouraging; does not automatically resolve the long term deficit challenge faced by
America. On the job front, April 2005 has been one of the only few months of a
recovering economy with reasonable job creation. Overall statistics is clear that the
recovery in last few years has been with much less job creation than what is needed or
what potential America holds for. It is also evident from the numbers that types of jobs
created are not high paying jobs. On many occasions these jobs are insufficient to meet
the basic living expenses. It is also in the numbers that Americans are increasingly
loosing high paying jobs to other countries beyond the normal churn dictated by a market
mechanism. ‘Be patient’ has been the mantra of this Administration for the larger
population of America. However, considering that we are in the fourth year of recovery
with a potential of again dipping into a recession; it is not out of the way for Labor to be
cautious and skeptical of this tax cut oriented policy. Sustained deficits over a period are
likely to increase interest rates at some point with big impacts on economically marginal
sections of society besides many other repercussions.
The Capitalist dogma of the last century holds that a recession arises due to business
cycles i.e. more supply than demand. The dogma says that invigorating demand is the
key to get out of a recession. Tax cuts give the wherewithal for the populace to spend
and thus to create the demand and this in turn helps to get out of a recession. The basic
premise of this dogma is a national economy as a relatively closed system. Hence, tax
46 cut induced more residue of money in the pockets of people finds it’s way in the
increasing consumption – the consumption that is fulfilled by production capabilities within
the closed system of the national economy. The tax cut residue also finds the way as
investments in increasing the production within the closed system. Tax cuts may increase
the deficits, but by printing more currency State takes over more debt and kick starts the
recovery. In a way State is the only entity which can be outside the spell of market forces
and that is what is fully exploited here. Inflationary pressure of increased notes printing is
generally addressed due to the wider availability of labor pool during recessions. So there
could be short periods of unemployment for workers but as long as demand increase
takes place (apart from tax cuts, natural population increase is also one dominant
reason); the economy would find a way out of a recession.
On this background the original New Deal addressed the question of what happens to
workers after the active employment life i.e. in retirement. Since Business has to remain
within the relative confinements of national boundaries, it would create the necessary
jobs through out the active life of an employee. In a way Business depended on State to
get the necessary supply of Labor. Due to this dependency, State could even ask
Business to take care of some health care costs of workers during employment and some
retirement cost in the form of pension. The health care costs have been relatively
manageable till 1980s also helped Business not to fret about these costs. Granted, there
have been tax incentives for Business to shoulder health care costs of Labor. But implicit
to all this has been the expectation of a reasonable growth rate of health care costs. With
that expectations Business took the bargain with the State. Similarly, Business agreed for
some portions of pension costs also. All these contributions from the employer made the
State to take responsibility of remaining costs of Labor – the retirement cost what is left
after pension and health care costs during retirement. As long as national economies
remained fairly understood as a closed system, this deal among State, Business and
Labor appeared to be sustainable. Despite the thriving International Trade; large part of
consumption and production were primarily determined within national economies. In
other words this closed system of national economy made it possible for the State to
push out some Labor related costs on the plate of Business and then the State covered
the balance in the New Deal.
Things changed in the last decade. First, the health care costs started to increase at a
higher rate than the expected rate. Since Business shouldered the main costs, the end
consumer has been away from paying medical bills directly. The primary pressure of a
consumer never got realized in such a system. Once the other vested interests (interests
of Health Insurance companies and political clout of Pharmaceutical companies) got well
entrenched in this separation of the end consumer and the provider; containing costs
became secondary to passing the costs to other. This has resulted in a unmanageable
mess. Suddenly, whatever State involvement has been there in footing the medical bill; it
has increased dramatically in last few years. This is apart from making Businesses
uncompetitive due to increased burden of health care costs. Second, the demographic
shift towards reduced number of employed workers supporting large number of retired
workers started to appear on horizon. The larger number of retired workers multiplied by
increased retirement medical costs results as an enormous burden to Uncle Sam. There
have been many estimates, up to one third of GDP, dedicated to health care costs in
coming decades. Third thing as a consequence of this demographic shift is the well
known issue of Social Security solvency which President Bush has been discussing for a
while – lesser contributions from employed workers to support more retired workers. All
these things suddenly make the State’s share of New Deal bargain much more expensive
than what it looked earlier. The increase is so much as to generate a doubt whether
Uncle Sam ever will be able to fulfill the commitments under the existing New Deal.
47
One response from Democrats or Liberals has been to eliminate Tax Cuts so that State
gets more money to address these increased commitments. But it flies against the
dogma of Capitalism of the last century – without Tax Cuts how do you pull the economy
out of a recession? Argument from Left is have Tax Cuts well targeted with wider
distribution; contain other expenses of State and voila – you get all the money you need
without compromising the economic stimulus. This would also reduce risks to Economy
due to a higher deficit.
One can side with this Liberal argument as long as the perceived increase in State’s
commitment for retired Labor is indeed what it is. What if there is more to come than what
has been estimated by the three new developments discussed earlier? The assumption
is Business here would continue to hold it’s share of bargain. And that is where the real
challenge of the 21st century is. National economies are no more closed systems.
Meaning Business can fulfill demands generated in one economy without at all
undertaking production in that national economy. With the advent of “Flat World” as
Thomas Friedman calls; anything which can be digitized will be done anywhere in the
world. Naturally, Business locates production where costs are lowest. So the whole
scenario of Tax cuts stimulating demand which is turn increases the production which in
turn increases the employment no more holds. So then what happens with Tax Cuts?
Nothing much apart from increasing the deficit for State. Also if these Tax Cuts are as
skewed and tilted towards rich as the present Bush Tax Cuts are; it simply increases the
inequality within the society. It is not the issue of Business to worry about the inequality
within a society. That is the job and mandate for State to address. If large sections of
population are left out of participation in the economy, the tendency towards restricting
import of outside produced goods and services would increase. This would result in
Protectionism, bringing in the full contradiction for the Capitalist State like America which
has been all along the main bull work of International Trade and Global Economy.
Apart from keeping the promises of the New Deal; suddenly the State needs to worry
about the potentially increasing inequality. Leaving aside the increasing eventual risk of
abrupt changes to Business due such inequality (you mean class warfare or riots in
America?), it is a moral issue for State to address. Unless the State makes a U-turn about
the Trade Policy; this is one more item on the plate of the State. It does not stop there.
Due to flattening of the world at once State is at loss with Business, especially the
Globally present Business, in terms of where to locate the production. State can no
longer be assured that thriving Business means increased production (goods or services)
within the national borders solving it’s problem of employment for it’s Labor. That is no
more assured. Mightiest of all States – Federal Government of USA – also needs to
compete with many other national economies for wooing Businesses to locate production
within it’s borders. This is new to Uncle Sam. All of a sudden the whole leverage which
Uncle Sam had with Business to solve it’s employment problem is gone. One of the
strongest rule of law in the world, the best possible security in the world, the top rated
business regulations in the world; all these America’s advantages suddenly are not
enough to entice Business to employee more people in America. Cost emerges as the
strong repellent. The American State looses the bargain power with Business. This
results in more cost getting eventually pushed to the State. Whatever pension and 401K
costs Business has been covering; it will not like to cover those going forward. It is a
matter of time before all businesses follow the footsteps of United Airlines in pushing the
burden of pension to Uncle Sam. Further, at best businesses would like to shoulder a fix
cost of employee health care; not an open ended privilege. Business would prefer to
restrict it’s commitment only to some limited contribution amount leaving an individual
48
employee to bother about paying soaring medical bills in entirety. This way the headache
of medical care cost inflation is left to an employee and her State to sort out, not to the
Business.
It is a delusion that this additional load of costs pushed to State in coming days can be
avoided. Unless we come up with an alternative to the present Global Trade based
Global Economy; there is no avoidance to this increase of cost to the American State. In
response the State can push some of the increased burden to individuals. It does not
have to be privatization of Social Security, but it can be limiting State’s exposure as far as
retirement commitment is considered and putting structures in place so that individuals
are encouraged to save for their retirements. Attempts to bring an individual consumer to
the center to help tackle the costs is essentially the challenge in coming days. There is no
way the present day America can keep on attracting businesses to generate employment
in USA when qualified workers of other countries do not impose any hefty health care
costs and expensive pension contributions.
Does this mean a sell out to Global Business? Not necessarily. One area where State
can have a leverage is to make Business share the cost of creating usable new
Knowledge – all new Science and Technology which State funds. It is not going to be free
any where in the world. Why would Business not pay part of it when it knows how
profitable R & D results can be. Traditionally, lot of profitable goods and services are
created by businesses based on public financed R & D. Prime example is
Pharmaceutical Industry basing it’s profit on mainly public financed research. In the 21st
century, it is questionable how much such free Knowledge Business can get from State.
On the other hand, State’s problem becomes how can it ensure more and more of it’s
citizens are able to participate in this Knowledge Economy. For Economy like USA, it is
all the more important. Because, even if State and Labor shoulder the cost of active
employment health care and all of retirement; production is unlikely to be competitive in
USA compared to many countries. The story of the first half of 21st century is large parts
of the world getting developed (read China and India). For really long, long period there
are going to be large pools of workers with ultra low costs compared to USA. This means
the only realistic opportunity of employment within countries like USA will be in
Knowledge creation Business (leaving aside services like local goods distribution,
restaurants and schools). High costs of Knowledge creating workers still do not give the
option of letting the health care costs and others costs to remain with Business - simply
due to the intense competition all over the world to attract these Knowledge Industries.
So in order to address the problem of educating citizens of America so as they are able
to participate in Knowledge Economy more and more; the State would need to fund more
Higher Education of workers apart from elementary schools. Part of funds for this larger
participation in Higher Education could come from Business. At that point all the
traditional advantages of an excellent rule of law, the best security in the world, the best
business regulatory framework and world class highly educated labor pool along with
much less collateral costs would make it irresistible for the Global Business not to choose
America.
The New Deal of 21st Century needs to adjust to this new reality – Labor taking some of
the more traditional responsibilities from the State in lieu of getting more avenues of
Higher Education, the State providing at least part of health care costs during
unemployment and combined (State and Labor together) handling of retirement. More tax
cuts is a mere doctrinaire response from the Bush Administration. Traditional
Conservative response simply looks at only one dimension of the bargain with Business
and forgets the root reason why State engages with Business in the first place – to solve
49
it’s problem of employment. The New Deal for the 21st century means a different
arrangement, not the abrogation of responsibility to provide employment. Democrats are
naturally disposed to take this challenge. But again they cannot as well address it in an
ideologically blind way. It is imperative to realize how much leverage State has lost
against Global Business in this new Flat World.
Umesh Patil
May 23, 2005
San Jose, CA 95111.
Feedback: 'Banglore: Hot and Hotter' by Tom

Friedman
Wednesday, June 08, 2005
Hi Tom,
I think you are getting carried away by this Banglore thing and India’s Technology
Prowess. (Thomas Friedman, New York Times, June 8 2005; ‘Banglore: Hot and
Hotter’.http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/08/opinion/08friedman.html) Here are my two
cents:
• I do not think it is the question of visit by an American President or Vice President to

Banglore, which is the issue. They do not need to visit Banglore to address the questions
which America is facing. Rather they would need to visit Silicon Valley to seethe effects of
not catching with Banglore.
• I am an Indian Techee working in Valley for last 8 years; born, brought up and educated
in India. I am in a Valley company where we work very closely with one of the top 3
Indian outsourcing firms. I visit Banglore every year, we have constant visitors from there
to here and from Valley to Banglore. Basic impression is infrastructure is a big problem
and things do not seem to move fast or at all.
• I will give one example: Silicon Valley has been in recession and bust for last 4 years.
But in all those4 years I have observed that state of California has effectively executed
more than $1 Billion of road and traffic improvement projects. This is when traffic is less
than boom time. We know that, that was the money earmarked for these 8 to 10 project
before the boom and tax was collected from people anyway. But the effect is out of 10
top traffic congestion spots in the Valley, around 8 are addressed. Some of the most
notorious ones are gone. I drive on those new roads quite often so I am sure on these
facts. Moreover, there are more than Billion Dollars still in pipeline for Road and other
Transportation projects (BART and so on). We can criticize very much the bill that
Congress is passing about Transportation, but the fact is we are talking some more
serious money on the way for Valley and many other regions. (Texas is building monster
road infrastructure, all by private money.) While all this is happening in Banglore, State of
Karnataka and GOI could not build the Hossur road connecting Banglore city and the
Electronic City (around 20 Km long, say about 15 miles max). All due to the politics and
corrupt system. Every time I visit, (last 2 years I have done that and propose to do again
50
by year end); I see the same thing. There is lot of debate about double-decker road and
so on. But nothing in practice. It is total inability to solve the fundamental issues.
• What about Banglore new Airport? I am hearing that story for last decade. Totally
politicized issue and still a long way. By any reckoning, it will be at least 5 years before it
will be build up. Mean while during the recession time San Jose, CA spent around
Quarter Billion or more to upgrade the existing Airport. They would spend more in the
next 5 years.
• I just don’t see how you forget these colossal failures. In Banglore there is a plethora of
governmental agencies where all the fight is going for sanctioning and executing these
projects. It is regular turf war and no one wants to give up. And by the way, these
agencies are not serving some kind of democratic aspiration of Banglore or around
natives. You have got District Offices, Banglore Municipal Corporation, Banglore
Metropolitan Development Authority, Karnataka State Government and finally
Government of India. At low level, each of these agencies is a cesspool of corrupt
officials fighting for their survival. Casualties are these projects.
• My comment on all this is – ‘Laxmi (the Indian Goddess of Money and Wealth) is
knocking on the doors of India, but these fools will not leave their bad habits to welcome
her’. If you talk with any Indian around you, that person can explain you the gravity of this
statement.
• Go to Pune and other cities of Maharashtra. Check how much was electricity load
shedding in the last summer. Check how much is still there. There is appalling shortage
of electricity. For a decade they are stuck with this Enron project of 2000 Mega Watt.
Silicon Valley undertook the public hearing for a Calpine Private Electricity generation
project some 4years back, gave the clearance, sanctioned the project, the project is done
and putting 600 Mega Watts of electricity into the grid. Done and move on. The whole
politics of Maharashtra (the real leading state of India) has been around Enron project for
the entire decade.
• While this is happening, Union Minister Maran is making rounds with Valley companies
asking for projects. He is happy for getting some response from Intel. That is fine, but it is
more important that these ministers do what they can change in India. Then it will not be
necessary for Mr. Maran to visit Valley, but companies will come on their own to India.
• Another thing with executives of these outsourcing companies. You have to take their
word with pinch of salt. You need to understand that they are in the selling mode. It is like
asking benefits of Vioxx to Merck executives. They are bound to spin the topic. What is
the reality? We in my company are doing the outsourcing for last two years. We made
number of attempts for farming out entire projects to Banglore. Most of them do not pan
out. We need constant supervision and involvement from here. Finally, the company is
also adding lot of engineers here along with the Indian team. And the employee turn over
and engineer skills problems are perennial at Banglore. Executives from outsourcing
company have stopped talking about this talk of ‘high value’ addition to our business. And
by the way, my company pays legitimate dough to this outsourcing company.
• So we need to be circumspect about all these outsourcing companies. You do not want
to be a free sales man for them. Correct way would be talking to their customers about
how they are happy and do they want to go to the ‘ideation’ stage. What about the
serious monetary risk American companies take? As far as I know of Indian SW Industry,
51
Indian companies do not take the risk of putting money for product development. In the
end, it does not matter who develops the product; but who paid for the development and
who owns the right. Except TCS and to some extent Infosys, none of these companies
have spend and intent to spend lot of money on their own for product development. They
all prefer to do this subcontracting. That is where they do not have to spend any money
of their own. It is pure renting business. You should see how Managers and Executives
from these outsourcing companies always try to push ‘engineering bodies’ on our plate at
our cost! Tom, you need to visit Valley and talk with engineers in trenches, not the
executives only as you did in your last visit.
• Few countries in the world make Oil for export to all over the world. But still those oil
production facilities do not provide work for all Labor of those countries. How many
engineers really you would need to write all Software needs all over the world? Will those
engineering jobs ensure jobs for every person in India? No. The point is there is a real
limit about employment generation potential of SW industry. Or rather believing that it will
substantially address the employment issue in India is too simplistic. The best hope is it
kick starts the process. Main employment in India will have to come from other sectors
too – apart from outsourcing. That is what the current Indian PM, that great Sardar,
understands. He is India’s real hope. (Many Indians are proud for the Trinity instead of
Banglore - ShikhPM Dr. Sing, Muslim President Dr. Kalam and Christian Real Power
Lady - Sonia in the land of Hindus.)
• So when you see the limited potential of employment due to outsourcing, add to that the
competition coming from other countries – East Europe, Australia and eventually China.
One Ukraine or Romania is a strong force to make the dent. English advantage is with
India, no doubt; but others can overcome that. So imagine after 5 years when Wipro or
Satyam or Infosys may have to reduce their work force in India. How easy will it be? Will
Indian society accept job losses as smoothly as American did (and are still doing) in the
last recession? With Globalization, it is just matter of time before things change in any
given industry in any given country. So India will face those blues too. The real question
is how well India handles those downturns. You get a simple news of potentially one
weak Mansoon season (2005) and Bombay Stock Market goes down on that news. So
what is needed is real strength in institutions and society to take these body blows which
may come along the way.
• Many Indians and large Indian Media think (likes of Times of India, Bennett and
Coleman newspapers) that the boom in India is permanent or will last for decades. It is
possible. But there will be ups and down. So what you need is a measured approach.
The real danger here is Media and society intellectuals do not remain critical. NYT has
Tom Friedman who can fearlessly criticize American Establishment. But more and more
you find Indian media in this perennial ‘celebrate mood’. I know how was Valley Media
during Dot Com and subsequently. I feel American Media and Intelligentsia, just due to
sheer variety, has strengths to remain critical on many occasions. It is not just my
personal observation, but many of friends of my age group (30 to 40 years) who share
that indeed ‘critical eye’ is absent in India. Being critical of Politics, yes that is there in
Indian Media. But tomorrow’s world is more than simply traditional Politics. There are lot
of other players and lot of complex issues. You want society to have an ability to see all
these issues with a critical perspective. No doubt you were dot on the target when you
mentioned China not having this ability. Sure, they do not. But I am afraid that Indian
society as a whole may not have the adequate supply of this maturity. When you have a
society where the average age is around 28 and more than half are teenagers or
younger; it all suddenly look bit worrisome than the first impression.
52
Umesh Patil
June 9, 2005
San Jose, CA.
Hard To Believe Mr. Advani

Monday, June 20, 2005
As the storm over Mr. Advani’s comments about Jinnah and his regrets about Babri
Masjid rages on, there is a spotlight on Mr. Advani. Lot of intelligent people wonder in
admiration about this change in his ideological stance. Many admire this as the
courageous step as well as his acumen in realizing that going forward BJP can only
secure power through the ‘politics of inclusion’ rather than division. There is no point
denying the courage he is showing in going against the orthodoxy of his party and their
voter base. However, with more reflection it is also hard to avoid the question that ‘how
authentic this change is’?
Let us start with the brief career history of Mr. Advani. He is a politician with grass root
support and ideology of RSS which says that the only viable option for India as a
successful Nation is to organize on the principle of Hindu Religion. Basically, he is a BJP
politician who has been with RSS viewpoint for all these years. The biggest contribution
he and his colleagues (Mr. Vajapayee, Mr. Gorger Fernandes, Mr. Badal and Mr.
Karunanidhi and many others under the patriarchic guidance of Great Leader
Jayaprakash Narayan) have done is their fight against Emergency Rule of Mrs. Gandhi
during 1977 – 78. Indian Republic will be forever grateful for the heroic struggle of these
leaders during that period and Mr. Advani’s contribution is immeasurable. But for this
moment of glorious ideological purity, Mr. Advani rarely has been on the right side of
ideological development within Indian History. Once the party submitted itself to him after
the failed run of Gandhian Socialism of Mr. Vajapayee, he did not hesitate to exploit
ruthlessly the communal and religious card to improve electoral fortunes of BJP. Effect of
his Rath Yatra in creasing the BJP strength from 2 MPs to more than 100 MPs is the stuff
of political legends. But again when Mr. VP Singh thought Mandal as a shameless way of
conducting Indian Polity, Mr. Advani simply thought to raise the ante by way of
communalism which all culminated in Babri Masjid in 1992. First, while all this high ride
was unfolding, for Mr. Advani never ever to realize the virtues of Secularism is strange. In
fact if anyone talks to Mr. Advani of those days, the erudite, but intellectually totally
dishonest, argument may convince one that Secularism is the original sin of India.
Secondly, how many times Mr. Advani got the opportunity to be contrite or admit the
failures of Babri Masjid since 1992 and one has to see whether he ever utilized those
opportunities? Did Mr. Advani try to redeem himself by cleaning the mess while in the
Power? Don’t tell us the electoral compulsions prohibited him. That does not buy him the
excuse. Where was Mr. Advani all these years? Why did he forget Jinnah all along when
many have lost lives due to his communal politics? Nah, it is well too easy and
convenient for him to praise Secularism and expect others to believe. There is no honest
way to assign any authenticity to his remarks.
Agreed that turning away BJP from this past is his job and he has to start some where.
However, it is unclear whether this is the best way to initiate such a turn and why did he
not undertake the initial groundwork and introspection needed for such a fundamental 53
change. Mr. Advani needs to admit the mistakes he has been carrying all along, explain
the fallacies of RSS ideology more forthrightly in public, needs to distance from the likes
of Mr. Narendra Modi and then must personally sale and defend the secular ideology in
his daily politics. In other words, he has to buy the political capital for what it takes to be
authentic; he does not have it now. With one Pakistan visit and two utterances, it is not
very clear whether Mr. Advani gets the free pass for this ideological change. Forgetting
this would in effect be too gullible to accept Mr. Advani. India has seen what happens
when it submitted meekly to Mr. Advani’s assurances in 1992. The best option for him will
be to groom the next BJP leadership on these foundations and hang the boots. He has
been too deep for too long in the divisive politics for Indians to accept him as a leader of
Secular credentials. To that we can welcome his utterances as a good start, but no more
than that.
Umesh Patil
San Jose, CA
June 19, 2005.
America’s Iraq War in June 2005

Friday, June 24, 2005
David Brooks in NYT on June 23, 2005 says that “…But right now, this [Iraq war] isn't
about your [those who opposed to start this war] personal vindication.”
(http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/23/opinion/23brooks.html?hp) It is not easy to disagree
with what David says here. When one faces tragic events like massacre of American
soldiers in the mess hall during Christmas of 2004; one fully unites with the goal of
completing the Iraq war even if one had opposed to start with. It is like a vase which is
already broken into pieces, what is left to us is to collect these glass pieces so that it does
not hurt others.
However, keeping aside the question of vindication does not translate into a blanket
support to the administration’s Iraq policy. Generally public needs to convince itself that
the Iraq war is a right solution for a right problem America needs to solve at present. But
as long this Administration wants to sell Iraq war as America’s response to 9/11 or War
on Terrorism; the disconnect between reality and Administration’s perception is hard for
American public to ignore. This disconnect will continue to propel the slide in public’s
backing for this war. People have come to understand that the basis on which it was
argued that Iraq liberation is a part of larger War on Terrorism, that basis no longer holds.
Hence, effectively Iraq war is not the pivotal aspect of what America in the end needs to
do to address the original problem of Terrorism. Unfortunately, it just happens that
America is not in the position to keep aside this messy business and simply jump on the
right road of Terrorism Eradication as if we happened to take some minor detour.
America does not have that luxury. People understand that the issue of reasons of
starting the war and current necessity of conducting the war are two different things. But
the administration is intend on mixing these issues and do not want to come forthrightly to
express this distinction.
Otherwise what else to make of Karl Rove’s comments like Liberals simply wanted to
54 provide ‘counseling’ to terrorists? The Administration’s line is that the Iraq war is a
necessary step in the War on Terrorism, President Bush has got it right and no one else
has any idea about how this war is to be fought. If Karl Rove and President Bush expect
Americans to back this war by telling them that they are ‘fools’ when they do not buy the
damaged goods of Iraq war reasoning; then one is ashamed of the Political naivety and
arrogance of this Administration. Such rhetoric is okay when one is fighting the election.
But after getting elected, the administration needs to level with American people at some
stage. There is no more need to be defensive about any mistakes here. We are all past
the stage when one exclaims ‘who broke it?’ The contract between American public and
Presidency is wide open to give such room to the President. American people accept
that.
But our Vice President is shamelessly lying day after day on TV that insurgency is on the
last leg in Iraq when CIA is coming out with the internal assessment that Iraq will be the
breeding ground of experienced terrorists in days to come and General Abizaid says in
Senate hearing that there is no perceptible difference in insurgency in last six months.
Despite this we expect Americans to trust blindly this Administration. How is it possible? It
is not about anyone’s conviction. Americans are neither after ‘bragging rights’ nor any
apologies from anyone. But Americans expect that they are not fooled. This
administration is simply trying to cheat America. As long as that happens, Americans will
be hesitant in supporting the Iraq war.
President Bush does need to address this credibility gap. Let us keep aside for a minute
that he made a mistake in starting the war. But as the Commander in Chief, can he avoid
telling people that – “ Folks, for the ultimate goal of winning the War on Terrorism
following are the steps needed. We happened to have missed the road when we got into
Iraq. Tough part is we can not go away from there; but we will not let the larger context of
overall War on Terrorism to go away for which we intend to take so and so steps.” Why,
why it is not right for Americans to expect such an honest assessment from their elected
president? And this even after when Americans are ready to discount the fact there can
be some mistakes while conducting the overall War on Terrorism. The lack of popular
support to the war is not be about ‘I told you so …’ one up game; but it is about avoiding
getting fooled by some misguided folks who are currently occupying White House.
Further more, manifestation of such lack of support could be the only workable political
mean to help this administration to come on the right track eventually.
Umesh Patil
San Jose, CA
June 24, 2005.
London Attacks and War on Terrorism

Friday, July 08, 2005
Hi Tom,
You are talking Mahatma Gandhi here – the Gandhi which may be known lot less in West
and rest of the world. (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/08/opinion/08friedman.html?hp)
This Gandhi primarily fought against Hindus. There is an over used term for that –
reformist. The primary politics of this Gandhi had been fight against extremist Hindus who 55
were advocating religious war against Muslims in Sub-continent and those conservative
Hindus who wanted to perpetuate the castism within Hindu society. He succeeded to
some degree only despite the company of galaxy of reformers. Today, India continues to
have the problem of extremist Hindus in the form of RSS and Narendra Modi as well as
caste politics.
The point is reformation is a high road, mainly to be pursued by society or community

within itself. To the extent the world is mixed today and globalized due to modern
communications, interactions and economy; you may get some legitimate perch to
advocate such reformation with Muslim population of the world. In that respect your call is
indeed forthright and courageous. But beyond that, I wonder how much locus standi you
would get to evoke such reformist agenda within Muslim population. For sure I am on
your side and hope that your exhortations are heard.
However, there are some other pressing issues here. These terrorist acts are clear
assaults on Western and Democratic way of life. These acts are by the people who are
saying that we do not want to play by your rules. The anarchists who were protesting
violently at G8 meeting are not far away from undertaking such terrorist acts. This means,
today terror acts are done by not only radical Islamists, but by any one who refuses the
democratic process of political change. Maoist in Nepal do that, IRA did that for many
years and so on. This means those who adhere to rule of law must deal with terrorists as
they are – the worst kind of criminals.
Next, there is the issue of possible collusion between rogue states and such rule
breakers. This becomes the real big issue when these rogue states could be instrumental
in transferring weapons of mass destruction. At that point this issue morphs beyond
reformation within a community to pure power plays and threats of fundamental nature to
civil societies. This means you want to deal with these threats with all the might at the
disposal of a society. At that point it becomes what President Bush formulates as War on
Terrorism.
At some stage population at large in the world is going to care scant whether a
community or society is reforming or on way to a democracy. It would simply expect it’s
elected leaders to stop, kill and vanquish these terrorists and their sanctuaries – whatever
sanctuaries rest of the world think those are. You are right that it will be a too crude
campaign. But that is the way it is. Yesterday’s attacks in London are invariably taking us
near to that point. May be we have already reached that point.
On this background it will matter less whether President Bush and Neo-conservatives use
this edgy state of Western population for political purposes as long as the larger
population sees that they are undertaking a campaign of killing terrorist, smart or crude
campaign. The only sensible debate one could have with Neo-cons then will be of a
strategy – whether regime change is an affordable and sustainable way to deal with
terrorism or we should be careful in spending our ammunition and resources so as we
outlast them to see their total defeat. There will not be any debate or doubt that it is
indeed all-encompassing War on Terrorism. It is a war today, it will be a war tomorrow
and that debate will go way. Moreover it will be acceptable to people to undertake any
preemptive strikes as deemed necessary. In other words there will be less apprehension
for any unilateral military actions. Whenever affordable, public will also back for regime
change. Only when the consequent price of regime change – occupation and nation
building – is too high; public would expect to take a different tack. For common people,
nation building and mentoring of democracy in far away places are at best of marginal
56
consequences. As far as mind share of Western population is considered; it has probably
moved further away from worrying about reformation within Islam or Freedom and
Democracy for some societies. Public in West reads this as a war. It expects wartime
responses from it’s leaders and wartime clarity from it’s intellectuals. Reforms – that is
their problem to solve not ours.
Umesh Patil
San Jose, CA
July 7, 2005.
Time To Give Up Nuclear Orthodoxy

Wednesday, July 20, 2005
(Letter to Democratic Representatives and Senators)
As you are aware President Bush and Indian Prime Minister Singh reached certain
agreement regarding India’s civil nuclear energy program. Indian Prime Minister
expressed following commitments from India:
- putting civilian nuclear facilities under International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
safeguards,
- signing on to the Additional Protocol with respect to the civilian nuclear facilities,
- joining the Fissile Materials Cut-Off Treaty (FMCT) and
- adopting Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) and Nuclear Suppliers Group
(NSG) guidelines.
On behalf of America, President Bush primarily proposed open trade and transfer of
nuclear material, parts and technology to India for civilian projects. This is a significant
sign of mutual understanding and co-operation between these two countries. It is in
recognition of India’s energy needs as well as it confirms India to well established
international practices which avoid any misuse.
India has been seeking such co-operation and help from USA for long. However,
apprehensions regarding India’s autonomous and independent military nuclear
technology development and weaponization programs prohibited such trade
developments. American Congress has been reluctant to accord the much needed
approvals to initiate any such undertaking. Such apprehensions are deep rooted in the
historical context of Cold War and the Geopolitical situations of 20th century. Many
lawmakers, especially from Democratic party, continue to harbor these apprehensions
and object the proposed co-operation in nuclear technology matter with India.
As usual bipartisan support for any such crucial foreign policy support is well deserved.
For an initiative of a Republican President, Republican majority in both houses may
extend full support. But it is equally important that Democratic party also endorsers these
changes.
The changes in American nuclear trade policies in regards to India are well deserved and
compelling in today’s world. The most obvious concern regarding letting Indian military
nuclear program to continue is of proliferation. But all along, more than a quarter of
century, India’s track record in this regard is without any blemish. Further, strong 57
democratic political system ensures that Indian people are ultimately keeping effective
and peaceful control on nuclear weapons program. The fear of any undemocratic
element usurping power and misusing weapons is unfounded. The history of last half
century of Indian Democracy amply demonstrates that. Full civilian control and weapons
of last resort is the understanding of Indian lawmakers across the entire political
spectrum. Further, India has been careful about what International commitments it would
accept and fulfill those commitments scrupulously when she has accepted such
commitments. This should give confidence to rest of world as far as intend and
adherence to ‘rule of law’ by India. India did not sign Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) due
to her valid objections to the treaty. So jettisoning any co-operation with reference to NPT
does not apply to India’s case. In short, India’s measured activities and total compliance
in this regard do not leave any opportunity for a doubt.
Given an opportunity, Indian people would like to avoid any escalation of nuclear
weapons program. However, neighboring countries make it necessary in self-defense.
NPT or no other compact afford Indian people any shield from nuclear weapons.
Neighboring countries have time and again shown the hostile intends towards India and
integrity of Indian Republic. In this context it is a luxury not to have appropriate counter
measures which Indian Republic can ill afford.
On the other hand Nuclear Technology is one of the promising technology to address the
ever-increasing needs of energy. America pursued this technology till late 70s and
attained world-class sophistication. Helping India to utilize this know-how to address the
pressing energy needs will be a big helping hand from America to one of most populous
country of the world. It will help in the prosperity on Subcontinent, in turn helping the
world peace.
With recent high oil prices and concerns of Global warming; there is a revival of interests
in Nuclear Energy and American people consider this option seriously too. With India’s
promising pool of talented engineers and scientists, there can be serious partnership in
further developing such Nuclear Technology. It will not be far fetched to aim for the win-
win situation as like what American and Indian private sector companies are enjoying in
Information Technology Industry.
Proposed co-operation of Nuclear Technology will be one of the major building blocks of
future Indo-American Foreign Relations. On the backdrop of emerging Geopolitical
context of a new century; strong understanding and partnership between America and
India will help bring peace in Asia and world at large.
Given all these positive consequences of such co-operation, many in Indo-American

community, including myself, feel that Democratic party endorses steps proposed by
President Bush. It is time to leave behind any type of orthodox, conventional thinking and
embrace a brave new world where America plays the familiar roles – the roles of moral
leader, strong friend and smart change agent.
Thanks,
Umesh Patil
San Jose, CA 95111
July 19, 2005.
58
Nuclear Orthodoxy of Other Kind
Saturday, July 23, 2005
The fact that USA Media is slamming President Bush for letting India circumvent NPT
(NYT Editorial – Green Signal to Bomb Makers) and Indian Media is criticizing Prime
Minister Singh for giving too much (MJ Akabar’s article in Asian Age); it starts generating
a suspicion in my mind that may be the leaders have indeed struck something useful.
Usually, leadership is all about pulling people in a direction which is unknown or where
people are reluctant to go. If leadership is all about getting cheers and claps by playing to
the gallery; then hardly anything would have been achieved. Remember many in Old
Guard of Congress party criticized Nehru for wasting money on Steel Plants which MJ
Akabar so affectionately recalls as Temples of Modern India - the line by which Nehru
made efforts to sell those investments to Indian public then. Same for IITs. You do not get
technologist and managers in one generation to make TCS, Infosys, Ranbaxy and so on.
You got to have made that start earlier. Ditto in that case also - Nehru was criticized for
wasting money on IITs.
So we need to be patient here. Dr. Singh has attempted to get a great deal for India.
What is wrong with the inspection by IAEA on Civilian Nuclear Projects? For many of
these plants, new safty measures will reduce accident risks. In fact India should go one
step ahead unilaterally and pledge that it is content with the present number of atomic
bombs. 40 bombs or 200 bombs, they are same. Beyond some basic number, more
bombs do not buy any new deterrence; but rather the risk of loosing nuclear material,
accidents and more oversight. My apologies to talk like this, but you will need 5 for
Pakistan, 10 to 15 for China. So 20 is an adequate number. Let us double that so that we
have fallbacks if some fail. There is no point for India to carry more than 40 odd bombs.
Remember India is not a signatory to NPT, so if needed under an extraordinary situation
India can in future break the pledge to make more. But if India reiterates such a pledge
now; it will create that much confidence. In fact, as the proposed Bush – Singh accord
winds it’s way through Congress; it is very likely that India may need to make such a
pledge; Congress may not pass otherwise. We will see how it progresses. I am sure
Indian Media will again criticize that as a sell out.
MJ Akabar’s article starts with reciting Gandhi’s name. But when I think about it; I realize
how shameless we all are. That great leader made the case for a viable, secure and
peaceful India on the basis of Non-violence. And here we are complaining that we may
not be able to make more bombs when in the first place we started to make these bombs
without listening to anyone. May be at least it is in our hand how far we want to digress
from this path of Mahtma Gandhi. Early we put a leash on that, it is better.
Umesh Patil
San Jose, CA
July 23, 2005.
59
Bush – Singh Pact – Continued Commentary
Sunday, July 24, 2005
Indeed it is so right that many are wrongly criticizing the proposed pact. It is also a wise
suggestion by K. Subrahmanyam in Times of India (Come Together On Nuclear Pact,
July 25, 2005) that Dr. Singh should thank NDA for laying the groundwork so that the
proposed Bush - Singh pact is possible. One gets the feeling that NDA leadership is
indeed deprived of due credit here. I am not fond of NDA and especially their leadership.
But in the case of Nuclear Programs, Israel and numerous attempted peace initiatives
with Pakistan; they did bring some fresh thinking. It is sad that that contribution is ignored
and due to 'low politics' of Indian democracy they are opposing the logical end of their
own path breaking work!
Going forward, it will be indeed very useful if Dr. Singh, Sonia, Karat from CPM and
Vajpayee from NDA form a group and collectively pursue this Bush – Singh pact. The
hard work is ahead - getting approval from USA Congress. Looking at the reactions from
American newspapers and the traditional high religion of Democrats about NPT; the pact
is likely to face serious challenges. American media is acutely aware of UPA's
dependence on Communists. Washington Post in it's editorial openly mentioned so.
Hence, unless India comes together as a united voice; India is unlikely to see the end
result or fruits of the proposed pact. Otherwise it will simply remain on paper. It is
understandable that many may indeed want the pact on paper only; but being proactive
UPA government can avoid that situation.
Umesh Patil
San Jose, CA
July 24, 2005
Mr. Osama Saeed, you are not helping

Mr. Osma Saeed (Spokeperson for Muslim Association of Britain reacting to PM Blair's
call of more proactive help from Muslim community),
It is sad that you write such articles even after what has happened in last couple of weeks
in London. ("Back to you, Mr Blair"; Saturday July 23, 2005 in The Guardian.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1534690,00.html)
1. First and foremost, you must be able to separate the grievances and suffering of
Muslim people all over the world and terrorist acts. These things cannot be related and it
is immoral to relate them. As long as you relate them, in the eyes of common people you
are not on right footing. 2. Next, you must realize that the menace of Terrorism is
common for all. If it is not solved then people and children from other religions as well as
Muslim will die. All religious, all other life style issues and any other cultural aspirations
become secondary. As like other people, you owe to your children that you fight or help
Government to fight terrorism. Otherwise you will help eventual annihilation of your own
children too. 3. Many in USA do not like President Bush. Many here do think that Iraq war
has weak link to Terrorism. Success in Iraq war still leaves the problem of Terrorism
60 unanswered. So many in USA believe that in the War on Terrorism, Iraq war is
unfortunate diversion. However, when it comes to backing your government and helping
elected representatives in waging this war; everyone has to help and need to be with the
government. Political differences should not be so divisive that you loose the sight of a
larger goal. In that spirit it is required that all British citizens help Mr. Blair in his war on
terrorism. 4. If Mr. Blair says that Muslim community must help him, it is counter
productive to read that as signaling of Muslim community. It is very natural for
Government to seek help from the leaders and intellegesia of a community. That is not
like asking for additional steps from a specific community to prove it’s patriotism. It is just
that in this specific crisis (since many of the terrorists are Muslims and attempt to take
incorrect refuge in the name of religion), leadership of Muslim community can bring useful
help on the table. 5. It is also imperative that in these times of war (remember, you and
your children are also not spared from this war); we leave aside words and phrases
which are specific to community and not of the larger lexicon; words like caliphate. Who
cares for some obscure arrangement from a historical context? You have all the available
phrases and words of a modern democracy. You have all the protection offered by the
practicing and working laws of a modern society. Then why is this divisive insistence on
some community specific arrangement and structures? You are going to help everyone
by talking words and language which every common person understands in the
contemporary world. What Mr. Blair is pointing is we should not attempt to bring back
such ancient arrangements in today’s modern democracies where every citizen of every
religion and community gets her basic rights and liberties. 6. Finally, about being
inclusive in today’s world. How far I am going to be an agent of peace in today’s society if
I keep on insisting that my philosophy is that everyone else who do not agree with me are
on the path which I do not consider truthful. If I do not grant respect to other’s belief and
keep on insisting that my goal is to convert their belief system; I am not a peace agent but
effectively intruding in the privacy of others. Modern states of which I reap the benefits;
demand that I respect privacy of others. I have no idea what views you or Muslim
Association of Britain hold in this respect. My understanding is your views are such that
you do not want to intrude into other’s belief system. Then it is responsibility of all of us to
keep on holding this line, keep on preaching this view to all who come in our contact and
keep on making attempts to dissuade potential terrorists from holding any intolerant
views.
Thanks,
Umesh Patil
San Jose, CA
July 24, 2005.
Seductions in Democracy
Thursday, July 28, 2005
Generally, voters on the West side of Atlantic have admiration for British Democracy. One
distinctly remembers the in-depth debate about Iraq war in British Parliament before the
‘Shock and Awe’. It is impressive to see that the ministers who are responsible for making
decisions, are hold accountable at least for the duration of debate and they have to
defend their proposed actions in front of elected representatives. Such debates are the
heart of Parliamentary Democracy. One can only imagine how Rumsfeld and Condi Rice
would have answered to the grilling of Congress members. Senate and occasional House
hearings do not occur before the event in many cases and Secretaries do not go to 61
defend war resolutions in Senate or House. In any case in the land of Uncle Sam,
Secretaries do not need to get elected in the first place; they all are President’s Women
and Men.
But Democracy is a very delicate animal. British Parliamentary Democracy is not immune
to its own weakness and excesses. As the drama of Terrorism unfolds in London for past
few weeks, we could observe some of the darker aspects of British Parliamentary
Democracy.
First, we have Red Ken; in the mould of British MP George Galloway. One has to admit
how much enjoyable the site was when Galloway, fresh from his rebel victory in the
Parliamentary election despite getting kicked from Labor; blasted Republicans in Senate.
Oh boy, that was fun. But then slowly it starts to dawn on you that such theatricals do not
necessarily solve our problem. One starts to get the feeling that may be American ‘drab
and gray’ way of conducting Congress debates and staying away from colorful British
style penchant for caustic remarks are not all that bad. And now we have Red Ken simply
trying to push the envelop. What a timing! He talks about morality in killing Israelis,
portrays himself as the last bastion of Rational Liberal Custodian of West and very next
day you find the second attempt of bomb blasts in London. Indeed at that point you
realize, yes that stylish, cerebral, vaunted British Democracy may miss to provide
answers we need for the problem on hand – Islamic Radicalism emerging as
contemporary Terrorism.
This suspicion is confirmed when Michael Portillo goes on writing in Times that there is
some truth in what Pakistan President Mushraff says – that Britain has a problem to solve
rather that Pakistan to address the issue of birth place of Terrorism. Portillo’s animosity
towards Blair is understandable – they sit on facing aisles of House of Commons. But
from that to jump to give any kind of credibility to a despot like Pakistani President – it
does not matter in a good way or a bad way – so as he can take pot shots on three times
elected British Prime Minister; ‘Hay Ram’ it is too much.
The same democracy, which impresses every one around the world, seduces weak
politicians like Portillo and Livingstone to short circuit rules of a democratic polity for the
sake of votes. In this case substantial votes of British Muslim. One just has to look to
Indian Polity where that path leads to. India had the misfortune of having a PM like
Rajeev Gandhi who failed to combat such communal politics, passing highly divisive laws
to handle wrongly the Shah Bano Case. The saddest part of that was that at no time in
India’s history ruling party was in such a commanding position to ignore any kind of
communal pressures. Rajeev had got four fifth majority in Loksabha. And yet, he and
Congress party maddeningly choose to travel the path of appeasing extremists’ political
views for no reason. Hindu Nationalism got the fillip in that and then rest is history, rather
the violent history of Indian Politics.
Democracy in itself is no guarantee to bring peace to the society. Even the stylish,
entrenched, blessed and intellectual Parliamentary Democracy of Britain can fall victim to
these games – the games likes of Red Kane and Osma Saeed of Muslim Association of
Britain want to play on the background music of exploding bombs in London subways. If
this show continues, then as a starter we will very soon get a British version of Jean-
Marie Le Pen speaking impeccable English paving the way made quite familiar by the
journeys of Rajeev’s Congress. Then, next time a British PM visits India; she can recount
what Britain learnt from an Independent India.
Umesh Patil San Jose, CA July 28, 2005.
62
Mumbai - Where does she go from here?
Monday, August 01, 2005
Charles Correa has made a very important point in his article in TOI (What Mumbai
wants? A Chief Minister - http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshowbnews/msid-
1188367,curpg-1.cms ). I agree with Correa. Mumbai is too big, too important and the
relation between this metropolis and the state of Maharashtra is skewed one. It is
correctly pointed by Correa that Maharashtra Legislature and CM would not have
interests of Mumbai in their mind. They are answerable to the State and hence Mumbai
gets the second fiddle despite the fact that it is mostly contributing more to the kitty of
Maharashtra State.
Also if Mumbai is made bit independent politically, the Center would have more vested
interest to interact directly with Mumbai and may give more money also. In today's world
if Mumbai is expected to compete with Shanghai, Hong Kong, Singapore and Dubai; the
issue of more dynamic political structure is vital. Otherwise, it is almost sure that some
more crisis instances like July 2005 Mansoon and BSE and Financial hub will move out;
same for Bollywood - the two important engines of Mumbai will go away.
The problem is tricky - if Mumbai becomes Union Territory it will be a painful and
needless divorce with the state of Maharashtra. But obviously it needs more room than
what it gets now. Electing CEO of Mumbai directly will be very effective, but how does it
fit with the overall Political Structure of India where legislature gets the primacy?
One option could be move the capital of Maharashtra state to Nagpur and give some
additional financial and administrative freedom to Mumbai in turn. Subsequently BMC can
give more power to a commissioner or mayor or may create a new post. Change is
needed and it is clear that Maharashtra state legislature body will be the last one to do so
since they would be the looser. They need to be loosers is the fact. Current CM has been
the crowning glory in the long line of those shameless CMs who simply milk Mumbai for
their political benefits but refuse to have more imaginative and reciprocal approach to the
problems of Mumbai. So BMC and Mumbaikars need to take initiative in asking for more
independence here. Needless to say, the City has the gumption, energy and resources to
deal it’s problems. May I say that Mumbaikars need to be bit vocal here in putting their
interests first than the interests of the state of Maharashtra? For too long, Mumbai has
been a silent giver to all. She is grown and needs to tend to herself first.
Umesh Patil
San Jose, CA
August 1, 2005.
Dr. Singh, we have a dream…

Friday, August 12, 2005
Many in India fail to realize the importance of correcting past mistakes of Indian State
when the State failed miserably to protect her people. We have long way for State
Governments to undertake such actions. But the Central or Federal Government needs
to take the initiative and Dr. Singh has that chance.
63
It is great to see that Media has not fallen victim to this failure to realize the importance of
Catharsis of 1984. Two Times Of India (TOI) editorials in last few days make the case
clear and do the excellent job expected from a vigilant Media. All these years, I have
been following editorials and many editorials have fairly maintained a solid and consistent
line on the dark chapters of 1984 - Indian State must apologize, must make all her efforts
to remove the tears from the victims.
Prosperity comes and goes, but it is the value system in the end which remains. Free
India failed on some critical occasions to uphold a correct value system as needed for a
modern state. Now is the time to rectify those failures.
We all pray that Dr. Singh executes on this plan. Dr. Singh, we have a dream - "Where
the mind is without fear and the head is held high ...". What good of Tagore if we do not
follow him in his own land? What good to visit America if we do not follow dreams
articulated by Dr. King? Time has come to heal these wounds - one at a time because
unfortunately there are more than one wounds.
So gratifying to see many in Indian Media understand this criticality. TOI is one of them.
Umesh Patil
San Jose, CA
August 12, 2005.
Opinionated Democracy Watch - August 2005

Edition
When one reads news in last week, one is struck by peculiar situations of democracies
around the world. Here is one opinionated take on these recent events.
Afghanistan
Labor process for a woman is much simpler than birth of democracy here in a war torn
country. A president is minted, next month parliamentarians will be minted. Not clear
whether the world help is adequate to pull off this “delivery” properly. Quite a reflection on
other big brothers and sisters of Democracy family – will they do what is needed or in the
end fail to muster needed resources - money, man power and soldiers for providing
security?
Brazil
Lula’s campaign architect admits that he got money from the slush fund – around $30
million foreign funds. Money in question is not a small amount, definitely not small when
one considers the size of Brazilian economy and their population (GDP $1.5 Trillion and
186 million). Add to this slush fund, the actual legally allowed election campaign funds
and one could be talking here of large sums. This is of Workers Party only. There are
other parties who would be spending some similar money too. Bottom line, one is dealing
here with some large amounts of money which can seriously impact the way elections
are conducted. It is the same Workers Party which has naturally been crowing all along
64
the corrupt ways of other parties. Clearly, their political USP has been their proclaimed
non-corrupt ways and that very USP is under attack now. So far it has not touched to
Lula. But with the last week’s revelations, it is difficult to believe that he would not be
aware of this. His coterie was using this money and Lula claims on his TV speech that he
was unaware. It is reported that many who voted for him now feel that this is betrayal of
their mandate. Some lawmakers from the Workers Party are talking about walking out of
the party. Overall sad commentary since with Lula economy was on upswing and
common Brazilian citizen was expected to get some stability and breathing space. Likely
is more instability and weaker government at least for a while. Downward spiral is not
stopping and it might bring down Lula’s government.
Canada
Paul Martin hangs to the power by a single vote. A good looking, fabulously rich and
powerful Member of Parliament decides to switch her sleeping partner (hey, it is Canada;
Liberalism rules here) and walk over to Martin’s party to save his government. Whoa! Is it
that sexual preference of one single person decides what a democratic government
should be? Why do we take elections in Democracy, I mean in Canada, any way? Let us
just make the daily reading of sleeping partners of rich and powerful to determine who
governs Canada. Did someone say we are not in French Bourgeoisie period when
marriages and love affairs among nobility determine who rules on commoners? It is
Canadian style Bourgeoisie regime. Long live the Queen’s rule.
France
Ruled by a president who is simply vestige of past glory and no capacity to tune into the
contemporary times of the country. Chirac’s government is an upside down affair – all
powerful Nicolas Sarkozy is trying to fit into a smaller chair of interior ministry whereas
unelected Villepin is occupying the PM chair in a way a mouse sits on the crown seat.
Villepin probably thinks he is holding the court of Louis XIV, the same old imperial style
with no public mandate in any authentic manner. That entire court swagger is summoned
only when Villepin has to criticize America at UN. At home – all that erudition and
scholarship vanishes into the ethereal smells of champagne.
India
Clumsy way in which Lokshabha is trying to come to terms with 1984 riots. Poor quality
speeches by MPs; PM is trying to salvage. But still a long way from actually and
concretely executing a plan which will alleviate sufferings of riot affected people. This
Democracy, after 5 decades, is still learning that “rule of law” is something way too
important and state cannot sponsor, in any manner, any kind of pogrom. High time India
deals with this issue.
Iraq
If it is time of natural births of parliamentarians in Afghanistan, here it is vetro fertilization.
USA is trying to engineer a constitution, foundation of democracy. If one lives in a fancy
world and is able to ignore the hot lava of insurgency, then it can be a project for students
in MA Politics – how to write a constitution? Federalism or Strong Center? Sunnis are in
weaker position now that Shiites have made their mind that eventually they want what
Kurds have – full autonomy. Will Sunnis land holding the bag with no Oil? Really hard to
predict how this beast will shape. Judging by the history of Indian subcontinent, such
squabbles eventually reach the stage of partition. Some partitions at birth (India -
Pakistan), some down the line (Pakistan - Bangladesh). Unfortunately in this case, the
problem would not stop simply by partition of Iraq; but will have cascading effects on the
region surrounded by Shiites, Sunni, Kurds and Turk nationalities. Democracy is way too
65
fragile to address such fundamental questions and that vulnerability is fully evident in the
current political process which is trying to cook what Jefferson and team did some 230
years ago for America.
Israel
Life is not made easy when survival struggle is played via means of electoral party
politics. Netanyahu sizes the pole position as Opposition leader in the ongoing drama of
Gaza settlement withdrawal. Sharon did not have too much room to maneuver to start
with and now with the bolting of Netanyahu from his cabinet that room is getting way too
small. However one agrees with Gaza withdrawal policy of Sharon, one cannot disagree
with the power politics played by Netanyahu. For good or bad, electoral democracy works
this way only. It is not about whether it is a convenient time for the incumbent, but it is
about attempting to represent people’s will authentically. One only wish there was more
national census about these vital policies. But issues faced by Israel are so unique and
the nation is so much challenged for land and population; disagreement for such
fundamental policy issues is understandable. Good part is Israel uses party politics to
resolve these visceral disputes.
Japan
PM Koizumi decides to take the gamble of privatization of Japanese Post cum thrift bank
since lawmakers find it hard to get away from the patronage offered by controlling
savings with Post. Domestic construction projects are always mainstay largesse for
politicians all over the world. It is more pronounced in Japan when it is financed by
savings with Post. So loosing control on these vast sums ($3 Trillion!) is not easy for
politicians. True that Koizumi has lost popularity and lot of his early luster; but it is hard to
characterize the coming election anything other than a simple fight between Koizumi, the
reformer, and entrenched interests of traditional parliamentarians. September 11 (is there
any coincidence or politics in this date?) election will determine who wins. Once again it
shows, it is difficult to keep running Democracy in a cleaner manner. Nothing is given,
everything has to be worked out hard way; all along.
Russia
Much less to talk about democracy here. Putin is still continuing his transformation to a
Soviet era powerful leader. Nothing encouraging. Corruption is having its field day. Will it
result in further weakening of Russian State and potentially further division of Russia?
With the given low and decreasing Russian population (140 million) and lack of good
economy apart from Oil; it will be increasingly uphill to maintain the integrity of Russian
State unless things change. Besides what about the nuclear material leakage and
proliferation? That danger is still there and with this perilous state of government affairs, it
is not getting any better. One is reminded of corrosion of Russian State from time to time
by all these sinking submarines! Russia cannot even collect together all these laying
broken pieces of her past Soviet empire. Hardly any spring time for democracy.
UK
How can it happen to us, that is how British politicians are reacting to these London
bombing. Multiculturalisms (well, that is what European Media calls to “misguided
Liberalism”) is still refusing to see the point that openness to others does not mean to
carry the suicidal instincts – keep on pampering rogue elements of society under the
pretext of one’s false notion of enlightened souls. Today’s Britain is a living lesson of
seduction in democracy – likes of Red Kane, George Galloway, Osma Saeed and many
more will not mind compromising the security of their own citizens when it comes to
garnering votes – votes of large British Muslim population. Meanwhile, Liberal Democrats
66
are worried about the new Blair initiative to restrict radical Islam preachers. But it does
not give any feeling that Liberal Democrats have been able to strike the balance between
the state responsibility of preserving basic social security and how much to worry about
encroachment on individual liberty. And what about Tories – still busy in finding who will
succeed Michael Howard. Tory Parliamentary Leader being the post donned by Thatcher
once upon a time, it is way too serious business for Tories. So what if it means response
to London Terrorism receives second priority. For British Conservatives, rules of Tory
leader election are far more sacred than British immigration policy. Shush, Tories are
busy in avoiding another Duncan Smith – let MPs elect the leader not the party workers.
But seriously, who cares how do Tories elect their leader? Does that matter that much for
larger public? Well, it is Britain; veneer of democracy is more important even if it means
diminishing returns.
USA
It is rare for a government report to be on the popular book list. But that is what happened
for 9/11 commission report. It indicates the true desire on the part of American public to
understand what happened, why it happened and what can we do to prevent it to recur. It
also represents the stratospheric credibility of the bipartisan 9/11 commission. But alas, it
looks that that stratospheric credibility is descending to the ground. Unfortunately unlike
Discovery shuttle; it is coming to the ground not in any intact form, but more likely in the
shattered form of tragic Columbia shuttle. The commission probably knew that some
group in CIA was aware of Mohammed Atta almost one year before the attack, but did
not find it important to point as an example of “silos structure of governmental agencies”.
The CIA did not share that information with FBI and Immigration. It is true that this new
revelation simply indicates that the information was not shared among agencies and that
particular point, the commission felt, was well hammered in their report. But there is a
feeling that this particular incidence warranted the mention as a poster example of “no
sharing” culture of previous structure. Besides, it also raises the doubt whether the
commission did get handle on all of the information and whether the judgments exercised
by the commission in weighing various observations were indeed without any fault. All in
all, the controversy erupted in fast few days does not leave good taste. After thoughts like
Oral History Project and so on are more as Academic exercises; they do not substitute
what the commission was required when they submitted the final report.
Elected Congress representatives, senators and all powerful president are expected to
be in service of American public at large. There efforts are supposed to be in the
endeavor of addressing grievances of common people. One of pressing pains of
American people is the high price of gasoline. Congress and President thought to pass
Energy bill 2005 to address this pain for common people. But the bill does not have any
concrete measures which could have immediate useful impact for common people. The
president had to go on prefacing his signature on the bill by saying “the bill would not
solve the immediate problem”. It is true as he said, the problem has been making for
decades so can be solved only over decades. Despite all these qualifications and
posturing by American elected politicians; it is odd that world’s most powerful elected
bodies and president are not in position to do anything specific to relive the pain or to
remove the drug like addiction of American people for high consuming gasoline cars.
Both Republicans and Democrats joined in opposing higher mileage requirements for car.
Protecting automobile labor interests become more important for some Democrats
whereas many Republicans are beholden to Oil Industry. Hope is high prices will
discourage consumers away from consumption provided Congress and President do not
distort the market mechanism. But leaving pain of Oil completely to the market forces and
the Government not undertaking any proactive actions at all; will raise the risk to
67
American Economy in the end. Today American Economy is in a reasonable shape.
However, with higher oil prices along with incessant rate increases by Fed; it is likely to
face tough time. Elected representatives of the oldest democracy did not find anything to
act upon today or to take on this immediate challenge.
California
Poster child of what happens when people’s democracy goes excessive. First, you have
the requirement of two third majority to pass state budget and state laws. Next, the whole
tangled web of State mandated propositions which require certain funding for specific
purposes which make state legislature paralytic to respond to the changing dynamics of
state income. Then you have the deal between the Governor and Teachers and now
Teachers are enraged that they are short changed by the State on money for education.
Finally to top all this unwieldy governing system of democracy; you have a lawsuit by
Teachers. As commentators pointed out, anytime you feel you get less money from State;
run to Court. Meanwhile November special election is looming large. With all these
propositions, special elections and hyper pro people democracy; things have reached the
level where all swiftness, creativity and openness expected from a democratic system is
gone to winds. May be California should eliminate the state legislature and simply have
everything decided by People on Web. Every time you have policy issue to be decided,
let us have online poll. May be there will be always “open” online poll for this issue or that
issue. Every week, Californian’s can vote on these never stopping streams of proposition.
No elected representatives, but only pressure groups and lobbies. No doubt, the prime
lobby will be of Teachers and then Prison Guard. A Governor named Davis left
Sacramento, but the place still stinks by his cohabit with those Prison Guards. Well, it is
Wild West here and they are exploring frontiers of Democracy. What if in the process
serving peoples interest becomes secondary, we will get there some day.
Umesh Patil
San Jose, CA
August 14, 2005.
Inability to solve Oil Problem

Sunday, August 21, 2005
There are two theories doing the round as far as higher oil price is concerned:
- Saudi Bush theory of no shortage in crude oil production, but distribution disturbances
only and
- Prevalent market accepted theory of reaching peak Oil Production.
According to Saudi Bush theory, as demand increases; crude oil production will increase.
The higher gasoline prices are due to distribution disruptions and lack of more refining
within USA. One unanswered (there are many for this theory) question is why would oil
companies keep on bidding for higher oil and store that as an expensive inventory when
they do not have enough capacity to refine that oil. But even if this issue is left aside, a
nagging question comes to mind is what the USA Federal Government is doing to do
remove this refinery shortage? A refinery of 1 million barrel per day processing capacity
may be around $2 Billion. But for a company like Exxon with $25 Billion as net profit last
year and $15 Billion in the first six months of this year (with declining production!); putting
68 up a refinery is not a big issue. Same with other oil companies – they can afford such
investment very easily. Then why are they not doing so? Why USA government does not
take any action here - legal or business pressure or imploring them; whatever works? In
absence of any action it looks then that this Congress and Administration is helping
indirectly to these Oil companies to retain this vice like grip and rob the common people.
How else to avoid the conclusion that President Bush and VP are party to this robbery?
May be USA Government spends some $2 Billion and build a refinery. It is worth doing
that if it is a bottleneck. Bring some new players or give money to new players to come to
the market if the existing players are gaming the market and trying to keep the oligopoly.
On the other hand if “not in my backyard” attitude of American Public is contributing to the
absence of creating new refining capacity; it is the job of policy makers and elected
representatives to point out so. It is costing fortune to public and will seriously impact the
economy going forward. If this is something public is not aware and missing; then this
needs to be brought to the surface. Congress, Administration and Media need to do this
part if that is the case or root cause for not adding new refineries.
What about the other theory that world oil production is near the peak or already peaked?
It is also the case of how fast additional production can be brought to the market to fulfill
increasing new demand. Many experts have said that this is the core problem and we
need to face this reality. It is amply proven time and again that American Congress and
President do not have the ability and will to tell this hard truth to American People. Ever
since President Carter’s jibe of reducing energy consumption did not benefit politically,
American Politicians have developed singular inability to talk about controlling oil
consumption. Nay, it simple never happens in United States of America. We do not do
business that way in Beltway, is the refrain. I am sure President Clinton must have felt to
be lucky not to deal with this problem ever. With President Bush - he is from Texas, he is
former oilmen, his VP is from Oil Industry and more important, he sees virtues of pro
market thinking when he “sales” his soul to Big Oil. So we do not expect anything here
from him. Naturally, the measures like adding any tax on Oil to manage the consumption
are blasphemy in this Republican era.
Not only the inability of American Politicians manifests in terms of no initiative to control
oil consumption directly; it is also extends to any indirect measures like specifying higher
mileage for passenger cars and SUVs. So it will be naïve for people to expect that this
Congress will be able to enact any useful laws in this regard – specify higher mileage
standards. That will not happen. Any hopes that all individual states would do anything,
like the initiative of California to specify higher emission standards; is nothing but too
much optimism. Legal challenges are too many for such initiatives. States are not that
powerful to withstand the pressure of vested interests of Automobile and Oil Lobbies.
So what do we do and what will happen? We do not know which of the two theories is
true. But there is less validity with the first one. People’s initiative in supporting non-oil
transportation will be one way to try to address this challenge. Wider adoption of such
alternatives as well as better acceptance of such measures in market may be the real
key. So those in Congress, those in power, may do best when they back such initiatives.
California Governor did good when he talked about infrastructure for Hydrogen cars.
When Silicon Valley VCs see the business potential in such alternative market
opportunities; it will have more meaningful impact on this impasse. May be California
needs to pass a bond measure which raises money for such initiatives, technology and
businesses as it did for Stem Cell Research. Granted, even that measure is grounded by
legal challenges; but care can be taken so that the proposed alternative energy bond
does not face such hurdles. Besides, such initiatives can concretely help to generate new
employment in the state. People can believe in such private or state initiatives more than
69
American Politicians in Washington at this point. Those elected representatives who want
to side with real energy problems of people will help such “peoples solution” to emerge.
Total inaction to reduce the impact of higher oil prices would further erode credibility of
Congress in people’s mind. Energy bill 2005 is not the pass is very clear. People look at
the pump price and they realize very well that, that bill is hogwash.
**Some Numbers to think:
- USA crude oil daily consumption ..............~ 20 Million barrels
- At $10 per barrel, the cost is .....................$200 Million per day

...............................................................~$75 Billion per year
- High price with minimal impact ................$30 to $35 per barrel
- Average “acceptable” national cost ............$225 to $262 Billion per year
- At $60+ per barrel, the cost is ...................$450 to $550 Billion pre year
- New “Bush Oil” Tax ...................................$250 Billion per year

Or Cost of not developing alternatives to Oil
- America’s new contribution .......................$100 Billion per year

to “Mullahs of Middle East”
(at 40% of oil supplied from that region)
Umesh Patil
San Jose, CA
August 21, 2005.
Merck Fallout
There are only few people like James Cramer (JJC) of TheStreet.com who understand
what is happening here with Merck. His two conclusions are:
- Merck is in much deeper problem than people realize and
- Log term drug makers in USA are in for some serious change.
He has been mild I would say so far. His last line is ominous – “It's funny, we have the
most anti-tort lawyer president in history in office now, and nothing's happened to rein
these guys in. What happens when we elect another president who simply couldn't be
more antagonistic than this guy?” Just think of it. Whichever way you cut, America is
simply incapable of getting a right balance between people’s life, their rights and drug
makers’ interest of making money.
What will happen long term?
- First Drug makers will be very cautious in terms of marketing and advertising their
products. Merck had been as aggressive as Drug makers have been so far. This does
not work anymore.
70 - Next, the concept of Billion Dollars Drug or tablets would come under further attack.
Drug as a “packaged product” may start to fade in USA.
- It may be give further fillip to turn health industry into service. Drugs could be open
source or of minor consequences. Business proposition will be in providing service or
custom build drugs with appropriate legal protections for the vendor.
All said and done, as JJC maintains; indeed there are some serious changes taking place
in drug making business. He may sound too harsh or calculative; but that is the nature of
the beast here. I would say he was been very decent and tries to be less cynical as much
as possible.
Umesh Patil
San Jose, CA
August 22, 2005.
Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme – Yet

another “Garibi Hatao”?
Let us see - we are talking here Rs. 240 Billion scheme. It will mostly cost Rs. 400 Billion
in the first year. States are expected to contribute Rs. 40 Billion. Again even that small
figure from states is doubtful. But the worry is how is this money funneled? If it is the
same State Gov. plus District Admin; we have a problem. It is proven beyond doubt that if
those distribution systems are left as they are; we are very likely to see lot of money
wasted in bureaucracy and corruption. The question is where is the oversight? PM being
Economist with so many years as RBI Governor, he should know what happens to such
funds. NGO’s and Local Governments are expected to take part in the implementation,
but still as long as there is no clean and lean mechanism with direct link to FM and PM at
Center; the fear of loosing lot of resources seems realistic. The more scary part is, as
many have sounded, if such large sums wreck havoc on GOI’s finances; that will be
double whammy – lose the money and create even larger deficit! As such GOI runs one
of the largest Deficits in the world (oh yah, larger than USA in percentage terms). The
point is at this point the credibility of Indian State to distribute substantial resources to
needy sections of people is very low. If PM and Congress intends to implement a scheme
with such large resource outlay, they better plan for a better alternative structure. Same
will not do.
An article by Devesh Kapur in Harvard Magazine “India’s Promize?” pin point this
weakest link for India – the Indian State Machinery. (http://www.harvard-
magazine.com/on-line/070591.html)
The Rural Employment Guarantee scheme may fall victim to the same problem.
Umesh Patil
San Jose, CA
August 22, 2005.
71
Why not supply Water and Food from air?
Thursday, September 01, 2005
Networks like CNN and others have gloated to call that New Orleans is like a Third World
country. But we have seen that even in Third World country (I am from one of them –
India) they do not do what current American Governing bodies are doing – NOT dropping
water and food from air to people who are congregated at Superdome and New Orleans
Convention Center and other places in the city. How much does it take to drop water and
some basic food from air? They do all the time in Third World Countries like that. If
evacuation is going to take time, why are American Governments (Federal and State and
other agencies) not providing these basic necessities from air? USA government is
effectively “killing” people. What is the use of that $400 billion Military when it cannot
provide water and some food to it’s own citizens in this crisis time? Again we are not
talking here Tuesday or Monday. This is happening, rather not happening, on the fourth
day i.e. on Thursday. It does not help how many times President says that help is on way.
It is better that he stops saying that and actually the help is provided.
When Media people go around to video record suffering of the people, it looks as a cruel
jock to those who suffer. Why do they go to record when the crucial stuff of giving water
and food needs to be followed with those incompetent Federal and State officials? Go
after them. Filming 100 times same suffering is not helping America. It is hard to imagine
in this country such things are allowed to happen. May be the commoners like us will
need to keep on “calling” our respected Senators, House Representatives and that
famous American Media to focus on these small things which are doable and which will
help life.
Umesh Patil
San Jose, CA
September 1, 2005.
Katrina Relief Work – Actors on Stage

Sunday, September 04, 2005
1. Louisiana Governor Blanco
The weakest link in the overall apparatus of Governance. She failed to prod local
governments in the first place to be more prepared and then could not muster enough
resources in timely manner from Fed in the aftermath. She is supposed to be a crucial
link in asking resources – it was too late and she could not back those requests with the
needed political backing. Besides her demeanor has been very unimaginative, pedantic
not at all the one which could motivate the government machinery. Jeb Bush in Florida
has set the bar in this regard and she failed that.
2. New Orleans Mayor Nagin

Once the essential machinery at his disposal was completely overwhelmed, he had much
less in his hands to make any difference. He remained in New Orleans all along and then
did a critical function – basically being the official reporter about the state of affairs. His
SOS call and the subsequent interview to a local radio station; dramatized the situation
as warranted by the reality. One does not know whether it had any concrete positive
72 impact in getting the Federal help by Friday; but it played out rightly in the Media. He
proved to be quite an adapt and effective in playing the Media to the advantage of the
city.
The thing he could have done better was making more forceful evacuation of the city. By
earlier Saturday suddenly the storm turned into Category 4/5 from 2 and it became clear
that it was heading straight to New Orleans. He and the State gave the evacuation order
on Saturday and the mass evacuation started in earnest on Saturday. It left only 24 to 36
hours for the city to get empty. Looking at the traffic jam and the case of many with no
personal transport; planning of mass transportation would have been helpful. It is also
unclear how much of a role he played in deciding Superdome as the last resort shelter.
Looking back, it is not simple to categorize that call as the best; especially considering
the lacking supporting resources over there. But on the other hand that chaos at
Superdome and Convention Center is better than having all these people stranded in
their individual homes. That would have multiplied the potential deaths by ultra thinly
stretched evacuation operation. How Convention Center became the shelter is an
interesting story. It was not one of the originally designated shelters. Some police told
some people to stay there. Surrounding hotels asked tourists to gather there and then it
roll balled into a full fledge refugee camp with all the attendant problems – the problem of
no law enforcement and some thugs with guns.
3. FEMA
The agency which is receiving the bulk of criticism, rightly so; for insufficient planning,
coordination and lack of resources. Frankly speaking it matters less whether it is a part of
Homeland Security Department or an independent agency reporting to President. If the
department boss gives only $150 million to states for preparedness for natural disasters
compared to more than $1 billion for protecting states from terrorism; the agency failed to
raise that issue earlier. The agency has to undertake the fight and has no choice but to
fight the turf battles in Fed. These are simply unacceptable excuses. Within the same
confines, Coast Guards are doing a remarkable job – they evacuated hard to remove
8000 people from the flooded city using helicopters.
Imagine if there was a terror attack instead of the national disaster. Many would have
criticized at that time that money for terrorism protection is less. So it is not that money
needs to be diverted from terrorism protection efforts to natural disaster protection; but
both needs to get the adequate resources. Both efforts have many commonalities and
harnessing that under one single department is a good way. Every time an agency feels it
does not get enough money and decides to get away from a department; it will become
unmanageable. Consolidation and tearing away the ‘silo walls’ is the message of 9/11
commission and it is generally applicable to all of federal bureaucracy.
4. NOAA
It is very impressive the way this agency brings reasonably good, usable and actable
piece of weather information consistently on so many occasions. Again the rule of ‘no
lime light, more is the effectiveness’ works here.
5. Army Engineering Corps

Doing excellent job, but still far away from getting closure on the ‘levee’ problem. Much
less information is available for their efforts in public when people need to know lot more.
Looks like Media also do not dig lot here.
6. Oil, Dollar and Economy

Economist Anirvan Banarjee from ECRI with an impeccable track record contends that
73
American Economy will wither this shock. Basically it is in a solid shape, much more
efficient due to outsourcing of last few years and in recent days it is accommodating
displaced 3.5 million workers in industries and roles. This long term labor adjustment is
resulting in backbone support of sustainable employment, larger population with
disposable income. For such economists, nominal oil price is less important than the
relative price of the oil with respect to the state of economy. For an inherently weak
economy, oil at $35 per barrel can be recessionary whereas for a solid economy oil at
$70 also will not have impact. Anyone will be reluctant to bet against Banarjee because
of his track record, strong scholarship and solid credibility. However, it is undeniable fact
that money available for consumption is diverted to oil so the consumer demand will be
weaker going forward. So it is bit difficult to guess where the wind blows. Some kind of
softening of the economy is surely on the cards. Trade balance gap will increase, Fed
deficit will increase and this will have impact on Dollar to weaken further. Oil will continue
to have hard social and psychological effect on Americans. One wonders when will this
society get out of the vice like grip of Oil dependence and start avoiding mortgaging it’s
future due to Oil?
7. Media
Channels like CNN, FOX played to the full hilt in broadcasting this tragedy. But
somewhere there is a feeling, it generated enormous pressure on the government to act.
It would have been difficult and the government would have been off the hook if this
constant stream of images would not have unsettled larger population. Web and blogs
did not play that much crucial role. It was all TV show here. Newspapers are in declining
influence. Because it makes a perfect story to broadcast a human drama; the focus was
on human suffering; rightly. But that came at the cost of lesser time for vital issues like
engineering of levee repair and overall other issues with less direct connections with
humans. Media could have also tracked issues with each player and each location more
systematically. Only late CNN started to do that (a menu driven approach). That way the
coverage would have been more thorough and systematic. Web had an excellent chance
to organize such a ‘matrix style’ (rows – locations / stages; columns – players / agencies)
information; but missed it.
8. Rest of the world

Well, this is America. When she is preoccupied with her own wounds it matters less what
happens in the rest of the world, who helps and who gives money. This is the tragedy
which America herself would have to heal, howsoever long the recovery is. At this point
of time, the hour is so dark that hope is the only real sister of America.
Umesh Patil
San Jose, CA
September 04, 2005.
Tragedy Katrina Brought

Non-existent relief in early days after Katrina and consequent tragedy will result in
ragging debates within America. All over the world it will once again mutate perception
about America. Common decency requires that one engages in this debate without
74 disrespecting the people who have suffered or are still suffering and people who are
working tirelessly to address the biblical proportion of the relief work. One feels calm and
respectful for the courage of these relief workers, about their hard work and simply the
noble tasks which they are doing. These are people in Media, Police, Military, Voluntary
Organizations and simply neighbors helping each other. One feels one could do more
than simply giving some money to participate in reducing this misery. But as the
Democratic freshman House Representative Charlie Melancon said in the Radio address
on Saturday September 3, 2005; we should not shirk away from asking tough questions
here. The debates and blogs have a place to prepare a fertile ground for such effective
questioning to take place and something good to come out.
It is hard to grasp the complexity of the whole impact and huge relief work which has
started. If what Louisiana Republican Senator Vitter says is true, we are looking at 10,000
deaths due to the storm and subsequent flooding. Impact away from New Orleans is vast
too. There are already confirmed deaths of around 150 outside Louisiana. Mississippi
officials say the death toll will be larger. Mississippi as a state is having a huge impact on
it’s economy. The death toll up to 300 to 400 is realistic in that state. Other areas will
possibly increase that number by another 100 or more so. But it is the New Orleans
where the maximum brunt in thousands is. Mayor of New Orleans says so too. The
minimum number is surely around 1000; but more likely 2000 to 3000. All in all one is
talking here potentially life loss more than 9/11; 3000+. One does not know whether it will
be as high as 10,000 or so but a tragedy larger than 9/11 is the primary indication of the
scope. President Bush says, the area approximately the size of Great Brian is affected;
which is the geographical scope of this crisis. In terms of economic impact figures are
$30 to $100 Billion. All in all this is an unprecedented calamity which any nation is likely
to find hard to address. It could be only countries like India and China who could have
resources to measure up to the challenges which are unfolding. One always expects
flawless, quick and very smooth response from America. But looking at the enormity; it
should be understandable the hiccups and chaotic manner of the relief work. Having said
that, since there are so many things which have gone wrong, the so far conduct of the
relief work raises fundamental questions about American State, Society, the prevailing
sense of Morality and it’s politics. All these questions are unavoidable.
9/11 did not tear the American social fabric; did not create any feeling of ‘us’ and ‘them’.
America saw it as a national tragedy, came together as a nation and with a solid unity
dealt that attack. Looking back, one sees why was it so and why was it that easy. It was
effectively an attack by an identifiable enemy, albeit in an unusual form. Entire America
was ‘us’ and the enemy outside the country was ‘them’. Next, the ground zero was
already in effect ‘sanctified’ by the heroic sacrifices of NYFD fire fighters who without any
after-thoughts started to climb the towers. Hence it was very easy for politicians to make
rousing speeches on that ‘hallow’ background. It is not to take credit away from President
Bush for his inspiring response then; but really it is those heroes (and heroes on another
flight who avoided the impact on the capital) who made it possible. Again those heroes
were not some anonymous behind the screen players; but identifiable individuals. Thirdly,
there was no ‘direct’ warning of the looming disaster. Intelligence failure, sure it was; but
it is different than an incoming hurricane followed by weather and main channels for a
week. Finally, the impact was restricted to one area with no effect on the infrastructure in
and around New York. For all these reasons, if at all anything, that tragedy strengthened
the ‘fabric’ of American society.
But Katrin Flood Impact and Relief work is having the opposite outcome. First, the
images. Again and again, it proves how devastating TV images can be. In this case
unrelenting live coverage by Media has brought ‘the horror and hell’ in your living room.
75
There cannot be any thinking American who would not have wondered how come this
happens in America – needy and trapped people not getting basic humanitarian help for
more than two days. There is no ‘us’ and ‘them’. Them in this case is Mother Nature.
There is no identifiable human enemy behind all this. Affected area is littered by the
misery of people; there is no honor scattered around for a claim. (It will come there as all
these tireless relief workers clear the mess.) It is hard to avoid thinking failures of the
Government as misery continued for days and in some cases increased due to
lawlessness. When America learns about possibly rape incidences, looting and gun fights
instead of people helping each other in times of crisis; America is in disbelief. It is as if
‘devil’ in American has surfaced and making this havoc. Why do American society leave
so many in poverty as result of which they do not have a car or ways and means to
evacuate even when catastrophe is looming? How come our own elected Government
plays with the life of people and becomes callous and criminally irresponsive? Is it the
color of the skin of suffering people which mattered? Are we still not able to bury the
ghosts of racism even after so many years? How come we are so ill equipped to handle
seemingly endless stream of our own citizens as evacuees? Why do we get unfailing
‘spin’ always from our leaders; the behavior which is reliable to the point of deafness?
Instead of inspiring vision and encouragement, why do we get myopic and totally
unimaginative vision from our leaders? All these questions, chaos, misery and no
answers is where American society has landed. When some sections of people do not
believe in others, our State and our Society; one understands that the social fabric is
ruptured. You aren’t Great Society and Great Nation when the social fabric is in tatters.
That is the biggest challenge of Katrina aftermath.
President Bush’s governance has be no less controversial here. The most perplexing
issue that will hound President Bush all his life, not just the remaining term, is why the
delay occurred in reaching Military and National Guard in New Orleans. Granted that
National Guards is the issue for Governors to be proactive at. Storm impacted New
Orleans on Monday morning. On Tuesday, news started to come that the city is flooding.
By Wednesday, flooding was complete and people started to congregate at Superdome.
Whole Wednesday, the news about looming evacuation crisis was on TV. So the general
expectation was, by Thursday the forces would be in the city. They did not reach for next
24 hours. Why was that delay? In these early crisis periods, the time scale is kind of
logarithmic. First minutes are crucial, then next hours are important, then weeks and so
on. So it is simply not the question of delay occurred by 24 hours only or only by a day.
Those 24 hours were way too important. Many lives must have lost during that time and
anarchy ruled. As the ultimate keeper of the American State, the president is directly
responsible to minimize the duration of ‘loss of State control’ in all circumstances;
especially on American Ground. President failed for those 24 hours or so surely. The writ
of the president of United States of America was non-existent for a day within the borders
of America. The question is what happened:
- Did Defense Secretary Rumsfeld refuse to give army? Or refused to give control?
- Was there turf war among Homeland Security Secretary Cheritan, Pentagon and other
players?
- Was it a Command failure? That President asked for the dispatch and deployment of
the forces, but the command chain below him did not listen, did not execute soon
enough?
- Did Federal Government simply derelict in her duty in calling troops early?
- Don’t they have enough troop in America to take care of these emergencies because so
many are in Iraq and so many are rotated?
- Did the Feds get the news of looming refugee crisis quick enough? (As Ted Koppel
asked FEMA Director, don’t they watch TV?)
76
- Did the governor take enough efforts to mobilize National Guards? Wasn’t Washington
proactive in providing National Guards? Who dropped the ball here?
- Finally, hard to believe part – was there no transportation and logistics immediately
available?
Any one of these possibilities raise the fundamental questions about the ability of
American might to project and use her power quickly enough in her own country. It is
hard to believe that America does not have ready standing troops of few thousands with
necessary logistics to send those troops within hours to any place in USA. They have
done so on many occasions in the rest of world or at least that is the conception
Pentagon wants everyone to believe in and outside USA. If Commander in Chief is not
able to pull through such a deployment; it rattles the belief and dependency on American
forces. Thirty, forty years down the line when notes and internal confidential documents
of these cabinet meetings and other documents are made public; one will really know
what happened. Meanwhile, it is President Bush who needs to explain as much as
feasible and more important to act upon that. In absence of this information, there will be
profound doubts in the minds of people about the ability of this State to bring the
instruments of enforcement at short notice. Newt Gringrich set the tone when he asked
how will America deal with a devastating nuclear or biological attack?
President Bush also came lacking in the other more public role of Leadership in terms
vision and people’s mind share. His early speech was very mundane (NYT criticized it
rightly). He needs to be ‘healer’ here. But overall his style is too ‘divisive’, too much with
sharp edges; not at all conducive to induce unity among Americans in times of crisis.
Why could he not muster inspiring passages from Bible? Why did his mooring of Morality
in the mould of Christianity not help him to articulate some calming thoughts? The way
American Politics work, that is the unwritten, probably more crucial, duty of an American
President. We could see none of that. On the other hand one feels some how this
President becomes a reason to bring forth the ‘worst’ out of American people.
The other question is how does America get enough money for security from both natural
disasters and terrorism. The answer most probably lies in reversing the aggressive and
ultra proactive policy of regime change followed in order to stop terrorism outside of USA.
As the Iraq war shows, in the first place it might not work (Iraq with divided 3 parts is a
more of a fertile ground for terrorism); it is way too expensive in terms of American lives
and money and it simply takes out oxygen from the political establishment to deal with
the real problems on hand. Basically, the current expensive foreign policy of this
Administration in the name of War on Terrorism will have to go away to get more
prepared at home for natural disasters as well as defense structures at home to deal with
terror. It will be curious to see if the Administration indeed makes that turn by next year or
not. Chances are the Administration may not make such essential changes. But at this
darkest hour of America, changing and reevaluating those policies is necessary. If that
does not happen, America will go down further deep in this mess with recurring after-
thoughts and guilt of budget compromises for the necessary infrastructures within
America. Katrina tragedy requires that the foreign policy and domestic agenda of this
administration is reexamined and altered as needed. Can we talk about Social Security in
this charged environment? More importantly does it make sense? How can America
afford more Tax cuts when she needs more money to address natural calamities and
preparedness? All these things need to go, and will go, on the back-burner. That is the
calling of this hour.
77
Umesh Patil
San Jose, CA
September 04, 2005.
Katrina Commentaries
Tuesday, September 06, 2005
Some breath taking commentary about Katrina going around:
- My pick Joe Klien in Time (“Listen to What Katrina Is Saying”). Once again one of the
finest essays, deeply philosophical and outstanding cultural commentary.
- Tom Friedman NYT, roaring back after his vacation. But his ‘weaker economy’ thesis is
still bit unconvincing. When have there been no worries about any economy in the world?
I think ‘better distribution of tax cuts’ than the current tax cuts favoring to rich is a right
argument. There were so many Democrats who voted for that Tax cut stimuli as well…..
- Maureen Dowd NYT, what a sharp and caustic commentary! Very readable and
excellent in the tradition of a partisan critique.
- NYT Editorials, coming out bit balanced and rightly pointing that there should not be
White House led investigation of Katrina.
- Wall Street Journal, indicates that the Katrina political potato is so hot that it also cannot
avoid a critical editorial.
- Washington Post, as usual balanced editorials, bit partial to people inside the beltway.
All in all excellent commentaries. The print Media is alive and picking up from where TV
Media would not go after some excellent live coverage – critique, reflection and view
points. Umesh Patil September 06, 2005
Functioning Government
Saturday, September 10, 2005
David Brooks in NYT writes (The Best-Laid Plan…) that the government is almost
inherently incapable of pulling of security planning for it’s citizens. One can see that Joe
Klein’s essay in Time is igniting rounds of reaction (I read another one by Clive Crook in
National Journal). But David misses the point in his article. Here are the counter
arguments, related to each other, to what he talks.
1. First his implied argument that the government cannot effectively executes it’s plan.
That is simply not true. There are so many examples where the government works in the
crisis situation. Last year there was kind of flue epidemic, Fed did pull off in the end by
telling people that those who do not need can stay away. CDC routinely works to address
various epidemics. The real issue is ‘functioning government’ is like breathing. You
realize you have problem only when you have difficulty. American government is not
much less competent than any other governments around the world. So by that logic, it
78 has performed many such rescues in the past and surely has potential like other
governments to execute better in future.
2. Next, let me accept that I am Liberal. What we want is not necessarily a big
government. We want a ‘functioning’ government. Just because President Bush’s
Administration is ‘execution’ challenged does not mean that all American Governments
have been incapable of pulling rescues. Watching how President Bush has bungled over
years about his foreign policy and many other initiatives; one can safely argue that poor
execution is the problem with this administration; not with the government concept in
general.
3. Example of a functioning government – last year Florida faced at least 3 major
hurricanes. Jeb Bush did excellent job in all these incidents to get prepared and apply
solid recovery efforts in all three cases. It is a classic example of a working or functioning
government. I would love to hate Republicans, but Jeb Bush’s government is functioning
and is solid on execution. It does not matter whether you are conservative or liberal to
make your administration or government working.
4. Indian governments are notorious for their non-functioning (Union Carbide Bhopal Gas
Tragedy of 1987?). But here is the often repeated statistics: 18 inches of rain fell in New
Orleans in a day, 37 in Mumbai. Mumbai has 24 times the population of New Orleans. In
48 hours, 37 died in Mumbai and a hundred in New Orleans. In 12 hours the Indian Army
and Navy were in Mumbai; it took 48 hours in America.
So performance in a particular instance should not be immediately extrapolated to

polemical arguments about ‘small or big governments’. People are expecting about a
government ‘of the people, by the people, for the people which works’. In a democracy
that is a fair expectation. The shock of Katrina is, it did not happen.
Beyond the specifics of this article, there is another smell coming – the unholy urge of
conservatives to start arguing the case for smaller government even in the face of Death.
As it is wrong for Liberals to argue that the Iraq war resulted in unavailability of forces in
early hours of Katrina relief efforts (what Charles Krauthammer called ‘liberal witches
brew – Iraq, Tax Cuts and Global Warming’); it is wrong for conservatives to start
misusing early failures of all 3 levels of governments to make governments smaller. The
right response is to make governments work. We do not want balanced columnists like
Brooks to tip over and become polarized. This country is unnecessarily divided into Blue
and Red for too long and it is costing her lot. We need Purple in the middle.
Umesh Patil
San Jose, CA
September 11, 2005.
What A Standard!
Here is that Conservative response about Katrina - “Of course Katrina wasn't as
significant as 9/11.” This is the polemical revelation by none other than the apostle of
Bushism – Fred Barnes in The Weekly Standard. At this point I guess Bushism is nothing
but to keep aside one’s brain, whatever one has, and be a simple psychopath in blind
admiration of Bush.
Well, this country is Free so Barnes have his right to say whatever he wants to so. It is
just that what he is talking is truly divisive and almost on the verge of being unpatriotic. 79
The thinking and path which Barnes is pointing is nothing short of war mongering, utter
and total disregard to American lives (it does not matter black or white). These folks
simply want to drape themselves in Old Glory and keep on shooting in dark with the
foolish illusion that they are the ‘macho’ guys providing security to that vulnerable lady
named American Freedom and anyone who is not in their party is simply not worthy living
in America. What is dangerous is the attitude of total selfishness in claiming the complete
ownership of Truth. Come one guys, don’t try to assume that you are the Vatican of
Conservatism and the sole owner of Truth. Come down from your high perches and tip
your toes in the Mississippi waters of reality.
Umesh Patil
September 11, 2005
San Jose, CA.
End of Bush Era?

Wednesday, September 14, 2005
The world is indeed fast, especially with today’s internet and blogs. As Post Katrina
politics unfold in last few days, it started to resonate in my mind that probably we are
seeing the end of one eventful political chapter in contemporary America. Politics is
nothing but the ability to set the ‘agenda’. President Bush lost that ability, at least
temporarily, in the Katrina aftermath and the next logical Eureka moment is ‘my God, are
we saying Bush is done?’ While I was trying to organize my thoughts in order to present
this thread on my blog, I came across the EJ Dionee column in Indystar.com. So the
world is indeed fast. Dionee has rightly attempted to articulate a thought which must have
been on the minds of many people like me.
To be sure, I am not confidently claiming that it is ‘game over’ for President Bush. What
will happen is the chorus of this line of thought will increase in intensity in next few days,
weeks and months probably and then as usual there will be the backlash from Bush, his
backers and Republicans. Then inevitably there will be many occasions, made only for a
President (like second Supreme Court nomination, Foreign trips and visits by foreign
leaders, photo ops for Commander in Chief, etc.); some different issue will be on
newspapers and this talk of ‘end of Bush era’ will go into the background. Nevertheless, I
think there is some juice in this epiphany and it is worth exploring what it is.
It is unlikely to be full end of President Bush driven politics; but what Katrina showed is
glimpses of what America will be when President Bush is the prime subject of History
Industry. So the issue is not whether the Bush era is over or not; but the lightening which
flashed rays on what would it look like when he is not around. It is a peek into the future
about what America will be facing when President Bush is no more in the political
equation.
Politics is nothing but the wrong headed gossip about raw power when it is not at works
to solve our collective problems. Presidents, Congress, Governors all are there because
we as a collective species face certain challenges which make sense to address at
collective level only. Again the primacy is of ‘problems we face’ and the various solutions
tried or proposed. ‘Leadership calls’ are essentially judgments about risk perceptions and
80 risk evaluations of available solutions on the table. The way we humans are set on this
planet, we do not have the luxury of infinite resources to deal with all these challenges we
face. Invariably we have to make compromises and sacrifices. Did I say the word
‘sacrifice’? That is the word, as has been criticized so often to Bush Administration; is not
in the dictionary of President Bush. What it means he and his administration have been
trying to run our affairs and provide the leadership as if it does not cost to solve these
problems. But at the root, the leadership is the focal point of attempting to distribute ‘pain’
(pain of adjustment in response to the changing environment) as much uniformly as
possible among various sections of a society. Otherwise we all know the rudderless
leadership of Congress in bringing the bacon home years after year in the pork barrel
politics. ‘No pain redistribution’ is the fundamental missing link in the Bush Administration.
The Katrina response finally brought that point home in full gore and people have given
up expecting this ‘fairness of pain’ from him; some receive more than others….. The
Presidency is gone on wind at that point.
The reason President Bush’s Social Security plan did not jell well with public is – public
accepts there is a problem; but President Bush never proposed any ‘fair’ solution where
everyone could chip in. He never bothered to address fair worries of poor commoners
when they question ‘but what happens to Uncle Sam with the deficit of over Trillion
Dollars’. What use is of the promise that I can invest $5,000 per year the way I want if I
am not sure in the first place that I could earn any money and whether those Dollars
would have any purchasing power left when the backbone underwriter of Greenback -
Uncle Sam - has become bankrupt?
President Bush never cared about the unity which is forged when every common little
person feels that ‘I have done this little bit of sacrifice for my country and I am proud for
that’. I guess it is way too out of fashion for this bunch of Republicans. Can we say he is
insensitive to common people, their feelings and their inherent decent urge to come
together to face this brutal Life? One wonders whether it is the same country where once
upon a time her President said ‘ask not what your country can do for you, but ask what
you can do for you country’. (How come my father had this quote framed in his office
back then in a Timbuktu town of poor India?) No wonder President Bush does not have
any capital left to rein in or to exhort people away from the ever spiraling cost of relief
work. Here he goes, loosing one more battle to set an agenda to set limits on government
doles.
And when one thinks about all these lost abilities of this administration to solve our
genuine problems (it does not matter how many seats Republicans win due to
shenanigans and spin techniques of Karl Rove), one comes to quick realization that to
get out of this morass, it is of lesser matter to criticize to President Bush. The problems
on hand, the bull work to be done, require solutions which will be formulated on a political
canvass which does not have the words ‘President Bush’. Further, the natural seasons of
electoral rhythm of American politics will surely dim President Bush’s light come next
November and by then the swagger will be with the leading lights of ‘presidential primary
stealers’ of both parties. But beyond the cyclical nature; Katrina indicates that some
fundamental rapture has occurred with this Presidency and suddenly with little notice, this
presidency got pushed forcefully towards that vast, desolate, barren spaces of History.
As President Bush finally accepts the fault of Katrina relief work in the grand tradition of
presidential leadership, ironically it does give the sense termination. Such honest talk of
course bestows admiration and sense of gentleness towards President Bush, but it also
indulges commoner to start thinking about the life when he will not be around.
81
Beyond some point, no amount of browbeating on this administration will solve our
problems, will address our true needs. So for the aspiring politicians, Democrats and
Republicans alike, as Dionee has said it rightly; the earlier they start talking without any
reference to President Bush; it is better for their ambitions and even better for we
American people.
Umesh Patil
San Jose, CA
September 13, 2005.
Advantage India
Monday, September 19, 2005
Times of India Washington reporter, C. Rajghatta, reports how fiery the discussion had
been between Dr. Sing and Musharaff during the last UN meeting period. It is sad that
leaders of these two nations cannot have any fruitful discussion.
The plausible theory seems to be that Mushraff cannot make his mind whether to insist
‘border adjustments’ from India or to keep that issue in future. He keeps on vacillating
between these so called hawkish or pragmatic positions and that makes life difficult for
these talks to go any ahead. As the report in TOI says, if indeed Pakistan is thinking that
India is on any soft path; that is surprising. Usual American pressure regarding India’s
ties with Iran cannot be interpreted as India in box.
It is probably high time that India makes certain things clear to Pakistan. First and far
most is that there is no possibility of India reneging control of any part of Kashmir to
Pakistan. Kashmir, whatever area India has control, will always remain part of Indian
Union. There is no point playing any ‘game of negotiation tactics’ with this position. What
does India get by doing that?
Some would say the price of such manifest position will be increased terrorism in
Kashmir. Well, does anyone remember Punjab during the period of 1982 to 1988? At no
time Indian Union had suffered so much pressure in maintaining the territorial integrity as
was during that period. It is a different matter whether Indira Gandhi created that problem
for the purposes of politics or not. That is beside the point. The point is any political union
which could withstand that enormous pressure on it’s integrity can surely withstand any
increased terrorists threats from Pakistan. Overall we need to appreciate the strength of
Indian Union as well as it’s potential to provide legitimacy to larger population of the sub
continent. All said and done, it is a historical fact that at the end of the day Indian Union is
the best bet to offer peace, freedom and prosperity to such a large portion of humanity. It
is not off the mark for Indian State to be totally sure of her moral vigor when it comes to
political organization to fulfill aspirations of large sections of population.
Starting from NDA government, India has been showing lot of willingness to sort issues
with Pakistan. But if that is interpreted as readiness of India to make concession in terms
of border; that is a mistaken reading of the position. In that case India needs to take extra
care of clarifying this position and mark that as the complete non-negotiable principle
from Indian side. This has the advantage that any subsequent discussion on this
background will be with full realization that both parties are talking about rapprochement
82 which does not involve redrawing of borders.
As India prospers and shows that it can compete globally, as well as provides hopes to
her subjects that Indian society indeed can have a meaningful place in tomorrow’s world;
India’s moral standing gets strengthened too. After all it is important what do you do with
what History have bequeathed you. As India’s democracy gets entrenched and it’s
economy improves; more and more Kashimiri’s are likely to be inclined to stay with India.
Umesh Patil
San Jose, CA
September 17, 2005.
India Falls in the Line

There has been lot of speculation about how India would vote on the latest IAEA
resolution regarding Iran (http://www.iaea.org/). Finally India sided with USA and
American spokesperson Matt Boland immediately interpreted Indian vote as New Delhi’s
alignment with the broader concern in the world about Iran’s pattern of deception. So
much for huffing and big posture by Natwar Singh and mandarins of Foreign Affairs
Ministry!
Surely there will be lot of criticism within India about this vote. Of course from this
resolution to the UNSC sanctions, the road is quite long. But possibly CPM will not leave
the chance to criticize Congress Government as well as many intellectuals and journalists
who do not agree with India siding with USA in this matter.
On the whole, this is a wise and right decision by India. When California Democrat House
Representative Tom Lantos ripped New Delhi in a Congressional hearing there was so
much backlash. He is the representative from Bay Area – San Mateo and has
represented that seat for quite long. I read information about Lantos on his web site
(http://lantos.house.gov/hor/ca12/home.htm of course not an impartial source) and I am
impressed by his credentials. Regardless of how Indian Media and Officialdom attempted
to paint him as a reckless Congressman – he is born out of USA, came at very early
stage from German occupation in WWII, only holocaust survivor ever to serve in
American Congress and very principled man of law – quite impressive resume. It is
difficult not to grasp the weight of his standing; especially when one compares with many
light footed Parliamentarians in India. So even if his criticism was harsh to hear for Indian
ears; he was talking indeed some sense.
Good that senses prevailed in India to realize that Bush - Singh Nuclear deal is
contingent upon whether India sides with Washington in Iran matters or not. Our Foreign
Ministry Mandarins had their feet in their mouth before all the dust was to be settled. Only
if Indian Babu’s learn to be discreet and quiet…. This Iran resolution vote with USA still
does not guarantee the safe passage of Bush – Singh agreement. But without that it
would have had much lesser chance. So in the end India is computing that Bush – Singh
deal is more realistic than pie in the sky dream of Iran Gas pipeline.
This IAEA vote is only one milestone of the unfolding drama. There will be many more
twists and turns before everything gets settled in this complex matter.
83
Umesh Patil
San Jose, CA 95111
September 24, 2005.
When Tom Friedman is wrong

Tuesday, September 27, 2005
It is not often when one gets an opportunity to find a fault with the charismatic
commentary of Tom Friedman. One got one such opportunity in the last week. Before the
internal Likud vote in Israel politics; Tom went on arguing in NYT that he would back Bibi.
His bit twisted and more cynical logic was it would drive Sharon out of Likud to pursue
more moderate and center right agenda through a new party. As one knows, Sharon won
in the latest internal Likud election. Further, for all we know majority of Likud party may
rally behind Sharon sensing the potential landslide victory possible for moderate voices in
Israel. That is one possibility in future.
Tom argued his backing to Bibi despite him really adhering to Sharon’s policies in order
to expect a cleaner choice for Israel voters and bit of marginalization of extreme right
represented by Bibi. But I suspect there is more to this than meets the eyes. Basically,
Tom concluded that Bibi was more likely to pull off the upset victory. He counted little less
of Sharon’s backing. (So much for his insights in Middle East Politics!) Next Tom went
over board in order to get setup for his arguments and his ‘loud’ analysis. He kind of
jumped the gun in hurry without admitting that it was a close vote and one needed to be
careful in trading the ground. Once again it shows that for Tom and many journalists like
him; setting up themselves in a position so as to be able to say “I told you so ….” is more
important than to exercise moderation in appraising still unfolding and unpredictable
reality. I guess humbleness is not necessarily a strong point with many influential
journalists.
Umesh Patil
San Jose, CA
September 27, 2005.
The sword of Damocles – Job Reservation in

Private Sector
Friday, October 07, 2005
As the new Goddess of Indian Politics Mayawati, the BSP supreme (well not so new, she
has been around for a while) exhorts to her cadre that they should start giving money to
her instead to ‘invisible gods’; the specter of the Damoclesian sword of job reservations in
private sector is reemerging. One can argue it never really disappeared. Anyone who has
seen what was India’s politics during 1989-1992 at the height of Mandal drama; one
would indeed worry about what a wrong turn Indian politics can take and how there is an
ever present danger. When Indian economy is sizzling with over 8% growth rate, media
may be all gaga about this glitter but may ignore the lurking dangers which can suddenly
84
emerge as a threat.
The lurking danger of caste based reservation in private sector is obvious. Howsoever
regressive this policy is – it is a potent vote getter or at least so is the prevalent wisdom of
Indian politics. As a result, there is almost no chance of any political party of a substance
which can oppose such a policy publicly. When one party raises a flag here, it becomes
unstoppable populism played to the hilt in Indian democracy. At least that is what
happened last time during the Mandal era and there is less hope that it could be any
different in future. True, BJP and Congress did not take it to a full logical end then and
same for Left parties. But neither those mainstream political parties could stop such an ill
fated initiative. The myopic hold of reservation is still strong in India politics – one just has
to look at newly introduced policy of 5% reservations for Muslims in Andhra Pradesh by a
Congress CM. The way it is in India, Indian political parties and leaders are simply
incapable of holding their grounds on this matter. Caste (and now religion too!) based job
reservations is way too explosive issue; so much so that the unity of India can be the only
other issue which can override in the public mindshare. Economy and broad based
reformists agenda can go to wind just like that.
It is not that any political party cannot take a principled position against just retrogressive
policy. But in absence of charismatic leaders and political organizations which have
consistently articulated and steadfastly stuck such a policy posture over a period; we do
not see any realistic possibility of such a political force emerging in India. BJP tried to
withstand the Mandal hurricane by raising the sectarian and communal politics. It
succeeded to a certain extent and landed up into the power. But events of last couple of
years have shown the limits of such a strategy. Indian populace has seen throw such a
divisive agenda. Narendra Modi may appear stable and well entrenched, but he is very
likely to face the music in future. Hanging of boots by Advani takes away the main
architect of this policy from Indian political stage. That debilitating leadership of
Vajapayee - who winked to such a great extent that he effectively turned out to be as
lethal and dishonest as open and blatant proponents of communalism - is also fortunately
or unfortunately on the wane for good. So in a way, there are glimpses that Indian politics
is trying to move beyond communalism. Next time around, BJP style communalism is
unlikely to withstand the on slaughter of a new Mandal agenda.
Left did not come out with any flying colors in dealing with challenge of Mandal. One gets
the feeling that Left parties may have that potential, but prolonged partnership with Lalu
Yadav type politicians has had corroding effect on their ability to formulate truly clean and
principled policy response to the bigotry of caste based reservations. Renewed efforts by
Left to define a political force independent of BJP and Congress (so called Third Front)
may not give any further space for Left to deal clearly with caste based job reservation
politics. All in all the doubts about the abilities of existing mainstream political forces to
reject caste based reservation policy are indeed valid and still applicable. Instead of
pouring resources to make down trodden people of India more qualified for employment;
all Indian political parties are inclined to either lower the qualification bar needed for
employment or inclined to distort the competitive nature of educational and employment
opportunities in modern global economy. Needless to say, those who disregard with
impunity the market forces of globalization will pay the dear price by way for getting
sidelined in today’s relentlessly competitive world. It is fool’s game to argue that
Globalization does not touch village dwellers and farmers.
Liberal instincts of PM Dr. Singh and his Finance Minister may withhold to a certain
extent the urge of the political class as a whole to adopt the policy of extending job
85
reservations to private sector. But it is anyone’s guess whether this duo would continue
this opposition when a push comes to shove. Will the Indian courts and in particular
Supreme Court side with the individual’s right of conducting free enterprise without any
undue interference from Government? Alas, that option also may not be something to
depend upon. On many occasions Indian Supreme Court has yielded to the prevalent, so
called progressive thinking canons. Further more activists rulings of recent years, though
encouraging in many respect for common citizenry, may embolden the Supreme Court to
side with the government compromising the strict interpretation of the Indian constitution.
All this means, current rulers and legal institutions may not in the end offer any defenses
when the downward spiral of caste based politics of job reservation in private sector kicks
in.
If it happens so, a skewed job market will quickly develop where candidates of certain
caste would command a premium despite possibly lower qualifications. Clearly that in
itself will not result in making available gainful employment to the larger sections of lower
castes or candidates from poor strata. All it will result is denying legitimate employment
opportunities to qualified candidates from higher caste and high income strata. Potentially
it might kick in renewed brain drain from India to global economic opportunity centers –
the brain drain which has dramatically lowered in last few years due to gobs of high
paying jobs created by India economy.
Granted that there is no true free market in the world – including America. Each and
every free market economy has some distortions and quirks. But by and large the attempt
of a polity should be reducing and removing these distortions rather than creating new
ones. Job reservations on caste basis in private sector is a policy which will introduce a
powerful distortion in Indian economy with devastating ramifications. Apart from distorting
the labor market as a starter in first few years and the potential of increased brain drain; it
will start sapping the ingenuity, creativity and vibrant entrepreneurship so essential for a
thriving private sector. Just imagine a Silicon Valley VC is investing in an Indian startup
and the VC has to hear that she has to take certain number of applicants just because
they are from so and so caste. At the best of the times startups cannot take candidates
who do not match exactly with the skill set required and here these startups will be pilled
on with mismatched candidates. As far as history of Capitalism goes, businesses do not
thrive in such constrained environment. A different variant but of same effect will take
place with MNCs in India – return on investment will be lower as the ‘dead weight of less
efficient’ workers get added on payrolls. Laying off employees in India is still hard for
reasons of law and labor militancy. Employees from reserved quota pose even harder
bench mark since the danger of lawsuits and sour public perceptions inevitably follow
when a reserved category employee is fired. It is not just foreign capital funded startups
and MNCs which will be affected; Indian companies will have to spend tremendous
amount of management bandwidth in either getting qualified candidates from reserved
categories or explore the new ‘legal ways and tricks’ in circumventing such draconian
rules. Once the reservation train starts, it will not be restricted only to regular and
management jobs. In the end how do we know BSP will not demand reservations on
Company Board too? There is no limit and no going back.
Under WTO rulings and other international treaties, many countries (prominently USA)
are pressuring India liberalize her labor market so that companies can hire and fire
employees freely. Adding to such demands, these countries will have to start resisting
wrong policies of job reservations on caste basis in private sector. If return on
investments are going to get compromised due to such policies, any foreign capital
investment fund will think twice before getting into any such restricted and highly skewed
86
market. With reduced FDI and the consequent movement away from globalize market
structure will make that much harder to sustain higher economic growth in India. Job
reservations on caste basis in the end kills the true employment potential of Indian
Economy.
Umesh Patil
San Jose, CA
October 07, 2005.
Parochial Politics of Banglore

Saturday, October 22, 2005
As Deve Gowda Narayan Murthy feud rages publicly, it exposes the bad side of Indian
politicians. There are three reasons to theorize about what is happening here:
- Deve Gowda has been always pro farmer. Unfortunately he is one of those old or wrong
school types who think that welfare for farmers can only come at the cost of Industry or
Corporate world. Hence, any political agenda which hurts Corporate world is good, that is
the logic.
- What Deve Gowda has contributed in his entire public life to India, not a small
achievement for a politician considering his electoral acumen and success; in the end
gets dwarfed by what contributed by Murthy and Premji. Both created sustainable
economic activity, generated huge number of jobs, pioneered a world class new business
model and by and large contributed the renaissance of contemporary Indian Thinking. So
probably it gives Deve Gowda the blues and envy. Well, he should be envious but his
response is wrong. You want to emulate these Corporate Leaders and see what you can
take it for the larger public. Response to attempt to constrain them is totally wrong
headed.
- Finally, the nasty suspicion – is cast playing any role here? I am not certain of facts here
as far as what is the cast of Murthy (and I have no eagerness to know as well). But I
guess if he is coming from upper caste strata of Kanada Society then Gowda may want
to play the old style narrow minded caste politics and simply keep on hounding Murthy. I
hope I am wrong on this. But with Gowda type politicians; you never know and you can
never rule out that possibility.
What is the solution? Considering Gowda’s total control on the current Karnataka
Government, it is hard to expect anything to happen which does not pleases him. Some
suggest that Congress snap the ties and call for an election to risk for a majority
mandate. It is doubtful if that will happen. Meanwhile Murthy did the right thing by getting
away from this avoidable mess. He has lot many better things to do.
Premji has been striking kind of a different note all along – not taking on the war path with
the politico’s. His may be more productive tact. Bur there is no reason for Infosys or
Murthy to change their way. Each Corporation, each culture finds its own way to deal with
the prevailing political culture.
The only realistic solution will be Congress at Center flexes more muscle. True, directly it 87
can not do much in these infrastructure issues at the state level. But the Center has lot of
levers, complete grip on a purse which indeed has some money and many other known
and unknown ways. If the Center decides to tighten up the screws further, we may get
Gowda to sing a different tune.
Umesh Patil
San Jose, CA 95111
October 22, 2005.
Big Oil, Fat Profits and Politicians

Sunday, October 30, 2005
What is with Sen. Charles Schumer? Does he spend too much time with Communists or
what? It is surprising that even after coming from a constituency which has Wall Street,
he does not get any lessons of Market Dynamics. Or is it that he finds it an excellent
‘politics’ to take such dramatic positions on important contemporary policy matters in
order to increase his profile and raise the flag further? The case in point is his Communist
style proposal of Windfall Taxes on Oil Company profits. The worst part of the bill is not
that he is proposing windfall taxes, well that is deplorable; but it is where does he want to
use that money. He wants to use that money in the bottomless pit called Federal Deficit!
Congress in the first place can not control the expenses. It will keep on spending the
money as if there is limitless supply of dollars with no consequences. Next, Oil
companies will take money of everyone’s pocket and then the Congress would again
spend that money on it’s pork barrel projects. Whoa! how caring of common people and
these politicians expect us to believe them….
If Sen. Charles Schumer and Liberals were to talk to fund alternative energy sources or
public transport specifically with the collected windfall taxes, that would have been
consistent and logical. At least it would serve more directly to common people. Also, here
is an opportunity for any right minded person to identify dollars in appropriate manner for
the purposes of taking away America’s dependence on oil and be creative in crafting
practical solutions. Sen. Schumer and his supporters have blown this. True, he is
proposing to use this money for hurricane relief and related work. But finding money by
reducing 2 or 3 % expenses from across the board categories is more appropriate way of
making resources available for natural calamities rather than using windfall tax money
and leaving the original problem of extreme oil dependency still unsolved. Let us face it –
hurricanes are in 2005, will be in 2006 and all the way in future. In addition there will be
always some natural disaster to take care off. If an earthquake strikes California are we
going to tax Google? Or better, is Congress thinking of making the list of top 20 profit
makers from S&P 500 and taxing them every year for natural disaster relief fund? Where
will it stop?
In any case it was matter of time before politicians started to talk about Big Oil Profits.
Eye popping numbers like $100 Billion sale with $10 Billion net profit in one single quarter
(that was the Exxon quarter only and other Big Oil companies are not far behind) quite
naturally will move any politician. Whenever gas becomes expensive to common people
and energy bill of average Americans starts going up; it becomes a convenient topic for
politicians to flash their credentials in manifesting their care for people. They want us to
forget that whether Democrat or Republican rules; America has not be able to solve her
88 Energy problem in last 30 years. Where were the progressive policies of Democrats
when Clinton was ruling the world? Why was that Democrats did not talk about
Manhattan Energy Project in those times? True, we Americans are not free of our share
of faults. When GM and Ford wants to sell gas guzzlers at a discount; like a drug addict
we Americans go there. So we all are in a way entangled into this. Politicians do not
make the life easy either with their half cooked, extreme ideas.
Democrats did not talk about Manhattan Energy Project in Clinton years because oil was
cheap and Big Oil did not have fat profits. So there was no possibility of wind fall taxes.
Does this historical fact ring a bell with Sen. Schumer? So when Big Oil argues that
tomorrow oil prices will go down and they will not have profits – what do you answer? Are
we going into the business of increasing current faulty subsidies of these oil companies
when those very companies do not make money? Being greedy and running after
corporate profits in good times is sure way of messing with market dynamics which
otherwise will help to control the demand due to high prices. The risks taken by Oil
investors and the boom – bust cyclical nature of that business should be compensated by
good times like the current stellar quarterly results. (Full disclosure – the author does not
own shares of any oil company neither of any publicly traded company at the time of
writing.)
Granted Big Oil is not some kind of honest player without any blemishes. As reported,
when an influential Wall Street analyst / investment banker approached these companies
to create a corpus of fund on their own to finance Gulf Cost Recovery after hurricanes; it
did not fly. Also the history of Big Oil is not something to be proud of. But is it not for this
reason that there is Federal Trade Commission and all other Federal bodies to
investigate price gouging? Why do we need the theatricals of Congressional public
enquiry where politicians would essentially get free by only making show of their
commitment and if possible half cooked, more damaging measures?
It is not Liberal and Democrats who find the bandwagon of going after Big Oil profits as a
‘political low hanging fruit’. Republican Senate Leader Sen. Frist is not far from this
populist game, he is scheduling Senate hearing about price gouging by Big Oil. Truly,
when it comes to Big Oil and fat profits; it is hard for the Congress to resist the temptation
of windfall taxes and other tricks.
What could be done? It is important to note what makes the fat profit for Big Oil
companies. Profit from exploration and producing crude oil is determined by the global oil
price. Whether it is an American company or a foreign oil company; that profit is going to
be there. The second part of the profit is from refining and the third from the retail
distribution. May be FTC with the help of SEC make it compulsory for Big Oil companies
to give all these details separately. The way things are, most of the oil companies are
indicating all these figures separately right now as well. If anything is needed, Congress
can work out these administrative compliance regulations. Once these figures are there,
it is the second and third part of the profit which may have some legitimate relevance as
far as any further taxation is considered. First choice is still not to tax these earnings. But
if Congress deems that is not possible due the political pressure; then it needs to think
ways to redirect tax collected to either public transport or reduction in direct retail oil price.
There may be some grounding for Congress to argue that this type of profit (refining and
retail) is based on factories and shops on American soil manned by American worker for
American Consumers. Big Oil could reply that Refining market is global in nature too and
that is why this whole taxation debate is still a gray area and not on so firm grounds.
When it comes to profits due to exploration or crude oil production (when a barrel is sold
89
in the world market at $60 plus rate); it is hard to visualize how that can be subject to
additional taxes or what is the rationale behind that. Again if it is to be taxed, the only way
could be making compulsory these companies to pay for alternative energy projects,
projects where the risk component is high but if successful it can reduce America’s
dependence on foreign oil and gas. That could be more useful form of taxation than
simply using that money in the general kitty. Or may be Congress mandates such
collected taxes / surcharge as a kind of venture capital fund which it invests in all types of
alternative energy projects. Mandatory contribution by Big Oil companies to such funds
will given them stakes in these venture funds so that in future when any of those funded
companies become successful, the paid amount by Big Oil investor will be rewarded. In
other words, Fed works as a conduit for directing wind fall profits of Big Oil towards
directly solving America’s problem without compromising ‘ownership principles’ rather
than simply gutting that money in it’s never ending deficit.
Do we think Congress can pull of such a delicately balanced policy measure? The way
the body works, it is hard and what with the partisan pressures. May be Congress is not
meant to address and craft such sophisticated policy instruments. Given all that, one in
the end feels that America is better off not going the road of windfall taxes and leave the
dynamics to be worked out by market forces. Sorry, Sen. Charles Schumer; you are on a
misguided path.
Umesh Patil
San Jose, CA 95111
October 30, 2005.
Feedback: Prejudice Beyond Borders

Monday, October 31, 2005
By Gail Omvedt in Times Of India, November 01, 2005
(http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/msid-1280164,curpg-1.cms)
The article fails to substantiate it’s basic goal that there are significant incidences of caste
based discrimination within Indo American community. Whatever incidences are
mentioned, those seem corner cases not worth wasting such ink on this web page as well
as not worth wasting reader’s time.
The real dirty thing which comes out of this article is how social organizations are taking
root or attempting to be active in USA who caters to Dalit grievances exclusively. Such a
sectarian and divisive approach does not make much sense. If at all there is any
stratification manifest among various layers of Indian Americans, in most of the cases it is
based on profession, mother tongue, success and achievements of Indians. Successful
entrepreneurs, VCs or business people may not interact with lesser mortals even if those
are from Indian sub-continent. Successful academicians may not interact with common
Indian engineers and so on. Is it any different than what stratification is in American
societies? I doubt. The point is most Indian Americans are subject to such usual
stratification of Indo American community instead of caste. Reading caste angle into such
normal phenomenon of society is like refusing to keep aside one’s prejudices and
90 attempting to insert bad blood for one’s own sake.
This means any organization which kind of perceives such discrimination and takes upon
itself the onerous responsibility of addressing such grievances as the main reason to
exist; is looking into something which may not be a substantive problem. Then, can one
suspect that all the so called Dalit organizations in USA or corresponding incarnations in
USA are indeed trying to spread the cancer of Indian society in places where it is not
there? True, North American branches of RSS and VHP are disgrace and are worst ways
of creating issues where there are none. Solution to that is not to have North American
branches of BSP and extremist cast based social organizations. The real solution to all
these social group problems of Indo American society is to have secular grass root
movements, the kinds of which successfully stopped Narendra Modi’s visit this year to
USA. It is no one’s case that there are no problems with Indo American society or that it
does not have any tensions due to ties back in the home land. But in all cases such
tensions should be addressed purely on humanitarian basis, on the basis of individual’s
right, rights granted by American Constitution and any encroachment of the same. It is
improper to have any approach which subsumes Dalit versus Upper Caste context; the
context prevalent in India from which affirmative actions emerge as a strong policy
prescription. The other way to look at this is – once you leave the shores of India, not only
you leave behind any advantages you might have accrued due to your position in Indian
social hierarchy; but you also give up the inclination of expecting any favors because you
or your fore parents have been at the receiving end. No point trying to procure favors
where there are none or where others from whom you are demanding such favors have
not been at all involved in perpetuating any such discriminations in the first place.
Alas, but as this author shows; people are unlikely to avoid this temptation and will try to
create such Dalit – Upper Caste issues in Indo American Society too. That is shameful. It
is sad that people want to bring bad aspects of Indian society outside India as well. This
article does not help but rather puts some flimsy arguments in a way to justify such ‘us
and them’ mentality. All such people are in the end social dividers.
Umesh Patil
San Jose, CA 95110
November 01, 2005.
Comment: Bangalore vs Bangalore

Wednesday, November 02, 2005
By Shiv Visvanathan in Times of India, November 2, 2005
(http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/msid-1281885,curpg-1.cms)
The author Shiv Visvanathan is not presenting his / her thoughts with any coherence. The
article does not bring forth any specific point apart from putting Indian IT Industry in dim
light. It is an attempt of intellectual argument about what is lacking with Indian IT Industry
but in the end it offers nothing.
The author wants to fuse IT Industry and IT as a way of life or a subculture of

contemporary India; the culture which has it’s main constituency within Indian middle
class. Sure, IT as a subculture is taking place in India with typical characteristics like jobs
on merit, strong entrepreneurial manifestation, sustained and strong interactions with 91
global businesses, overall transparency and in general the feeling of an avenue where
ordinary Indians can get an honorable place under sun in today’s global village on sheer
competence, accomplishment and industriousness. So when Shiv asks about what has
IT given to Indian society; I believe above mentioned participatory opportunities to large
number of people in a short period is indeed a strong performance. It is not ‘a club like
world’ the author claims. The author is simply ignoring these achievements of what he
refers as IT Culture. Remember, IT as an industry is less than 15 years old in India (only
TCS was a significant force before that and only after Internet things started to change
fast). For any culture to have a deep impact, it needs time to get entrenched.
Contemporary Knowledge based Global Industry is relatively young as well as India is a
young county. So it will take time before all these cultural impacts start to percolate. Such
a historical perspective is missing in this article too.
Equally missing is any argument in support of equating IT Industry with so called IT as a

subculture. The author simply equates these two things and argues about the alleged
shallow nature of IT subculture. That is the cardinal mistake. Any common observer
would tell that it is not the IT subculture which is the real cultural force in today’s India. It
is the force of Globalization – IT industry is only one such industry. There is BPO, there is
Global Pharma, Global Banking, Airlines and all other industries and businesses which
are global in nature and scope. All these businesses with Global context are spawning
the contemporary Indian culture along with today’s Bollywood and Cricket. IT industry
plays only one part. So if at all the author has any complaints, those need to be directed
against the overall culture which is shaping in India in the context of Globalization. India
is one of those unique places in the world where Globalization is bringing more
advantages to her than the costs she has to pay. At least that is the case for now. As an
intellectual who wants to provide a critique of this phenomenon, the author needs to point
how it could be otherwise in future as well as any adverse impacts the new culture brings
in India society. The author fails to do so.
Finally, the specifics of the case of Murthy versus Gowda debate. What is the argument?
IT Industry is simply asking for certain infrastructure support. The industry is not making
any polemical claims about how they are the ones who are going to bring a revolution in
Indian society. That is not the job of any specific industry and not the job of IT Industry.
All the names the author mentioned – Nilekani, Murthy, Premiji, etc. are not fools to claim
or pretend that they are with the mandate to change India society. Their and IT Industry’s
success should not make others blind so that any such overreaching intentions are
assigned to them. Just like any other industry, IT Industry is there to make money while
playing by the rules of the land. Revolution, social change, all these lofty ideals are for
politicians. Why are they elected then? It is not for IT Industry to carry the cross of
enlightenment of Indian society. That is for progressive movements and politicians to
address. The dispute in question is specifically about certain infrastructure State
promised – road and airport. Why should not industry ask for these things when they
have been paying taxes and playing by the rule? Replying back by saying what does IT
Industry do for society is a stonewalling tactic and besides the point. We need to see
through the games these politicians want to play – they always want to pit one group of
society with others so that they can rule. In this case, Gowda is completely wrong to
argue that having airport is at the cost of farmers. Most of the contemporary Indian
Industry is not even asking for any state money, all the needed money for investment can
be raised by the industry; only if State makes the rules easy. That people like Gowda do
not want to do and the author fails to point this obstructionist attitude of our elected
leaders.
The article is one more wasted opportunity to put a proper context to this debate.
92
Umesh Patil
San Jose, CA 95111
November 02, 2005.
Iraq War Justification – An Exercise in Extreme

Intellectualism
Thursday, November 10, 2005
(In response to argument by Tom Bevan on www.realclearpolitics.com/blog)
Leadership is in the end an ability ‘to see’ the future. When leaders get it right, people
salute the leader; else regard that one as the failed leader. Look at it this way – if the
leadership is all about ‘computing’ all the evidence and information on the table and
simply logically deducing the conclusion; then why are there human bodies as
politicians? You could simply have best computers or say best judges as your leaders.
Leadership is about taking the risk based on available information and making the call.
But is that all? No, Leadership is going beyond taking this risk – taking all those who back
that leader on the board. Meaning telling all those voters that we are taking a risk, we
could be wrong but still worth pursuing a specific course of action.
Now let us come back to President Bush – how much political capital did he spend in
telling people that invading Iraq was a risk too, that he could be wrong about WMD but
still in the best interest of America? If it was, the saner minds of the society would have
said – fair enough Mr. President; let us wait little bit (or so and so benchmark) and then
pull the trigger. But all the capital President Bush spend was on how solid ground he was
when he argued the case to invade Iraq. You know it – mushroom clouds and all the talk
of his deputies like VP and others for whom the case was of slam dunk.
It was worse than simply selling the war. Karl Rove and President Bush in the end used
the tragedy of 9/11 and Iraq war totally for political purposes – how to defeat Democrats
any ways. It was way beyond a normal spin; milking America’s security crisis to the hilt.
Forget about Democrats for a minute and let us just say they deserve to be defeated –
but the real sin of Bush and company is shamelessly using America’s existential
challenges simply to the end of getting elected and then forgetting about the problem.
Time has come for Neocons, Conservatives and Republicans to realize that President
Bush and Karl Rove (with his cynical games of playing people’s fear for pure political
purposes) are not the ones who will truthfully take their agenda forward. Here is the
person – President Bush – whose conduct is raising fundamental questions about his
integrity and his commitment to welfare of Americans; then why would you expect that he
is the person who will advance the Conservative agenda which is in the end is for the
benefit of Americans? Time to move on. Republican party has many capable, intelligent
and high integrity leaders. Let us make space for them. President Bush – he will have to
carry the cross of misleading Americans, ignoring their interests to his grave. Neocons or
Conservatives do not need to carry the cross of justifying President Bush’s failures and
come up with more triangulated and twisted justifications. Let us leave this matter and
concentrate on how to solve America’s problem on hand. Justifying President Bush is
93
waste; the way he has been wasting his Presidency.
Umesh Patil
San Jose, CA
November 11, 2005.
To Not Question Your Government…..

Tuesday, November 15, 2005
Today if JFK was there in the opposition, he would have probably said what Sen. Chuk
Hagel thundered “To question your government is not unpatriotic -- to not question your
government is unpatriotic”. How right and appropriate at this moment! No doubt a bumper
line and worthy quote from Sen. Hagel for his possible presidential campaign.
Now that officially we are in the third presidential campaign of President Bush where he is
trying to salvage what is left of his remaining term; as expected Iraq war is assuming the
centrality it deserves. Let us start with the simple part – President Bush is on attack trying
to sale yet again his failed policy of Iraq. The more he tries, more it looks like Social
Security Reform fiasco or Harriet Miers candidacy. More and more documents will come
out and this means more and more provocative information pieces and political bobby
traps are going to open in days to come. This much is sure and meanwhile President
Bush will keep on singing his Iraq song of ‘stay the course’. How will it end? Congress is
showing some life by putting some constraints by way of ‘war limiting resolutions’. That is
one ugly route where Congress will force President Bush to wind up the war. The other
route is after December election in Iraq President Bush calls it a victory and starts
winding down - politically may not be a fulfilling route for President after so long
continuing to argue about staying the course.
The two ends of Iraq policy spectrum are – one extreme is just get out now and hell with
Iraq where as the other extreme is put more forces in Iraq, increase the footprint, do
whatever is needed even if it means more cost (life and dollars). Americans do not
believe in President Bush to take the second route since effectively he short changed or
undersold them the initial cost and oversold the benefits. The first option, President Bush
won’t take it easily. This means for America the problem of Iraq will be fundamentally
addressed only when she gets new leadership apart from President Bush to collect the
broken pieces. It is not only that Iraq problem will be solvable in Sunni and Iraqi eyes
when American forces are not there; it will be solvable in American eyes only when new
players apart from President Bush emerge. In other words at this point Americans are
more likely to rally behind someone else apart from President Bush who will articulate a
solution. Americans did not opt for Sen. Kerry last November, but today are more open to
consider alternatives to President Bush and his policies. Needless to say, such a policy
formulation and it’s selling to America will be at the core of Presidential aspirations and
realization potential for many hopefuls.
Who are the players and where do they stand? You have Sen. McCain and Sen. Clinton
on one pole - to increase the forces and complete the war regardless of whatever it
needs. On the other hand you have Sen. Hagel and Sen. Finegold more towards let us
reduce the footprint first before we can think anything long term. Considering the fact
Americans feel that they paid more than what have they got so far in the Iraq war; the line
94 of upfront paying more in terms of life and dollars is a tough sale. In fact, the political tide
is loaded against Sen. McCain and Sen. Clinton way of thinking here. It is sad to see
Sen. McCain bit off line here when otherwise he is hitting rightly and so strongly on all
cylinders of the contemporary political debate. On the other hand, winds are extremely
strong in favor of Hagel-Finegold approach at this moment. Sen. Hagel approach is more
in tune with what is humming in America’s mind and more likely to materialize.
Sen. Hagel needs to keep on pounding the table, America needs that.
Umesh Patil
San Jose, CA 95111
November 16, 2005.
Having it both ways – Republican and Democrat

styles
Saturday, November 19, 2005
Mr. Kagan and Mr. Kristol,
The questions you are asking to Rep. Murtha about what would happen if American
forces cut loose and come back are right.
(http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/372sueqv.asp)
Yes, it will be indeed irresponsible for Rep. Murtha, Democrats and anyone to think that
American Military can come back next day without any grave consequences for American
security. In other words what Mr. Tom Bevan on RealClear Politics Blog
(http://www.realclearpolitics.com/blog/) says that Democrats cannot have it both ways is
true – to keep on criticizing President Bush’s Iraq policy but to not own the consequences
or not to worry about the aftermath of immediate withdrawal.
But the issue is whether all these questions which you ask to Rep. Murtha did President
Bush ask himself? It will be irresponsible on anyone’s side to deny that President Bush,
VP and NeoCons have not answered these questions adequately - they did not bother
these questions at the start of the war and never provided any thoughtful, comprehensive
answers. It is all right to ask Rep. Murtha about what is his responsibility, but not all right
to forget who should have carried that responsibility in the first place – President Bush
and war supporters.
So then who is having it both ways – those who started the war but never honestly owned
the responsibility of providing right answers for the cost and ‘aftermath’ in the first place
but still outsmarting anyone criticizing them or the ones who are at least able to see the
problems in the current situation? Meanwhile, as it stands President Bush still wants a
fully open ended commitment from America in footing the bill of Iraq war in terms of lives
and dollars.
Ever since Iraq war started to appear on American Political stage in 2002, America as a
country has been the victim of pyrrhic victories of Republicans – they want to continue the
mindless, irresponsible war as they feel, but to shun away anyone who criticize them by
catching that person in a corner named ‘patriotism’. President Bush, Karl Rove, VP, war
supporters and Republicans have been successful to deploy this political strategy for last
four years. Yesterday’s vote in the House on the Republican resolution is one more proof
95
of the same and manifestation that the famous Republican ploy is still working, still
capable for scoring politically. Well, all the critics of Iraq war and America in general know
that such Republican tactics are often deployed in Democracy as well as used to win
elections. So, it is as disingenuous as challenging patriotic credentials of Rep. Murtha to
suggest that Democrats are trying to topple Republican power by other means instead of
winning elections. That is wrong. Democrats have won elections in past, have won as
recently as November 2005 and will win elections in future too. Let us just take that
argument from this mind bogglingly charged and partisan atmosphere.
In the end both Republicans and Democrats are trying to have it both ways. The
distinction about who is more culpable matters less for common American since no one is
ready to come forward and lead. All that it demonstrates is that our elected
representatives in mass - President, Senators, House Representative - all are simply
more interested in political one-up-ship rather than solving the problems of real
Americans who die in war and who suffer at home.
Your one sided questions do not make it balanced and as well does not help us to bring
this myopic political class on ground. It is astounding where the pitch level has reached in
American Politics. We would like your Journal and Blogs to help bring sanity, stability to
this debate, not pour oil in the fire so that we all immolate in the out of hand inferno called
Iraq war - at least for the sake of America’s security. I guess none of us were there when
they said the emperor Nero played fiddle while Rome burned; but it sure seems that we
are not far from that state today in America.
Umesh Patil
San Jose, CA 95111
November 19, 2005.
Iraqi Crystal Ball

Sunday, November 20, 2005
Why are insurgents fighting in Iraq? One reasonable answer is it is actually a fight
between Sunni and Shiite which is taking place. It is a sectarian fight. That is one thread
in Rep. Murtha's thinking. What are we doing there when those people are fighting
among themselves? Get out. Because otherwise American Army will be broken and will
not have an ability to fight another war, the real war on Terror.
Has anyone read James Fallows in Atlantic? I have not, but apparently that article is the
one which is making waves at present; everyone is talking about that. As Krugman
quotes him in NYT - either we only loose Iraq but keep our Army or we loose both. What
do you want? Rep. Murtha is saying that he wants our Army back intact, not ruined Army.
Beyond this line of thinking, there are two fundamental questions to be addressed: (Joe
Klein in Time and Weekly Standard – Kristol, Barnes gang):
- will larger Middle East be stable after we pull out and
- will America be safer after the pull out?
96
I do not agree with Rep. Murtha’s assertion completely that American Army is the main
reason for instability in the region (I rather share his other argument of preserving
American Army from the corrosive effects, probably substantiated by Fallows). This is
because it is the sectarian fight there. If you want a parallel, imagine 1947 in the Indian
Subcontinent. Hindus and Muslims were killing each other in millions, British left, killing
still continued. British realized that by then things were out of their control. What the heck
India – Pakistan are still not able to solve their problems after 4 wars in 5 decades. We
have to remember that Sunni and Shiite animosity is way too deep, way too ingrained in
Islam’s history. Saddam as Sunni power and Ayatollah’s of Iran have been at throats for
more than a decade. So notwithstanding the grand talk of freedom and democracy of
Bush and NeoCons; the tectonic fissures of Shiite - Sunni fight are too deep and powerful
to be controlled by the presence of American forces or the passage of new constitution or
parliamentary elections in Iraq in short term.
So pulling American forces will not bring stability to Iraq is true because in the first place it
is a mute point how much Americans are a force in the local conflict. No doubt pull out will
further make that region instable. This answers the first question in a negative way. As a
result, very likely the region will be another Afghanistan. What with Iran on the border,
conservative Shiite would eventually skid in the Ayatollah world view of hating America. It
is just the matter of time and it is more likely to happen because for the sheer survival of
Shiite in the Sunni surrounded area, they will have to form comradeship with Iran. In the
NeoCon world view pulling Americans at this point is indeed giving fillip to the enemy.
That is true but unavoidable.
Then, the larger question for those who back the immediate pull out is what if we need to
send American Army again in future in that area to root out Terrorism? It is like if the
world had taken care of Afghanistan earlier; Taliban would not come to the power. In
other words, if pull out backers want to avoid the fate of Bush (misleading American
public); they better tell American pulblic that in future American forces may need to go
back to that region. These leaders better tell that now otherwise they will fall victim to the
same credibility issue as like Bush.
What do we gain then by pulling now? Here comes Rep. Murtha (and possibly James
Fallows) line – we get to preserve our Army first instead of breaking our war machine by
over use, we get breathing time to refurbish American fighting forces, we get a new
opportunity to undertake fresh assessment of War on Terror, as a consequence we get a
new opportunity to apply our forces in the way it is required and where it is needed and
we get a renewed opportunity to sell the Global War on Terror to the whole world so that
it becomes more participatory instead of one man show of America.
Will it not crumble the image of America as a Super Power if we pull out now? Sure it will.
It will not make it easy to negotiate with Iran or N. Korea or other rogue states. But then
what matters most – prestige and imperial aura of America in the world or affordability of
American public. If American Leaders sold them the war cheaply and the continuation of
that imperial policy is coming at the cost of an ability of American State to tend towards
now and current needs of American people; how can you try to pretend to be the Super
Power? In the end Super Power status is to serve American People better. If the leaders
make the error of attempting to preserve this status by way of selling something which
American people did not buy in the first place; then hell with the goals of those leaders.
Those goals mean nothing to American people. This is what crucially needs to be
understood by NeoCons so that they can rest their ghosts of Vietnam calmly (their
Vietnam ghost – only if America was stronger, we could have won there; only if Liberals
97
had not sabotaged war efforts at home, America would have prevailed).
But in any case, things need not be so dire even if American Army leaves Iraq. In the
larger scheme of things, Vietnam war turned out to be less significant. America’s loss
neither resulted in win for China nor for Russia. America could rebuild her Army, make it
a better force and most importantly could refocus on the main enemy of Cold War –
Soviet Union. So similarly, immediate pull out from Iraq may be costly for America in short
term; but will give her more room to address long term challenges in a better way.
This brings us to the last point – who will be those leaders who will sale this to American
people or rather in whom America will trust to pull this off. Bush – being a sitting president
he can do it; but unlikely. The hunch is the whole current batch of Congressional
leadership in both parties is tainted so much by Iraq issue and very few of them have got
a consistent read on the situation; it gives uncomfortable feeling in expecting these
leaders to pull of this transition. Sen. Clinton, Sen. McCain and many others of this world
are way too vested in this quagmire to project any cleaner track record to pull off this
transition. This is where Gov. Bill Richardson, Gov. Mark Warner, Rudy Gulliani of the
world would get the opening for their future American Leadership. Worth to watch who
bells the cat and who pulls off this magic.
Umesh Patil
San Jose, CA 95111
November 21, 2005.
Spring in Indian Politics

The win of Nitish Kumar in Bihar is universally regarded as a positive development in
Indian politics. Indeed it is as dramatic as 1977 Janata victory at Center or 1989 victory of
VP Sing. Nitish Kumar has been fighting Lalu for long time and this victory culminates
positively for him and for the progressive forces.
There have been many columnist and journalist who are perplexed and are at loss to find
the reasons behind this change. Clearly this result cannot be simply explained in the
orthodox terms of caste. It is so rare that all the punditry of caste based politics is less
relevant to this election result. It can be fairly said that at least in some respect the voter
did go beyond the caste calculus. May be, just may be, as more media bombards
everyone in India bringing news of other states and outside word, Bihar residents starkly
realized how much are they missing on the basic civil life and even rudimentary
infrastructure. At some point, sheer survival needed the political change since people
realized that there cannot be any improvement in Law and Order as long as Lalu was
there. Besides, in Nitish Kumar and fairly worked out alliance of JD United and BJP;
people could identify a viable alternative.
Can it be that Indian public is finally moving beyond the politics of Ram Mandir, Rath
Yatra and Mandal of 80’s and 90s? Can we say that people of all castes, all regions want
to vote for development and not to become victims of Communal and Castist politics? If it
can be Bihar, the most notorious state of India; do we say India can have a realistic hope
of dramatic political change forcing political parties to organize on the basis of
98 performance and delivery? Well, this may be a wishful thinking; a castle in air based on
one single election result. Nevertheless Bihar result does point a positive development.
Only time will tell if such a positive tide is sustained or it is a short lived spring in Indian
politics to be followed by usual harsh summer.
Many attribute Bihar election results to the clean administration of election process by
CEC and it’s special advisor Mr. Rao. The transparent and strict election exercise helped
to translate people’s will into correct election results without much manipulations - the
usual tricks Lalu has been good at. After TN Sheshan and Krishnamurthy, CEC Special
Advisor Rao is yet another able hand. One wonders how this succession of capable CEC
personnel can be fully institutionalized so that it does not depend on just few good
individuals. Along with the Supreme Court and Media; CEC is turning out one of the
stronger and rare institutions of far reaching consequences in the contemporary India. In
a continental style diverse polity of India with so many election cycles, so many political
parties and so many voters; impartial and strong CEC is of paramount importance for
India’s success. Bihar election results and many other elections in recent times confirm
the graduation of CEC. It is truly one of the wonderful stories of today’s India. Compared
to faceless and impotent Federal Election Commission in America; CEC is showing far
more spine and doing the bull work of Democracy. Conduct of elections in America
continues to be a mess, a black eye on the oldest democracy. No matter how many times
President Carter and other experts try to point improvements; it continues to remain a
vexed issue. May be the oldest democracy can still learn few tricks from the largest
democracy.
Early signs show that winners of this election indeed are for a good start. Case in point is
new ministry. By retaining Home portfolio for himself and Revenue to his deputy Modi;
Nitish Kumar is setting his best foot forward. One hopes he is able to achieve the goals
he is setting for himself - improving law and order in Bihar and putting the financial house
in order. Of course in case of finances, as like any other state in Indian Union, Bihar will
continue to face the problem of raising enough revenue from state taxes and fees. Most
of the states in India depend on the largesse from Center which turns these states into
dependent satellite governments with diminished power and abilities. It will be a tall order
to expect one single state government to escape this brittle financial setup. As more
parties share power in the Center and various states, hopefully most of the Indian political
class realizes the core issue of Center-State financial imbalances so that there can be a
collective movement towards reforms. Messer’s Modi and Nitish Kumar can contribute
their share of this discourse. Here, it is the turn of India to learn from United States of
America in regards to true Federal structure and financial self reliance of states.
The losers of this election are Lalu, RJD, Paswan and Left forces in general. It will be
crucial to note how much legal damage Nitish Kumar is able to inflict on Lalu without over
playing the revenge card. If the cases proceed on strong legal basis and at fair pace, Lalu
may not be able to overcome those challenges. He has had 15 years of Bihar rule and
his prodigious abilities of mismanagement to accumulate enough legal mess. As Lalu
would face legal setbacks, RJD would have bleak future as it’s MPs and MLAs may feel
to join other political forces. If JD United and BJP rule in Bihar is indeed able to weaken
RJD as a political force; the competing alternatives of SP, BSP, JD (U) and Congress
would look promising to elected members of RJD. These parties would get their hands on
leftovers. However, it is still early in the inning to count out Lalu and RJD.
Beyond the state politics, it is surely a breather for NDA. The increased stock of JD
United leaders like Fernandes and Sharad Yadav is a big plus for NDA. It may give
impetus to NDA in adjacent West Bengal in the next year’s state election even though the
99
odds still favor Left. Congress – it is still far away from improving it’s performance in
crucial states of Bihar and UP. The only solace is Dr. Singh’s center government could
have more stability since both Lalu and Paswan are cut to sizes. But Dr. Singh will face
refreshed NDA on a stronger wicket. That may be bad for him, but good for India since
she gets an alert opposition to keep the ruling party on toes. All in all that is a good news
for Indian people.
Umesh Patil
San Jose, CA
November 26, 2005.
Immoral Backers of American Drug Companies

Peter Huber in Fortune (Dec 05, 2005 on web;
http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2005/1212/113.html?_requestid=3697) makes the case that
rich should pay higher prices for the drugs so that cost of drug research is covered. He
argues that this is consistent with the Ramsey’s principle of variable pricing. Based on
this logic he chides Canada, Veterans Affairs and HMOs for insisting uniform price.
He is completely wrong and does not understand basic logic itself.
He makes the mistake that America as a whole is a rich country so that everyone in
America should pay the higher prices. My question is where does he live? On Wall Street
or some other exotic rich only people of this world? Does he think everyone in America
work for Google or what? I mean on this earth can you say that Americans are rich after
watching the Katrina tragedy where Americans realized the true poverty in this country.
Well, apparently only the rich, ideologically driven, reality blind pro rich people like Huber
only can not see this reality.
If he thinks rich should pay higher for drugs; have American rich to pay higher prices for
their Medical costs. Why poor and middle class in America should pay higher prices? It is
nothing but robbing poor and middle class in America for the far profits of drug
companies. If Huber and likes of him who care so much for market dynamics and worry
of vanishing drug companies from America; really want to be consistent and true
followers of Ramsey principles; then they need to come up with a model which addresses
the income level differentials within America which is reflected appropriately in drug
prices. These are the types of people who all the time give reference to Lafer curve, keep
on insisting tax cuts and then bemoan for existing prices for poor in America. Unless such
a calibrated model is proposed, any such talk is useless. Worse, it is immoral because it
is of the type ‘rob poor to give money to rich!’
Peter Huber wake up, smell the cheap coffee and talk something which Main Street can
understand.
Umesh Patil
San Jose, CA 95111
December 08, 2005.
100 Posted by Umesh Patil at 10:51AM (-08:00)
Iraq – Beyond December 15, 2005
Sunday, December 11, 2005
It is unlikely that Bush Administration would take cognizance of such serious articles like:
- “Shattering Iraq” by Paul Starobin in National Journal Friday, Dec. 9, 2005

(http://nationaljournal.com/about/njweekly/stories/2005/1209nj1.htm) and
- “The elections in Iraq” Juan Cole interview by Eric Black, Star Tribune December 8,
2005 at 2:35 PM
(http://www.startribune.com/stories/722/5771424.html)
Starobin argues that as far as the current situation in Iraq is considered, it is difficult to
conclude anything different than civil war. It may be unusual in nature, nevertheless it is a
civil war. One cannot but help to agree with him. Juan Cole is pointing to the reality that
Iraq after December 15 election in all likelihood is going to be more hostile to
Administration than what the Administration is ready for. American Ambassador Zalmay
Khalilzad no doubt brings the reality check to White House and is doing a yeoman’s job;
but today’s Iraq and American entanglement in that is much more complex and
multifaceted issue requiring sophisticated and honest approach from the Administration.
It is not coming is well known.
What happens immediately after the election? Based on the informed opinion of Juan
Cole, Shiite group would mostly get the majority and Kurds would loose some seats to
Sunni. This in itself unlikely to put an end to the insurgency and violence on the ground.
Considering the increased importance and subsequent consolidation by Muqtada al-Sadr
in Iraqi Peking order; American presence in Iraq is likely to face more music. In fact it will
be unlikely that Bush Administration can hold the current troops level there after. The
reduction in American forces as expected would be one more reason why the violence is
unlikely to go away very easily after the election.
The only point of interest at that time will be whether there will be sufficient number of
Sunni elected members who would feel the spoils of power as an enough reason to go
away from the extremist Sunni factions who resort to violence as the retaliation of loss of
Sunni power in Iraq. The case on the surface looks to be that and there in lies the
realistic chance of continuation of Iraq as an one single country without divisions. It will
be a weak state, but in that it may be able to avoid the immediate break up. However, this
still does not guarantee the long term success of the Iraqi State and it still faces many
odds. If the violence is not stopped at some point, the integrity of Iraq will eventually
come into question again. That will be like simply prolonging the violent transition of Iraq
to a set of divided states.
If this is to be avoided, then Peter Galbraith style approach of dividing Iraq into 3
separate ministates – Kurdistan, Shiite dominated Southern Iraq and Baghdad centered
Sunni middle Iraq – may be an option. Should Bush Administration actively pursue such a
strategy? Today, it may be early. But after giving sufficient rope to the attempts to
maintain Iraqi unity; there may be a time in future when such a bitter pill will have to be
taken by America if nothing else works. The only question then will be what could
America do so that Sunnistan does not bring Saudi Arabia on it’s side against Shiite Iraq
(with Iran on it’s side) to start a total regional war. Needless to say that will bring Israel in
picture too and it will be a doomsday scenario not only for that Middle East but for the 101
World Economy as well since oil will soar past $100 at that point. Sunnistan will be
aggravated for a simple reason that it will not have any resource base to sustain as a
State – no oil, land locked ministate surrounded by other hostile ministates. To address
this issue one thing which comes to mind is - may be America pay money to Sunnistan to
kick start the economy; America underwrites that ministate and compensate for the loss
of oil money. Money will be of the order of what the current Iraq war costs and the
advantage will be no further loss of American blood. Also may be America persuades
Saudi Arabia to foot some bill of helping Sunnistan.
Further two other conditions America and World in general will need to ensure are:
- Turkey keeps her hands off the Kurdistan and
- there is a ‘solid wall’ erected between Southern Shiite Iraq and Iran.
Controlling Turkey is doable since gaining access to EU requires Turkey demonstrates
restrain in the Kurdish issue. The latter part is difficult – what do you mean by ‘solid wall’?
The goal is how to avoid Shiite Iraq to collude with Iran to emerge as a destabilizing force
with access to vast oil riches? That one is a hard nut to crack with no apparent
instruments at hand for America and international community. That is a true unknown of
post December 15 period.
But may be America will be spared from such a nightmare scenario if Sunni participation
increases and Iraq starts to function as a one single country instead of multiple
ministates. Notwithstanding all the visible problems, possibility of such a scenario is
higher today than few months back.
Umesh Patil
San Jose, CA 95111
December 11, 2005.
Road to Lawless Land

President Bush justifies that it is okay for him to allow NSA to spy on Americans. As NYT,
W. Post and many others have rightly argued, the appropriate course here is to take
permission of FISA court and then proceed. Further, it should really have been FBI to
work on intelligence rather than NSA. Next, if President Bush finds that obtaining a
warrant from FISA court is cumbersome, then Administration should have asked
Congress to work out a more convenient process as per existing laws or modified laws.
President and the Administration did not do that and President Bush is still not ready to
stop this program. This means such spying is still happening right now!
It is a sad spectacle Condi Rice going to pathetic levels to justify first the use of torture
and now the power grab by President Bush in eavesdropping case. Looks like all the
good work she has done since becoming Secretary of State is overshadowed by these
faulty arguments. In the end as Senator Boxer would say, her loyalty to President trumps
her thinking abilities as well as her moral compass. In all of these issues (torture ban and
spying on Americans); she is coming out really poorly and clueless. What is the use of all
her eloquence and brilliance if her conscience is in the wrong place or cannot withstand
the swagger of Presidency? Condi simply failed to rise to the occasion while navigating
102 through these muddled water.
Senator McCain did right in torture case and President Bush saw the light in the end.
(Sorry Charles Krauthammer, not all the time you are on the right side. There was no
smart way for the Administration to wriggle out of the box this time unlike how
Krauthammer prompted the Administration in Harriet Mieyer fiasco.) The question is will
Senator Feingold, Senator Specter and others from Congress force the Administration to
stop this spying program? They better, else why do we make laws in this country? Why is
Congress in the business when her laws are not observed by another branch of the
government? Congress MUST take this issue and go to the bottom of this episode.
President Bush is trying to hide again behind the argument that ‘but we had informed
Congress about this program and it is wrong for NYT to report this news….’ Well, this
Administration has problems with lot of people who want to do their jobs honestly. As
Senator Feingold said he does not want to hear on the floor of Senate that Congress can
trust this Administration. This business is not for trust. It is the business of law of the land
and President Bush has to go back here. Not only he is on the slippery road here; he is
dead wrong and he is a law breaker here. He has to figure out how to conduct the War on
Terror within the framework of American Laws and Regulations. War on Terror is not a
blank check to him to do whatever the Administration pleases to do. For too long
Americans have been underwriting President Bush in terms of Lives and Tax Dollars to
sustain his version of War on Terror. We Americans do not want to compromise further
what our Founding Fathers have granted us just because President Bush finds the
burden of stopping Terror unbearable while working within the legal framework. Looks
like he fails to understand the sanctity of Law and the need to observe laws by those in
Power. Those who preach Democracy all over the world need to observe all the
principles of democracy in their land without fail. No excuses are acceptable here, no
spying on our own citizens is acceptable. We do not live in Soviet Union and we do not
want to convert the land of Lady Liberty into a Stalinist Totalitarian State. Let us not take
the first step on the road to a lawless land.
Umesh Patil
San Jose, CA 95111
December 18, 2005.
Resistance – Yankee Style?

Scary and frightening post – http://cunningrealist.blogspot.com/2005/12/crazy-every-now-
and-then.html . At the same time, it kind of itches to do something to stop this madness.
What should we do? How do we do? Politics after 229 years in this country has reached
to such a sanitized level that the raw participation from common people is almost
excluded. I know there were Civil Rights Movement and other People's Movements back
then. Where are today’s? How can we participate any such resistance act? Whom do we
give money or add support to? Who is crystallizing this opposition to a power grab by our
President? I am not looking at Democrats particularly. Have they digested the lessons of
excess by Johnson Administration or are they making noise simply because it is a
Republican Administration? Sad, sad; too many questions no easy answers. Probably
'crazy times' are devastating times because we do not know how to organize (or
participate in) public acts to change this craziness.
It is unavoidable for an Indian not to remember those 18 months when democratic India 103
(1978-79) was under the power grab of Indira Gandhi. It was much worse than what it
has been here. Her excuse was CIA was destabilizing India. (It could have been true,
who knows…) But those poor and illiterate people found some way some how to curtail
that madness by increasing the political cost of undertaking such totalitarian ways. How
do we do that Yankee style here? True, to think in this manner is way too romantic and
unrealistic. But then does that mean we accept President Bush’s administration continue
to spy on us? How and where does it stop?
Umesh Patil
San Jose, CA 95111
December 19, 2005.
Happy Holidays
Tuesday, December 20, 2005
As December 25th comes, you start reading lot of silly articles like:
http://realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-12_20_05_TS.html
Tom Sowell is wrong here and is wasting everyone’s time in debating some useless
issue. Tom argues that it is a tragedy that people no longer have reference of Christianity
during Christmas. What is the tragedy here? Indeed this country has many other people
who are not Christian. I am a Hindu, my spouse is Hindu and my child born here in USA
is Hindu too. My spouse is from Goa, India which celebrates Christmas. (It was ruled by
Christian Portuguese for over 400 years.) We celebrate Christmas since that is the
tradition my spouse follows and we like it.
But we celebrate Diwali too. In India, we do not have such problems and non-sense
debate like what Tom argues here. Where is the problem if people want to simply call it
Holiday and have some fun? How come Japanese enjoy celebrating Christmas too then?
For years, I used to greet everyone as 'Merry Christmas'. Now I make the point to greet
as 'Happy Holidays' just as I trouble people like Tom Sowell and adamant Conservatives
of this country who feel they are ruling the world just because President Bush got
reelected.
People like Tom Sowell are no different than Hindu fanatics in India like Narendra Modi
and RSS. They need to change and get over this obsession of how people greet and how
people live in this country. Do not try to ridicule people because they do not want to have
some traditional or religious references. That is their right. America is not a Christian
country ruled by Pope. It is a Free country where there is separation of Church and State.
As long as people are abiding the laws of the land and not living offensive to anyone; let
them live their way. (Go and check, it is our President who is breaking the laws while
spying on people...)
Tom, take it easy and have Happy Holidays.
Umesh Patil 409 Meadowfaire Place San Jose, CA 95111.
Feedback: Bush Fade by MJ Akbar

I read MJ Akbar’s new blong on Asian Age web site ( http://www.asianage.com/ Bush
Fade) and following comments come to my mind.
104
1. I guess Americans are not much interested whether President Bush has the
confidence or just an attitude to take the current ‘slide’ only at conviction. The point is,
President Bush’s psychoanalysis – that is amusement but a last point for Americans to
bother about.
2. About Iraq war, MJA contents that American presence is the key hurdle and once they
are gone, united Iraq will be there. He is on the solid ground when he says it is the
empire which always plays the bugaboo of ‘chaos after empire retreat’. But in this case I
am not sure if that is fully applicable. There are at least two reasons:
a. As Tom Friedman and likes of him argue, Iraq is at a the crucial stage where in the
next 6 months it will make the fundamental choice of whether to remain as a united
country or be divided into mini states. Friedman argues that America’s presence should
be determined whether America would have a willing partner in Iraqi government; mostly
Shiite. If Shiite are not willing to be accommodative, the game is over and let Americans
come back. I think Friedman style thinking is on the right track.
b. The other line is Rep. Murtha line – we need to get out because we have two choices:
no American Army and no united Iraq or at least American Army and no united Iraq. Rep.
Murtha is opting for the second option so that at least American Army is saved. He is
worried about the too corrosive impact of the current fruitless engagement of American
Army in Iraq.
All of these thoughts I have put in many blogs on this site, particular ‘Iraqi Crystal Ball’
and ‘Iraq – Beyond December15, 2005’.
3. Many Americans are coming to the point to think that – yes Iraq war has been wrong,
useless; but some Army presence may be required for a while so to guard off the
increase in Iranian influence. Continued Iraq occupation is the dominant response to
counter Iranian influence – I am not so sure of this answer. But the catastrophic
implications of increased Iranian influence can not be underestimated. MJA’s article does
not high light this danger so much and the complicity of President Bush in all this. It is
possible that Americans and the world will come to rue a lot President Bush for what the
monster of Iran would develop (with the aid of oil dependent China and complacent
Russia). Well, MJA not high lighting this danger is of no surprise since many intelligent
people in the world still have not grasped the sufficient gravity of the situation. They all
are busy in bashing President Bush. As MJA points rightly, President Bush is almost
history. The mess in which America is due to President Bush, Americans will have to
clean that without him. Americans need to worry about tomorrow, President Bush is
already becoming a past.
Umesh Patil
San Jose, CA 95111
December 25, 2005.
105
India – No Democratic History?
While reading the blog of Prof. Daniel Drezner, I came across his rebuttal of Fareed
Z a k a r i a ’ s b o o k ‘ T h e F u t u r e o f F r e e d o m ’ .
(http://www.danieldrezner.com/archives/000417.html#000417) He mentions the name of
India as one of the countries which adopted Democracy without the preconditions which
Zakaria talk about; the preconditions to do with a long democracy history. I do not have
any opinion about the validity of Zakaria’s claim nor do I have the scholarship to critically
analyze his arguments. However, I think inclusion of India in that example may not be
appropriate.
I think on many occasions about India and how it adopted reasonable Democratic
traditions. Text books in India generally give two pictures – one before 1947 and one after
that. We tend to forget the first part. Here are the observations which come to my mind:
1. Indian National Congress was started by many leading Indians in 1885. Around 60
plus years before the first elections of free India or the republic of India was formed after
adopting the constitution. So at least there was solid background of political activity in
modern sense. INC started in quite earnest as a modern day political organization.
2. Further it was not only INC but the leading Hindu opposition party of that time – Hindu
Mahasabha was also there before the independence. RSS as a political organization
started before Independence. Muslim League was there too and finally Communist. So
you had the entire political spectrum represented by various active political parties in pre-
independence India.
3. There were concrete elections in early days and in years like 1937. Elections were all
across India under the supervision of British Empire (with British Viceroy still at the helm
with substantial power). These were state assembly or provisional elections; not at the
center level. But there were coalition governments, political deals and the usual give and
take of modern day politics.
I believe these 3 things in themselves amply demonstrate that India had quite active
political history of modern type before 1947 and the contemporary Democracy in India
owes lot to this tradition and pedigree. The reality is till today India has more modern day
political history (if founding of INC in 1885 is the starting point) than the existence of post
independence life span of contemporary India. In that sense I am not sure how far one
can use India as an example to refute Zakaria’s argument. Prof. Drezner and others may
be right in criticizing the validity of Zakaria’s argument. My case is only limited about
using India as a counter example. India History and Political experts can point many
other related things.
Umesh Patil
San Jose, CA 95111
December 25, 2005
106
G8 Relevance?
Tuesday, December 27, 2005
Daniel Drezner’s blog talks about G8 and Russia’s participation in that. (
http://www.danieldrezner.com/blog/ ) The bigger question is how G8 itself is relevant in
today’s world. I have lots of doubt on this account. Following are the observations:
- Within G8, interests of North America (US & Canada), Japan and European countries
are aligned differently. Simply because these countries are called industrial economies by
convention does not help in today’s Global Capital world which is generally obsessed
with the growth rate and it matters less which industries bring those growth rates –
commodity, outsourcing or traditional manufacturing. As the world addresses issues of
political stability and rule of law in coming days, where can Capital have the maximum
opportunity to grow becomes the criteria. Past ‘has been’ is not the likeliest of places
where Capital wants to reside.
- Clearly European economies along with Japan are hobbled with decreasing population,
high social cost and generally less responsive state to economic challenges. Naturally,
these are not the places conducive to Capital growth.
- When the single most obsession for American interests is all about China and it’s
phenomenal growth, why does it matter for America to engage so much with G8?
- The bandwagon of China and India story is likely to have some leg which reduces the
importance of G8. True, both China and India are observers to G8 meetings; but may be
the time has come for their full inclusion (probably India could wait) and more intense
engagement with these countries rather than bothering with Italy and France. Let us face
it – Italy, France and Canada are not going to be places where the world is going to be
‘on fire’ as far as the Global Economy is considered.
- If being major import soaking points of the world is the only criteria (again Germany,
Japan and to some extent Canada are exceptions here due to their solid exports); then
what about Middle East, especially Saudi Arabia, which is consuming voraciously paid by
petro-dollars?
- Politically too, how many of G8 countries are in the capacity to set the tone in World
Affairs today for a sustained global growth? Germany, Italy, France and Canada – to
what an extent are these players crucial in implementing things on Global Scale? Indian
Trade Minister along with Brazilian Trade Minister plays more active (or destructive
depending on your perspective) role in WTO.
So it looks like G8 is more of ‘past organization’ rather than an organization looking to

future and with any ability to change things in global economy. USA seems to be the only
country which has dynamic economy (even if it has some problems) with the political
ability to make difference. May be for USA to engage with China, India and some other
economies (S. Korea, Brazil and Saudi Arabia come to mind) on regular basis is more
beneficial. Then where would politics come? Indeed it matters less what politics is when
one is dealing with money. There are different forums and different platforms with
different means to address political issues. I mean we are not dealing with apartheid
South Africa which needed all out economic sanctions which however Iran may need
today. It is not about internal rules related to NGOs which matter most, but the response
of economic sanctions to Iran which will matter most to USA. Russian and European
countries are beholden to Iranian market and Iranian oil & gas (China is no different).
Only Canada and Japan could come on the side of USA as far as Iranian sanction goes.
What does this indicate is internal contradictions of G8 do not make it very suitable to
address tomorrow’s global economic and political challenges. 107
All in all it is worth to inspect relevance of G8 in entirety, rethink admission criteria to this
club, it’s purpose and it’s way of working.
Umesh Patil San Jose, CA December 27, 2005
Running Away From Banglore? Wrong Way

Then!
Wednesday, December 28, 2005
Times of India publishes a lead article by one Janaki Nair - ‘Let’s Not Go The Banglore
Way’ (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1348806.cms). This is one of those
less useful articles where the collateral damage is more serious than the main contention
which is less of a dispute. Janaki Nair is incorrectly painting the picture that beneath the
prosperity of Banglore, there is the cost of lost social fabric. It is nobody’s case to say that
Kolkata should prosper while creating the Banglore like problems. As the author rightly
says, Kolkata should develop economically while avoiding the issues which are faced by
Banglore. But instead of articulating reasonably clear solutions about how to avoid
Banglore type gridlock, the author is inherently implying two wrong propositions:
- Casualty of Banglore prosperity is it’s social life and
- Kolkata has something of a romantic social life which it is embarking to toss over the
Hugali bridge into the Ganges.
First, let us start with the picture of Kolkata which Jananki Nair paints. What is so
romantic about that picture? Does she mean to say Banglore is full of arrogant ‘bus
conductors’? One rape and murder of a call center worker does not make Banglore
worse than Mumbai, Pune, Hyderabad, Gurgaon or even Kolkatta? Does the author want
others to start pulling skeletons from Kolkata’s law and order ‘almari’? For too long
Kolkata intellectuals have been simply infatuated with Bengali sensibility and their
perceived notions of social harmony or should I dare to say cultural superiority? It is not
the case to deny existence of such a relative peaceful social order in Kolkata, but what is
the point in celebrating ‘social magnificence’ when the poverty and economic degradation
is all over the place? It simply reminds the picture of an old upper stratum Zaminder living
in a dilapidated palace with long past glory, as they portray so well in Bengali novels and
movies… And by the way to match the cultural highbrow of Kolkata (and not of Calcutta);
Banglore is going to rename itself as Bangaluru. So that should not give any bragging
rights to Mumbai, Kolkata and Chennai only; least anyone fingers the colonial hangover
of Bangalore residents.
Seriously, since when Indian cities started to be repository of great cultural stores of
millenniums so that economic development and poverty alleviation becomes an
impediment in preserving the social and cultural legacy of these cities? Or are we finding
the virtues of social order, social peace and cultural richness when the raw growth is
coming because of Global Capitalism which Leftist would love to call as predatory
cowboy style economy? Anyways…
Next, what is really Banglore’s problem? Basically people are complaining about the
infrastructure. No one is saying that people in Banglore do not know how to enjoy life or
that they are not enjoying. As you can see, the place is brimming with life and people are
having fun. People from many states and countries have come there and enjoy the life in
Banglore. It may be expensive but many can pay. Neither does it mean people should
108
stop complaining about the infrastructure bottlenecks nor does it mean prosperity is
coming at the cost of social harmony.
I have lived for past five years in a city which is routinely rated as one of the safest place
in USA for it’s size (population million or over) – San Jose, California. But it is the same
place which was one of the worst in early 90s, heavily infested by serious crimes. Nobody
used to go to the downtown. Now you see couples, kids and everyone. But the city does
not have any glamour or mojo of rich and famous northern neighbors like Palo Alto
(Stanford Univ. town) or Mountain View (birth place of Netscape and the current
residence of Google) and yet it has reasonable social life beyond Tech, VCs and
startups. One enjoys this low key cultural life and apparently that is the fact which most
people like about San Jose. It is the place which has around 100,000 Vietnamese
(largest concentration after Oklahoma city); 300,000 Hispanics; 100,000 Chinese and
50,000 Indians. The city is one of the most diverse ethnically in America. Yet people
enjoy life while living through prosperity, deep recessions and chronic job losses due to
outsourcing to Banglore. (But bus conductors over here may not be as polite and
considerate as cultured Kolkata; they simply try to run buses on time without strike.)
The point is let us not confuse economic prosperity of a city with the social structure or
harmony. These are not mutually exclusive so the beloved Kolkata has to make a choice
here. On the contrary if history is any guide, prosperity is boon to high culture. If you ask,
most Kolkata residence would love to have the ‘problems of plenty’ of Banglore. It will be
only few misguided Ivory tower intellectuals like Janaki Nair who want to undertake the
intellectual Jihad to preserve the Bhadra Lok Bengali sensibility amidst Kolkata style
destitution and keep on singing the praise of now defunct Public Sector. May be the new
gilded age of Kolkata is around the corner when it embraces the spirit of
entrepreneurship and capitalism.
Janaki Nair, move aside and make place for jobs coming to ‘Aam Janata’ in this New Age
India.
Umesh Patil
San Jose, CA 95111
December 27, 2005.
Psychoanalysis – Do we need it in policy

debates?
There has been some flutter about the Newsweek issue showing President Bush in a
bubble. (Real Clear Politics) I would like to add my two cents to this debate.
As has been successfully argued and demonstrated; psychoanalysis is a pseudo

science. So why go that route? Karl Popper – does this name ring a bell? (Wikipedia -
Karl Popper)
Psychoanalysis is kind of vestige of Liberal Mania of 70’s. Though Maureen Dowd (NYT)
rightly describes 70’s as the epitome of Press or Media power because of Bob Woodward
109
and media role in making America coming to terms with reality of Vietnam war;
successful techniques of those media victories were different than psychoanalysis. Here
in 21st century, media is still trying to rehash that discredited technology when we may
not be far away from a day when scientists are actually able to map human thinking to
actual electro-chemical reactions of neurons in the brain.
Yes, typically it is a Liberal infatuation with psychoanalysis. I tend to be a Liberal, but

would accept that it is better for everyone if Liberals give up such pathetic tendency to
psychoanalyze every living entity on this planet. Thank God, we have not got
psychoanalysis of Saddam Hussein so far. May be I am wrong, quite soon we will get a
cover story like ‘In the Thought World of Saddam Hussein’!
Given the state of affairs of this discipline, there is hardly anything useful which can
surface to the table as far as the policy debate of contemporary issues is concerned. So
yes, I feel my money is wasted when I get my subscribed issue of Newsweek showing
Bush in the bubble. If Newsweek thinks that Bush Administration is not open to external
ideas (which is a fair observation so many of us share and I agree with); the right way is
to track respective debates where the Administration has turned deaf ears to substantial
inputs offered by people close to the Administration or the Republican thinking. For
example, it is well known that this administration ignores what Brent Scowcraft has to say
about effective Foreign Policy which would preserve strategic interests of America. What
we get is Sec. Rice thundering in Washington Post to simply reject such arguments with
rote repetition of gospels of President Bush! Or similarly this Administration completely
ignores relevant conservative thinking from policy wonks like James Woolsey about
energy and Middle East Policy. There are so many examples one can talk about. Yah,
but that would not sell Newsweek copy briskly. Do we still think that Media has a right to
criticize this Administration or Congress for short selling then?
I would go a step further and say that the journalism of the style of this particular
Newsweek issue borders on irresponsibility. It is not a case all the time – Newsweek is
one of the few media outlets which is consistently following China Growth story with some
useful and substantial in depth coverage. But as far as this issue is considered where is
the debate? Where are the solid policy arguments? Where is the worthy, plain old style
reporting describing the situation which matters most to people? I agree that in theory it
matters whether President Bush gets good sleep in the night or not least he would make
a rash decision in the morning impacting all Americans. But what about the ground reality
– do we say that staff of White House and modern Presidency is so incompetent as not to
take care of mundane needs of a president? That is waste of time. America does not
need to bother about that and hence about the presidential psychoanalysis too. What
America needs is arguments and counter arguments about Bush’s decisions, his policies;
not theories about his psychology. This all reminds the medieval debates about ‘how
many angels on the head of a pin…’ or ‘Ptolemy’s Astronomy’ in early centuries.
Whatever, who cares. President Bush takes decisions whatever way he takes. We are
more concerned with his end decisions; not his thinking process.
It is hard to escape a conclusion that Newsweek is simply trying to print what is

sensational and what will sale. Look, I do not like President Bush, I do not think he has
made right decisions and I do think that it will cost America enormously to clean the mess
which he has landed us. But to address these issues and to make a case for these views
is not to blather your weekly issue by inferior pseudo science. It will make an interesting
news for couple of days around the world and will have more media echoes reporting for
a while everywhere; but what does it achieve? How does such journalism make life of
110
Americans better? Unfortunately, the answer is it does not make.
Well, goodness gracious; we have Blogs for that.
Umesh Patil
San Jose, CA 95111
December 29, 2005.
Vindication by Supreme Court

Thursday, January 26, 2006
When MJ Akabar commented that Indian President Dr. Kalam should resign because he
failed to apply objective criteria in recommending dissolution of the Bihar assembly in
early 2005; many criticized him. Critics implied that MJ Akabar is pro Congress and
hence demands the resignation of BJP appointed president. The first part is true – MJ
Akabar is indeed soft on Congress, being a Congressman in earlier life. But his argument
in pointing the failure of President in that episode has been valid.
The latest Supreme Court judgment vindicates the opinion of MJ Akabar and those who
supported such opinion (including this author). It would have been better if the opinion of
Supreme Court was unanimous. There does not seem to be much strength in the
dissenting opinions. But at least majority judges see the problem. Next, the focus is now
on the resignation of the governor Buta Singh rather than resignation of President Dr.
Kalam. Media is right to expect that Buta Singh would not resign on his own in this matter
and will be reluctant to undertake such a basic step of decency. Traditional Indian
Politicians, especially those of Congress flock; hardly do anything honorable and
respectable. High Command will have to give ‘boot’ to such office holders. After all Buta
Singh has been licking boots of Congress High Command all along his life; so such a kick
from High Command is all possibly he is waiting for.
Beyond this episode, there are no encouraging signs that Indian Polity will resolve the
vexed issue of Governor conduct and guidelines for selection of these Governors. The
inexorable march of Indian politics to concentrate more and more power with Center also
does not make the environment conducive to address this problem. Simply there is no
political compulsion to address this issue. So it will be few more years and we will once
again hear Supreme Court on this matter. The only thing Indians can hope for is that
President Dr. Kalam will be more circumspect in future in such matters; he being the
learned and wise person. Rest of the Indians look at Dr. Kalam as the moral compass of
Indian Republic and expect him to stay away from such quandary in future. That is
relatively a realistic expectation.
Umesh Patil
San Jose, CA 95111
January 26, 2006.
111
Bush Spin of Spreading Democracy and Hamas
Wednesday, February 01, 2006
Conservative blogs, columnists and political commentators are falling over each other to
‘rationalize’ a framework where both Hamas and recent Bush line of spreading
democracy fit together. It is a laughable proposition. Some perspective is needed here.
Let us start with Bush line of thinking in recent years.
• President Bush started his first term by disdaining any ‘nation building’ role for
America. In fact he wanted to be consciously low key on foreign affairs.
• 9/11 changed everything and it was fair for him to make foreign policy as the center
piece of his presidency there after. The change was warranted and was valid.
• The most lasting part of President Bush’s response to 9/11 is to articulate the
concept of ‘war on terrorism’. To elevate the response of a strong nation state like
USA to the attacks of 9/11 to the level of all out war has a distinct hallmark of Bush
thinking, Republican ideology and Conservative agenda. Further, History judges this
‘call’ as fundamentally a right call and it will be construed so in future too. There is a
sufficient basis for America to think that traditional Liberal approaches to Foreign
Policy would not have yield such a focused and sharp response. All credit goes to
President Bush and Conservative thinking here. By making it a war on terrorism,
Bush kind of prepared America to put everything at stake; at conceptual level at
least. He did not see this as a mere home land security issue.
• The next logical thing President Bush did was to formulate the ‘axis of evil’ thesis –
pointing out Iraq, Iran and N. Korea. It can be debated whether it is a good tactic to
point out rogue states so explicitly. But who can deny the advantages of getting
public backing to state efforts of ‘war on terrorism’ in so crystal clear and open
manner? In the end it is an effective policy for a leader to state openly who the
enemies are and who one needs to defeat so that all energies of a society can be
rallied behind such all out war efforts.
• In between ‘war on terror’ and ‘axis of evil’; Bush Presidency was hitting bull’s eye
as far as toppling Taliban and helping the nation building of Afghanistan in whatever
small measure. That war was conducted well, within the limited cost, by way of
working with local resistance forces.
• Except for the failure of Tora Bora, Bush Presidency achieved many goals of ‘war
on terrorism’ in the Afghanistan theater.
• That is not so the case with Iraq. Despite Iraq squarely belonging to the ‘axis of evil’;
President Bush in the end had to admit that it was a controversial decision to go Iraq
war. What this admission signifies is not so much whether President Bush was
wrong or not; but the glaring possibility that probably American President did not
make the full proof case for that war and started it bit prematurely. Considering the
solemn obligation of a head of state to be extremely judicious in the business of
war, destruction and death; any short coming in regards to exhausting all options on
the table is indeed a serious failure of a leadership. It can be argued whether all
options were indeed exhausted at that point (all the resolutions of UN in the earlier
decade); but the general feeling with majority of Americans and sane minds of the
world is President would have been good to work out all non-war options little
further before committing American blood, Iraqi deaths and American Tax payers’
dollars.
• Lack of political sophistication and maturity is unacceptable in the positions of
leaderships in an open and democratic society like America. Sitting in Oval Office, it
112 might be an easy option for a President to instigate a war rather than risk another
9/11 or a mushroom cloud. But that is an easy, low route. Alas, we all are past such
naivety in foreign affairs in today’s complex, interdependent world. Sophisticated
and mature leadership must not fall to any temptation of cheap alternative in policy
matters. Looking back, it is hard to disagree with those critics of Bush Administration
who said that President Bush was starting the Iraq war in haste. Last few years of
the war have vindicated these critics. He accepted the easy option of starting the
war early instead of showing the due diligence, appropriate care and over all
preparedness.
• Further, in the ‘chosen wars’ it is not necessary to go to the war with whatever ‘army
one has’. Military failures while conducting the Iraq war and subsequent occupation
are sad chapters of Bush presidency.
• What followed after the first year of Iraq war has been political self destruction of
Bush Presidency. If the Administration were to be more forthright like what it had
been in the wake Rep. Murtha’s call last year, Americans would have accepted the
policy in much lenient manner. In absence of any such deferential tone, what
America got was the Bush mouse trap of ‘democratization of Middle East’. Political
compulsion of re-election wrongly propelled President Bush to make more and more
comic and rote public utterances that Iraq war is all about spreading democracy in
Middle East as if in the after lives of Americans who died in Iraq war places were
guaranteed in heaven next to God Almighty! The Bush talk started to look messianic
they way Hamas exhorts Palestinians to undertake suicide attacks so that
seventeen virgins are waiting for a young man risking his life! One is startled to see
some similarities between the way President Bush sells deaths of Americans in the
Iraq war and the way Hamas rationalizes deaths of Palestinians in suicide attacks.
• So in a nut shell, President Bush very conveniently came ‘democratization of Middle
East’ line as an excuse when his first story of Saddam’s WMDs turned out to be
wrong and when public realized that America is holding the bag due to hasty
engagement of the war. In the first place Administration talks about democratization
as a ruse; forgets how much excessive selling it is doing to American public along
these lines; gets overtly emboldened by the Orange Revolution in Ukraine and
Cedar Revolution in Lebanon to the extent of thumping the chest and finally when
Palestinians legitimately elect known terrorists; scrambles to move out of the self
created box. This is where Hams victory has presented it’s reality to check to the
opportunistic and deceptive politics of Bush Administration.
To be fair, President Bush and his administration are trying to face the reality in a bit
saner manner than many others who argue that:
- that Hamas would change once in power;
- that they will mallow same as like PLO of Arafat and
- that it is an opportunity to deal with aspirations of Palestinian people and so on.
As suspected many on Left adhere to such a failed line of thinking as well as some
conservatives. The reality is Hamas victory has conclusively showed that democratization
need not be the panacea of peace. President Bush should not try to hide behind
‘spreading of democracy’ as a policy when in the first place Iraq war started for wrong
reasons. It may be hard to supporter of President Bush to accept that ‘spreading
democracy’ turns out to be what it is – a political tool to get re-elected; a political diversion
to cover failures of Iraq policy; a blatantly cynical ploy misusing valuable ideas for pure
self benefit. Otherwise how on earth one would reconcile with the idea that the president
who talks about democracy does not mind schmoozing with unelected leaders of dictator
countries like Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and so on? Talk of spreading democracy has been
an attempt by this administration to throw sand in our eyes so as to cover many other
disasters. Hamas victory exposes that and hopefully would persuade this administration,
neo-cons and their ideological puppets stop throwing this sand in our eyes.
113
There are signs that Administration would deal with situation in a right manner –
President Bush declaring that:
- America would not deal with a government which denies Israel’s right to exist and which
sponsors terrorism and
- America would withhold her financial assistance to Palestine.
There is no other right way than to suspend normal political interactions with Hamas lead
Palestinian government. America and World will need to wait and watch till Hamas quits
terrorism.
For over a week Hamas has been pounding that West must respect Hamas ‘as is’
because they got elected based on the procedure which West adheres to – popular
election. Well, some one needs to tell Hamas that getting elected in democratic manner
is not a favor Hamas doing to rest of the world. If they want to destroy any legitimacy of
their political institutions; that will be betrayal of Palestinian people. So Hamas needs to
stop badgering West about their electoral victory. Hamas got elected in a due manner is
a good thing in the end for Palestinian people. So far so good. Next, they need to submit
to international way and means of working in a comity of nations – to recognize right to
exist of other countries and not to resort to violent means for political purposes. Hamas is
not the only paragon of justice beholder in the world with rest of world without any sense
of justice and what is right. At any time any political organization froths with monopoly
over Truth and Justice; we know that we got an extremists organization with a seed to its
failure. Rest of the world needs to hang on, hold tough and not let go the strong
adherence to principles all nations need to submit. Hamas cannot be an exception.
Umesh Patil
San Jose, CA 95111
February 01, 2006.
Danish Cartoon Controversy

Sunday, February 12, 2006
There have been many good articles about this issue in various newspapers and blogs.
To name few, which I see with some solid reasoning, are:
1. Andrew Sullivan in Time;
2. Belgravia Dispatch (actually comments and responses on his blogs were with more
i n s i g h t s t h a n t h e o r i g i n a l b l o g ;
http://www.belgraviadispatch.com/2006/02/jyllandsposten.html);
3. Anne Applebauam in Washington Post (where she is incisively pointing out the
contradictions of both Right and Left in America as far as their responses to this
controversy go; ‘A Cartoon's Portrait of America'
h t t p : / / w w w . w a s h i n g t o n p o s t . c o m / w p -
dyn/content/article/2006/02/07/AR2006020701253.html) and
4. MJ Akbar in Asian Age (‘The answer is Gandhi’ http://www.asianage.com/).
Andrew is presenting a solid defense of these Danish Cartoons on the basis of ‘Freedom
of Speech’ (FOS here after) and is going for a strong rebuttal to violent message and
114 reaction coming from Islamic Fundamentalists around the world. Considering his Rightist
leaning, it is no surprise about his strong reaction to the violence coming out of this
controversy as well as his implicit exhortation to West for a non-compromising policy to
deal with Islamic Fundamentalists.
But as one reads the commentary on Belgravia Dispatch, one starts to wonder that there
can not be and there never is any absolute notion of FOS. So any defense on that line is
going to be shaky. This does not mean that anyone should not strive for as much pure as
possible exercise of FOS. Like any other human enterprise, we do not have anything
pure (only God in concept is pure) and so is the case of FOS. Because as many have
pointed, if one wants to justify these cartoons as an expression of FOS; one cannot use
this criteria selectively. And this is where critics pull out skeletons of those backers when
they failed in the past, where the backers have selectively applied FOS and so on. MJ
Akbar’s article points out these aspects quite well.
Once we accept that there is nothing absolute about FOS; it will be a valid debate
whether the Danish Cartoons exceeded the general norms of FOS or not. Though critics
like MJ Akbar feel that these cartoons exceed the case of FOS, when one reads
arguments presented by Andrew Sullivan; one realizes that it is not a simple matter.
Quality of these cartoons cannot be a justification not to use FOS basis. Only when there
are many, many substandard cartoons published; society as a whole starts to get some
cartoons of real significance. This is true with any human enterprise – let thousand
flowers bloom, only some will survive the test of time and quality. But by and large in the
end when one reads the quotes of Danish Laws as given by MJ Akbar in his article; one
realizes the possibility that these Danish Cartoons indeed broke the law of the land. A
valid case can be made so.
Whether these Danish Cartoons exceed FOS or not is the serious part of the debate. It is
one of those incidents where moralists, philosophers, historians, law experts and political
theorists need to solve the riddle. This blog does not claim to be any of these. Assuming
that let us say these experts agree for an answer; what will be the end result? The
cartoonist and the publisher of those cartoons will be either prosecuted and laws of
Western countries will be explicitly amended to avoid any caricature of the prophet; or the
cartoonist and the publisher will be let go with no change in Western notions of FOS and
laws.
So until this issue gets resolved within the intellectual space, could the critics have
followed the path of attempting to prosecute the cartoonist and the publisher based on
the Danish Law? Yes, is the answer. All these offended Islam believers could have
moved along this path within the Danish court system having confidence in their case.
Have they done that? What we see however is Saudi Imam saying that the time is past
apologies and Iranian President exhorting American and European people to pay the
heavy price. This is the second and more dangerous part of this controversy – those who
offended are resorting to violent means and threatening maniacally certain way of life; the
Western way of life. As it is Islamic Fundamentalism is on the rise, it surely threatens
West and is intend on destroying West. True, it is not Islam as a religion which is on the
collision course, but the minority of Islam believers – Fundamentalist. But can the nation
states of West ignore this danger? They can only do so at their peril. There are many on
Right who are arguing for more coherent, united and strong response from West to deal
with these threatening reactions. As it stands Western Establishment has not effectively
isolated advocates of violence nor has expressed a resolve to deal with these threats
firmly. It is needed on part of Western leaders. Leaders in power as well as leaders in
115
opposition of Western Democracies need to come forward and state their resolve in plain
words. When you have an enemy nation like Iran shouting that America people, common
people like you and me, have to pay the price; we are not far away from the war cry. It is
the test of Western leadership – not to deny the ‘in dispute’ nature of the controversy, but
to manifest the solidarity against advocates of violence and at the same time not to add
any fuel to this whole violent situation.
As far as sane Muslims go, they need to pursue the cartoonist and the publisher on the
basis of Danish Law. That is the right way to seek justice in this matter.
The third and last component of this controversy is what Tom Friedman referred obliquely
in his NYT article – if we think current cartoon controversy is making the global system
instable; think what would happen when prolonged Oil money would do to the insane
leaders like Iranian President. Whichever way one cuts it, not being hostage to Middle
East Oil is one of the preconditions of a stable global system in coming days. Many have
been talking lot for long time about this dependency, time has come for Western Leaders
and especially American Leaders to formulate economic policy which will achieve this
precondition of going away from Middle East Oil. Thinking that doing so will only leave
the field cheaply open to China and India to consume Middle East Oil is a short sighted
way. In the grand theater of History, if India and China want to be labeled as primary
money provider to anti-West stance of Middle East countries; it will not go well with their
own history, their own people and their long term welfare. It will be naïve to think that
controversy like Danish Cartoons would not happen in more liberal India and even China
in future days. When that happens, these countries will also realize that being hostage to
Middle East Oil is not something which gives them the space to pursue freely their
independent foreign policy as well as economic policy. Hence, it will be very short sighted
on the part of India and China to accommodate Middle East anti-West states simply for
the reasons of Oil. With large population of Muslim in these countries as well as
surrounding Islamic countries; any violent eruptions due to such controversies will be
detrimental to these states. One Godhra (Gujarath riots of 2002) has weakened the
Indian state so much, it will be truly damaging to have controversies like Danish Cartoons
in those nations. Obviously such a danger is more in India since it has Hindu Nationalist
forces as well as it is a liberal society with reasonable FOS. But as and when Chinese
society opens, it is susceptible to these dangers too. The root of the trouble is not
happenstance of such incidents within Open Societies which ‘test’ limits of FOS, but
despotic and non-liberal structure of many Islamic nations of Middle East. Any oil money
only helps to continue these oppressive forces. Every other nation in the world, Western
or Asian, will need to be careful in cultivating any kind of economic dependency on
Middle Eastern Oil. Since oil is a commodity sold in a truly global market, leadership in
waning away the world from fossil fuel is long overdue. The question is whether it will be
Brazil (who is invited to the G8 meeting in Moscow in order to reveal her success about
sugarcane produced ethanol) who will lead the world or whether America and Europe will
get back to the front in next few years.
Finally, when one understands the importance of getting away from Middle East Oil; one
realizes that the Bush line of Democratization of these societies is of secondary
importance. Again and again it is proved in History that indigenous struggles of people to
remove suppressive regimes is the only workable solution in the long run. Artificially
propped regime change at gun point is not cost effective, long lasting and it is way too
risky for the interventionist. This is not to say that West should not use force when it is
threatened. Iran and it’s nuclear weapon ambitions is the perfect case where in the end
West may need to use the force; or how use of force in the case of Afghanistan was
116
justified. But as far as regime change in order to remove non-democratic structures of
these societies goes, helping local resistance and democratic forces is more effective.
Cutting the life line of these oppressive regimes by reducing and removing dependencies
on their saleable commodity oil will go a long way in shortening life spans of these
Fundamentalists in power.
Any takers for the policy like Israeli Political Party ‘Kadima’ (separating unilaterally Israel
from Palestine)? West needs to separate from Middle East. We need distance.
Umesh Patil
San Jose, CA 95111
February 12, 2006.
Google – Tomorrow’s Dresdner Bank?

Google is fabulously rich company which hires smart people. One such high profile hiring
by the company last year was of it’s VP of Global Communications and Public Affairs –
Elliot Schrage; a foreign policy wonk. He was at his worth when Congress asked him
questions about Google’s policy in regards to their China business. He was representing
Google along with the esteemed company of other Silicon Valley leading lights – Yahoo,
Cisco and Dark Force of Redmond – Micosoft.
All these companies are on the wrong track as far as their China Business practices go.
Rep. Tom Lantos of San Mateo, ranking member of the House Committee, was as usual
at his caustic best – ‘how can your corporate leadership sleep at the night with such
shameless practices?’ Practices where privacy of users is compromised and censorship
is applied at the insistence of dictatorial Chinese Government / Communist Party; all for
the sake of some dimes.
The contrast was unbelievable – while Congress was taking these companies for task
there was another corporate leader talking more sane thoughts. Narayan Murthy of
Infosys in his characteristic style was presenting the case of more value based corporate
governance his speech at George Washington University in Washington D.C.
(http://specials.rediff.com/money/2006/feb/15infy.htm). The high point was when Murthy
said “It's better to lose a billion dollars, than a good night's sleep." Well, not for the richest
companies of the world – Google, Yahoo, Microsoft and Cisco. What a shame these
companies bring to Silicon Valley where HP has been for years trying to inculcate
corporate life with values. Google has been promising so far, but clearly missed in this
case.
Few decades in future, probably these companies want to be remembered like those
companies which helped slavery during Plantation Era or those companies which helped
Nazi Government. New York Times reports the case of Dresdner Bank which is washing
i t ’ s m a l i g n e d p a s t i n p u b l i c .
(http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/18/business/worldbusiness/18dresdner.html) The case
for privacy issues and censorship in totalitarian China is no different than these
incidences in past. But apparently for the masters of web searches, they cannot get 117
handle on such basic lessons of History.
May be Google is not getting the worth of Elliot Schrage when he has to defend that
some time choices are not easy while conducting the global business. The choices are
clear - it is the question whether these Masters of Technology companies have the will to
withstand the pressures of Masters of Universe resident on Wall Street. So far it seems
smell of Chinese Yuan is more important to Larry and Sergey, never mind they have
enough money which can not be even burnt completely in their life time! Well, it will be
some compensation when these companies will pay in billions in future in the law suits
which will be brought by Chinese and other users in more trade integrated tomorrow’s
world.
Umesh Patil
San Jose, CA 95111
February 18, 2006.
Danish Cartoon Controversy - Follow Up

Flemming Rose, the editor in question at the Danish newspaper, wrote a spirited defense
of his act in Washington Post. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2006/02/17/AR2006021702499.html) It is very persuasive and savvy
defense. Most probably the article will resonate for long time to come and will in effect
become a lesson of Freedom of Speech support in coming days.
Not that I agree fully and jump to the camp of supporters of Freedom of Speech. This
blog maintains that this a critical issue for experts to comment upon and thrash out.
Publication of the article by Rose is an important milestone. Still the debate is not closed
and general public is not bought. The doubts about printing something which can offend
people so fundamentally and which could be against the laws of the land; are still there.
But the follow up act now has to come from the other camp which feels restrains should
have been exercised. Looks like supporters of publications have articulated the case with
gusto.
Umesh Patil
San Jose, CA 95111
February 19, 2006.
Mea Culpa by NeoCons?

By and large I had been under the impression that the maestro Francis Fukuyama would
b e N e o C o n . I n h i s a r t i c l e i n N Y T ,
(http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/19/magazine/neo.html), which is on way to become the
most important / celebrated foreign policy article of our times; however Fukuyama
distances himself from NeoCons. He says -
Leninism was a tragedy in its Bolshevik version, and it has returned as farce when
118 practiced by the United States. [Presumably by NeoCons] Neoconservatism, as both a
political symbol and a body of thought, has evolved into something I can no longer
support.
Whether he has been NeoCon or not can be argued and I am sure those we are at the
receiving end in his article will come back with vengeance that Fukuyama has not been
any different that NeoCons. What is for sure is we have one of the top most Conservative
thinkers of our times gunning on NeoCons and underlying policy basis of President
Bush’s Iraq war. Needless to say as mentioned earlier, the article is the only first salvo
and in days to come we will sure be treated for tremendous intellectual fire power from
both sides.
Already we have Andrew Sullivan submitting his apologies.

(http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/2006/02/fukuyama_on_for.html)
If indeed this is the start of Mea Culpa by NeoCons and to some extent all the backers of
Iraq war; it is a sad spectacle. How do we write in more heartbreaking way:
- death of more than 2000 American soldiers,

- more than 200 Billion dollars of American tax payers money,
- equally tragic death of possibly 25,000 Iraqis and
- unsolved and increased problem of global terrorism due to unstable Iraq.
Do we get all this for an immoral, fanatic and totally clueless President backed by some
of the smartest people on earth unfortunately who were chasing a chimera of ideological
purity? Are they any different than Islamic Fanatics roaming around the streets and
embassies of the world? Why couldn’t Fukuyama come more forthright earlier when
explicitly or implicitly his name and his theories were used to justify this colossal disaster?
May be it is an overreaction to hold Fukuyama responsible for the foolishness of this

administration or wrong headedness of NeoCons. May be it is the lack of intellectual
subtlety / clarity not to differentiate Fukuyama’s argument and his involvement with
Conservatives from the down hill path embarked upon by NeoCons. Well, if this blog fails
in understanding all these ramifications; surely there will be many more analytically
responses by others to follow where it will be clear which way the wind blew.
Fukuyama’s culpability in the end is a smaller issue. Apart from this conundrum, rest of
the stuff what the maestro says; indeed he is in form as Andrew mentions. He is
breathtaking for the clarity, scope, reasoning and insights. Following are some of the
gems.
The war's supporters seemed to think that democracy was a kind of default condition to
which societies reverted once the heavy lifting of coercive regime change occurred,
rather than a long-term process of institution-building and reform.
….
What is initially universal is not the desire for liberal democracy but rather the desire to
live in a modern — that is, technologically advanced and prosperous — society, which, if
satisfied, tends to drive demands for political participation. Liberal democracy is one of
the byproducts of this modernization process, something that becomes a universal
aspiration only in the course of historical time.
"The End of History," in other words, presented a kind of Marxist argument for the
existence of a long-term process of social evolution, but one that terminates in liberal
democracy rather than communism.
119
….
the cold war was replete with instances of what the foreign policy analyst Stephen
Sestanovich calls American maximalism, wherein Washington acted first and sought
legitimacy and support from its allies only after the fact. But in the post-cold-war period,
the structural situation of world politics changed in ways that made this kind of exercise of
power much more problematic in the eyes of even close allies.
….
There are sharp limits to the American people's attention to foreign affairs and willingness
to finance projects overseas that do not have clear benefits to American interests.
….
Finally, benevolent hegemony presumed that the hegemon was not only well intentioned
but competent as well. Much of the criticism of the Iraq intervention from Europeans and
others was not based on a normative case that the United States was not getting
authorization from the United Nations Security Council, but rather on the belief that it had
not made an adequate case for invading Iraq in the first place and didn't know what it was
doing in trying to democratize Iraq. In this, the critics were unfortunately quite prescient.
….
Now that the neoconservative moment appears to have passed, the United States needs
to reconceptualize its foreign policy in several fundamental ways. In the first instance, we
need to demilitarize what we have been calling the global war on terrorism and shift to
other types of policy instruments.
….
But "war" is the wrong metaphor for the broader struggle, since wars are fought at full
intensity and have clear beginnings and endings. Meeting the jihadist challenge is more
of a "long, twilight struggle" whose core is not a military campaign but a political contest
for the hearts and minds of ordinary Muslims around the world. As recent events in
France and Denmark suggest, Europe will be a central battleground in this fight.
[This is probably a weak argument. Indeed the conflict against jihadist needs to be an all
out effort. President Bush has be repeating this part for his domestic political benefit and
as a cover to ask infinite amounts of tax dollars and American lives in an incompetently
run Iraq war is a different matter. Bust just because President Bush can not fight a true
challenge as a well conducted ‘war’ does not mean that the underlying challenge can be
relegated as a lesser evil. Besides, what are wars? Nothing but political contest by brut
force method as a last resort. If we are under the impression that America will need to
keep away the military action option in this struggle to finish Jihadism; we are missing the
true gravity of the situation. One Iranian President is enough to wake up.]
…
What we do not have are adequate mechanisms of horizontal accountability among

states.
…
The solution is not to strengthen a single global body, but rather to promote what has
been emerging in any event, a "multi-multilateral world" of overlapping and occasionally
competing international institutions that are organized on regional or functional lines.
…..
120
If we are serious about the good governance agenda, we have to shift our focus to the
reform, reorganization and proper financing of those institutions of the United States
government that actually promote democracy, development and the rule of law around
the world, organizations like the State Department, U.S.A.I.D., the National Endowment
for Democracy and the like.
….
Neoconservatism, whatever its complex roots, has become indelibly associated with
concepts like coercive regime change, unilateralism and American hegemony. What is
needed now are new ideas, neither neoconservative nor realist, for how America is to
relate to the rest of the world — ideas that retain the neoconservative belief in the
universality of human rights, but without its illusions about the efficacy of American power
and hegemony to bring these ends about.
Of course these excerpts can not be the substitutes for the original article. It is worth
reading and pondering.
Umesh Patil
San Jose, CA 95111
February 19, 2006.
Restless Conservatives
Saturday, February 25, 2006
Tom Bevan and pundits at RealClear Politics (www.realclearpolitics.com) have become
quite restless regarding the Port Deal. Charls Krauthammer is not much different. This
episode not only shows something about Democrats, it does reveal lot about
Conservatives too.
Let me start by saying that yes, Democrats are surely opportunistic. But when Tom
Bevan has to write sounding apologetic
“Let me close by saying that I've always been a national security first-type. Always.
People who've visited this space for any extended period of time know that to be true.”
We have got a problem. The problem is why are Conservatives feeling the guilt? Is it
because it has been politically profitable for Conservatives to be ‘security first’ type after
9/11? If Tom Bevan makes himself read through all blog entries written on his site; he will
realize how ‘unsteady’ he has been. First, he started with opposing the deal. Then when
Pres. Bush started to defend it, the take was why this Administration is wasting the
precious capital. Then when the tide started to turn at least in the Press (due to good
articles of David Brooks in NYT and many others); Tom wants to back the deal! I guess in
the end when Pres. Bush succeeds in defending the deal, the same blog will start singing
the praise for the Commander in Chief! Why are Tom Bevan and Conservatives like him
not “flip flopper”? They are indeed. Looking at the latest Rasmussen Poll Result,
Conservatives feel the heat and they are more worried by looking at the favorable
impression about Democrats over the Republican USP – National Security.
121
The real issue is Conservatives are possessed with the arrogance that they are the only
ones who can talk about National Security. As if America was totally in chaos when
Democrats ruled or when Democrats will rule in future. Criticism of Democrats because
they may not have a creditable National Security Plan is different than to turn red face
when Democrats catch Republicans off guarded using the same cheap tricks
Republicans have been using all these five years. Why assume that Republicans have
monopoly on the security issue? They do not have.
Finally, about the port deal. Obviously Pres. Bush is right that you can not do profiling
based on country. He is right in this matter and the deal has to proceed.
The only valid questions are:

- Can we have American citizens employed on the key roles whatever Congress feels so
that those are accountable to American legal system in case something happens?
- Can we have all documents and data stored in America itself so an American court has
full access to those documents?
- And finally, what is the periodic review arrangement so that DHS and Congress can
look into the company operations on regular basis as well as surprise checks?
As long as America gets good enough answers to these questions and solid
arrangements for security concerns, the deal should go ahead. The other alternative is,
as some have suggested, Dubai Ports World can form a separate American company to
manage American ports and that company can have American CEO with headquarters in
America. The DPW can have the ownership and profits of the business. There can be
distinct governance board out of public lime light which addresses the security issues.
Apparently such arrangements are common for foreign defense and security related
firms. The point is Congress and all those who have concerns about the deal can work
out a satisfactory arrangement, the deal does not need to be cancelled.
It is good that Pres. Bush is asserting his support emphatically. Two times in recent
history Pres. Bush has been exemplary – one after 9/11 when he brought in Muslim
Religious Leaders in White House and emphatically said that America’s War on
Terrorism is not a fight against Islam and America would stand for religious freedom of
Muslims in America and second time when he said one can not profile business deals on
the basis of countries and deny P&O deal to UAE. Conservatives, wake up, smell the
coffee and look at the calendar – this is 21st century and get used for American assets
being bought by foreigners for whom Conservatives may have prejudice. If we have
security questions, let us get those addressed and implemented; but we can not go far by
rejecting standard globalized business deals?
As far as Democrats and their politicking about this issue – only those can object who did
not applaud and who did not have fun when Karl Rove questioned patriotic credentials of
Ted Kennedy and Democrats because they questioned Conservatives about National
Security? Conservatives were watching Rove’s fun and nobody came forward to point the
fallacies of those arguments. So then, Conservatives need to shut up now and use their
brains about where the deal is and where should it go on what basis. Conservatives do
not need to spoil their good night sleep about what Democrats are doing. Getting furious
about Democrats is not a way to address the real concerns on hand.
122
Umesh Patil
San Jose, CA 95111
February 25, 2006
Bush – Singh Nuclear Accord: Will the Fat Lady

(Congress) Sing?
Tuesday, February 28, 2006
In two days time we will have all the gala political events of Pres. Bush’s visit to India.
There is no formal confirmation from any side whether the nuclear deal is finalized or not.
The last word was India submitted the list of 14 reactors for international inspection
keeping 8 reactors out of any control. The word was USA expecting 5 to 6 reactors at the
most out of inspection. So it is anyone’s guess whether deal will be reached during this
visit. If not for nothing, it is keeping the excitement alive.
If the agreement does not go through, both sides will put the brave front and will repeat
many times how relations between two countries are beyond any one deal. In any case,
both sides have hedged their stakes by hinting the possibility that things may have to be
discussed beyond this specific visit.
One of the key implications of the proposed accord is India would limit the number
nuclear war heads she has. By limiting the number of reactors out of international
inspection, India will be essentially limiting her source of enriched weapon grade nuclear
material. The questions are - How many reactors for weapons program are comfortable
to India? Whether the current stock pile of around 100 nuclear weapons is enough or
not? So from Indian side the limit will be decided by:
- what is the number of current atomic weapons which India can muster and is that
number okay for India;
- how stifling will it be to continue the nuclear weapons program based on a handful of
reactors out of international inspection; and
- what is the possibility for India to get out of any treaty some time in future in case she
feels it needs to make more weapons due to changed security scenario.
The last criteria will be reasonably rigid. Having updated NPT to extend in future without
any specific limit, USA will try to avoid any clauses to get out of the proposed accord or
will at least make it difficult. An exit clause visa vise the limit on reactors out of
inspections will be one of the main fulcrums of negotiations.
If India had formulated her global vision based on a better moral foundation of her own
‘restricted’ weapons program (fixed number of weapons – say around 100); India would
not have any difficulty in accepting the outer limit. But so far no such imaginative policy
initiative has come from India. No doubt there is a potential to play out along such a line,
even up to the seat on UN Security Council; without compromising her security within the
nuclear active neighborhood. But in absence of any such initiative it is expected that
many Indian policy and law makers would feel hesitant to accept any limit on weapons
program and hence the resistance from India side to this accord.
Fortunately the way Indian political system works, she will not have to get explicit treaty
consent by her parliament. PM and Union Cabinet make the decision and that is the end
123
of the story – the entire Indian sovereign state is bound by what is signed by the PM. It is
bit odd, it is a lacuna within India’s democratic parliamentary system and it will be more
exposed as more and more international treaties will be signed in future as the world gets
more integrated. This is the problem for future Indian parliamentarians to address.
On American side, Congress needs to pass many of these International Treaties. In the
case of proposed Bush – Singh Nuclear Accord, Congress will need to specifically alter
certain laws which prohibit Nuclear Technology and Material Exchange with countries
who are not signatories to NPT, like India. Clearly it is the fat lady - American Congress –
who needs to sing if this proposed accord is to see the light at the end; no matter how
much Pres. Bush undertakes bullying or Indian state lobbies.
What are the chances of American Congress passing the necessary bills? With Pres.
Bush’s political capital dwindling so fast, White House is unlikely to have much room to
press Congress. As of now, overall job approval for President is below 40%. Republicans
are restless and open in the revolt. Commentaries like ‘Free Fall’ (Andrew Sullivan),
‘Broken Political Antennas’ (Joe Klein in Time), ‘Lost Cause in Iraq War’ (William
Buckley); etc. are surfacing frequently; many from Conservative quarters. One poll
(Rasmussen) shows advantage to Democrats on the issue of National Security – the
bread and butter issue of Bush Republicans. The controversy of Dubai Port Deal shows
that the communication between White House and Congress is broken. On this
background it will be naïve to expect that Congress would take the nuclear deal on face
value.
If elections are taken today, it is quite possible that Democrats could capture both houses
of Congress. Traditionally nuclear proliferation is high religion for them and they could
stop the deal. There are two motives for Pres. Bush to pursue this deal:
- by opening the possibility of India getting more nuclear energy, the marginal pressure
on world oil demand is lessened so that oil prices come down benefiting Americans (no
doubt that is in medium to long term, not in short term); and
- usual technique of pressuring China by cultivating friendship with India.
From a policy perspective, Democrats are not suitably disposed to these goals. For them,
they have their own pet non-alternative energy programs to remove America’s oil
addiction so reducing a marginal demand by other countries is bit of a non issue. Also in
terms of China, Democrats would rather prefer to confront directly; if needed by way of
protectionists measure; instead of flirting with India. For Democrats the dangers of
nuclear Iran and N. Korea are big deals (which indeed are very important for America) so
they will not be inclined to jeopardize dealings with these rouge state by creating a new
exception with NPT compliance. For these reasons, Democrat majority may prefer not to
take the issue of required changes in laws and let kill the deal. Slender Republican
majority in Congress after November 2006 with improved strength of Democrats would
also have the same effect. Already one House Democrat from Massachusetts has
introduced a bill to block Bush – Singh Nuclear Accord.
In a democracy when a political frenzy builds to change the rulers, all the finer issues and
normal bills get side lined. Everything becomes completely polarized and short sighted.
Not only that, there is a real possibility that if Democrats gain majority in Congress, they
would try to impeach Pres. Bush. The large part of such impeachment possibility will be
actually created by this incompetent White House. Over flowing of accumulated ‘political
skeletons’, would make the job easier for Democrats to dig the political dirt and the worst
case scenario will be President requiring to resign. What an odd spectacle – PM of an
instable coalition in a 60 years old democracy may outlast a strong nationally elected
124
president of 230 years old democracy! Of course this is all in the realm of speculation.
But the way politics has unfolded lately, all these possibilities do not seem as remote as
those were when originally the Bush – Singh accord was proposed in the summer of
2005. So the best chance is if required amendments come before the November election
and the current Republican Congress passes those. That is the realistic window for this
accord.
Umesh Patil
San Jose, CA 95111
February 28, 2006.
Angry NYT Editors Bristle

Sunday, March 05, 2006
In the editorial ‘Iran’s Best Friend’ NYT Editorial stopped just short of accusing Pres.
B u s h a s ‘ t r a i t o r ’ .
(http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/05/opinion/05sun1.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin) The line
over here is Pres. Bush’s proposed India Nuclear Accord is the gift to Iran and Pres. Bush
has abdicated any sense of responsibility while proposing this accord.
Well, when the high priest of Liberalism gets angry, at time he crosses the red line. This
editorial seems to be that case.
NYT Editors simply want to forget that:

- India never signed NPT so it is not in breach of any international treaty and
- unlike Iran neither India wants to ‘wipe off’ any country from the world map nor like her
neighbors she wants to proliferate the weapons of mass destruction.
But apparently the religion of Nonproliferation is some kind of ‘fundamentalism’ - no room

for realistic assessment of today’s world; nor any regard to where America’s advantage
lies in future. True, America is signatory to NPT; but that does not mean America is
frozen to some kind of static world view of 1960s. It is a changing world and America
needs to find ways to deal with it while still working within the legal framework. That is the
work for Congress in coming days. Hopefully, Congress remains to it’s senses, sees the
value in what Pres. Bush is proposing and finds the right, legal ways. That will be the end
of this debate and then the angry editors of NYT will have to move to some new topic.
Unfortunately till that time, we will have to deal somehow with these bouts of anger at
NYT Editorials.
Umesh Patil
San Jose, CA 95111
March 5, 2006.
125
Conservatives across Atlantic – Get off America’s
Free Ride
Ever since Britain under Churchill persuaded Yankees during the World War II to throw
away the Isolationism and take part in the war as an ally of Britain in the European
Theater, every now and then history minded polemical debater in Britain tend to ‘call’
Yankees in their war struggles. Well, at least that is the theory and British intellectuals
would like to believe that ‘persuasion’ as the high point of Churchill. Actually, historical
correctness matters much less and there is no harm in letting our British friends enjoy
some flights of fantasy. All that historical engagement of Yankees turned out to be
phenomenally successful is the sweetener (should we say at the cost of Soviet Union’s
war causalities?).
It is a human tendency to keep on doing again and again the same thing if it proved
successful once. That is what our Conservative friends across the Atlantic undertake
periodically. It is hard to ignore a tone underlying such cries of help – a cry of help to a
stronger brother who you are proud about and for whom you consider your duty to keep
on ‘encouraging’. When it comes to Yankees, all these British Conservatives feel as if
they have the role of Master, role of a coach. Like a coach of Olympian athlete these
intellectuals want to ceaselessly push Yankees to achieve grandeur. Their thirst for
‘winning’ by this top notch disciple – USA – does not satiate. We wish at times Americans
themselves have such an optimistic view about themselves.
You want a proof what I am accusing – read editorial, op-ed columns in The Times from
London and other Conservative publications from UK. For them the historical triumph of
WWII never fades, all talks start and end with WWII in mind. Whenever a global crisis
emerges, you can be sure that the sermon of Churchill will appear. All these
Conservatives talk about USA as if how newly wed talks about her spouse, complaining
few things but really it is nothing but a cover for eulogizing.
Case in proof is Gerard Baker’s column in The Times – “Yanks Go Home!”

(http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,6-2067068,00.html). He is loosing his sleep
because he fears that Americans would withdraw from Iraq and will give up the fight
against Muslim Fundamentalists, the new Evil Empire for Conservatives around the
world, the reason for Global War on Terrorism. He is worried that the proposed chapter in
future History books about the victory of West in GWT will not come thorough. His cause
of concern is the fact that Bush Strategy is not working in Iraq and larger opinion in
America is suspicious of the policy ‘march of freedom as the true weapon against
terrorists’.
Not only Baker’s perspective is pompous, it smacks of utter selfishness in getting

someone to fight your wars or to keep an eye on your own benefits while exhorting others
to provide the blood and treasure. One just thinks, hopefully wrongly, that are these
Conservatives across the Atlantic looking for a free ride?
If Gerard Baker is worried about London Bombings and how to stop those in future, he
needs to ask questions what British people are ready to do; what costs they are ready to
pay. Glorifying Yankees so as they solve these problems while short changing British
contribution seems like games what British Empire used to play in the Sub Continent.
126
That is what is wrong with these Conservatives across Atlantic – Empire is gone long
back, WWII triumph is way back in history books, there is no American Golden Age of Ike
when that young country was expanding like a weed in her Western states and building
the amazing world beating economy; but still British Conservatives are stuck in that
period.
Seriously, today’s America is different. First of all demographically it is diverse and not as
tied to Europe as she was in the last century. She has Hispanics, sons and daughters of
Civil Rights Movements, many Asians, many Indians, many Vietnamese and people from
around the world. In some areas America has retained advantages what she has of
1940s, but many she has lost over the period. And about her Trade and Fiscal Deficits,
negative savings rate of Americans, her debt, the crisis of retirement and broken system
of Health – let us not talk about; least it will malign the pristine impression this Lady
Liberty has across the Atlantic. America of today is ‘wounded’ by deep scars of 9/11 and
consequent not so successful strategy of Bush NeoCons. There are growing challenges
to her ‘livelihood’ from Asia.
So if American public feels to step back to take a review of things in order to address
these challenges, then it is a right urge to do so.
Those who keep on exhorting America all the time for larger good of the world (and for
not so hidden selfish goals) need to ask fist what are they doing to solve today’s global
problems. Does UK want to leave the cozy comforts of EU and come to the harsh and
ruthless world in which America tries to survive? Let Queen decree that first and then we
will listen Baker’s call of help. And by the way it has been long since Uncle Sam’s union
got a new member. UK will not be a bad member. And hey, they speak English! Union
founded by George Washington survived because it kept on getting bigger. So why not
think of expanding across the Atlantic? Let us see how Westminster resolves this issue.
Meanwhile look at the old lady of Europe, Russia – she may not be successful so far but
she is showing lot of leadership in addressing the Iran issue and Israel - Palestinian
conflict. China is doing her bit in cajoling N. Korea. Today’s world is different. America
may be the only super power of the world. But having an ability ‘to kill anyone, anytime,
anyplace in any circumstances’ is not the only definition of a true global leader. It is the
question of ‘solving’ global problems. It is quite likely that many different players will work
effectively on many different problems to make our life better. It may not be the case that
UK – USA alliance, as the cross bearer of West, plays the role of White Knight. How
naïve!
And if you want to read another take on this Isolationism of America – read David Brooks
in NYT – “It’s Not Isolationism, but It’s Not Attractive”
(http://select.nytimes.com/2006/03/05/opinion/05brooks.html). We have one quite
plausible take on America’s psychology here – it is a fitting answer to what Baker is
worried about.
Also yet another plain talk is by Robert Kaplan in Washington Post – “We Can’t Force
Democracy"
( h t t p : / / w w w . w a s h i n g t o n p o s t . c o m / w p -
dyn/content/article/2006/03/01/AR2006030101937.html?sub=AR) It is not that Brent
Scowcraft style Realism does not have it’s limits. But after seeing what happens to the
NeoCon adventurism of last 3 years, I guess the world at least owes to Americans that
they get the ‘space’ to undertake their introspection before new steps are planned. Let
127
Americans heal their wounds first. Of course, large part of the rest of the world is already
praying for such introspection by America.
Umesh Patil
San Jose, CA 95111
March 05, 2006.
Writing on the Wall

Tuesday, March 14, 2006
Here are few numbers Americans need to consider:
Trade deficit: $800+ Billion

Budget deficit: $400+ Billion
GWOT Expenses: $400+ Billion
(Global War on Terrorism)
So we are approaching around Trillion Dollars of Trade Deficit in a year or so if this trend
continues and around Half Trillion Dollars of Budget Deficit and GWOT expenses. We
know that Billion Dollars do not have much of significance in today’s economy. But does
that mean Trillion Dollars do not matter? This is stretch.
Where this administration stands:

- lack of imaginative trade and economy policies,
- total resistance to any valid tax increase, and
- complete inability to control expenses;
there is no real hope that things will be turned around. This administration and their
supporters will keep on touting employment numbers, but will forget about quality of jobs
created, increasing gap between rich and poor and all the structural problems of
American Economy. Add to this the easy money of home refinance will be gone and
increased energy prices.
So what are we looking at here?

- Potentially dramatic interest rate increase sometime next year since the world will tire
out giving credit to America and
- rapid deprecation of dollar.
Both these things may result in a recession.
The myopic policies of this administration means inevitability of Tax increases in next 2 to
3 years of time period. That will be bad since such Tax increase will not be done when it
should have been in the first place when people have some money to pay.
What we are seeing is the collapse of the pet theory of this administration – ‘tax cuts will
make America to grow out of recession’.
This is a ruse this administration is selling to America. NeoCons are coming back
admitting foolishness of their Iraq War policy. Why not similarly this Administration is
wrong about its Economic policy? It is wrong. Writing is on the wall.
128
Umesh Patil
San Jose, CA 95111
March 14, 2006.
Is Iraq War Arabic Vietnam of America? No.

Dilip D’Souza wonders whether Iraq War is another Vietnam to America.
(http://www.indiacurrents.com/news/view_article.html?article_id=5ad06a7fae850b391667
c57c8c5e62a2) This issue has been discussed and blogged to the death and as such
there is not much new to say, nor much useful to come out of that as an input to
America’s policy going forward. Clearly History in the end never repeats in a way and
every war is unique in it’s own way; so it is not something of an intellectual feat to point
out these differences. But having said that, I will not pass this opportunity to point our
certain differences; if not for any other reason than to sketch the larger context. Dilip of
course goes on linking his discussion about America’s Iraq War to the larger issues of
Terrorism faced by India. I do not make any comments about those aspects here.
So here are some of the reasons why Iraq War is not or will not be Arabic Vietnam for
America.
1. Vietnam was military defeat in a way. It was the war America lost without the war
changing dramatically in between. It was the war conducted in an overall uniform manner
over a long period against an easily identified and characterized state enemy. On the
other hand, American forces decisively accomplished the first part of the Iraq War –
Saddam regime change. It turns out to be the smaller of the total package of peace
needed for America is a different story. After the fall of Saddam, the war in Iraq has truly
changed – first insurgents against occupation and now civil war - fights among various
factions of Iraq. In Vietnam, Communists and West backed Southern Vietnam; this
division was there early on and never changed.
2. The casualty figure (50K+ in Vietnam and so far 2K+ in Iraq war) is also the second
difference. Also the ‘draft’ and ‘no draft’ is big difference too. In latter years opposition to
Vietnam was all pervading with fundamental changes in America society simultaneously
happening (rise of Feminism and so on). None like that is happening at present. If at all,
America is gradually turning more Conservative (even if Republicans go away from
power in next few years).
3. Vietnam War coupled with Oil shock and Nixon Economic policies exerted prolonged
recession in America. This time Iraq war cost will slowly act over a long period on
American Economy with quite a few opportunities to rectify those pressures without too
much of hardship as long as policy makers are not blind to any fixed ideology.
4. Vietnam War was in the context of Cold War and immediately it induced the feeling of
traumatic and tremendous loss to America since China effectively came out victorious
there. But subsequent war between Vietnam and China nullified all the gains for China
and in the end Soviets went away. Whereas impacts of Iraq war are likely to be more
serious and detrimental. As James Galbraith argues in Mother Jones
(http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/columns/2006/03/withdrawal_symptoms.html)
and many have pointed; Iraq war really negates the advantages America enjoyed as ‘sole 129
super power’ after the break up of Soviets and the first Gulf war of early 1990s. Moreover,
as the reality has started to sink; the real benefit of the war is accruing to Iran; the real
nemesis of America about which America can do much less. So rather than improving
any security to America, Iraq war quite obviously has strengthened one of her true
enemies with devastating implication for America, Israel, Middle East and the world at
large. Any fight over there in future with Iran will produce dramatic ‘oil shock’ with many
countries impacted by that.
5. Finally, Vietnam War had political backing of the establishment from both parties –
seed by JFK, basically waged by LBJ and Nixon not being any smarter in managing that
losing proposition any better. Iraq war is all Bush affair and will remain as the Bush affair.
In fact the best chance, for the mess of Iraq war getting addressed is when some one
other than Bush comes along. The fundamental question for America is how do they get
leaders who square with them about the reality; not the current leadership which sold war
deceptively, executed war incompetently, short on transparency and never been able to
avoid the temptation of using Iraq war for totally partisan, narrow political purposes.
Frankly America, even today, would not mind giving serious commitments towards Iraq
as long as leadership has some credibility and honesty. Unfortunately, that is not what
Pres. Bush has and hence he has to wait rather helplessly for things to turn better in Iraq
and meanwhile America’s dissatisfaction with this war continues to grow.
Umesh Patil
San Jose, CA 95111
March 16, 2006.
Nuclear Energy - Where are we?

As Nuclear Energy is the latest buzz world in Politics and Policy Affairs, the public debate
needs to open. The article by Ken Silverstein is one such excellent article. Below is the
link.
http://www.garp.com/risknews/newsfeed.asp?Category= 6&MyFile= 2006-03-16-

12452.html
As the article presents, the entire debate is essentially around 3 points:

- waste management (still unresolved issue in the end)
- risk (we may have progressed here to contain any accident risk, but needs more
confirmation and validation)
- return on investment (since construction cost to manage waste and to make things
really risk free increases the final price tag; ROI is still not that favorable until costs of
other energy sources - direct and environmental costs - increase dramatically).
The article is worth reading and hopefully there will be more public discourse about this
important matter.
Umesh Patil
San Jose, CA 95111
130 March 19, 2006.
H1B Immigration Issues

Sunday, April 02, 2006
H1B immigration is one area where America should increase the limit for her benefit as
well as of India. Senate is okay for this increase, but House has not put any comparable
bill and many in House are in no mood to do anything here. Many Democrats from House
are against too (prominent one from Southern California). With Immigration issue
consuming so much energy, I guess protagonist in House will hold their line about H1B
and will negate any increase there to compensate for the proposed increase on guest
workers. In nut shell, the way American politics work; Congress may limit H1B (the ones
which are fundamentally useful to America) as a price for increased Guest Worker
Program and Amnesty for illegal migrants! Obviously, more votes are play in the latter
case, the voice of Hispanic block is quite strong, Roman Catholic Church is behind and
so on. In other words stars are aligned for that kind of measure and limiting the increase
in H1B could be the sacrifice. It should not happen that way.
Truth is America must have good immigration policy which welcomes labors of all types
and from all countries. Some form of amnesty for the current illegal workers in America is
needed and America needs to open arms for all the hard working Hispanic workers. It is
just that H1B labor also should be welcome and the limit should be increased.
America does not have future unless it welcomes immigrants of all hues. The reason
America can avoid the fate of Europe (declining population and hence declining
economic and political clout on the world stage) is due to increase in population by way of
immigration. There is no escape from having strong pro immigration policy here.
Daniel Sneider raises some interesting questions about kind of immigration policies to be
avoided looking around the world. He sites the case of Singapore which has policies
similar to those in Middle East countries. Essentially such policies welcome the foreign
workers but never assimilate the new labor. Daniel Sneider is right to point out that such
non-assimilation of immigrant workers is bad in the medium to long term. So far America
has avoided that problem. But McCain - Kennedy immigration bill creates the quota of
400K guest workers and sets the stage for such non-assimilation. That is the negative of
this bill. However, in absence of any other encouraging bill, this bill a better shot and it
allows a process of amnesty for the current illegal workers. What one understands is if
America wants to avoid the pitfalls of ‘second class, non voting immigrant workers’; then it
needs to really have better and more democratic immigration policy; the policy which has
clear, achievable and realistic paths of becoming citizens of this country. McCain –
Kennedy bill is only a start and not very encouraging on that account. It is also bad that it
does not she much light as far as H1B immigration is concerned.
Umesh Patil
San Jose, CA 95111
April 2, 2006.

131
Congress and Indo – USA Nuclear Deal
Times of India reporter Chidanad Rajghatta (CD) finally lays down the dim prospects of
passing this deal in the current Congress. I guess Indian media and establishment are
finally waking up to the really uphill task of getting the approval from American Congress.
It has been odd or rather too typical of Indian media, establishment and the general
public to be so optimistic and euphoric for so long about this deal. When I get calls from
my family back in India praising about this deal and expecting that Pres. Bush can surely
buy the necessary approval from Congress, it suddenly, literally drove the point home –
how India is clueless about the prospectus of this deal.
It is simply the case that Congress and American politics is preoccupied with so many
other things which are dear to their immediate needs – immigration, Iraq, Iran, Gas prices
and so on. As like with any democracy, when change in the ruling class is in the air; not
much political business gets done but the only one which is absolutely necessary.
Everything less becomes expendable and it fails to come on the political radar.
So it is not about the merit of this deal which is a problem. I guess that is what India’s
foreign secretary Saran would have found in his latest trip to Washington. It is the timing
and timing is simply not right at present. Pres. Bush is also learning the perils of ignoring
Congress and he is unlikely to increase the stakes on this deal from his side any further
when the administration needs co-operation from Congress on so many other important
policies. Also his new team to deal with Congress will put other aspects of domestic
importance first on the agenda.
Add to that the possibility of Congress asking some changes in the deal which Indian
establishment would find hard to digest. That could delay the deal or even kill it. In the
end it all depends on how much Democrats on the Hill are interested. If as CD points,
Democrats do not want to hand foreign policy victory to Pres. Bush; the deal would not go
through this Congress. But Democrats are likely to strengthen their position in the next
Congress so things will be even more difficult. I suspect it is more than handing any
foreign policy victory to Pres. Bush – it is all about the serious questions Democrats have
about this deal.
One needs to read NYT editorial to understand the animosity towards this deal. NYT
editorials show the thinking universe of Democrats and in that world there are indeed
serious questions to be answered before the deal goes any further. One sign is how ever
pro-Indian Tom Friedman also regards this deal – not to be supported in the present
format unless India explicitly agrees to stop any further nuclear material processing for
bombs. In that form, the deal becomes unpalatable to Indian tests.
May be India and USA find ways to improve their relations beyond this vexed issue of
Nuclear pact. The other post about immigration discusses this issue. Unfortunately, there
too not many encouraging signs emerge.
Umesh Patil
San Jose, CA 95111
April 2, 2006.
132
Myopic view of Iraq War Backers

Thursday, April 06, 2006
James Thayer has got it completely wrong (‘Four and Out?’ Daily Standard,
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/067izbaa.asp?pg=2)
. It is very frustrating to see all these learned people make the simple and fundamental
error: to equate or to imply Iraq war same as Global War on Terror. Leave aside the
intellectual hollowness of the term of GWOT (it was General Anthony Zinni who rightly
called bluff of this phrase); but Americans are neither tired nor walking away from the
struggle or conflict to defeat the menace of Terror.
What Americans want is reevaluation of a mistakenly started and incompetently

conducted Iraq war. How long these conservative morons are going to try fool people by
equating Iraq war as efforts to stop Terror? That immoral guy Karl Rove and his mad
President have been trying to take us on a ‘ride’ for last four and half years by their bluff
‘fight war in Iraq so that Terrorists will not come to our land’. What non-sense and
hypocritical way of covering all their hubris in the first place!
Reasons America needs reevaluation of Iraq war are:

- factions in Iraq are fighting among themselves in which no foreign troop have a role and
any engagement from foreigners would simply complicate the matter without any
benefits;
- time has come to limit losses in Iraq war so that America knows what she needs to do in
Middle East to protect her interests and to nullify terrorists eventually (America’s current
Iraq war is surely not what needs here); and
- finally America can raise her head up from this quagmire so as to see the whole picture
and regains her ability to address the entire spectrum of challenges on her radar (not just
one single preoccupation). This is like we only have one front and America is engrossed
in that at the cost of many other fronts on which America needs to fight. Doesn’t James
remember that in WWII America fought two separate enemies in two separate theaters
with different techniques?
So people like James Thayer need to stop all these deceptive arguments and stop trying
to fool readers. Time is past to play such games.
Umesh Patil
San Jose, CA 95111
April 6, 2006.
Changing Mind on Iraq War

Francis Fukuyama argues in LA Times why it is okay for him to change his mind from an
Iraq war supporter to one who is against NeoCon approach.
(http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/sunday/commentary/la-op- 133
fukuyama9apr09,0,5138726.story?coll=la-sunday-commentary)
John Maynard Keynes once said – “When I am wrong, I change my mind; what do you
do, Sir?” Fukuyama is arguing effectively along this line – he thinks empirical
observations in last 3 years compel him to change his mind. Fair enough.
However, he has to answer why was he not enough circumspect before the war about
more evidence? He was not enough patient and indeed did ride the bandwagon of ‘let us
wage the war’. There were many experts before war who indicated that America needs to
be careful about the WMD evidence presented. In fact one of the strongest arguments
against rushing to the war was to wait till the course of international inspection runs its
course. Though Fukuyama gives evidence of his cautions before the war, and those
evidences may very well portray his prudent approach then in some ways; but we do not
remember he as one of those intellectual stalwarts who deployed their entire intellectual
arsenal to vivisect the gaps of empirical basis in starting the Iraq war. On the contrary,
notwithstanding cautious remarks Fukuyama quotes in this article, we find Fukuyama
joining the party of war mongers without any hesitation and submitting his intellectual
prowess without any qualifications at the disposal of NeoCons.
When John Kerry vacillates about how to fund Iraq war and eventually has to loose his
presidential election as a ‘flip-flopper’; NeoCons and Bushees are not going to avoid their
evaluation by the same yard stick. If you change your mind without having had earlier
traces of qualified support to a policy measure, you will be called ‘flip-flopper’. At least
John Kerry was honest enough to admit various thoughts in his mind. Those who judge
others by sword themselves get judged by the same sword. Further, Fukuyama don’t you
worry now about the extreme partisan nature of American politics and their bad effects.
Being at the receiving end of political power for last five years, have hardened Democrats
quite enough to withstand rough and tumble of this new war fare called ‘American
Politics’. America learns to live with this extreme bickering and America will over come
this extreme partisan environment. However, what America does not need for that is any
condescending advise from her intellectuals; but she needs intellectuals and leaders who
are honest and straight.
What about the second question which Fukuyama raises – ‘The debate over the war
shouldn't have been whether it was morally right to topple Hussein (which it clearly was),
whether it was prudent to do so given the possible costs and potential consequences of
intervention and whether it was legitimate for the U.S. to invade in the unilateral way that
it did’? What were his own answers to these questions before the war? Fukuyama failed
to ‘estimate’ the cost part correctly; commensurate to his intellect. When Administration’s
own Economist mentioned cost figures of over $200 Billion and a General mentioned
figure of several hundred thousand soldiers for long duration; all theses straight talkers
were eased out. Fukuyama neither did come in support of these people nor came with
any better ‘empirical observations’ at that time.
Pres. Bush, war supporters, NeoCons and Fukuyama; all are bankrupt as far as Iraq war
rationale is concerned as well as that policy goes. Pres. Bush is shameless in not making
any amendments to his fault policy and approach to the whole issue. Fukuyama rightly
points that. Jim Hoagland incisively analyzes the continued ‘intuition’ based approach of
Pres. Bush and his refusal even at this stage to have a sound policy framework to this
i s s u e . ( h t t p : / / w w w . w a s h i n g t o n p o s t . c o m / w p -
dyn/content/article/2006/04/07/AR2006040701690.html)
Yes, Fukuyama should change his mind; he has that right and it is ‘right’ too. But with
134
rights come the responsibility. Fukuyama has a responsibility and a chance to redeem
himself from his intellectual failure here: he can continue the analysis and critique as like
Hoagland is doing and lend his considerable intellectual apparatus to the correct national
discourse about Iraq war going forward. It is much more beneficial for America to read
Fukuyama’s articles about merits and pitfalls, say for example, of John Kerry’s call to
bring back troops than to read his contrived arguments and justifications about why he
changed his mind. If Fukuyama wants to redeem himself, he needs to take cognizance of
what Paul Krugman is pointing in NYT – Pres. Bush may start Iran war to hide failures of
his Iraq war policy and to derive political advantage to Republicans.
(http://select.nytimes.com/2006/04/10/opinion/10krugman.html?hp )
Fukuyama better think seriously this time and start systematically pin point follies of any
such policy towards Iran. He has a chance now. Worrying about partisan atmosphere in
American Politics is much less useful compared to enormous advantages in unraveling
dangers of an administration run by an inept, ideologically driven, war monger President.
Umesh Patil
San Jose, CA 95111
April 9, 2006.
http://21stcenturypolitics.blogspot.com/
Long Wait To Solve Iran Issue

Andrew Sullivan has squarely placed the real problem of Iran to America – Americans do
no trust in commander in chief to wage a war against Iran even though most Americans
back military option against Iran. (‘General Bush's lose-lose Iranian war options’
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2092-2135968_1,00.html) In other words in
another times Americans would not even mind nuke against Iran as long as the
commander in chief was trust worthy. Andrew is right, Pres. Bush’s political balance is
blank to sustain any such military action against Iran.
Andrew did not even bother to waste any ink in discussing the futility of ‘diplomacy
option’; it does not matter how many NYT editorials ask for a diplomatic route or how
many times Sen. Finestein writes for such a need in LA Times. Diplomatic option will not
work – it is like hoping Hitler would have avoided war only if Europe had negotiated.
Iranian ruling class does not want any diplomacy to succeed and they are hell bent to get
a nuke. The only diplomatic way could be when America starts giving big enough
‘diplomatic bribes’ to China, Russia and major Muslim states. For China allowing
‘mercantile style’ access to Oil; for Russia not to bother about Democracy and to allow
her to increase her sphere of influence in old Soviet fiefdom without any restrain and so
on. Can America do that? May be it is worthwhile for Sen. Fiensetein and all those who
advocate diplomatic route to really start evaluating cost of such ‘diplomatic bribes’ rather
than sheepish, rote repetition of the diplomatic route. If direct talks with White House
would stop Iranians making the bomb; then these advocates of diplomacy are in some
rude shock. And by the way has ever diplomacy without any exercisable, realistic military
option on table worked; especially with Iran? 135
So what can be done? It is going to be a big call for American public to know when the
problem of Iran is serious enough so that even distrusted Pres. Bush would also get
some minimum backing for a military action. May be a concrete proof of wrong intentions
of Iran by CIA would do the trick. But will it be believed when the source is CIA? No,
unless some non-American agency with enough credibility backs those claims.
The other option is politically, action against Iran can be beneficial to Democrats. How
can it be done while Pres. Bush is still in White House? Some arrangements by which
Democratic leadership of Congress is brought in the loop of any military action plan.
Kicking off Rumsfeld and putting a Democrat in that seat would be one more option.
That is unrealistic. So as Andrew said, Americans sit tight and watch this drama for next 3
years without any hope of realistic action and leadership by the current class and
arrangement of American Politics. He waits for McCain to solve this issue. I am much
more open since I sure do have second thoughts about McCain’s credibility when Paul
Krugman ripped him rightly in a NYT column about his opportunistic stance towards Jerry
Falwell and other religious rights.
Umesh Patil
San Jose, CA 95111
April 16, 2006.
Iran - Continued Commentary

Monday, April 17, 2006
Yet another very insightful and highly readable commentary about Iran, US-Iran relations,
Iranian quest for nuclear weapons and choices for America ('Three Reasons Not to Bomb
Iran—Yet' by Edward Luttwak in Commentary, May 2006). Rarely one comes across
such a brilliantly readable commentary about a contemporary foreign policy issue.
Here is the link: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/Production/files/luttwak0506.html
Umesh Patil
San Jose, CA 95111
April 17, 2006
Worst President?
Sean Wilentz, a top notch Historian from Princeton University, rips apart Bush Presidency
in the latest issue of Rolling Stone. Here is the link:
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/profile/story/9961300/the_worst_president_in_history?r
nd=1146225200812&has-player=true&version=6.0.12.1040
136 Jay Cost of RealClearPolitics makes a feeble attempt to repudiate this scathing attack but
i t d o e s n o t g o a n y w h e r e .
(http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/04/wilentz_the_buff.html) The defense by
Conservatives is weak. This means it is hard to escape a conclusion that at least some
part of what Sean Wilentz is talking will in the end stick. Again that is not encouraging
politically to this President as well as to GOP.
Wilentz criticism essentially puts the historical context to ‘incompetence and drifting away’
by this administration. It shows indeed how much ground this President will have to cover
in the remaining days if wants to repair any of the enormous damage he has done so far.
It is hard to speculate what could eventually salvage the reputation of this President, but
4 points come to the mind:
1. Some kind of contrition (regardless of how it could be perceived as beneficial to

enemies) for basing the Iraq war on false evidence and some form of apology in
misleading Americans into this war.
2. Actual concrete actions on the war front which will remove American soldiers from
harms way and which will stop the expensive leakage of American treasury.
3. Striking out the immoral tax policy which Bush has supported so far – taxing less those
who are in riches while allowing those in needs to languish.
4. Addressing concretely ‘America’s Oil Addiction’: enforcing higher gasoline mileage to

passenger cars. Any other gimmick for Gar prices will be what it is – a gimmick only.
About Gas Politics - rebates, tax holidays, etc. all are short term and redundant actions.
Lasting action will be enforcing higher mileage and helping Automakers to make this
transition. For example, Fed can tax excess profits of Oil companies and put all of that
money to help Automakers build cars which will be needed by the new mandate of higher
mileage. Some such bold action only can help Pres. Bush to get out of the grand ditch he
has created for himself.
Umesh Patil
San Jose, CA 95111
April 29, 2006.
Dr. Singh – Time To Get Bold?

MJ Akabar in Asian Age (http://www.asianage.com/) goes soar on Dr. Manmohan Singh.
He has reasons for that. For a person of Dr. Singh’s stature, the initial good will lasts
longer. But it is not in infinite supply. At some point reality catches if the performance
does not hold and Dr. Singh’s performance does not hold any more.
As like any democracy, it is okay for a politician not to worry as long as that politician
brings vote. Not that in the end it results in any good or effective or lasting leadership; but
at least such leadership carries for couple of election cycles – the typical life span of
today’s elected leaders. Classic example in today’s Indian context is Lalu – he carried this
voting winning pattern well over a decade. While it was lasting, it mattered least what his 137
performance was. In fact the tragedy was that his governance did not have material
impact on his electability for so long.
Indira Gandhi was another example. Extraordinarily strong leadership. Except for the
outstanding achievements in foreign affairs (division of Pakistan giving rise to
Bangladesh and securing India’s independence through highly charged Cold War); she
had lukewarm domestic achievements. Those pale quite significantly in comparison to
lasting achievements of her father – foundations for green revolution, basic infrastructure
of heavy industry, sound grounding for higher education and establishment of scientific
institutions, unity of the republic during crisis times and so on. But Indira was voter getter
and hence it was okay if her domestic governance performance lagged behind from time
to time.
That is not the case with Dr. Singh. It is sad to say (and BJP does have a point in that)
but he can not get elected himself. When he contested one Loksabha election in Delhi,
he lost by over 100 Thousand votes. May be next time when he contests an election, he
may get elected. (Pranab Mukharjee lost election all along his life, except the last time
when he won the Loksabha seat for the first time.) So at the end of the day, Dr. Singh’s
record for pulling voted for himself is poor; leave alone pulling votes for others.
This leaves performance as the only salvage point for him to base his leadership. And as
MJ Akabar and others are pointing, lately Dr. Singh is loosing ground. First and foremost,
time has come to analyze how of much Indian Economic success can be attributed to Dr.
Singh as indispensable contributor. It looks not much. True he started the original reforms
and he is following the dictum of ‘do no harm’ so as market forces can play without any
hindrance. But what is the true value addition NOW? Can it not be done by any other
person? What does Dr. Singh bring to the table as far as Indian Economy goes which any
other cannot bring? True, credibility is all that matters in Capitalism and hence with Dr.
Singh at the helm, Capital trusts Indian Economy. But if we look carefully, we know that it
is India’s demography, unique stage of Globalization, new technology and general wide
spread acceptance within Indian society about entrepreneurship; all these things are
essentially contributing to India’s stunning success.
To put it other way – will India’s Economic Growth suffer incurably if Dr. Singh goes
away? Unless Left comes to power, there is broad consensus among Congress, BJP and
many important regional parties that Economic Reforms must be pursued. As long as
there is political stability, India has a reasonable chance to improve economy; it does not
matter which block or which ruler governs. And we all know how much Dr. Singh can
contribute to political stability. It is not he, but Sonia is the principal architect of the
present government and there is no possibility that in near future Dr. Singh could in any
realistic way be involved in the messy business of winning elections.
On the other hand, by opening up the possibility of job reservations in private sector; Dr.
Singh is threatening the good momentum attained by India Economy. What a poor
judgment and foolish pandering to vested political interestes which in the end will also not
bring votes!
Beyond this lackluster domestic agenda, running foreign policy based on one single
Nuclear Pact with USA (which by the way still looks no so certain); is not very
forthcoming. With Pakistan, regardless of how much low respect one has towards
President Musharraf; it is the Pakistani President who is setting the agenda and Dr. Singh
is still in reactive mode. It is good that just because President Musharraf suggests some
good ideas; Dr. Singh is not resisting to consider those. But where is the initiative? Who
138
do we want to be in the driving seat? A tin pot dictator or a leader of giant democratic
nation? Dr. Singh is still missing on this score.
With Nepal, India did show some sense of containing the foolish King over there. But one
wonders, couldn’t India have been more forthcoming in siding with political parties of that
country? Why not think of engaging strongly with those political parties and Maoists so
that the emerging danger of extreme Left ideology in India does not see any violent
example in a neighboring country? Granted that there is no connection between Nepali
Maoists and Indian Naxalites; but the at any time when one comrade sees that there is a
sensible and victorious way of achieving political power and goals rather than violence;
we are doing service to bring more and more people in the political discourse. With that
view, Indian diplomacy in Nepal has not been bad; but could have been more active,
explicit and forceful.
In Sri Lanka, that country is broken due to still strong Tamil Tigers. Ever since India
allowed the sacrifice of her Prime Minister in vain, India has lost her nerve and gumption
in dealing with Tigers and in siding with Sri Lankan nationalists forces. To put it bluntly, as
far as Sri Lankan Tamil conflict goes; Indian tiger has his tail in his legs and there is no
signs of any strong response here. Dr. Singh prefers to continue the listless and defeatist
attitude here rather than taking any pains in breaking new grounds.
Same goes with Bangladesh. The policy is much better than past mistakes and more
accommodative. But still one fails to understand, when India does not know what do with
her riches (foreign reserves and other nests she is building); why is India being not more
generous with Bangladesh. Common on guys, go and spend some serious dough on the
shores of Meghna. If the big brother remains miser we have less probability of trust
getting built with smaller neighboring countries.
There is no point in having dreams of UN Security Council seat when India is not able to
handle the serious next door issues which she must solve for the peace of her own
people. The job of an Indian Prime Minister is to convey this message to over ambitious
Indian Political Brass; get that Brass around to take innovative steps and address these
serious foreign policy challenges in her own backyard. Imagine a day when India does
not have any conflict and no mistrust with all these smaller neighboring countries of
SAARC and everyone is busy in making money. BSE index would not stop at 20K then!
The question is what Dr. Singh is doing for that. In a sense, the next level of economic
reform and renaissance of Indian society lies in these larger foreign policy challenges.
The low hanging fruits of dismantling License Raj are going to end quite soon; or at least
on the way so that broader sections of Indians can carry out that regardless of explicit
political mandate. What India needs is the visionary leadership which does not rest on
laurels of simple economic reforms, but articulates the bold political agenda of peace with
neighbors and the domestic agenda which does not rest on the divisive ‘politics of
reservations’. Dr. Singh is failing miserably in both these regards.
The last straw is killing of an Indian engineer by Taliban in Afghanistan. What we want is
a forceful and strong reaction which has some concrete legs; not just empty bluster and
press releases. How about committing 10 to 20K Indian soldiers in Afghanistan to defend
Afghan democracy there? Giving $50 million to construct a building to house Afghan
Democracy is one way; but unfortunately that building may be occupied by the regressive
forces like Taliban if India does not act now. If Afghan Democracy needs Indian blood in
addition to Indian Rupees, the time has come to consider such bold initiatives. Otherwise,
139
all the loud protests by India will be meaningless, cowardly India will stop sending
engineers to that place and the world will see one more occasion when India fails to pass
the test of global leadership. If Dr. Singh gets bold, he will flex all the might of India State
in this case to ensure that fundamentalist regime does not come again in India’s
neighborhood. Pakistan and Iran will surely make the noise. But let us face those noises
now rather than beholden to these terrorists. And if Dr. Singh wants to be more creative,
he can get all he wants as far as the Nuclear Pact with USA goes when he tells Uncle
Sam that Mahar Regiment will relive over reached American Army in Afghanistan. If Pres.
Bush is effectively hinting all along for the involvement of the million strong Indian Army,
let the ball roll and get the best deal out of that. Why hesitate? Dr. Singh, here is your
chance to claim Indira’s bold heritage and achieve the lasting advantage to India.
Umesh Patil
San Jose, CA 95111
April 30, 2006.
Problems for Democrats

Wednesday, May 10, 2006
Now that the whole world is talking about the serious possibility of Republicans loosing
serious power in the coming November election, Democrats are looking more like of
types who count chickens before eggs hatch. There are serious problems for Democrats
which very likely can result in Democrats not winning Congress. Here are the tale tell
signs:
1. Let us start with the giddiness of Democrats – Nancy Pelosi did not do well when she
did not make it clear that ‘impeaching Bush in specific’ is not the agenda but trying to
solve problems of Americans and correcting mistakes of Republicans are the priorities. In
general Democratic leadership is ‘too much assuming’ for its own good. The elections are
still 6 months away.
2. Next one needs to read Howard Fineman’s article in Slate

(http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12703794/) to understand what weapons Karl Rove is
building for Republicans. How are Democrats going to address this tsunami of
propaganda – ‘Democrats in Congress means end of the world’? Sure Democrats would
think some answer to this propaganda, but there are no signs yet and nothing to believe
so far.
3. Washington Post reports about intense infighting between DNC (read Dean) and
Congressional Democratic Leadership.
dyn/content/article/2006/05/10/AR2006051001927.html )
Anytime you have such vitriolic animosity, it is hard to believe that these very same
leaders will pull of the victory. There is a peculiar smell to this infighting – all these
Democratic leaders are trying to position themselves to enjoy the fruits of assumed
victory in November. That is definitely silly and counter productive. When will Americans
see all these Democratic leaders talking in unison? Dean, Pelosi, Reid, Schumer,
Emanuel, Hillary, Kerry; all on the same platform and trying to give some united message
to America? Alas, we know that is a pipe dream and that is not how Democrats work.
140
4. The unity is important. If Democrats wants to run the coming election as a referendum
on the national performance of Republicans (President Bush and National Republican
Leadership); people are bound to expect solutions and answers at national level from
Democrats. Without that, Democrats themselves will do the job of Republicans – each
Congressional election as a localized contest.
5. Meanwhile reading Hillary going for Murdoch fund raiser indeed raises lot of questions.
Richard Cohen in W. Post tries to explain the puzzle here.
dyn/content/article/2006/05/10/AR2006051001783.html) Hillary is surely running her
political affairs as if she is not part of Democratic party; it is all her own separate affair.
May be she is trying to do that ‘third party candidate’ what Tom Friedman refers. But alas,
there are no policy answers to any of the serious questions America faces. Does anyone
know her Energy Policy? Or how she wants to reduce the deficit? It is sad to see that she
has been nothing but opportunistic politician building election war chest by any means
possible.
6. Equally, reading Markos Moulitsas in W. Post attacking Hillary was not something very
illuminating or useful to Democratic Party. All one could sense from that article was that
Democratic Party needs to take ‘Netroots’ (meaning DailyKos only?) seriously and Hillary
gives damn to bloggers. The issue is not whether Hillary takes bloggers seriously, but
what policies she advocates, is she consistent about those, does she take political
positions fearlessly without trying to please everybody? In effect, is she showing
leadership, candor and honest in the end?
7. What is bad is apart from fights between Dean and Emanuel, so much buzz in the
party is consumed by Hillary. What we want is policy debates, crystallization of concrete
measures Democratic Congress would undertake and overall vision for Americans. There
does not seem to be any inspiring leadership here. In the long run, it is not a workable
solution that Democrats win Congress only because public wants someone different than
Republicans. People should want to vote Democrats because they find their policy
positions clear, consistent; something which people do not mind trying even if those are
new or bit risky.
8. As a commoner what Americans are looking for is answers to these questions:

- What is the exact exit strategy from Iraq? What price Americans may have to pay in
case Iraq gets engulfed in Civil war or other worst case scenario?
- What is the overall strategy to address Global War on Terror? Any plans to capture
Osam? How do Democrats want to deal with Iran and Hamas?
- What steps Democratic Congress would like to take to improve American intelligence?
What policies to address the gaps in home land security?
- What are short term and long term solutions to America’s Energy problem? People want
non-joke policies (not like $100 rebate or tax holidays for 2 months).
- How will be the Fed Deficit reduced? Which taxes will be raised and which will be
reduced?
- Finally, what bill Democrats will like to bring to address the Immigration issue?
Granted that Democrats can not solve America’s all problems in a short period of 2 years.
But some of the critical ones as outlined above, they must address.
What we need is Democratic Party which is offering inspiring solutions to America’s

predicament. We do not see that happening and what we see is premature infighting for
141
spoils of the power and in general a directionless party.
Umesh Patil
San Jose, CA 95111
May 10, 2006.
Dollar Devaluation and Global Economic Stability

Friday, May 12, 2006
Amazingly lucid article about the current global market of currency trade and what it
bodes for Global Economy – Marc Chandler in RealMoney.com (by subscription). Those
who blindly believe ideologically driven rightwing policies and do not understand the
disastrous economic policies followed by Bush Administration; should find this as a useful
lesson.
Following are the key points Marc is making:
- G7 and IMF are effectively signaling to the world that currency devaluation is the only
mechanism favored by Western Governments who do not want to take any important
decisions due to political expediency. What else the message can be to the world market
when Bush Congress rushes for more tax cuts when America needs to address it’s Fed
and Trade Deficits?
- Dollar devaluation is the only path what these weak Western leaders want. Marc is
categorical – dollar devaluation is nothing but effectively ‘default by USA’ since dollar is
essentially the world currency.
- Marc gives concrete numbers to show that it is unlikely that simply by dollar devaluation,
America’s Trade Deficit will be reduced. It does not. As a result import costs increase and
with domestic production so much reduced in so many areas, America still need to import
expensive goods and commodities. Inflation is the result and higher interests cannot be
avoided. So how far dollar devaluation can be the answer?
- World currency, bond and equity markets will be jolted by this devaluation destabilizing
Global Economy. As a result, so far booming economies of emerging markets will suffer
too, probably heavily.
So not only Bush Administration is fooling around Americans about their security, privacy;
it is hell bend on dooming them economically too. God knows what more bad times this
country has to endure under this incompetent, immoral, rich favoring liar occupant of
White House.
Umesh Patil
San Jose, CA 95111
May 12, 2006.
142 Posted by Umesh Patil at 01:11PM (-07:00)

More Immigration Please
Tuesday, May 23, 2006
In the highly integrated world of 21st century, population of a nation or block is a
fundamental asset. Humanity as a whole produces enough of basic needs for all people
or at least have means to produce basic needs for all humans. As long as core
distribution and political system are there in place, most of the humanity can get a decent
living. In short the time when population size used to work as Malthusian drag is over. On
the other hand, in the Globalized Economy, size of domestic market for MNCs become
important and larger domestic market tends to nurture stronger and dynamic economy;
again as long as the basic law is in place and basic ‘market economy’ infrastructure is in
place. Further, in times of war, larger population does tend to lend necessary heft to the
country as long as the country is united.
This explains why eventually China and India are likely to play a dominant role in world
affairs; why population reduction is of grave consequences to Russia and Japan and why
Europe finds it increasingly difficult to halt it’s diminishing importance in world affairs.
So naturally, which America is better if America intends to hold her turf against assertive
global powers like China and India – America with 300 million people or America with 440
million people? Clearly the latter. So how does America go to this higher population – the
same old way of supplementing natural births by immigration. One of the basic reasons
why America has been able to avoid fate like Europe is the healthy population growth
rate and immigration is the key component to sustain this high growth rate.
So what better way to get to this higher number than integrating Mexico with 110 million
and Canada with 33 million quite tightly within a North American Economy? Hence,
immigration from Mexico is essentially non-issue; except that whatever care USA needs
to take to avoid terrorists slipping through these borders. Fortunately, America is vast
enough to accommodate larger population and the political system is well entrenched to
handle larger immigration flow in orderly manner. That does not mean improvements are
necessary; it is just that America is in better shape than many other countries to manage
large immigration.
In effect, it is not fruitful to debate the usefulness of immigration or ways to block or

reduce it. The debate should be what is the best way to attract best immigrants from all
over the world and how to make immigration orderly over the borders without
compromising America’s safety. Granting citizenship is the obvious answer.
Umesh Patil
San Jose, CA 95111
May 23, 2006.
143
Da Vinci Code and Church
Saturday, May 27, 2006
I watched the Da Vinci Code movie and paid my dollar dues to Sony. Clearly, Sony is
making good money. That is otherwise good for embattled Sony and Hollywood which
has not been too successful last year (I even read that salaries for actors were less lately!
Unthinkable....).
For me it was not easy to keep track who was for keeping the secret and who wanted to
open it. Not exactly confusing, but may be fast paced for me. Also Newsweek ran the
story in their latest issue and it has published 12 aspects – as depicted in the movie and
cold facts. I guess reading that before going to the movie might have set my expectations
right – that it is a movie made for making money and facts are quite likely to be
compromised. Since I have not read the book, I do not have that context to compare.
The only thing I got impressed by the movie was Louvre and beautiful churches shown.
Nothing much worthy of movie making art. Acting is nothing to take note of. The lead
actress looks beautiful in many shots and she has played the chic role of a French smart
young lady talking English. How sexy and how predictable! It is like chocolate – nothing
unusual and so predictable, but you enjoy. Tom Hanks is not impressive.
The main take away for me from the movie is it’s typical Liberal Hollywood style political
undertone. In fact one can easily imagine this movie being made in 1970’s when
Feminism was raging all over the place. It is well known that Roman Catholic Church has
indeed robbed Woman of her centrality in human life and there is nothing to disagree
about. As like so many other sections of the society, Church has been exploitative of
Women and gone all the way to preserve the patriarchy. It is also very logical to see how
Church would always make attempts to squelch any idea which tries to depict Jesus as a
human instead of Son of God. Marriage, sex and children surely make Jesus human;
undercutting Church’s role of messenger.
National Geographic published last month the findings of Gospel of Judas. Basic line of
that investigation is that indeed there were other gospels and Gnostic way of
understanding Jesus and his message – that an individual can connect to God and
Church is one of the many ways of reaching to God.
It has been long suspected that established Church suppressed all those tenets which
could have challenged directly or indirectly the monopoly of Church in reaching to God. In
a way this story is not much different than Brahmin’s and other high caste minorities
attempting to keep monopoly on doors to God in Hinduism. Invariable it happens in so
many religions. Christianity is not an exception. Da Vinci Code and the implied criticism of
Church in that movie are all about that.
The criticism is right and as like any Liberal I agree with that. But what I am worried is in
the end the whole motive for this movie is making money (controversy is good, it brings
more dollars). Criticism while making money does not wash and the credibility of your
criticism goes to wind. Then the movie has to be measured on the criteria of ‘action
genre’ only and it is a big bore there.
On the other hand if one wants to explore systematically how suppressive Church has
144 been, the efforts like what National Geographic put in are more relevant and long lasting.
The danger is the movie and Hollywood style ‘Liberal Lipstick’ talk would rather damage
the cause of making people to approach church on the basis of facts.
Roman Catholic Church and Vatican will not suffer any damage by this movie. For last
two millennium, they have seen much more fundamental challenges and they have
withered. What a single movie can move them? It does not matter even if it becomes
Billion dollars affair or millions watch. More the commercial side of this movie marketing
and viewing by audience become prominent, lesser is it a headache for Roman Catholic
Church. And so their patriarchical ways will continue. This movie is no help in the serious
debate of Liberalism and Christianity. It is one hell of a smart marketing ploy of making
money in today’s world.
Umesh Patil
San Jose, CA 95111
May 27, 2006.
Israel – Palestine Conflict: Hawks Don’t Get It

Tuesday, May 30, 2006
Former CIA director James Woolsey writes in WSJ that it is wrong for Israel to plan the
withdrawal from West Bank (http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008442). He
thinks that is a kind of concession to Palestine and it will only strengthen terrorist
elements on the other side - Iranian-Syrian-Hezbollah-Hamas axis. Woolsey thinks it is a
concession by Israel with implicit backing by USA which demonstrates the weakness of
West Alliance because Woolsey wants to hold Palestine to the same standard as like
Israel. The standard he is talking is treating minority as full participant in the democracy
and governance. He sites that how Israel allows 1.2 million Arabs the full participation in
the Israel democracy and he wants the Palestine state also to allow 0.25 million Jews to
equally participate in Palestine democracy.
This is absurd. Does Woolsey find ‘short changed’ when Israel continues to treat Arabs
as full citizens but Palestine does not to Jews? That is the thing – Israel people have
shown that West does not loose their law based State just because Terrorists does not
play by the rule. It seems that Woolsey type Hawks find it hard to digest.
What is more important is Israel people have made this decision in a legitimate manner.
Last election was fought on the issue of withdrawal from West Bank and Bibi’s Likud – the
party of no withdrawal – was trounced. If Hamas victory is legitimate expression of
Palestine people in a democracy, then so is the case for Israel too. True that Sharon was
not committed to West Bank withdrawal and that is the specific policy measure initiated
by Olmert; generally within the same framework of unilateral withdrawal which Sharon set
up in the first place. But Olmert is not sneaking this policy by back door. He fought the
election on this platform and got at least semblance of public approval for the same. No
one in Israel will be surprised when the execution begins.
Think of this way – if democracy inclined Israel’s do not want to alter their correct
treatment of Arabs within their state and at the same time do not want to be at the mercy
of others of similar treatment for Jews in West Bank; what is the right course? It cannot
be any different than withdrawal.
145
All the examples which Woolsey gives as past weaknesses by USA – Israel are not
correct. He claims that Oslo / Rabin - Arafat accord was too much give away, Palestine
thought they could get more and hence rejected that accord. But is Israel loosing more
than that accord in the current withdrawal policy? Doesn’t seem so. Then it is not a loss.
Further he sites Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanon has strengthened Hezbolla and Hamas
are stronger after Gaza withdrawal. But what about the fact that Israel has been able to
preserve its strength by getting rid of useless conflicts? Is it not a big plus for Israel?
Woolsey commits the same mistake all these Hawks commit – all battles must be win
regardless of whether one has enough strength or not. All these Hawks think that Israel
and Western Nation States have limitless treasure to pour on war and inexhaustible
supply of teenagers to die in these battles. How wrong!
Israel public and Olmert are on a reasonable path in the given circumstances. To have
your nation state in a fit order and peace, even if it means smaller than earlier, is much
more important than to endlessly hemorrhage in trying to hold something which in the
end is going away.
All that Iranian-Syrian-Hezbollah-Hamas evil axis talk does have certain point. But the
first order of the business is to be alive, to remain fit to end the war and bring peace
rather than spend everything you have in one single battle.
Umesh Patil
San Jose, CA 95111
May 29, 2006.
Indian Media’s Obsession – NRI Success

Friday, June 02, 2006
It is has been very interesting to watch how Indian Media reports about Spelling Bee
competition. Before the start of the final, I read a story on Rediff that Indo-American
students will do well. One school boy of Indian origin did come up to the 4th spot which is
a good achievement. But obviously looking at the past results there was underlying
expectation that boys and girls of Indian origin may do very well. That did not happen this
time if topping first is the criteria.
It is good in a way. Any child who does well in this competition is very impressive. So is
the case for this year's New Jersey winner. Clearly smartness is not restricted to Indo-
American households only. And I think that is the thing - more it becomes clear, better it
is for Indo-American community; especially for their children. Otherwise enormous
pressure of ‘success always’ creates lot of problems.
When the Harvard Indo-America student's case of plagiarisation was exposed, one
interesting op-ed article was published in San Jose Mercury News. A San Francisco
based Indian journalist wrote saying that it is good that this plagiarisation case got
exposed because it will show the dangers of going over the edge for success at any cost
within the Indo-American community. The writer was SW Engineer and then changed his
profession. He recounted how his family members back in India labeled him crazy when
he gave up his stable job. One line I remember from the article was – ‘it is hard enough
146 for Indo-Americans to be described as model immigrant community; on top of that we
insist always best from our children’. Needless to say in the process we pressurize them
lot. The author mocked how an old aunt visiting USA tells her neighbor ‘mark my words,
one day my nephew will get Nobel Prize in Literature’ whenever that kid comes back with
top honors in her English class!
I am aware that how kids are pressurized for success back in India and how so many
adults measure worth of any person only on the basis of success. Indo-American
community is no different. In Silicon Valley many would only bother about windfall gains
in IPO and which Ivey League school their children enter.
Coming back to Indian Media, Indian Media simply encourages such tendencies. They
would always concentrate on some identifiable, dramatic success stories of Indians
outside of India and that is it; as if so many of these NRIs are still in India! These NRIs
have left the country in most cases for their personal gains (including myself), quite
immersed in their country of adoption and their successes and failures have limited
relevance to resident Indians. Trying to boast egos of privileged urban Indians by
caricaturing these NRIs is cheap and counter productive.
So I would have been happy if Indian Media was more obsessed with success of so
many smart kids in India and who are resident Indians rather than spending all the media
real estate on the American Spelling Bee competition. When resident Indian kids will start
taking part in this competition, it will be worthwhile to give so much footage. Till then
Indian Media rather cover how so many intelligent resident Indian Kids can take part in
this spelling bee competition. How about Times of India or Rediff sponsoring bright
resident Indian kids in this competition?
Umesh Patil
San Jose, CA 95111
June 2, 2006.
Inflation and Interest Rates

Tuesday, June 13, 2006
How stupid for Times of India to advise USA Fed to go slow on it’s interest increase
policy! American Congress and CEO – President – never dare to advise Fed about it’s
policy and here is a news paper of a seemingly bullish nation admonishing Fed about it’s
policy. Are we in the Globalized world or is it a usual sign of Indian Media shooting where
it does not belong? Or is it the desperation in world markets about the impeding rapid
changes? Looks like last is the case. Sometime back Time of India Editorial admitted that
it will wrong for them to give economic advise to Indian PM and Finance Minister; the
accomplished duo of economists. So may be TOI better shut it’s mouth in regards to all
economic policy matters.
Below is a table which indeed shows the turmoil going in world markets.
Table 1: % change in global markets

Source: http://www.frontlinethoughts.com/article.asp?id=mwo060906)
147
Wall Street is not free of these declines too. During the period Dow Jones is off around
6.4% from its high and the NASDAQ is down by 10%. Looking at the recent numbers
(NASDAQ falling by 2% yesterday and Bombay Stock Exchange under lot of ‘red’); it is
clear that this decline is still work in progress and it may continue for a while.
So what is happening and why TOI is shouting at Fed to stop increasing the rates? The
latter part is easy since it hurts Indian Economy and any emerging economies in general.
RBI and every other central bank have to increase interest rates and it works as a brake
on the high growth.
The why part is tough to answer. Before one goes to that, it should be noted that TOI and
anyone who argue for stopping the interest rate increase misses the single most
important point – mandate of Fed and any Central Bank in ‘fiat based currency world’ is
controlling inflation. (Or else what is the value of your paper currency?) Low numbers
people site of inflation are misleading. Fed, Bond Market and most traders know that
inflation is increasing and only fool can undermine its danger. Given that, there is natural
proclivity for Fed to ‘overshoot’ in terms of rate increase rather than fail to control inflation.
Easy money supply due to lower rates fuel asset and overall inflation and the solution is
to ‘mop up’ the liquidity. September 11, 2001 and Dot Com bubble made Fed to open the
spigot and lot of money was printed. It was done with the view of kick starting the
economy by easy borrowing when deflation was the scare and there were no signs of
inflation (classic business cycle lows – abundant availability of labor and weak demand
for commodities). Now that part is done, there is no reason to keep this easy policy.
So far last four years, cheap labor of India and China hold the inflationary pressures in a
way. But increased prosperity in these countries is adding to the global pressure on
commodities including Oil and the first part of inflation is set in – higher material cost. As
the pool of people in USA, Western World shrinks; it was thought that Billion plus
population countries like China and India would not create any labor shortages. But with
increased income in these countries and larger availability of opportunities have also
made labor expensive in these countries. So not only USA labor but labor in emerging
economies is also turning out to be expensive. So the second part of global inflation is set
in – tight labor market.
With these conditions set, inflation gene is out and Fed must control that. Initially, due to
sloppy job of ‘market signaling’ Fed kind of gave the impression of ‘Bernanke Printing
Press’ and now market, especially bond vigilantes, want the proof that Fed will be
hawkish. Hence Fed is trying to ‘talk’ the market and has cornered itself in a position in
which it has to increase rates to protect its ‘inflation control’ mandate and eventually its
credibility. It can very well afford a recession, but cannot afford the market to have
impression that it does not bother about inflation. Inflation is bad because with that price
stability is goes away, asset value drops, eventually growth stunts and decrease in living
standards set it. Until the job of mopping the excess liquidity is done, Fed cannot
entertain ideas of reducing the interest rates to invigorate the economy.
When will this job of taming the inflation done? Hard to know exactly. But one is looking
at slower USA economy in the second part of this year which can help to contain the
inflation in certain measures.
The question is whether it will be a hard landing or soft. It is likely to be hard landing, but
relatively long term robust global demand due to new engines of China and India can
potentially avoid this hard landing or will at least make it little bearable than a deep
148
recession. If dollar does not hold (due to increased borrowing costs to USA Government
increasing it’s fiscal deficit large and slowing economy halts the encouraging trend of
deficit reduction); then again it will be hard landing. But if increased interest rate pops up
dollar for a while; one can hope for soft landing. The third possibility of stagflation (no
growth and high inflation) does not seem possible since chances of Fed and Central
bankers around the world taming down inflation eventually are quite high.
There is no escape from some economic pain ahead. The extraordinarily stimulative
policies of last few years are bound to end and prompt changes. That is what is
happening now and all need to adjust. That ‘change’ is what TOI wants to resist. That is
futile.
Umesh Patil
San Jose, CA 95111
June 13, 2006.
Better Party to Execute the War

Sunday, June 18, 2006
If Republicans and Karl Rove were to have maturity in not bragging Zarqawi killing as
proof of working of Pres. Bush’s Iraq war, America would not have come to this not so
happy stage. Karl Rove and House Republicans are back to the game of equating Iraq
war as larger War on Terrorism and exploiting electoral advantages there off.
Let us look at the big picture of what America has achieved so far in this Iraq war:
Positives:
- Saddam gone and one remote possibility of nuclear proliferation contained.
Negatives:
- Loss of 2500 American lives and many more possibly to come in future.
- Loss of around Half Trillion dollars ($500 Billion) on the avoidable war.
- Dropping of a ball from the larger picture of War on Islamic Fundamentalism and War on
Terrorism.
- Degradation of American Army.
- International loss of America’s credibility and no attention to many other pressing
Foreign Policy issues.
With this balance sheet, for any political leadership to contend that Iraq War has been
beneficial to America is plain simple wrong. By now the original NeoCon thesis of
Democracy in itself good and answer for rogue states is enough discredited that no one
believes this thesis. Further, whom are we kidding if we say that Iraq is well on the path of
stable Democracy? The country still has the same danger of civil war and division what it
was before Zarqawi killing. The road is long and mostly actions are on the part of Iraqi’s
themselves.
And of course, while all the cost benefit analysis is going on; how do you account for the
false premise (of WMD) on which the war was sold principally to American people and
then to the world? 149
Explaining all this to American people is the only way to call the bluff of Karl Rove:
- The war was started on wrong premises, by deceiving America.
- Purported benefits do not justify the cost paid so far.
- Equating Iraq war with War on Terror is wrong since these two are different things.
The question is what do we do now. Rove is hammering Democrats by portraying them

as the political party which does not have gumption to execute the war; they want to cut
loose and run and only Republicans can do this job. The way Democrats need to reply is
– yes, America will not cut and loose as long as Iraqi’s do not engage in Civil war but do
Americans want to ‘trust’ Republicans to run the remaining war again? It needs to be
reminded that inability of America to wind up Iraq war is squarely fault of Pres. Bush and
then why Americans in right mind want to trust Republican leadership in prosecuting the
remaining war? Even after all the lying and bad execution? The only way a right political
opposition can rise to Rove’s games is when alternating political force convinces public of
it’s ‘savvy’ to execute the remaining Iraq war (and to pull out if Iraq Civil War starts) and
the overall War on Terrorism. What Americans need to know is Pres. Bush’s insistence in
continuation of Iraq policy and backing of Republicans to that policy is more a function of
keeping up their political power rather than any welfare of America. There is no other
alternative other than questioning Pres. Bush’s integrity here. In absence of that Rove’s
cunning ploy will succeed yet another time. Since many political opponents of Pres. Bush
backed his Iraq policy at start, even at some political cost; it will be hard now to label
these opponents as political opportunists. Political opportunism is more manifested by
Pres. Bush and his party.
Umesh Patil
San Jose, CA 95111
June 17, 2006
Indo-USA Nuclear Deal: Not So Subtle Hints and

Larger Picture
Senator McCain reveals it all – the deal is unlikely to go through Congress this year and
he expects Senators (and by implication House members) to play their roles, roles of due
diligence. (http://ia.rediff.com/news/2006/jun/20mccain.htm?q=np&file=.htm) He says he
does not oppose this deal, but…. This has become a familiar refrain by now in American
Congress. Sen. Kerry started it first and now looks like other Senators have picked this
tune.
Many Senators and House Representatives have gone on record to say that not passing
this deal will be damaging to Indo-USA relations. This means all these elected
representatives are perfectly aware of expectations on India’s side. However, it seems
that a substantial number of these elected representatives (majority?) has apprehensions
of this or that sort to this deal. Then what do you do when you are an American Congress
member? Try making ‘noise’ but no action. It is obvious that all these Congress members
are smart enough to play such ‘expectation management’ games. It has gotten to a point
where it is no more a subtle hint.
150
There is a sense that Indian Politicians have realized a serious possibility that this deal
may not go through. By now they know it. It is fine for Dr. Singh since that kind of
demonstrates his leadership without any shoving from Left. Left gets what they want
without spending any political capital. So may be it is not so expensive politically to let go
this deal. Indian public – well, either it is engrossed in World Cup or is worrying about
Mansoon and by now forgotten the Air Force One Trip.
The constituency of NPT purists or dogmatists has never been too weak in USA to
oppose this deal. Add to it all the drama going on about Iran and N. Korea. Regular
gossip reports of China – Pakistan clandestine nuclear dealings keep on surfacing.
Russia has not constrained any possibility of dangerous nuclear dealings with Iran. Given
all this background, it is not very easy for Congress members to back the current Indo-
USA Nuclear Deal. Further, which Congress member is going to get any extra votes
because of backing to this deal? None. If at all, by opposing this deal these Congress
members will maintain their profile by not doing something obvious which can be
perceived by American people as fillip to nuclear proliferation. In the end merits of the
deal are less of an issue in the political World Cup which is perennially played in
Washington DC.
Given the loss of momentum for this deal, it will be worth while for India to engage in
many other beneficial bilateral issues like increased H1B visas and other work force
immigration, cooperation in energy issues and more joint efforts in research and
technology.
Unfortunately one more area where India may look for cooperation from USA, it could be
a disappointment – backing to Shashi Tharoor’s candidacy for UN Secretary Job. The
selection on India’s side does not seem very attractive to USA, for some valid reasons. At
this point if anyone in the world believes that some insider can do the job of changing UN
drastically then that person must be kidding. Tharoor has grown in this job while Annan
has been at the helm and that does not inspire any confidence. Further, what
organization like UN needs is some one like a ‘roll the sleeves’ type economist or a
strong manager with MNC experience or a diplomat with excellent track record of
successful multinational treaties. The last person we need is literary type celebrity trying
to bring glamour or finesse or style to the job. Sadly that is the first impression of India’s
nominee, rightly or wrongly. So all in all India is playing steps in this game which are
unlikely to make a tango with Washington. This means again the creativity of India’s
Babudom has to work in other areas to find more lucrative, beneficial and meaningful
relationships with Washington. Military cooperation and more political alignment in
security related matters can be a true winner. Starting with S. Asian flash points
surrounding India (Sri Lanka, Nepal, Afghanistan etc.), more coordinated efforts with
Washington in these neighboring countries will be lot advantageous to India.
Umesh Patil
San Jose, CA 95111
June 20, 2006.
151
Advani Hammers
As decades and time passes, we are having less and less leaders who fought Indira’s
Black Hole – Emergency Rule. It is like what it used to be when I was in schools – slowly
and but surely all the Freedom Fighters were going away. With that India slowly forgot or
put their heroic struggle in the collective history consciousness – depending upon your
perspective. We are witnessing similar march of Time regarding India’s leaders who
fought against Indira’s Emergency.
Thus Advani hammering Congress during the ‘Save Democracy Day’ comes at
appropriate time. One does not need to remind his qualifications to hammer his criticism
of Congress in this regard. His point is essentially true – Congress is incapable of thinking
rulers away from Nehru - Gandhi family. True India had Rao and Dr. Singh is the current
Prime Minister. But overwhelming power today still vests with Sonia. Dr. Singh is modern
day avatar of ‘appointed vazir’ of Her Majesty, Empress Sonia in this case. Add to this
pathetic clamor of Congress people for Rahul and Priyanka and then Advani’s argument
rings the bell.
There is political tone to Advani’s talk, but that is what we want from our Opposition Party
– fearless criticism of the ruling class. BJP leaders were right to point the heavy handed
way of Congress Government in regards to last year’s Bihar Assembly fiasco. Congress
has a long way to get away from these imperial tendencies which it exhibits on many
occasions.
We all are waiting for a day when Congress Plenary Session passes the resolution to
‘condemn emergency’; apologies to masses for all those oppressive acts; renounces
such dictatorial policies; vows never to repeat such actions in future and lays down
concrete organizational measures to avoid such pitfalls in future (to the extent possible).
Congress must create an organization environment where those who do not come from
Nehru – Gandhi family are not handicap in pursuing legitimate leadership aspirations. Till
then India needs from time to time reminder about ‘emergency’ as how Advani spoke.
The worry is whether we will have young Indian population enough learned about this
thing called ‘emergency’ and true significance of that? With all the hallabol of
Globalization, Money and Mandal; one wonders if that ‘precious little – we always remain
vigilant for our rights, freedom and Democracy’ will be lost on India’s young and energetic
youth. On this day we pray that it does not happen. As they say, we should never forget
what happened 23 years back.
Umesh Patil
San Jose, CA 95111
June 25, 2006
Global Warming and Conservative Response

It has been very shameful on respected columnists like George Will and Charles
Krauthammer who have been doubting the science behind the Global Warming. What is
152 bad is for these intellectuals there is no reason to be blind towards developing challenges
apart from simple ideological biases – Global Warming is an issue earlier raised by
Environmentalists and Liberal and that is it – it must be wrong then for these ideologues.
Now that Congress authorized body National Science Foundation has come up with the
clear scientific report; it is hard for Congress to ignore this developing crisis.
(http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060622/ap_on_sc/global_warming and
h t t p : / / w w w . s f g a t e . c o m / c g i -
bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/06/23/WARMING.TMP&type=science) Congress asked that
body specifically to guide and now they have spoken. Hopefully all these conservative
columnists now realize their foolishness and start working on how to address the problem
on hand.
There in lies the fundamental problem. Before scientific community to come back with
emphatic evidence, these intellectuals doubted the science. Now they are going to doubt
about any remedy proposed. Their argument will what Pres. Bush has been arguing –
jobs will be lost and average Americans will suffer if we start to address the Global
Warming issue. As if there are no sane policies with minimal to zero job impact.
Otherwise also, what do you do then? Keep allowing this catastrophe to develop and
blame it on Liberals and Sinners of this world? It is quite possible that Pat Robertson will
soon issue fatwa to kill all Gay people as a remedy to avoid Global Warming.
So the way political story is going to develop in next few years is – Conservatives as the
true care takers of general employable people of America and Karl Roves of the world
will portray Democrats as job killers! It will not stop there – as is the wont of Norquist
politicians; Republicans will find more avenues of Tax Cuts under the pretext of
combating Global Warming. It is bound to happen.
What needs to happen is to explain American public whose profits may get impacted by
policies to combat Global Warming and what adjustment common Americans will have to
do. Common people will do what is needed, provided all the ideological debates and
wasted interests are bare open. That is the need of the hour going forward now that
science behind Global Warming is on solid grounds.
Umesh Patil
San Jose, CA 95111
June 25, 2006.
FIFA World Cup 2006 – The Roller Coaster Ride

(Today’s essay is more of a personal take than any objective analysis of events
happening.)
I am ecstatic even though only half of my quarter final predications are true. I was wrong
about England and Brazil but no regrets. I am over moon for the scintillating play by the
French team.
I do not feel bad about England. I mean here is Beckham – the guy cannot play full 90
minutes, what is the use? Probably he is just too ‘delicate’ for the rough and tumble of
World Cup football. England missed so many plum chances. Rooney was too silly – 153
hitting the player in groins! When it came to penalty kicks, one could tell these English
players did not have any confidence, like lambs to butcher post! Their play was superior
but the body language and the mental game was too poor. As usual it is the English fan
who makes the hype and then they pay for that.
The real pleasure was to watch Brazil truly outplayed by France. This time around
Europeans have nailed it down the so called ‘samba’ football (after 1982, the same
quartet in semis except Portugal in place of Poland). What is not so attractive in
European football? French passes were some times long and other times short; generally
the attack was from flanks (as compared to the samba style of box facing ‘wave’ attack);
footwork was excellent and by and large the game was clean. It was very impressive how
Zidane and Henry were playing ‘clean’ football; with so less fouls.
My basic argument is about the way the whole Brazilian team was hyped. It is always
hyped and this time was no exception. I mean they were more in their ‘past glory’ (should
we say hubris?) and the world wide ‘samba’ enamored fan club did not help to bring that
team to the earth. Too much hype, too much pride and really ‘too puffed up’ for their own
good and in the end for the game. The inability of Ronaldo to cope up with the exigencies
of this match summed up the whole situation. Did you notice the ‘booing’ of these stars in
the final stages of the game? That is how bad it went for Brazilians.
I say not good for the game because as the Brazilian coach said after the match ‘it is
shame that there is no South American team left in the world cup’. Imagine final World
Cup is played among California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas. Or imagine Cricket
World Cup is played among Mumbai, Maharashtra, Gujarat and Karnataka teams. That is
how the current situation is - 3 small neighboring countries sharing borders (Germany,
France and Italy) and the fourth one slightly at distance - is all left from around 120 plus
countries playing football all over the world. Combined population of these 4 countries is
210 million and we have billions of people in rest of the world playing soccer. That is why
it is shame that we have no other representation left in the World Cup. True, I am not
under the illusion that FIFA system is full proof, but it is best what we have at the global
scale. Hence it is reasonable to assume FIFA World Cup represents some approximate
state of the game at a particular time point.
But I am glad because these 4 teams are there as a result their of good quality game. It
has been very absorbing football and by and large it is a reasonable feeling that no one
has reached this stage without being worthy. So shame or no shame, Europeans are
bringing forth solid, entertaining football.
It will be interesting to watch what will be political fall outs of this World Cup. Generally it
is not a good idea to read a political script in sports drama, but World Cup is gigantic
affair, almost unrivalled by any other phenomenon. So I will hazard some political head
winds while the Cup party is coming to the climax. Some of these come to mind are:
- This World Cup is good for Germany and really good for Angela Merkel. The sight of
lady chancellor with both her hands up in the air due to excitement of Germany win is
politically positive. The Beckenbaure led management of cup matches seems to be good
so far.
- France had lousy 2005 year politically. Will this impressive performance by the French
team help the country to bring some badly needed self assurance? It is noteworthy that
the French Team full of immigrant roots putting a solid performance while French
National Assembly passing a pro immigration bill. May be the French Football team
would help the French society as a whole to loosen up little bit more about the perennial
154
doubts about immigration.
- Since European domination clearly established at this World Cup; will it give fillip to the
faltering ‘European’ project? Chances clearly look little better than start of the World Cup.
This Cup is bound to generate the feeling of Europeans among those countries. So what
has been hard for the politicians to achieve, the Cup seems have attained – fundamental
sense of European belongingness.
- Third French victory over Brazil in World Cup matches may create potentially a new
rivalry. Falkland wars sustained some high drama between England and Argentina for a
while. Now it looks like a new rivalry is born. For a tactical reason Brazilian team might
have gone into the match saying publicly that they were not looking for any revenge over
France. But going forward is it possible for any Brazilian kid to get raised without the
burning desire to defeat France? Doubtful.
- So what does it mean then Developing countries lead by Brazil threaten EU and USA
about agriculture subsidies in WTO meeting in Geneva? France is the country with one of
the highest agriculture subsidies. I am speculating whether football drama would have
any impact in the attitudes of these delegates at WTO disputes.
- As FIFA gets more powerful in years to come, it is inevitable that it becomes part of
global diplomacy tool for many world powers. FIFA is drawing so many countries together
and with the successful marketing machine is able to generate the feeling of ‘unity’
among the entire human race – the basic job of politicians.
- Finally, only if Europe realizes how even FIFA is more effective that UN. Can UN learn
something from FIFA? Of course at present it is FIFA’s moment to be under sun and so
comparing it with UN at this time may be like apples to oranges. But still a thought comes
to mind, are the ways UN can learn from FIFA to achieve its fundamental charter of
brining humans together?
Umesh Patil
San Jose, CA 95111
July 1, 2006.
2006 FIFA World Cup Conclusion

Slowly Europe and rest of the world will come to senses now that the party is over. All
praise to Germany for what seems like hosting a great tournament. What is the beef with
that guy named Franz Beckenbauer? Seems like he is always on the positive and
winning side of the great game called football! Other games would envy when would they
get their Beckenbauers. German team also achieved great success and the whole feel
about the team, the nation and the game was very positive and refreshing. Rarely a
sports phenomenon has achieved such a positive spirit. Hopefully Chinese organizers
attain some of that ‘positive spirit’ in Beijing 2008 Olympics.
Unpredictability in football is the only predictable thing. French played all through a great
game in the final, but could not lift the trophy. Two chances late in the game were
sensational for French – one just before Ribery came out when he took the shot at the
goal post and the second chance of Zidane’s header. Buffon made great save and in a
sense Italy won their cup right then and there.
Great deal of media ink and attention will be spilled about Zidane’s red card. But it is
pretty obvious that missing the header moments before made him frustrated and angry. 155
Of course there is no way to justify his behavior. Hitting the player in chest was senseless
and that was the psychological blow French were unlikely to overcome, for that matter
any team. What a sad spectacle for Zidane, French and in the end for World Football.
FIFA would have had an egg on it's face if Zidane was not expelled at that time. It is quite
likely that he may be further punished or prosecuted. The only thing it demonstrates is in
the end hero’s are humans too who can make mistake. Hopefully the world media does
not go overboard in berating Zidane and gives due credit to what he has achieved in his
life time. The incident was bad but that single incident does not erase all of his
achievements over many years.
FIFA needs to worry about what is a better way to avoid penalty kicks in the final. It is
disgrace to decide the final in penalty kicks. Hopefully as the FIFA management has said,
they would brain storm and come up with better solutions to this problem. Other than that,
FIFA stock is rising and at the moment it is at the zenith of its popularity, power and sheer
afterglow. We will see what happens in next 4 years when FIFA kicks the next world cup
in S. Africa. One thing will be sure - Europeans will unlikely to dominate that tournament.
As England team said, cup in Europe was the best chance for England and European
teams to win. Italians clinched it. Their defense, as usual, was great and they won that
basis.
Something is quite electrifying in staging a physical activity of 22 players which is

watched all over the world by Billion people – the game in the same stadium where Hitler
organized his 1936 Olympics. Rest of the world does get the message – Germany,
Europe and the whole world has come a long way on a better road. Let us keep walking
on this good road.
Umesh Patil
San Jose, CA 95111
July 9, 2006.
Israel’s new war

Yossi Halevi writes a good article in The New Republic about the current military actions
of Israel. (http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i= w060710&s= halevi071206) I support the
current Israel policy of unilateral disengagement and this article talks about very solid
arguments in support of such policy.
Hamas and Hezbollah clearly want war with Israel and Israel is working on what they
want. But as this article and many media stories have reported, the real enemy this time
is Iran. The end game of this new war is likely to be in terms of confrontation of Israel with
Iran. High oil prices have emboldened Iran to pursue now aggressive policies and attacks
of Hamas and Hezbollah are likely to have complete backing from Iran.
The key question is what would America do to contain Iran. As of now, America’s pre-
occupation with Iraq war and unwillingness of Russia and China to help in any way to
evolve consensus to deal with Iran; chances are dim. This mean Israel will eventually act
on its own. But it is not clear whether strategic balance is there in today’s world where
Israel can pull off victory like 1967 in today’s world. In other words, comparatively Israel
156 does not seem to have enough military power to take on Hamas, Hezbollah and
destruction of Iranian nuclear weapons program and their active help. This means decks
are lot against Israel this time and there will be no other option for USA than to get
involved in this conflict eventually possibly to face Iran head on. The problem will be that
participation of USA will be more of forced one at late stage rather than pre planned
involvement to drive maximum resolution of the conflict. Hence, neglect of USA
involvement and lack of explicit backing to Israel will eventually cost USA and the world
lot. It is imperative that USA gets involved in this conflict decisively and quickly.
Umesh Patil
San Jose, CA 95111
July 12, 2006.
Misguided Indian Foreign Policy

Times of India in its latest editorial laments that USA reaction to Mumbai blast is
inadequate, much to be desired and falls way short of what is needed. (
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1748242.cms ) TOI Editorial is expecting
that USA should pressurize Pakistan and hold them publicly responsible for all the help it
is giving to terrorists. These are all tall claims, misplaced expectations and in a way
incorrect reading of how things work in foreign policy and how they should work too. Here
are reasons why TOI Editorial and such orientation of Indian Foreign Policy are wrong.
1. American Congress has been relatively quick in passing resolutions in condemning

these blasts. It is important that elected representatives of America go on record to
condemn these terrorist acts.
2. The basic question is when India is spending all its international political capital in
passing of ‘Indo American Nuclear Accord’ the way she wants; she does not have
anything left to bargain when it comes to terrorism. Mumbai experienced bomb blast in
1992. Dawood Ibrahim and his gang had been generally identified as the master mind
behind that. The question is all these 14 years did India make extradition of Dawood as
the corner stone of her foreign policy? Did India say that if Pres. Bush or Pres. Clinton
wanted to visit India, they must deliver concretely on this terrorist? There seems to be
perceptible lack on that front. India keeps on harping USA for Nuclear Status or UN SC
permanent seat or now UN Secretary Nomination. Then, whose foreign policy is
misplaced? If India itself asks for something else other than what she really needs to
have, how correct it is to expect that world gives what she needs?
3. After 9/11 when USA started Afghanistan war against Taliban, there was heightened,
and completely misplaced, expectation on behalf of NDA government that USA would
topple Pakistani government. In effect there was euphoria that India would get ‘free ride’
as far as removing the antagonistic government of Pakistan. No one is trying to justify
Pakistani regime here or their participation in terrorists act. That is completely besides the
point. But the fact is Indian rulers attempted to base country’s foreign policy on a free
ride. It took a while and in specific some reality checks from Colin Powell to NDA
government to realize that USA would not blindly tilt the balance in South Asia.
4. The objective for America is to get Bin Laden. American establishment (again the
principle architect of that policy had been Colin Powell and Rice is following that in a way) 157
has fundamentally made the calculation that it is much cheaper to keep Pakistan as a
client state and try to achieve America’s objectives instead of opening yet another conflict
front. Merits and demerits of this policy can be discussed and Indian foreign policy
makers and Union Cabinet can very well chew on that privately. But publicly to expect
that effectively America comes into India’s camp as far as Indo-Pak conflict goes, is
rather a naïve expectation and surely not a wise way to base India’s Foreign Policy.
5. Finally, to what an extent India is participating in America’s Global War on Terrorism to

demand that America reciprocate help to India? Sure, it is in America’s best interest to be
on the side of helping India in all respects – nuclear energy, trade and fight against
terrorism. But there is no single concrete act in which India has accorded a helping hand
to America and here we are criticizing America not helping India. It may very well be the
case that America is late to the war against terrorism which Indian has been facing quite
long. But just being early ‘there’ does not entitle a country to claim that every one else
accord that country leadership. Leadership will be determined by your contribution.
6. Take the case of fight against LTTE. India is not in the position to side with Sri Lankan
government in this fight. Tamil province, its state politics and votes complicate all that
matter for Indian politicians. When Kashmir terrorists took minister’s daughter as hostage,
Indian government in the end released captured hard core terrorists. So India may be
paying the heavy price of terrorist acts; but her actions do not inspire the confidence that
she wants to fight the menace of terrorism at all cost. Iran is another case in point. India’s
ambivalent policy towards Iran and approach of hedging her bets do not let her come with
any clarity as far as her policy towards terrorism goes. In the global war against terrorism,
there is no luxury in compromising your resolve and yes, it applies to USA too.
May be latest Mumbai bomb blast will bring this realization to Indian establishment and it
will start rethinking its foreign policy priorities and gives up the habit of expecting help
from other countries. It is like this – to be a leader you do not wait for others to nominate
you and you do not depend on others to help. When India has dealt with these political
challenges on her own, the world will come to India. This is amply proved by the
spectacular success of India in the economic field.
Umesh Patil
San Jose, CA 95111
July 13, 2006.
Troubled World and Challenges to American

Leadership
Not that anybody believes much when Pres. Bush and his team preach America that
Democracy in other countries is good for America and hence it is worth for Americans to
die in the Iraq war. Everybody kind of understands that as a cheap way of selling
Administration’s Iraq policy – stay the course, do not admit any mistakes, keep the high
158
ground – to American voters. Hopefully events of last few weeks around the world should
‘shut up’ such foolish talk.
It is not foolish to advocate Democracy in countries where there is no such thing. Of

course America should always stand for Democracy and from time to time America will
need to sacrifice her lives and dollars for this goal. What is foolish is trying to sell this as a
policy to counter terrorism. As like Iraq war which never could have been the central part
of Global War on Terrorism, promotion of democracy in rogue regimes has been a
careless foreign policy. It is a policy which abducts the responsibility in securing America.
The reasons are clear – either you would get political forces legitimized via election who
advocate ‘state terrorism and fanatic ideology’ (Hamas in Gaza) or a weak state which
can not control forces of terrorism (Lebanese state which can not control Hezbullah and
elected Iraqi government which can not control Sadre militia). It is utterly nonsensical that
this Administration failed to visualize such possibilities and kept on justifying the wrongs
of starting Iraq war by talking democracy promotion. It is not just Pres. Bush, Condi Rice,
NeoCons; but many non-conservatives fell for such thinking. Tom Friedman in NYT at
least had the humility to admit that he was wrong in this case.
Democracy promotion and taking steps to secure America are two different things and
Pres. Bush mixed those two for his political convenience and his political benefits. It is the
same pattern of mixing Iraq war with Global War on Terror. It is sad to write it but this
Administration used America and gullible American voters. That will be the legacy of this
Pres. Bush.
What should be done now? It is fine for ‘Time’ to write a cover story declaring ‘end of
cowboy diplomacy’ as an eye catching cover; but that neither accurately describes the
reality nor a way out. There never was any meat in Pres. Bush’s aggressive, unilateral,
militaristic foreign policy when early on it became clear that Iraq war would bog down
America’s ability to use force in executing Global War on Terror. Remaining illustrious
members of Axis of Evil (Iran and N. Korea) were never in any danger after the Iraq war
fiasco and refusal of Pres. Bush to increase American Army. The Administration realized
this dark reality soon, Americans realized too and rest of the world has been knowing it
for a long. So the cowboy foreign policy was only in name.
Iraq war has fundamentally sapped all available bandwidth of this Administration as well
as has bogged down America’s Army. With every passing day it is becoming clear how
this Administration has cornered itself and effectively dropped balls about the real wars.
No wonder we have many pundits who wish ‘how America had been at war with Iran
instead of Iraq’. (America's Nemesis by James Kitfield, National Journal Friday, July 21,
2006. http://nationaljournal.com/about/njweekly/stories/2006/0721nj1.htm) Implicit to this
lament is a thought that even if America was to get bogged down in Iran as like how it
has in Iraq; it would have been acceptable. Discussing merits of such an argument is
beside the point and in any case reality is not that. But it does show how desperate and
ineffective America’s position has become as well as how the true enemy Iran has
become after friendly Shiite regime in Iraq. This other sub plot of President Bush’s grand
scheme – Iraq is a key to Arab-Israel conflict – turns out to be equally wrong as like other
parts (removing Saddam is a step in Global War on Terror and dieing for Democracy in
Iraq is worth the price in securing America). One rather wonders whether resolving issues
with Iran could have helped in addressing back room dynamics of Arab-Israel conflict.
So does the solution lie in what Time, many Media outlets and duo of Sen. Kerry and
159
Sen. Finegold advocate – negotiate whosoever wants to talk with USA and pull out from
Iraq? It is not that simple.
It is imperative to understand that there are people (Islamic Fundamentalist primarily)

who basically are against the Western Democratic Nations, their reasonably secure way
of life and any one who works with them. History has conclusively shown that all those
who attempted some kind of justification of Hitler and his policies were completely wrong.
Hence West and the World must not take threats posed by these Mullahs lightly. If
Hezbullah and Hamas are dieing to start Third World War – they will get it and they will be
‘wiped out’ – that is the resolve required by America and those who want to come along
with America. Then how does talking with these extremists help? It does not help,
assuming that ‘talk means negotiations and negotiations mean giving something’. You
don’t give anything to Terrorists, elected or not elected. Then it matters much less
whether you don’t talk at all or you do all the talk but do not negotiate.
It is possible that many European countries and many other democracies of the world
(India, Brazil, etc.) may not see this danger and would not like to commit so much
themselves for this fight. Russia and China will also sit on the fence for as long as it is
possible. (In any case China gets around 20% of it’s oil from Iran and Russia would like
to see high price of oil for quite long.) So the goal should be to reposition forces from Iraq
to the extent it adds capability in addressing other theaters of war because other
countries are unlikely to help much. Force withdrawal or reposition from Iraq should be
dictated by America’s security needs and not some political needs to avoid Civil War in
Iraq. Stopping Civil War in Iraq may be beneficial to an extent, but in the unavoidable part
of prioritizing limited resources it goes down the list of priorities America needs to
address.
What we want is repositioning plan which will change the focus of American forces from
stabilizing Iraq to contain and stop Iran- Syria nexus. Supporting Israel in the current
conflict with Hezbollah in Lebanon is the first right step. Cutting support of Syria to
Hezbollah is the second step. Meanwhile, if Iranian regime thinks it needs to jump to the
war it will try to stop oil deliveries of it’s own and of other countries from the Gulf. That is
the single most battle scenario America needs to be ready for.
Any leader, Democrats included, who want to argue an alternative Foreign Policy must
need to spell out plans along these lines. And for such plans to be creditable with
American People, the ones who pay the price in the end; it will be useful if those come
from the people who in the first place did not wrongly sold Iraq policy.
Repositioning of forces form Iraq, coordinated action with Israel and relentless pressure
on Iran on global stage are some of the required steps. Russia and China will surely
block any meaningful action against Iran. Then there is no choice for America to go along
with all those who are willing to work with her. It is no time to worry about America’s
International Image. True, Pres. Bush has roiled it lot and that can not be excused. But
American voters do not elect their leaders to be Mr. or Mrs. Nice to the world. They are
elected to solve the challenges America faces in a troubled world.
Umesh Patil
San Jose, CA 95111
July 22, 2006.
160
Decoupling from American Economy?
There has been renewed debate about Economy and Recession. American GDP slowed
down from 5+% to 2.8% in the second quarter and early numbers for the 3rd quarter do
not look promising.
Many say it is unlikely that anything useful can be done by American Government to stop
this slowdown. (True, at the best of times Politicians have less room to do any good in a
Capitalist system though they can always harm.) Paul Krugman, the relentless critique of
Bush Administration and Economics Professor at Princeton, writes in NYT that mounting
Iraq war costs (no end in site) and insistency of Pres. Bush for more tax cuts is unlikely to
make things any different. In other words the current American Congress and President
are unlikely to do anything worthwhile to address this potential economic slow down. I
say if at all, President Bush has the knack to complicate the problem further.
On this background the newly minted Treasury Secretary is on the job of vigorously
selling the Bush Administration’s spin - 'it is no problem if USA economy is slow little bit,
economy in rest of the world is strong and that should carry the day in the end'. His
former employer (Goldman Sachs) has bit of a different opinion - Global CEO’s are
worried about the impeding slow down.
So this sets the stage for an interesting phenomenon – whether the economic boom in
rest of the world would allow global economy to contain the impact of USA economy slow
down. All we know, this could be first time in long long time (I guess one will have to go
back in the 19th century to find the parallel) that the world chugs along quite well despite
a weaker Uncle Sam. Nouriel Roubini is the one who writes that aren’t going to happen.
(http://www.rgemonitor.com/blog/roubini/139556) One should read his blog to get more
details. According to him slower American Economy or recession in USA will impact rest
of the global economy adversely rather than global economy cushioning out any
American downturn.
My bet – American economy is likely to avoid an outright recession unless Middle East
conflict and Iraq campaign do not deteriorate further (or N. Korea or Iran detonate the
bomb) and Oil prices do not go above $100. Ominously with BP Oil production in Alaska
going down by taking out 400,000 barrels per day from the USA market, oil price is set to
go higher. If a recession does come, it is hard the outcome can be any different than
what Roubini says. Hey, who in senses would go with President Bush even if he gets
Goldman Sach’s CEO as the Treasury Secretary? Listen how Paulson talks now and
then you realize that indeed it is something with this Administration – even a good apple
goes bad when it comes under the spell of Dark Forces.
Umesh Patil
San Jose, CA 95111
August 06, 2006.
161
Hopeless Conservatives
Tuesday, August 08, 2006
John McIntyre in RCP gloats about Lieberman’s loss.
(http://www.realclearpolitics.com/blog/2006/08/ct_results_a_disaster_for_demo.html)
What is with these Conservatives? Why are they jumping up and down viewing this result
as the impeding loss of Democrats in the November election? If anything, it shows the
desperation on the part of Republicans about their hopeless electoral prospects in the
coming election. Also intellectually it is a dishonest position.
First, who says Lieberman’s opponent Lamont will not win the general election? What if
indeed American people are disgusted with the dishonesty going around about the Iraq
mess? Further, why these Conservatives assume that Lieberman after wining the
election as an independent would be effectively a Republican Senator? He will not be.
And the jury is out if 3 way race would indeed benefit the Republican challenger in the CT
Senate race.
Why is it so difficult for people to understand that voters turned down Lieberman because
he refuses to accept that starting Iraq war was wrong and it was wrong for him to back it
originally? Everybody is smart enough to distinguish war as a mistake and the manner of
conducting the war. It does not matter how many times Lieberman condemns Pres.
Bush’s conduct of Iraq war if he is not ready to cross the Rubicon of understanding deep
mistakes committed in starting the war in the first place and it’s continuation. Why should
people forgive him when it is such an important question about life and death? It does not
matter whether a Democrat or a Republican, unless American leadership understands
that it was a mistake to start the Iraq war; there is no salvation for American Politics.
American Leadership and American Public got to come to terms with mistakes and
losses of Iraq war. Lieberman refuses to do that, refuses to own his own mistakes and
hence voters rejected him.
The silly part of these Conservatives is they are not coming forward and defending the
war. There they are shy. Instead they are trying to project Lieberman as their proxy and
trying to play the same game as like Karl Rove – oh poor Democrats they are again soft
on defense…. It does not matter how long American Public takes to understand how
wrong such an argument is, those who care to move America beyond the Iraq mess will
have to try again and again to call the bluff of this argument. Defeat of Lieberman in the
primary is one step along this line.
Umesh Patil
San Jose, CA 95111
August 08, 2006.
Iraq War Mess and Beyond

Tuesday, August 08, 2006
First we got Joe Klein in Time writing that America’s Iraq campaign is in free fall. Then
during the Senate testimonies General Pace uses Tom Friedman’s description – ‘Iraqi
sects hate each other more than they love their children’. After the testimony Sen. Clinton
162 asks President to accept Sec. Remusfeld’s resignation. Friedman himself makes his
column space available exclusively for the ‘Plan B’. So the sense of ‘lost campaign’ is
palpable in Congress, in Washington and in America. Looks like finally America is coming
to terms that essentially Iraq war is lost, if not militarily but politically sure. In Newsweek
Eleanor Clifts summarizes the predicament of America – in the hard and rock place. But
the top in these commentaries was NYT editorial – ‘A Timetable Isn’t an Exit Strategy’;
blasting, rightly so, the Kerry line of Democratic party. All in all America is essentially
preparing for the loss and to start the long and painful process of internalizing yet another
foreign policy failure. One can say spectacular failure with devastating consequences.
At the outset, it should be said that President Bush and his cohort will not change their
policy of ‘stay the course’ and ‘spin the war’. Wall Street Journal types and Financial
Times still prescribe that theory. NYT is right in characterizing that if possible for all 29
remaining months, President Bush will pretend that everything is on track in the Iraq
campaign, nothing needs to be changed and then President Bush with VP Cheney will
give this problem as a gift to the next administration. This means in the calculus of ‘facing
the tragic Iraq campaign’ America can not assume honest participation by her President.
On the other hand he and his supporters will be a hindrance in addressing the true
challenges on hand. This makes the task quite difficult to the Congress, Media and those
in America Public who want to start solving this Iraq mess. But that is how it is - America
unfortunately has a President whose political interests are not aligned with what is best
for America.
To recap, here are the failures of President Bush’s Iraq campaign:

1. Once WMD reason fell on the face, President Bush, VP Cheney and Rice have been
relentlessly selling the main goal of Iraq campaign as ‘bringing democracy in Iraq’ and
that Democracy in Arab world is the panacea of America’s long term security from
Terrorism.
2. Sec. Reumsfled tried to win this war on cheap and never provided any realistic
resources to contain centrifugal forces from the start.
3. President Bush tried to sell a theory that Iraq campaign for bringing Democracy and
Lebanese elections will help solve the Israel Palestine conflict. In other words it is okay to
ignore the centrality of this dispute, concentrate on Democracy in Iraq, help spread it in
greater Middle East and then everything will be fine.
Reality of last 3 years in Iraq and the current Israel – Hamas & Hezbollag conflicts refute
President Bush’s theories’ conclusively.
Iraq war is lost and America needs to change the direction – give up dieing of American
soldiers and spending of America tax dollars for the sake of Democratic Government in
Iraq. Enough has been spent. How about bothering to spend these American resources
for America’s security now?
This means the focus cannot be on whether Iraq stays as a single country, but on what
can America buy at lesser cost. This means to fully understand the central enemy in
Middle East – Iran. So if division of Iraq is unavoidable, so be the case then. Kursdistan
will be not any threat to America’s security. The key is to reposition America’s already
existing forces in Iraq to align along the Iran border so that Shiite regime in Iraqi South
does not completely assimilate with Iran. The goal should be to keep Iraqi Southern
Shiite regime as much away from Iran as possible.
The real problem in division of Iraq will be Sunni Anbar and Baghdad. It can not sustain
itself as a state for a long long time. This is where the first crucial involvement of Saudi’s
163
is needed. America will need to work with Sunni regional partners of Saudi Arabia, Egypt
and Jordan to contain the mini Sunni statelet in the Western province of the current Iraq.
Managing divisions of Iraq to the best of America’s interest becomes the primary focus
when one realizes the futility of Democracy in Iraq enterprise.
The other parallel track while this is going on, is to address Arab – Israel conflict. The
second important contribution needed from House of Saudi is to garner an explicit
sponsorship of the peace process in this conflict. America’s goal should be to involve all
the Sunni regimes of the area in order to contain the militant influence of Shiite Iran.
There is no glory in this business. There are no politically profitable moments of basking
in the glory while espousing role of Democracy as the leader of Free World. But once all
such unrelated concepts are separated from America’s fundamental security needs, one
sees a path to get out of the Iraq mess. This means America’s forces will be committed to
stay in present day Iraq for many years, but for different reasons. Somebody must be
kidding if she says Americans soldiers can come all from Iraq. That is why NYT blasts
Democrats too – they can not lie to America that washing hands with Iraq war will bring all
the sunshine. If Democrats do not want to be as wantonly irresponsible as President
Bush, they need to tell Americans the continued involvement needed. What American
Leadership can do and should do is to realign the Iraq strategy to the changed context.
Umesh Patil
San Jose, CA 95111
August 08, 2006.
The Battle Israel Did not Win

It is the fight to death before the UN sponsored cease fire agreement takes place in next
few hours. May be Israel is able to salvage some prestige during these hours. But is
clear, as feared earlier on this blog at the start of this battle
(http://21stcenturypolitics.blogspot.com/2006/07/israels-new-war.html), that Israel does
not have enough strength to take on Hezbollah, Hamas and Iran all together. It seems
that has come true – Israel could not win this battle against Hezbollah and now has to
accept the UN meditation without fulfilling her goals.
Getting two kidnapped soldiers back has been one of the stated goals. But the real aim
for Israel has been to diminish substantially Hezbollah as a military force, to address the
root cause of rockets fired on Israel from North and to create a divide between Lebanese
Polity and Hezbollah. Out of these three goals, it is not clear if anything is attained with
clarity. That in itself is sufficient to label this Israel campaign as a failure. The only solace
Israel can draw is by paying some high cost some damage is done to Hezbollah and
Israel has now clear read in terms of militarily what they need to do in future when a
battle erupts again with Hezbollah. It is for sure that there will be fight for another day
164 since neither Israel has attained her goals nor Hezbollah want to live Israel in any peace.
In a way, it has been aimless war for Hezbollah tactically while the strategic goal of
getting further backing in Arab Street is succeeding. If not to the extent Israel expects, but
Lebanese public is bound to think about what this battle brought to them? Nothing apart
from misery. The battle will surely erupt again in future because it is very difficult for the
International Force to wield any real power to stop any mischief by Hezbollah and it is
suspicious how much Lebanese Army will be able to disarm Hezbollah. So we are only at
a temporary halt.
There will be domestic political repercussions in Israel. ‘Bibi’ will roar back and political
life will be much more difficult to Olmert than what it was before the battle. As far as
America goes, she gets a breather to go back to the Iraq mess while reminding what her
Middle East Policy needs to attain eventually – resolution of Israel Palestine conflict and
containment of Hezbollah and Iran.
Umesh Patil
San Jose, CA 95111
August 13, 2006.
Undemocratic Democrats
It is quite well known that American election system has quite few drawbacks. America
gets a President who may have less number of popular votes than the defeated
candidate. The proof requirements of voter eligibility are not uniform across the states.
Absentee ballot rules are different in different states. More important, actual ballots and
vote counting procedures are different and not uniform. Some states use electronic voting
with printed receipts whereas other still continue with punch cards. All in all it is a
disgrace system, far inferior to many other nations.
It is expected that Democrats would fight for making American election process
transparent, precise and uniform. There have been some movement in this regard and
Sen. Kerry with other Democrats did put this issue on their agenda. But still it is a long,
long way to go. While the work has barely started in this regard, Democrats are engaged
in divisive and counter productive debate as far as how their primary calendar goes and
how the presidential selection process would work for 2008. It is expected that
Democrats set the example for the national election by way of adopting a smooth primary
election process. Looks like that is not happening.
The changes proposed by DNC are over due – bringing Nevada between Iowa caucuses
New Hampshire and South Carolina primary following New Hampshire. The idea is
Democratic primary process is not hostage to two small states with much less
demographic representation of voters.
The sad part is DNC has to propose punitive measures for candidates who campaign in
states who do not want to adhere to this new calendar. New Hampshire is the recalcitrant
state here and potential candidates like Sen. Kerry, Sen. Bayh and Edwards want to play
dirty. It is a shameless act that New Hampshire wants to take the democratic process
hostage and wants to carry the impression that they are the only ones who are vanguard
of political debate in American elections. It is as if voters in states like California do not
matter even if they contribute lot to American political process, both in terms money and 165
time. Just because some state joined Union earlier does not mean it should make the
entire democratic process beholden to it. It is amazing to read the kind of arrogance
carried by state officials of these two states – New Hampshire and Iowa. It is the same
kind of attitude where people want to perpetuate historical advantages at the cost of
others. What is sad is potential progressive candidates like Sen. Kerry, Edwards and
Sen. Bayh should be party to such undemocratic and oppressive procedures. It is better
DNC and the Democrats Party get out of such unrepresentative process as early as
possible.
Umesh Patil
San Jose, CA 95111
August 20, 2006.
Old Line Media, Internet and Politics

New York Times publishes an interesting article about a leading newspaper company
K n i g h t R i d d e r ( K R ) a n d i t ’ s d o w n f a l l .
(http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/27/business/yourmoney/27knight.html?_r=1&oref=slogi
n&ref=business&pagewanted=all) I have been reading KR’s front line newspaper San
Jose Mercury News for last 8 years and have kind of seen the transformation, mostly the
downward spiral. KR had been an old media company with solid financial footing, good
circulation, excellent journalism (85 Pulitzer Prizes) and quite a good technological
adoption in early stages. I worked with few of their SW Technologist and it had been
great experience – their skill set had been advanced one. All in all a good newspaper
company with hardly any reason to think that it would face any business crisis.
But KR faced the crisis of Internet, succumbed to it and was finally bought by private
investors. In some respect it got dismantled since some newspapers of the group were
sold to different buyers. In a nutshell, the company simply vanished in a short period. The
article in NYT maintains that primarily KR listened to the Wall Street advice of getting
profitable and it got caught in that game. Basically newspaper business in America is
mature and Wall Street expects certain return on equity. With challenges coming from
Internet, there is no way these old media company can make that kind of money in
today’s world and fall of KR is the classic example of that. As some investment bankers
point, in today’s world there is no place for these media companies to be as a publicly
traded company; they may need to be private companies. In other words the traditional
business model is simply not viable.
This much is now well understand – in mature markets of America (and may be Europe,
Japan and S. Korea) – traditional style newspapers are dead unless they change.
Economist in latest issue laments that not many newspapers are changing rapidly to
a d d r e s s t h i s c h a l l e n g e .
(http://economist.com/business/displaystory.cfm?story_id=7827135) New York Times
itself is making some efforts in this direction but does not seem to be out of the woods.
Washington Post seems to be doing reasonable. That bastion of Market Capitalism –
Wall Street Journal – is also facing the blues and not doing that well.
Will this have any impact on what news and analysis is generated? Surely it will in the
166 sense that money and resources behind investigative journalism will lag. But that effect is
yet to manifest. So far in the early days of Internet news, we see more variety, more
diversity and attempts by established media companies to explore new business models.
No new business model has been fully established and the game is still open.
Beyond the business aspect, needless to say it is having impact on politics too since
media plays such a critical role. But there is a feeling that it will be more of change in the
style (as how TV changed American Politics – ask Joe Klien of Time and he will reply that
that has been a negative impact) instead of wholesale change in the way politics is
conducted. So far bitter partisan rancor amplification on Internet is the first observation.
One Lamont victor in CT Senate Race due to Netroots of Democrats is one visible and
easily identifiable impact. But it is hard to believe that the media change in that regard is
the core issue. Medium has changed no doubt and it is bringing many other people into
the discourse who otherwise did not participate as Al Gore points in England.
(http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060827/ennew_afp/afpentertainmentbritain_0608271948
35) Also the new medium is helping in raising more money. Whether in itself these things
will change the entire politics, it is not clear. Without the ‘substance or ideas’ politics is
unlikely to change.
Umesh Patil
San Jose, CA 95111
August 27, 2006.
Pervert CNN
Agreed that it is not the sole responsibility of CNN to be a sensible media in today’s super
shallow world. But the way CNN is handing the news about one Mr. John Karr, it is
obvious that the network thinks news about this person is far more important to the
welfare of America.
Terry Savage writes in TheStreet.com about this pathetic state.

(http://www.thestreet.com/_dm/markets/economics/10305903.html) She talks about the
scary state of Uncle Sam’s finances in her article and she is right when writes:
“… our huge and growing financial disaster doesn't stand much chance of gaining
attention, especially in a world dominated by reality television shows and news headlines
about perverts. When more people take the time to vote for dancing partners or dubious
singing talent than vote for the president or their own congressional representatives, then
we have only ourselves to blame.
Or we could say that we are setting ourselves up for the blame that our children will heap
on us for being the first generation to leave this country worse off than we found it.”
And mind well, this is from a web site which is generally focused on talking how to make
money without being partisan. Really the kind of mindless, shameless and incessant
publicity CNN and likes of CNN are giving to this news item of one Mr. Karr; one wonders
what kind of responsible journalism an established company like Time Warner wants to
do. None, Time Warner is equally duping Americans by broadcasting such lousy news at
the cost of real important issues of America. It is like Pavlovian condition – whenever
there is rape and murder, CNN will keep aside everything and will keep on talking about
that 24 x 7. CNN has become as pervert as like Mr. Karr.
167
Umesh Patil
San Jose, CA 95111
August 27, 2006.
Post Blair Britain

Sebastian Mallaby writes an excellent article about UK-USA relationship in post Blair
period, now that Blair’s departure is official. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2006/09/10/AR2006091001146.html) He makes following important
points:
- Blair’s role as an articulate spokesperson of Bush Iraq Policy has been crucial and
unlikely to be filled by any one. So it is all but sure that Pres. Bush will loose a
fundamental component of his Iraq war strategy by next year when Blair is gone. It will be
impossible to run the current Iraq strategy as it is then. It is not just 25 Thousand British
forces but it is the semblance of international heft to American forces, political gravity in
favor of America in UN and other forums; all that will be gone. Pres. Bush likes it or not,
the change is coming in his Iraq war and it will be in the direction he does not intend.
- His second point is very important too: the successor to Blair will be ‘cool’ to Pres.
Bush’s Administration but not to USA. As soon as Pres. Bush is gone, Mallaby contends
that the strong UK-USA relationship will resume. Very right insight. That should happen
and that will happen.
In the world where USA has to collect all the mess which Pres. Bush has created, strong
UK-USA relationship is necessary. To bad, one has to wait for Pres. Bush’s departure for
that.
Umesh Patil
San Jose, CA 95111
September 11, 2006.
Papal Failure
Friday, September 15, 2006
(This refers to the blog entry by Daniel Drezner and comments on the same.
http://www.danieldrezner.com/blog/ )
The opening comments by RHD are indeed good and the central thesis of those
comments is true - this Pope is indeed attempting to make an opening salvo against the
great looming conflict: using Islam for justifying violence. Given his strong theological
pedigree and moral courage, it makes perfect sense that this Pope would try to engage in
such a polemical battle of ideas with relevance to day to day conflicts.
168 But the questions raised about the wisdom in quoting some obscure emperor, whose
empire finally gave way to Islam, are all applicable here and are valid. Looks like from a
scholarship point of view that quote was not appropriate.
Finally about the most important issue: it has been a suspicion that established
Christianity ignores it's own violent past of 1000 years (especially medieval times). Pope's
utterances confirm that. If you are familiar with Hindu Fundamentalists in India, you see
the point: these fundamentalists ignore the violent (and exploitation by way of Hindu
Caste System) and tend to point fingers at others, say to Islam or Christianity. However,
those who ignore their own past essentially loose the basic credibility in pointing mistakes
of others. This Pope has made that cardinal mistake. Unless he acknowledges blood on
hands of Papacy, there is no way through the 'window' of God's house this Pope can get
any ray of ‘grace’. The utterances of this Pope are all in the mean and narrow tradition of
these religious leaders – arguing for monopoly of one religion over others. Amazing that
2000 years have passed and still these religious leaders do not get it and they still
engage in petty and narrow world view.
There is indeed a right case to be made against those who use Islam to justify violence.
Further, at theological level one can debate what violent ways did the Prophet advocate
to spread Islam - is it true and whether it is right. Unfortunately this core debate will be set
aside due to this Pope's failure in apologizing for the past violence undertaken by
Christianity in the name of Jesus.
There is so much desperate need of a ‘shepherd’ in today’s world. One wishes the
current Pope would fulfill that role. But it does not seem so.
Umesh Patil
San Jose, CA 95111
September 15, 2006.
America – Shine and Shadow

Wednesday, October 04, 2006
While American Political discourse is embroiled in all sorts of scandals and political
shenanigans; there are some other bright spots for American Society:
- clean sweep of 2006 Science Nobel prizes (2 in Physics, 2 in Medicine and the single in
Chemistry);
- Dow Jones finally scaling higher than the peak attained in Dot Com boom.
Hopefully, politicians get their act. Or as Tom Friedman says American voters now pull
their act together and bring some accountability in removing GOP from majorities in
House and Senate.
It is interesting how Tom Friedman worries that otherwise America will resemble ‘tribal
politics of Iraq’ while George Will points the danger in Pres. Bush’s naivety when he
expects Washington and Jefferson from the ‘tribal stew’ called Iraqi politics.
It is high time for American voters to enact and flaunt the venerable sense of American 169
Democracy.
Umesh Patil
San Jose, CA 95111
October 04, 2006
Living with the Nuclear Renegade

Looks like finally ‘the ill’ Kim has crossed the Rubicon of the nuclear test. Confirmations
are still yet to come and all we know it could be a big lie. But seems that S. Korean news
agency has confirmed the test. All the world’s warnings did not produce anything. It is
unlikely to produce anything much in future too. Will China come on the board in order to
achieve total isolation of N. Korea? It is not clear. China’s worry of exodus of N. Korean
refugees is still unanswered regardless of N. Korea with nuclear weapons or not. China
proceeds in the full knowledge that N. Korea would not use that weapon to destabilize
China.
If newly minted PM Abe’s Japan decides to go nuclear that will be the real worry for
China. So the question is for the sake of Japan not getting any excuses will China finally
become serious with N. Korea? Or does China feel that it’s economic might is enough to
stop Japan going nuclear even though it lives under the shadows of nuclear N. Korea?
Clearly that is not sustainable and at some point Japan will chart an independent course
regardless of damages due to loss of Chinese market. There do not seem any clear signs
where one can identify any such resolution with China.
And what about America? Taking aggressive line against N. Korea will not help much
Pres. Bush in the November 2006 elections. So he may not want to spend too much of
his energies on this issue. Further, he does not have much deterrence and credibility to
address this issue in a diplomatic manner. As is clear for long time, only when America
has alternative leadership, has been able to make visible progress in War on Terrorism
and has been able to extricate herself from the quagmire called Iraq; America has a
chance to make any progress diplomatically. Otherwise military action is the only option
available to this administration and Iraq has shown clearly pitfalls of such a strategy.
Neither this administration has any aptitude nor America has enough strength (unless it is
goes on a replenishing program) to start a new military front. In the end for America, there
is no other option than to bare with nuclear N. Korea (and emboldened Iran) for few more
years.
Umesh Patil
San Jose, CA 95111
October 08, 2006.
170
Death of Indo-USA Nuclear Deal
Finally the reality of doomed Indo-USA Nuclear Deal is dawning on Indian Media and
Establishment. Times of India Washington correspondent Chidanand Rajghatta writes
about how Bush Administration is preparing the ground to take Indo-USA relations
beyond this deal. It is high time both sides wake up to the reality.
Even if Republicans happen to hang on to their majority in Congress (less probable event
every passing day), N. Korea’s nuclear test has altered the situation dramatically.
Belligerent Iran constantly reminds problems and dangers of nuclear proliferation. Even
though Nuclear Khan has been from Pakistan, for an ordinary American to believe that
Indians are superior to Pakistanis in taking care of nuclear weapons is a bit leap of faith.
What it brings home, home to American people, is any negation of anti-proliferation
efforts – in any form – are in the end detrimental to American security. What has
compounded the matter is negative tones of many India backers in Media, likes of
Thomas Friedman in New York Times. Friedman in the end turned against this deal as he
wrote that India needed to commit for voluntary stoppage of any further enrichment of
nuclear material. That was probably the limit how far a Democratic line could go in favor
of India. With the looming ascend of Democrats on the Hill, one can understand the
unfolding demise of this deal in it’s current form.
It is a difficult and different matter to debate where India can indeed commit to such
voluntary restraints in the given situation of nuclear Pakistan and China even though
India has committed for ‘no first nuclear strike’. It will be impossible to get such a
consensus in India around this policy; at least until India’s economic might pulls her far
apart from Pakistan so as India becomes bold enough to drop such security measures.
Simply put, time is probably not right for India to veer towards such a policy position and
there are no charismatic leaders who can pull up such a rabbit. Of course, it is unfair to
expect charismatic leadership only from India when rest of the world does not distinguish
itself by displaying any leadership at all. Hardly anyone needs to remind the bankruptcy
of American Leadership as manifested by this Bush Administration.
In coming days, far too many pressing issues are on the table of American leaders to
devote any energy or political capital to this pending deal. This means the current ‘limbo’
status of India’s nuclear policy, as far as America goes, may be the best deal possible
from American side in given circumstances. Naturally, it makes much more sense to
explore other avenues of co-operation (more co-ordination of leading world democracies,
fight against terrorism, global trade, immigration, etc.) between these two nations.
Fortunately or unfortunately, the way today’s world is, it is full of challenges offering
effectively unending opportunities to these two democratic nations to cooperate and
improve their relationships.
Umesh Patil
San Jose, CA 95111
October 21, 2006.
171
Incompetent Editors
Wednesday, October 25, 2006
Times of India publishes an editorial ‘Two Cheers’ in the issue of October 26, 2006.
(http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/150765.cms ) It is a very ill conceived,
cheap editorial. The editorial is about American Media hype about Obama Presidential
candidacy. Here are some points to consider:
- Candidacy of Hillary and Obama are still media phenomenon only which do not warrant
any editorial attention at such an early stage. If an editorial board wants to give attention
at such an early stage, it will have to start attending to all nuances of party politics in
America as well as complete coverage of American elections. Clearly that is not
something necessarily much useful to Indian population.
- No doubt American Democracy is lacking something until she gets a woman or a
minority person as President or Supreme Court Chief Justice. But from that to conclude
that America does not have right to propagate Democracy world over is wrong as like
how this editorial tries to admonish America. If one reads American and World History,
there is no regime - including UK - which has followed one single book (American
Constitution) so consistently – complete in letter and spirit.
- There is no point confusing Pres. Bush’s Iraq war justification (spreading democracy)
with the credibility of America in propagating Democracy to other countries. One needs to
remember that around 2800 Americans have died and 400 Billion tax dollars spent in Iraq
where 3 widely acclaimed elections took place in Post-Saddam Iraq. Don’t dare to be
righteous in lecturing American people about their commitment and sacrifices for the
cause of Democracy. Can TOI editorial board remember how many Indian’s died in
promoting Democracy out side India? Or how many Rupees spent? Iraq is America’s
failed policy, mainly due to Pres. Bush. But that is no reason to question the sacrifices
done by Americans. How about S. Korea? More than 50,000Americans died in Korean
war, the fruit of which is free, democratic S. Korea. How about Kuwait in 1991? And we
are still not talking Germany and Japan after WWII.
- If TOI editorial board wants to brag about better elections conducted in India, one can
understand that. America has yet to attain perfection in conducting elections despite all
the high tech equipments and resources. But if any one lesson out of Iraq is, it is that
elections are just one part of Democracy.
- How is Indian democracy handling the historical anomalies of Caste System and
consequent Reservations? Can any sensible person say that it is rightly handled in India?
Getting minority people in power is one thing, but to make fundamental difference for
down trodden masses in just manner (without trampling freedom, opportunities and
liberty of other sections of society) is what counts. In that sense American Democracy
has at least addressed core problems to some reasonable degree even if symbolic
achievements like minority people at the pinnacle of power are yet to be realized. In
India, it is reverse – symbolism comes first; substance may or may not follow. Further, we
all know total failure in applying law to perpetrators of Delhi riots in 1984, Babri Masjid
mayhem in 1992 and Godhara in 2002. This is all in the same great democracy which
prides itself in minority troika at helm – Sonia, Dr. Singh and Pres. Kalam.
- From process and structural point of view American democracy is very superior and
more importantly it is practiced rigorously. How often do you have anything like Senate
and House hearings about current issues in India? How often foreign policy matters are
ratified by Parliament in India? Which Democracy takes pulse of its citizens every two
years; years after year for over two centuries? Which Judiciary can claim sustained
172 independence as like American State, Federal and Supreme Court System? Which
Democracy has as independent Media as like America? Can TOI editorial board
remember how it conducted itself in the Emergency regime of Indira in 1977? One can go
on and on.
- Just because Nancy Pelosi possibly becomes the first woman House Speaker does not
mean American Democracy suddenly becomes great. Pelosi’s Speaker Tenure will be
still judged by how she solves America’s problems. It is complete lack of understanding to
assume that Liberal Americans will be simply happy by seeing a woman speaker or a
minority President without a concrete agenda, efforts to implement that agenda and in the
end concrete results. America’s notion of a successful politician is not so cheap nor so
shameful.
All in all it is a useless and wrong editorial. Taking pot shots at American Democracy
shows abduction of editorial duties in pointing real challenges faced by Indian people as
well as people in other countries.
Umesh Patil
San Jose, CA 95111
October 25, 2006
Course Correction by Indian Supreme Court

Tuesday, October 31, 2006
Long live India’s Supreme Court! The initial judgments and observations by the court in
the case of ‘caste based reservations in employment and education’ look truly path
breaking. Here is the quick run down of Court’s opinion in multitude of these cases and
ongoing arguments as reported in Times of India:
- Court is in favor of extending the concept of ‘creamy layer’ to SC and ST categories too.
(For readers who may not be familiar with India’s affirmation program - Creamy layer is
the mechanism by which prospective employer or an education institute does not offer
‘affirmative action’ considerations to those who are from backward castes but are also
from economically and socially well to do sections of the society. Creamy layer
consideration is currently applied to reservations for Other Backward Castes (OBC) but
not to Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST) groups of Indian society.
Reservations for SC and ST are constitutionally guaranteed in the original form of Indian
constitution whereas reservations for OBC have been added afterwards under various
laws passed subsequently.)
- Court would like to see the ceiling on reservations at 50% of total available jobs or
educational opportunities.
- Court would not want to carry forward unfilled reserved positions indefinitely.
- Finally, court is showing the venerable sense while contending that it does not take
lightly the attempts by Legislature to put anything and sundry under the protection of
Schedule 9. Laws in Schedule 9 can not be over turned by the Court even when Court
finds that those laws may not be consistent with India’s constitution.
For all the farce of reservation system done by India’s political parties (from Left to BJP, 173
all of them); Court’s expression of opinions along above mentioned lines is truly breath
taking and of fundamental importance to India’s future, her State, her Society and Indian
Democracy. It can not be over emphasized the importance and significance of these legal
developments. This is all for the good of India.
It is the course correction for India because Supreme Court is taking a stance which is
clearly against the misguided prevalent political thinking in India and the court is doing so
in order to carry India’s constitution in complete letter and spirit. Independent Judiciary in
Democracy is far too precious and these proceedings in India’s Supreme Court are
making Indian Democracy strong, proud and in the end serving well to India’s masses. If
this batch of Supreme Court judges is able to carry through such thinking to it’s logical
end; they will have done Babasaheb Ambedkar and India’s Founding Fathers and
Mothers proud.
It is true that compulsions of electoral politics, tendencies of Indian politicians in taking

easy and low routes of governance and generally not so mature democracy (just around
60 years for India’s state so far); all these limitations may overcome all the good legalistic
work of this or any other competent Court in India. So one should not be over excited
about these rulings nor should have high expectations that any rulings along these lines
will be scrupulously followed. But that is the battle for another day. Today it is important
that some ‘lever’ of India’s Democracy takes a righteous stand in this whole mess of
‘reservation system’ and this Supreme Court is showing that courage as well as
necessary intellectual aptitude. That is an occasion to cheer.
Umesh Patil
San Jose, CA 95111
October 31, 2006.
Dramatic Victory for Dems

It is exciting to run down some of the high lights of 2006 Congressional and other
elections in America:
- No sitting Democratic House Representative has lost. Same for Democratic Senator
and Democratic Governor.
- At State levels too, no Democratic controlled house is lost.
- There are significant gains to Dems in House; in all probability gain of 4+ Senate seats
and around 6 wins of Governor Offices from GOP.
- In the House, this is of the order of 1994 victory of GOP. Only because of
gerrymandering of districts, the final number many not be of the order of 40+ seats
transferred from one party to the other. No Democrats loosing (even some who are
‘tinted’) is a big statement here.
174
- It will be a significant event that Nancy Pelosi be the first female House Speaker.
Politically, surely it is a vote against Pres. Bush, his obdurate style of governance, tone
deaf attitude of his administration and overall incompetence including mismanagement of
Iraq war. Along with the war, corruption and incompetence of elected officials seem to
have played too. Typical wedge issue campaign of Karl Rove style did not make any
impact. So did so called flap of Sen. Kerry or Sen. Kerry’s gift to GOP. It turns out to be a
non issue. But Rep. Foley scandal seems to have enforced people’s opinion about GOP
House Leadership – always pushing bad habits or deeds under the carpet.
Will Pres. Bush alter his course? Some course change will be surely there. But it is not
clear whether this Administration will undertake enough ‘change’ as needed. It is used to
‘pretend’ to make compromises where in reality it hardly budges from its policy. Case in
study is the ‘torture policy’. (Sen. McCain played the ‘con boy’ there to deceive public is a
different matter.)
The big fear is Pres. Bush, in the vain act of emulating late British PM Churchill, would
continue his ‘adamant’ policy about Iraq and Congress would have no other means apart
from holding ‘the purse tight’ to force change President his policy. That will be a bad
spectacle, kind of equivalent to how Pres. Clinton force closed down the Government in
his dog fight with Congress. One hopes that similar situation does not arise.
Apart from Pres. Bush as the big looser, on other side of the ledger we have Sen. Clinton
as a big winner. Her own landslide victory in the New York Senate election and election
of a compatriot female House Speaker will ignite dreams of the first female President
among many. Besides, former Virginia Governor Mark Warner is out and Sen. John Kerry
is effectively out from presidential primaries of Democratic Party.
The other big winner is Rahm Emmanuel, the House Election Committee Leader for
Dems. He has delivered and he will build his political career on that. Another rising
politician is the newly elected, again with landslide, New York Governor Elliot Spitzer.
This victory parade of Dems in Empire State means, Rudy Gulliani’s Presidential
ambitions may be curtailed. On the other hand former GOP Governor of Massachusetts –
Romney – may start to look as more viable candidacy from GOP side. In all, GOP
politicians in drove will start to run away from Bush – Rove style politics.
The only star on GOP side seems to be California Governor Schwarzenagger who does
not practice Rove-Bush art of politics anyways. In general California is unusually calm in
this big political change – only one House seat may change, Senate was never in play
and Governorship is intact with the incumbent. Quite a surprise.
Overall America needed this big change in order to go away from the divisive politics of
Pres. Bush. Now, America can start the ‘healing’ process and Dems win is a good start.
Umesh Patil
San Jose, CA 95111
November 8, 2006.
175
Resurrection of Indo-USA Nuclear Deal –
Thumbs Up For India
Thursday, November 16, 2006
With the passage of the Indo-USA Nuclear Deal in Senate, the path has been paved for
its finalization. The biggest victory for India was apparent when all of the amendments
were defused. As of now there does not seem to be any amendment attached to the
deal. There is no doubt that the deal would have gone to the tubes if any of those
amendments had survived. It would have been almost impossible for Indian politicians to
back the bill with those amendments.
The passage is clear achievement of lobbying efforts on behalf of India. It also shows the
tenacity of India’s foreign policy establishment and it augurs good for India in days to
come. Even with complete ascendancy of Democrats on Hill and consequent strong
political air of Anti Nuclear Proliferation ideology, passage of the bill in Senate
demonstrates effectiveness of political persuasion adopted by India.
The next step of House – Senate reconciliation seems a done deal. It will be a surprise if
problems crop at that late stage. Problems can come at that point. But politically the
Senate passage immediately after Democrats victory was kind of a litmus test and it has
resulted in India’s favor. Good for India and a good omen for longer term Indo-USA
Relationship.
Umesh Patil
San Jose, CA 95111
November 16, 2006.
Option ‘Go Home’

Friday, November 24, 2006
Pentagon is mulling over whether to ‘go big, or go long or go home’ as far as American
Military involvement in Iraq goes. Sensing it is not politically feasible nor practically
possible (simply no more boots) to take the option of ‘go big’; it is inclined to opt for ‘go
long’ alternative. Pentagon and Pres. Bush would like to still do ‘go big’ if doable, but that
is not possible any more and they do not want to take the alternative of ‘go home’. Hence
the middle path of ‘go long’, yet another proof that middle of the road options often land
you ‘nowhere’ as far as destination goes. Politicians by nature like such options but that
is waste.
There is no realistic option other than undertaking ‘go home’ – getting out of Iraqi Civil
War. There is no further proof needed to understand that basically it is infighting to death
which is what taking place in Iraq. History has shown time and again (including history of
America’s Civil War) that there is no end to such fratricidal conflict until one faction looses
completely.
The earlier political goal – trying to establish a democratic regime in Iraq which is stable
and peaceful – is too distant now. No more reachable for American forces. This political
goal of Pres. Bush is simply not within the realm of possibilities for American sacrifices.
176
Obviously, American public do not want then this charade to run any further under any
pretext.
This means the only realistic option for Pres. Bush is to come out say that ‘Iraqi Political
Class has betrayed American sacrifices’ and as the Commander-in-Chief he can no
longer underwrite this waste of American life and dollars. Blame it on Iraqis (which is
where now it really belongs), cover your asses and get out – that is the face saving
formula for Pres. Bush. Of course, this means whatever political leverage America has
right now will be totally gone exposing America as ‘unreliable partner’ and accepting Iran
as the de-facto King in that region. But Pres. Bush’s Administration does not have any
credibility left – domestically and internationally – to try and make some honest efforts to
save America’s face by any other means. The best what Pres. Bush can do is ‘cut and
run’. British PM Blair will be out in couple of months and Pres. Bush will be the only one
left on International Scene continuing this tragic farce called Iraqi Occupation. So before
we get Iraqi version of ‘helicopter from Saigon Embassy’ America better get out.
There will be all those Foreign Policy experts who will advocate how such a pull out will
be an abdication of American responsibility as well as disservice to American interests.
Blah, blah and blah. However it is time to ignore this punditry and go for sheer survival.
Option ‘go home’ does not mean to pull out all of America’s 135K soldiers from that area.
Substantial numbers can still be stationed in Kurdistan, Baghdad, Basra and Gulf. What it
means however, is not to have American Ambassador mediating among fighting factions
of Iraq. What it means is to concentrate only on two American goals regardless of who
rules Iraq and how it is ruled:
- to counter Al-Queda and terrorist outfits and
- to stop any emergence of WMDs in Iraq.
Everything else is dispensable, not worth trying, nor within capabilities of American forces
or political establishment.
It is like this - America ‘needs to live’ for another day so as to recover sometime in future
from all these losses incurred. But if it does not ‘cut and run’ now, America may not have
effective forces to secure herself, no credibility in International relations and devastating
wastage of resources earmarked for security of American lives.
Indeed it is time to ‘cut and run’.
Umesh Patil
San Jose, CA 95111
November 24, 2006.
Chuck Hagel – Right on the Money

He is one of the rare Republican Politicians who has been talking sense about the Iraq
adventure. As expected, his Op-Ed in Washington Post on November 26, 2006 is
succinct. One can not write anything better than what he has to say.
dyn/content/article/2006/11/24/AR2006112401104.html) 177
Will that ‘naked Emperor’ in the White House have finally some sanity to heed this
advice? We will see, the world is waiting.
Umesh Patil
San Jose, CA 95111
November 26, 2006
Last Stand of Bushies and Challenge to

American Political System
Final set of Conservatives who intend to save Pres. Bush’s presidency are taking the last
stand while arguing that Pres. Bush is right in so for as:
- understanding the high stakes of Iraq war and
- laying down serious consequences of American defeat / retreat from Iraq.
Tom Bevan makes that argument in RCP.

(http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2006/11/the_stakes_in_iraq.html)
This is called ‘living in dream’ or ‘head in Anbar sand’.
Time has come for America to understand the devastating consequences of continuing
Pres. Bush’s Iraq war for next two years. We are talking around 700 American lives per
year and around $100 Billion per year.
Let us get it straight – serious consequences of ‘retreat’ are no substitute for totally
‘incompetent Command in Chief’. Pres. Bush is no Churchill nor is he Revolutionary
Commander George Washington. What this means is why would Americans risk $100
Billion and 700 American lives per year in the hands of Pres. Bush? Since he will not be
replaced until his term is complete, America is best served by saving these resources
even if risk increases due to retreat. With these savings, America can bet on the next
Commander in Chief to utilize those resources to address effectively America’s fall from
grace. But Pres. Bush; nay, he is just that ‘emperor without clothes’.
Wake up Conservatives and smell the coffee or smell the burning human flesh in
Baghdad. Don’t justify war continuation by rendering dire consequences. America has
seen enough of such ‘negative scare politics’ for too long as practiced by Pres. Bush and
Karl Rove.
If at all, the real challenge is how should American Political System redress an errant
Commander in Chief who totally misuses the public trust to start a false war, to conduct it
in totally irresponsible way and then hold American public at ransom in continuing this
loosing policy. We are not like a parliamentary democracy where the ruling party or ruling
coalition changes the Prime Minister and like a chameleon changes color to suit the
reality. (Not that parliamentary system is superior, it is just that it has this specific
advantage.) It is the President who gets the votes for four years and hence American
system puts unusual amount of trust in the President. There is no realistic mechanism to
back down once the President is elected. Impeachment and all that are not realistic
178
options and not good for a democratic nation. Hence we are stuck with this President and
his refusal to withdraw forces from Iraq. This policy – pressing to continue American
forces in the middle of Iraqi Civil War – must stop. It does not matter all the lipstick James
Baker would put on this policy saying talks with Syria and Iran are keys. Who cares
whether Pres. Bush talks with two other bad guys? As long as our soldiers are not
removed from the middle of cross fires of Iraqi society, all other things are useless.
James Baker does not solve our problem neither eulogy of Pres. Bush in admiring how
he understands the high stakes. The right comment on Baker commission is as what
Andrew Bacevich has to say in CSM
“The ISG is antidemocratic. Its implicit message to Americans is this: We'll handle things -
now go back to holiday shopping.”
(http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1128/p08s02-coop.html)
So arrogant of these politicians…
As Joe Klein in Time says ‘The United States has lost the war in Iraq…’; we need to start
grasping that move forward. Admiration about Pres. Bush’s understanding of high stakes
will not take us anywhere. It is true that Pres. Bush is unfairly receiving bad rap from
Moqtada al-Sadr in Iraq when Sadr blames all problems of Iraq on Pres. Bush. It is totally
self-serving and ungrateful on Iraqi Political Class to blame Pres. Bush when it is he who
despite the criticism at home has spent so much to free Iraqi Shiite from Saddam. Anger
towards Pres. Bush on part of Sunnis is understandable since they lost the power after
toppling Saddam. But why Shiite? Abu Grahib cannot be dictating all things in the world.
It is one thing for Americans to criticize Pres. Bush but it is totally wrong from Shiite to
keep on harping him. And that is the point – why do Americans should be in the place
where all their sacrifices are valued zero for some missteps? It is wrong for Pres. Bush to
keep on spending American blood and it is wrong for Iraqi’s to blame everything on
Americans when they refuse their share of responsibility. Wise people get out of such
situation, live for another day and solve these issues later when atmosphere is more cool.
Pres. Bush needs to show this wisdom which is missing so far and American Public
needs to find ways to steer Pres. Bush to this position, not getting awed by his grasp of
high stakes.
Umesh Patil
San Jose, CA 95111
November 29, 2006.
Season’s Greetings
Saturday, December 23, 2006
Wish you Happy Holidays and Happy New Year.
Since I moved my residence, there have been no postings for last few weeks. I will
resume my weekly posting after first week of January 2007.
Umesh Patil
Cupertino, CA 95014.
179
Desperate Attempts by Pres. Bush to Salvage
Iraq War
As widely reported, finally it is coming down to this – Pres. Bush wants to increase
American forces by 20K in Baghdad. It is clear that this Pres. does not get it – that the
war was wrong, the war was conducted wrongly and his plan for new direction is wrong
too. Bottom line – continuing or escalating Iraq war in the current fashion is not
addressing America’s real security needs. Sooner American’s restrict the losses and Iraq
engagement, better for America.
Pres. Bush refuses to separate between his legacy / his ego and America’s security
interest. He has failed so far in last 4 years and looks like he will not correct in the
remaining 2 years. If he wants to go down into the history as an obdurate and senseless
President, then that is his problem. American People do not need to follow him.
So it is the responsibility of Democratic Congress, to stir away America from this disaster
as much as possible. In that respect, it is right that Speaker Pelosi is hinting that:
- Congress wants justification and distinction of cost for the additional troops,
- Congress would continue to fund the existing troop strength in Iraq and
- Congress would fund increase of Army by 30K and Marines by 20K.
Democrats must stick to these guns and if push comes to shove do the unthinkable – do
not pass the budget which does not specify funds for these additional 20K troops to
Baghdad and /or the budget which asks for these additional funds without any sound
justifications.
True, this is not the path commonly traveled by American elected representatives. It
might be rare in American History too. Also it would have the implication that President
would find his or her ability to wage the war bit compromised. But in 21st century it is
unthinkable that American President can launch or conduct a war without keeping
Congress in loop constantly. American History may be such that Presidents single
handed won the wars. But do we seriously think that it will be the case so in today’s
globalized world? Presidency and conduct of war needs to be more collaborative and
more participative for Congress. It will no longer remain as one person show of President.
The danger of a rogue President damaging America’s interests is too high compared to
cost of compromised ‘room’ for the president to conduct the war. Simply too much power
(and fire power) is concentrated with Presidency. Times have changed and Americans
should not be beholden to the history that President solely wages and conducts wars.
Congress must come into the picture and must fulfill it’s responsibility. Speaker Pelosi is
right when she said Republican Congress gave blank checks to Pres. Bush to conduct
the Iraq war and that was wrong. It is her time to stop this abuse of trust by Pres. Bush.
She must do whatever it takes – if it means breaking the taboo and doing the unthinkable;
so be the case. After all ‘breaking the marble ceiling’ is the only glamour part of the job.
Umesh Patil
Cupertino, CA 95014
January 7, 2007.
180
American Culpability in Iraqi Civil War
Charles Krauthammer questions Farid Zakeria’s assertion that America did not give
f r e e d o m t o I r a q i ’ s b u t C i v i l W a r .
(http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/02/zakaria_demonizes_americans_an.html
) It is not quite often that one agrees with Charles. He has been too shrill, ideologically
motivated in analyzing Iraq war fiasco. But in this article, it is hard not to agree with him.
Fundamentally, Charles argues the futility of blaming Americans for unraveling of Iraqi
Society as it implodes in multitude of civil wars. Indeed, to blame Americans for this is
morally repugnant. In a way, it is another side of the argument when Thomas Friedman
questions where are Muslim Martin Luther King when no Muslim intellectual or leader
comes forward to condemn killings of Muslim population by Muslims themselves. Farid
Zakaria and folks who blame Americans for this are wrong.
The mistake by Americans have been to enter Iraq war with such naivety that after
toppling of Saddam, that society would not go to the toss. It is not just a failure of Foreign
Policy, but total disregard in understanding the ‘value’ of those on whose sacrifices
American Foreign Policy is executed – lives of American soldiers, sacrifices of their family
and tax dollars. It is the internal accountability that is missing from Pres. Bush in starting
and prosecuting this war. Charles Krauthammer has a different take on that, but at least
he got it right here that blaming America is wrong.
It is good that Charles kept quite and did not express what is the right way for America.
The right way for America is what her public feels – there is no business for American
troops in the middle of a civil war and Americans should stay away from that.and pouring
21,000 more American lives is totally a pig headed solution.
Umesh Patil
Cupertino, CA 95014
February 02, 2007.
Sen. McCain – Following Foot Steps of Pres.

Bush
For last four years, Pres. Bush has been deriding his Iraq war critics as ‘unpatriotic’ and
the ones who embolden terrorists. For him to go to Democrats 2007 Winter retreat and to
say he did not mean it is of no use. He already deceived American people and got what
he wanted by painting his opponents in so black and wrong colors.
Sen. McCain is following the same path – blaming those who want to put forward Iraq war
resolution (opposing the escalation by 21K troops) as the ones who are not putting
forward alternatives. He is selectively ignoring their alternative proposals. Like a pig
headed person he is refusing to accept the reality that there is much less what troop
increase would achieve in Iraq and same like Pres. Bush he is accusing everyone else as
undermining American troops whenever one says that we should not escalate the war
181
any further. The warmonger joker Sen. Liberman is his lackey in this disingenuous affair.
American people have seen this movie before – questioning loyalty and intentions of war
critics. If Sen. McCain wants to pursue his Presidential bid with this immoral political
strategy, we Americans have a task in front of us – defeat Sen. McCain and boot him out.
He sold us and cheated enough while striking a deal with White House in matters of
treatment of Guantanamo prisoners. He is one of those dangerous kinds of politicians –
portraying himself high on moral grounds while at crucial moments selling the interests of
American people.
All this cacophony will be there – but the Senate, House and Congress in general must
pass these resolutions where Congress puts it on record that ‘troops escalation’ is not in
America’s interest. Contrary to what Sen. McCain says, these resolutions have nothing to
do with America’s backing to our troops. Of course, Americans support our troops. We do
not need lectures from Sen. McCain for that. His service in Vietnam does not give him a
blank check so as we Americans and his fellow Senators endure all sorts of distrustful
comments from him.
Otherwise we voters should ensure that all those Senators who refuse to show sense in
restricting Pres. Bush are endured in coming elections. It is a defining moment now –
whether these Senators do their duty of representing will of the people or not. Sen.
McCain is at his political games to avoid this. Rest of the senate should not fall for this
trap. Else the same way the original senate vote backing Pres. Bush’s Iraq war is
haunting to so many senators, this lack of ‘spine’ will haunt to all these senators in future
too.
Democrats and sensible Republicans should go ahead with their resolutions. If

Republicans want to filibuster or oppose it, so be the case. Let us have things on record
so that constitutionally intended Democracy unfolds as expected rather than Senate
proceedings being hostage to Sen. McCain’s drama and taunts.
Umesh Patil
Cupertino, CA 95014
February 4, 2007.
Non-EU Doctors in UK
Around 50K doctors in UK are affected by the new ruling of UK government which forbids
them to take any long term employment and as a result essentially forcing them out of
UK. When one considers the original context of how these physicians landed in the first
place in UK – based on UK government program to encourage immigration of doctors
outside UK – it is astonishing how UK government changes rules of the game in the
middle. Granted that any sovernieng state has the right to implement immigration policy
as it needs, but changing rules once immigrants have made decisions of their lifetime is
wrong. If these doctors were some kind of a security threat, it is a different matter and
then there is some ground for the state to change the rules. But that is not the case here.
UK government first encouraged these doctors to come to UK, but now with changes in
182 rules forcing them to hold the empty bags. Careers of these doctors have gone down the
drains and they are likely to loose productive professional years in this turmoil. It simply
reminds what one reads in old history books of newly independent commonwealth
countries like India – how mean and exploitative British were as the Colonial Power. (Of
course, historical accuracy of those text books has been always in doubts.)
Couple of things are happening here – it is unclear whether UK government actions are
result of solid political weight of existing National Health Service workers. Until proven
otherwise, first suspicion is behind the screens these native workers are pulling the
strings to force the government to undertake such convoluted policy position. Current
ruling party of UK - Labor – is quite likely to be beholden to the vested interests of existing
largely native work force. Next is the real possibility of racism as the motivating factor
behind these policy changes. This policy is taking a shield behind EU and is banning non-
EU doctors. What is so great in a doctor who is educated in Romania so that that doctor
is superior to a Lahore or Mumbai educated doctor? This whole thing has a strong odor
of racism. In so many other cases UK government does not follow EU guidelines or
policies; then why here? Why cannot UK government is more enlightened in accepting
doctors regardless of their origin as long as their competence or skill set is of certain
standard?
This brings the next question – why in the first place these physicians were allowed if UK
government and political powers did not have consensus about their qualifications and
skill sets? It is nothing new to find professionals with low quality education from the Sub
Continent. But that is the case everywhere. The why in the first qualification criteria were
not well defined so that there is kind of unshakable acceptance and trust for the
professionals who come to UK possessing upon passing those criteria? Is it too much to
expect from states like UK to be able to make informed opinions about professional
competence of doctors from all over the world? If British Babu’s to do not have that
procedure well adopted; UK government is not worthy to live as a leading nation in
today’s globalized world of 21st century. What good does it do to the country and to the
immigrant doctor if you tell that doctor that she can not be gainfully employed after all the
tough choices of career and life are done?
And that is the larger lesson – those who need immigrants, those societies can not be
racist in discriminating people, must make it very clear who can come and who can not,
must make it clear from the outset how long these immigrants can stay and by and large
should encourage permanent immigration only. A society should welcome new people
only if that society is very sure of finding good home for the new comers. Immigration is
for the benefit of the host society as well as benefit to migrants. Hence, all these modern
states need to have maturity in making this process clean, transparent and win-win to all
parties.
May be with more immigration coming along the road, there needs to be a global
mechanism to address these issues in quick and fair manner. May be to include Labor in
future WTO trade talks cannot be postponed for long. This need not be necessarily
loosing proposition for host countries (read predominantly Western countries and Japan).
Transparency is the key. Upfront clarity of rules is vital to set expectations of everyone
involved. Clearly UK government is failing in this with an egg on their face. Unfortunately,
there is a sense that UK government gives damn to the uproar caused by these
shameless actions with total disregard to anything good in British tradition.
Does it make sense for the Indian Government to talk to UK Government in this regard?
Considering the fact out of these 50K non-EU physicians, 30K are Indians or of India
183
origin; Indian Government should do all that is possible. With growing economic pie of
Indian market, Indian Government has lots of levers which it did not have in the past.
Further, going forward it should also make it very clear (educate) to all those migrating
Indians, about under what immigration programs they are going outside of India. State is
there for taking care of its citizens and this particular public education program is vital in
country like India where many more will migrate to so many parts of the world. These
migrants are basis of deeper political relations with those countries and some minor
investment to nurture this constituency will go long way. Organizing NRI mellas where
only rich NRIs who can dispense money for FDI, is easier part of External Affairs. Getting
into nitty gritty of problems like faced by these doctors in UK is the harder part. How
about our beloved ‘May Bap’ Indian Government showing some sense as an adult?
Involvement as a mature State on equal political footing by Indian State is badly needed
in this case.
Umesh Patil
Cupertino, CA 95014
February 10, 2007.
Unfortunately Cynicism is the Only Answer

Washington Post blasts Rep. Murtha first about his comments wherein he implies House
debate being not important (the resolution which opposes Iraq war escalation) and
secondly the cynicism implied in his suggestion to link the coming war budget to Army
preparedness. On the other hand NYT wants Congress to link war financing to the
benchmarks attained by Iraqi government.
(Washington Post Editorial ‘Not the Real Vote’;

h t t p : / / w w w . w a s h i n g t o n p o s t . c o m / w p -
(New York Times Editorial ‘On to the Hard Part on Iraq’;
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/17/opinion/17sat1.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin )
Both these editorials indicate how Americans are still ready to believe this White House
and how Americans are gullible for exploitation by this President.
Rep. Murtha indeed may be contradictory and cynical in advocating his line of politicking
within Congress. But what do we do when this Administration continues to pour more
American forces and then presents it as fait accompli to the Congress in funding this
escalation while along the way preparing for another war with Iran?
It needs to be understood that regardless of constutionality and political acceptance;

once American soldiers leave shores; they must be financed in all circumstances. There
is no compromise even when a President is literally a murder of these troops by
dispatching them in a war of no use. This means these editorials need to understand that
there is no way, simply no way, for Congress to stop these soldiers once they are outside
of USA and then return of those troops is totally dependent on the Commander-in-Chief
for all practical purposes. It does not matter how many strict bench marks Congress set
184 for the Iraqi government to attain or to what an extent Congress attempts to micro-
manage the war. And this is exactly what VP Cheney and Pres. Bush know.
It is not in the possibility of realm for Rep. Murtha to change the American constitution
and political system so that the Congress has some effective control on the war conduct.
Americans pride for their President as the CEO – supreme and with total power. But
when a CEO becomes rogue; the corporate board replaces that CEO. True there is
impeachment, but for all practical purposes it is a dead letter due to the necessary
requirement of getting it passed through both houses. American system is not like
Parliamentary System where Union Cabinet can override Prime Minister or Parliament
can pass simple majority no confidence vote to force resign Prime Minister and change
the course of a war. The way American system works is Congress can only ‘declare’ a
war; kind of starting of the race. After that it is all Presidents’ show. Though Gov. Bill
Richardson is talking about binding ‘de-authorization’ resolution to end the war; troops
being already in the war theatre kind of makes the resolution dependent on how far Pres.
wants to listen to such resolutions and how far he is ready to bring them back.
And that is the real point. To believe Pres. Bush would alter his war policy in accordance
to resolutions adopted by Congress is the height of naiveness. Both Washington Post
and New York Times are victims of this naiveness. One only needs to read Frank Rich’s
columns in NYT to understand the machinations this administration is up to; or the extent
to which this Pres. would lie while pursuing his policy. What 6 years of Pres. Bush’s rule
have shown us is Pres. Bush will continue his policies until it is impossible to stretch any
further. With the deployment of troops in the Iraq war, he does not have to stretch it any
further. He knows perfectly well, once the troops leave America; he has got what he
wants.
It may be sad or utter low level ‘gutter politics’, but what Rep. Murtha is proposing; that is
the only way to assert some control on the conduct of the war and prevent any new wars.
It is not Rep. Murtha’s fault that American system is so lacking when it comes to wielding
some rational control on the war proceedings. So much for the great vaunted American
political system and the great institution of Presidency!
What we want is Rep. Murtha to be as ruthless as this White House is in furthering his
plan to strangle the Commander-in-chief. Too bad that path is cynical. Well, we can say
that it is an opportunity for Rep. Murtha to show the leadership courage – how much
criticism and condemnation he can sustain while pursuing his war financing bills.
Umesh Patil
Cupertino, CA 95014
February 17, 2007.
Damn Presidency
It is blasphemy to condemn or criticize the institution of Presidency on the eve of
Presidents day, the day to memorize America’s great Presidents like Washington, Lincoln
and Roosevelt and to thank them for their eternal services. But for mortal, fallible
common people, after 6 years of Bush (Jr.) Presidency, one should excuse if the view is
dimmer about this institution. 185
Historians and scholars will quantify to what an extent exactly the current President
damaged American Presidency. But it is safe to assume that his policies at least have not
enhanced the reputation of this institution. Presidency is worth its power and America’s
total submission to this political bully pulpit is worth the price; if in the end it is able to
address America’s core problems. That is in doubt now and this note wants to put
forward at least 3 reasons why this crisis of Presidency is so deep and serious.
1. The core problem of ‘conduct of war and war time powers’ is very obvious with the
context of Iraq war – there is no effective mechanism in the American political system to
bring accountability to the sitting President when it comes to the business of war. If a
President pursues a rogue war policy, no one can stop that President effectively
regardless of enormous cost of life and dollars. President Bush’s Iraq war policy is a total
‘train crash’; but hardly any valid remedy is available for American people to avoid this
crash in real time. So the Presidency has this potential to become totally imperial with
limitless powers. How do Americans continue to believe that every occupant of
Presidency will be as humble and as attuned to people’s will as how the great
Washington was? This limitlessness of power is going to be ‘undoing’ of the Presidency.
2. Whole American political system is grappling with how to address the problem of Iraq
war and meanwhile we have way too early (for campaign dollars) Presidential campaign
underway where multitude of candidates get away with scant proposals to address this
issue. All these candidates are in the intense race to raise literally Billions of campaign
dollars in total, with all sorts of campaign sound bites; but no one with any practically
grounded Iraq policy. America needs leadership which will show the path out of the
morass called ‘Iraq occupation’; the leadership which is honest with people and the
leadership in whose judgment people have reasonable faith. Presidency is supposed to
manifest this fundamental role but we have all these men and women who want to be
President with no sense of offering any truthful, workable plan for America’s
contemporary crisis. Is it not then natural to think low of incoming Presidents? Columnist
George Will may think that ‘market for presidency’ is working (because so many are in
the arena); but there is indeed something sinister and rotten when possibly Billions of
dollars will be raised and spent for a political office without offering any policy which is
palatable to Americans and which does not ‘divide’ America.
3. In his first term President Bush (Jr.) essentially ruled America without the electoral
legitimacy. As far as credibility goes, the prevalent ‘electoral college’ based system
compromises Presidency otherwise what a legitimately elected office projects. In today’s
world when we can effectively have an ‘on line’ vote to elect a nation wide leader; clinging
to an ancient system of ‘electoral college’ is an orthodoxy at the cost of effectiveness. It is
a mockery of democratic principles when one of the most powerful political offices of
today’s world can be obtained by less democratic mechanisms. It is not unreasonable for
Americans to expect that their leader, President, is directly elected, based on a system
where every individual’s vote counts. Until then, we will continue to have Presidency as
an ‘inferior’ political office when it comes to people’s mandate. Granted, American
President is the only political office in the world where votes of largest number of people
are counted in one go. But even that process is marred by the infamous Florida ‘hanging
chads’ year 2000. One only needs to listen to Sen. Fienstein to understand still
embarrassingly gapping holes in the American election system which elects a President.
The long way to rectify lapses in the election system is still a long way; too much left
unattended.
186
On the positive side, it is true that the fundamental unity and integrity of this nation is
achieved and maintained through the office of Commander-in-Chief. But there is no
reason for this achievement to come at the cost of democratic principles and political
righteousness. The institution of Presidency needs to change and adopt for today’s
needs and today’s aspirations of American people. It cannot be frozen in the times of
Washington and Lincoln. Otherwise, History’s uncompromising Law will apply – those
who fail to adopt and evolve will perish. American Presidency can not be an exception.
Good deeds of Washington or Lincoln or Roosevelt are not sufficient to maintain the
relevance and effectiveness of American Presidency. If American Presidents fail to
address America’s core problems; Presidency will be nothing more than a decorative,
pompous office and American people will be compelled to find other solutions.
Umesh Patil
Cupertino, CA 95014
February 18, 2007.
Indian Politicians and Strained Public Policy

Saturday, March 03, 2007
Surjit Bhalla writes quite convincingly how the UPA government is messing up with
India’s economic policy and how business interests are attempting to look beyond
politicians. (‘Move, and make way, politician’ in Rediff;
http://www.rediff.com/money/2007/mar/03bud.htm ) Bhalla’s case is how cement
manufacturer did not heed to Finance Minister’s diktats and simply increased end user
price to pass on the new taxes. In a market economy, taxes may be introduced to reduce
consumption from time to time; not to extract profit out of producers. Indian Politicians
have got themselves in a box – they do want to continue the high consumption of goods,
for example cement, but do not want producers to profit! What a pathetic commitment to
market economy.
The reasons such ad-hoc taxes are increased is quite revealing – education cess and
social developmental spending. In itself of course that is not a problem – government is
there to collect taxes to spend on social developmental causes. The trouble with Indian
Politicians is without removing the ‘distortions’ in these spending patterns; without
undertaking leaking loop holes in how this money is spend; the commitment and
seriousness on be half of politicians is suspicious. It is understandable that any
government of the size of Indian government with enormous challenges of tremendous
diversity in the social structure; there is bound to be some wastage and some favors to
certain vested interests for a while. The question is what a progressive polity should do –
increase these wasteful spending without bothering to bring efficiency or try to be more
focused and efficient? There is no sign that Indian Politics is on the second part – it is the
same old story of a polity beholden to vested interests who are long past their usefulness
to Indian Society as a whole and tremendous amount of waste in developmental
spending.
The purported reason for increase in education tax is to fund education. That is fair. But
how far Indian government has moved on the following simple list of badly needed 187
reforms:
- allow private money in higher education without insisting undue policy interference;
- to implement reasonable ‘reservation’ policy without doing excess of the same (like
aligning caste based reservation policy to updated census and to include economic
backwardness as a criteria); and
- Government money to concentrate on primary and K-12 education rather than spending
whole money on higher education.
The basic kernel of reforms needed in India is to let free State Governments from the
strict control of New Delhi – Federal Government – and at the same time force these
states to take their own responsibility for their finances. In case of education, it is highly
undesirable that State government’s small fund goes to higher education while K-12
education is languishing. If Private Money is allowed to get into Higher Education with
lesser strictures; it would free funds for K-12.
Now there is no sign of any such reforms but the appetite for newer taxes is still there.
Naturally, business and all those sections of the society which would bring resources to
the pool for developmental spending are going to be suspicious about the government
and Indian Politics. That is precisely happening.
Worst of all, this old ‘mentality’ followed by Indian Politicians is unlikely to given them
dividends in elections. NDA’s loss in last general election, UPA’s loss in recent state
elections and their looming loss in the next general election; all these point that following
old, regressive policies is unlikely to help these politicians to win their elections.
The danger is as we get more and more unhappy electorate with Politicians without any
clue of how to improve this system; radical political forces will be on the rise threatening
the basic unity and stability of Indian state. Then these politicians will be blamed, but that
will be too late by then.
Umesh Patil
Cupertino CA 95014
March 3, 2007.
Good British Act

Friday, March 09, 2007
UK government has realized the ‘discriminatory’ nature of its immigration policy regarding
doctors from Sub-continent and has agreed to rectify this situation.
(http://www.rediff.com/news/2007/mar/09doc.htm) This is good news for those doctors as
well as a solid, principle based stand by the UK government.
Umesh Patil
188
Sour Grapes, New Hampshire Style
By having unusually disproportionate influence in the primaries of both parties, tiny states
like New Hampshire and Iowa have high jacked the presidential politics of this country for
too long. Now that California is trying to have an early primary, pundits from New
Hampshire are sour. Read the editorial in Union Leader, March 8, 2008.
(http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=California+schemin%27%3a+The+en
d+of+retail+politics&articleId=d97b5a25-7fcd-49ee-a42b-f01d1de4119e )
First of all there is this ridiculous argument that some how one to one dialogue with
800,000 residents of New Hampshire is better than modern political process involving 16
million people of California. Why then have votes all across USA? Let us just people from
New Hampshire and Iowa elect the president of USA and rest of the country accept that.
How pompous and arrogant people from these states can be or the so-called pundits
from these states, these editorial board types?
And by the way how good recent Presidents have been who started their presidential
primary campaigns from these two states? The record is there for everyone to see. The
fact is Americans have not got any better presidents because these two tiny, self claimed
intelligent states started the political process first.
It is ridicules and hypocritical that these two states want to pride on their democratic
credentials but want to deny the legitimate democratic rights and aspirations to other
states, states like California where everyone simply want to show for fund raising. It is as
if living in a populous state mean you loose your brains. If one reads Union Leader
editorial, one gets impression that California is full of dumb, useless people. Oh,
America’s democratic tradition is retained only because of New Hampshire and Iowa!
How ludicrous.
If money is the problem (which surely is), then retaining monopoly of these two ‘narrow
minded’ states is not the answer. There are different means to address that problem.
(Has Union Leader heard a phrase called ‘campaign finance reform’?)
In fact if American democracy is to have any future, we need to move away from the next
silly thing called ‘electoral college’ system of electing presidents. We simply need to have
two stage, direct presidential election. Well to expect such a broader view from the
prosaic type of intellectuals of New Hampshire is too much.
Umesh Patil
Cupertino, CA 95014
March 9, 2007.
189
Sustaining Cricket in Global Market
As dust settles on the stunning day in Cricket World Cup 2007 in Caribbean, many things
are becoming quite clear. The day unfolded to spectacular upset wins – teams of part
time players defeating teams comprised of full time players with obscene amount of pay
checks and mind boggling sponsorship windfalls.
To understand the context of World Cup and Cricket one needs to understand the
peculiar financial structure of this sport in the global market. The sport is essentially
sustained by more than 90% of money effectively coming from Indian Media and
Advertising market. In India, Cricket is the only game available for indigenous companies
and MNCs alike to sponsor and advertise with any tangible ROI. Cricket has essentially
crowded out all other sports in India and hence garners more than 90% of media budget
of businesses in India. Socially too, apart from Bollywood movies, Cricket is the single
most dominant theme which unites Indians of totally diverse background.
The way Cricket is played globally, it is popular in former British colonies. In the first half
of the last century it was England and Australian teams which dominated while Sub
Continent teams were slowly catching up. In the later half of that century, it was gradual
rise of teams from Sub Continent (first India, Pakistan, then joined by Sri Lanka and lately
by Bangladesh). Australians continued to retain and strengthen their sports standing in
Cricket while it declined lot for England. International Cricket Organization started
quadrennial World Cup in 70s with the participation of 10 top tier teams (Caribbean
countries represented as West Indies team, S. Africa, Zimbabwe, England, India,
Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Australia and down under New Zealand) and 6
minnows, countries where the game is still developing with no full time cricket players.
Getting back to the stunner day in Cricket World Cup 2007, what happened is minnow
Ireland defeated Pakistan, effectively shut out Pakistan from this World Cup and
Bangladesh defeated tournament favorite Indians in their first match. These and other
matches earlier vindicate in a way the decision of ICC to include these second tier teams
in the World Cup to make it more participatory. Stunning results like today effectively
nullifies arguments from purist fan of Cricket to limit the WC participation to only top tier
countries. This much is clear from these early matches – minnows bring more to the table
than possible compromises in having too one sided matches.
The larger issue is as someone wrote on the site 'cricket365.com'; money men at ICC will
not be happy with these results. Think about Pakistani market of 165 million no longer
watching TV as their team is most likely out of this WC. Imagine that happening to India
and the whole financial edifice of ICC and WC will collapse soon.
Trying to base foundations of Cricket on expected discipline of Indian and Pakistani

teams in producing victories is way too much risky for any business model to depend on.
It is decades that these teams have shown the tendency of unpredictability unlike
generally consistent pattern of Australia (ironically where the financial health of Cricket is
not so good). Granted, unpredictability is the greatness of Cricket. But the upset victories
are sensational and good for the sport in short term only. In the long term it clearly
demonstrates inabilities of 'powers be of Cricket' to detect and nurture where the good
game lies or at least how the good game gets generated. There is a business reason why
190 the concept of ‘seeded player or team’ exist. It is like how one expects stable and
predictable quarterly results from publicly traded mature companies. The whole trick of
contemporary sports is to have reasonable predictability mixed with some uncertainty so
that it does not become monotonous. But at no point the organizers want to be in a
situation where one never knows which team will win on any given day. World Cup
Soccer is something which comes nearest to this balance of certainty and unpredictability
needed at global level for a sport to succeed and sustain commercially. In other words,
not far too long a sport can be sustained if teams from its biggest market continue to
loose. There is an intrinsic relationship between winning streaks of a team and popularity
of that sport in the home area of that team. It is human nature (howsoever we keep on
preaching that we should devour great game regardless of team) that fans shell out
money only when they see their teams winning.
May be ICC (read India) should fund stadiums dedicated to Cricket in these minnow
countries so Cricket flourishes in these countries in a sustainable manner and is not
dependent on part timers. For example, one of the minnows in this World Cup –
Bermuda, does not have any stadium worth notice where a team can play international
standard Cricket game. Well, it could be also great foreign policy for India to back and
finance stadiums in these countries.
Also for a huge country like India to keep the media interests fully intact for longer period,
ICC should allow at least 4 Indian teams in the World Cup. It is a Billion plus country and
what minnows show is you essentially need 11 players to show up on the pitch to pull off
a spectacular result. Do we think Jharkand (a newly minted small state in Indian
Republic) team will not be able to pull of one such upset victory? Sure it can. Hence more
number of teams from India would make sense. Soccer World Cup entertains
participation of 4 different teams from UK geographical region - Ireland, Scotland, Welsh
and England.
There are certain sports which are succeeding globally more than others. Soccer is
clearly one such and business soundness of Soccer is probably stronger than another
financially sound sport – Olympics. Formula One Racing, NFL and Base Ball come to
mind as some other sports well managed. It is sad that a career politician like Sharad
Pawar finds BCCI and ICC president posts as politically more lucrative than as
managerial challenges of sports organization. Pawar does not have any proven track
record in managing a global sports or global business. We need business leaders at the
helms of BCCI and ICC (not necessarily compromised businessman Dalmia who has
been past president). Cricket Management should not be a ground for failed politicians to
resurrect their political relevance on the cattails of Cricket popularity. The danger lies in
the propensity of Indian Political System where politicians try to control every bit of social
life as a mean to further their political gains. Indian politics is all pervading and Pawar at
the helm of BCCI and very likely atop ICC signals the danger of hijacking of Cricket by
these politicians with scant competence in running a global sports organization in a
ruthlessly competitive global sports and media market.
Umesh Patil
March 17, 2007
191
Washington Post Getting Hammered
Ever since WaPo published an editorial on 4th anniversary of Iraq war, bloggsphere has
been agitated and bloggers have been on war path with the editorial writers – for right
reasons. One does not need to repeat follies of WaPo regarding their opinions and
judgments in supporting Iraq war. There is culpability to these high priests on media.
‘Hunter’ on Daily Kos simly hammers out. (‘Post Mortem’ http://hunter.dailykos.com/) But
the more interesting is Rep. Obey’s speech on House floor where he simply shreds
WaPo for nasal graving Dem’s latest bill of restricting Iraq war.
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNp4xuxi290) The part of the speech is very good.
Indeed Washington Post has no credibility when it comes to Iraq war and they still do not
get it.
Umesh Patil
Cupertino, CA 95014
March 25, 2007.
Limits of India Story?

It is not just the loss of Indian Team in Cricket World Cup 2007, but many other negative
developments in last few weeks that are kind of drawing attention to possible limits on
‘positive India coverage’ in the global press.
At the heart of the problem is inflation in Indian economy. Ever since Economist
published a cover story with the picture of a tiger with its tail on fire; slowly it is dawning
on India’s powers be that indeed inflation is eating the lunch. Electoral losses of ruling
party Congress on the ostensible basis of inflation do not clear this suspicion too.
Relaxing supply side is never an easy option in India where myriad vested interests are
at play and remnants of License Permit Raj are still making havocs. The sadder part is
the ruling Congress party is drawing wrong lessons from these challenges – instead of
rationalizing tax policies and bringing efficiency in Government expenditure; the current
Indian Government is adopting the age old disastrous policy – milk the economy by way
of all sorts of taxes assuming that higher growth of last few years would sustain these
irrational taxes. The government headed by the original author of Reform Policies is
probably one of the worst anti-reform governments in recent times. Further there are no
other positive, political achievements to show off – likes of Indo-Pak relations or peace
with Maoists. The ham handed way this government went about ‘special export
processing zones’ is reflective of its incompetence.
Turnabout story of Indian Railways is one positive aspect. But it is questionable that how
much that turnabout is due the booming economy and how much due to the managerial
excellence. It does not matter how many times Lalu lectures MIT or Harward; his
managerial abilities and competence are questionable.
192 The other high point of Dr. Singh’s rule – Indo-USA Nuclear Agreement - is yet to clear off
some final hurdles. With the American diplomat (Burns) saying USA is done with its part,
it seems there is some hard internal adjustment, some kind of internal sorting, to be done
on India’s part. Snapping two Indian traders while importing high temperature resistant
DRAMs for a weapons program lab in India is putting strains in clinching this agreement.
All in all these developments do not look very positive.
On social policy front, reservations for OBC in higher education is one clear example of
poor political vision. Indian Political Parties do not have any appetite for doing what is
right – to channel enough state resources towards needy people directly so that
affirmative policy becomes redundant; or at least implement the reservation policy on the
basis of up to date scientific data about the contemporary Indian demography. This
government is not immune from such failures and in the process is likely to taste the
negative consequences of such a misguided policy.
So the core question is, with all this turmoil, will India be able to sustain the higher
economic growth; essentially the single most reason why rest of the world is all gaga over
India? As political survival demands inflation control (which is a valid requirement and
which should be the foremost focus in any modern day economy); usual inability to
remove supply side constrains is haunting back. Tighter money supply in order to curb
inflation will take away the growth stimulus and meanwhile Indian system does not have
an ability to remove the distortions on supply side. The first causality of these inflation
measures will be the economic growth. Prognosis does not look promising at this stage.
Umesh Patil
Cupertino, CA 95014
April 1, 2007.
Forcing Pres. Bush on Iraq – Primary

Responsibility of Dems
As Pres. Bush has started to ratchet up his criticism of Congressional Dems about the
Iraq war funding; the political debate is approaching a critical point. More his policies fail,
more desperate is Pres. Bush to argue his point. In fact, it is the Pres. Bush’s senseless
Iraq policy which is what in the ‘last throes’!
So this administration is making clear that it would rather immolate itself but will not bring
the issue of ‘timeline’ in the Iraq policy as Dems want it rightly. The fear is Dems will fall
for this shrill rhetoric from this looser President. They must not. If it at all Dems have any
sense and intention to retain their credibility, they will realize that this is the most
fundamental issue for this Congress to deal with - to force ‘timeline’ issue in the current
Iraq policy. It is lifetime’s responsibility on these Dems to stay together, strongly united,
and pass the Iraq war funding bills with concrete limits on America’s commitments.
They should try hard to bring many more sensible Republicans on the board too. But the
issue of ‘timeline’ must be non-negotiable. Otherwise keep pounding politically on these
193
Republicans who are gutless in bringing any sense to Pres. Bush’s Iraq policy. There are
ample points which indicate why bringing closure to America’s Iraq occupation now is
important:
- increased duty time for American forces and continued stretching of our forces at the
cost of readiness for future conflicts;
- admission by an active American military leader that Iran may be funneling both sides of
the Iraqi Civil war to pin down American forces, meaning Americans are playing right into
the hands of Iran;
- failure of Iraqi government to meet any benchmarks as well as total lack of will to do so;
- substantial doubts about the success of the ‘surge strategy’ and
- finally the option of redeploying American forces in Middle East so that it gives America
a reasonable foot hold to control any further damage to American interests.
Dems in Congress need to legislate this change in policy regardless of Pres. Bush’s
threat to veto such bills. Let him veto, let him have it on record how callously he is ready
to let Americans die in an open ended war instead of ‘boxing his ego’.
Pres. Bush is essentially throwing a political challenge to anyone to change his failed
policy. He is indeed acting as like an emperor, totally oblivious to Americas true interests.
If not now then when, if not Dems then who will oppose this state planned butchering of
American soldiers? It is time to stand tall, united and oppose Pres. Bush.
Failure of Dems to do so will be more long lasting than the failure of Pres. Bush to adjust
his policy. It is better that Dems concentrate all their political abilities on this single most
important issue (rather than making ‘trips’ to Middle East countries) of changing Iraq war
policy.
Umesh Patil
Cupertino, CA 95014
April 14, 2007.
Iraq Debate – where are we?

Following are the developments in this ongoing political debate:
- Joe Klein in Time hammers out on Left Wing Democrats (Daily Kos in particular,
http://www.dailykos.com/ ) for insisting that a strong timeline limit must be there in the bill
which Congress wants to send to the President. He mocks Markos Moulitsas of Daily Kos
in undermining the threshold of 67 votes in Senate to have a ‘veto proof’ bill. Finally, Klein
is predicting that President will win in this political debate and will get what he wants –
war funding bill with no time limits.
(http://www.time.com/time/columnist/article/0,8599,1612079,00.html)
- With so much killing still happening in Iraq, it is not clear how the so called ‘surge’ would
succeed. In fact all indications on the ground are that Pres. Bush would increase the
commitment further regardless of all the well publicized strains on American Army.
- In Congress, the original House version of the bill is diluted in the conference with
Senate as far as time limit goes. This has already made strong anti-war faction upset,
likes of Daily Kos.
194 - Sen. Reid becomes the first elected politician to be bold enough to characterize the Iraq
war as ‘lost’. He and Dems are going to face torrent of criticism from Bush backing Right
wingers. Sen. McCain will take one more opportunity to brandish his waning political
image by berating these words of Sen. Reid. VP Cheney will come back with vengeance
on national TV to claim it is Dems who lost the Iraq war rather than Iraqi Civil War and
Pres. Bush’s mistakes. Karl Rove will once again attempt to inflate the dimming passion
in castigating Dems as ‘unpatriotic’. This all will be coming. Just watch the Sunday round
up on TV talk.
- President Bush is already back to ‘Rove line’ in his public speeches about Iraq war that
American Army is fighting Al Qeda in Iraq. The next step in that line of thinking is if we do
not fight Al Qeda in Iraq, they will come to America and we will have to fight them at
home and those who oppose Iraq war (i.e. Dems) are ‘unpatriotic’ who are rooting for
America’s defeat. Of course, this movie has played so many times in American Political
Theater. It helped Pres. Bush to get re-elected in 2004, then the movie’s popularity
waned. By 2006 this movie was no longer pulling any audience and after 2006
Congressional election Pres. Bush pulled it out from the circulation. He wants to play it
back again - oh God, spare us from this punishment!
Is it really the case that Bush is unstoppable as far as getting the war funding goes? Is it
a certainty that he will get the funding bill without any timeline constraints? If so, then is it
not responsibility of Dems to make it clear to the public that in the end they have to give
what the President is asking for as far as the war prosecution goes? So, if the purpose of
the current bill in the Congress is to have it on record that majority in Congress wanted
timeline constraints whereas President opposed that; then why the dilution in terms of
this bill? Or is the bill diluted in order to make more GOP members to get on the board to
play out a chance where the bill may get ‘veto proof’ majority?
Putting thinking of majority in Congress in terms a bill and to have the President voted it,
all on record; is a legitimate and healthy practice of a live Democracy. But what is next?
Is this Congress just meekly going to submit to this ‘mad’ President? Are there no options
available? Is there no possibility for Sen. Reid to follow through his comment of ‘lost war’
by cutting the funding at some point in future; the way President’s spokeswoman dared
him to do so?
All these questions are unanswered. True, one does not have to take Joe Klien’s word as
the final one. But American public does not hear any other words od credibility or wisdom
in this regard and then it gives the suspicion that may be Dems are also simply using
their backers for a popular political ride and eventually they would also simply abandon
American public.
Time has come for Dems to come clean. There is every reason to believe to that Sen.
Reid’s characterization of the war as ‘the lost one’ is a step in that direction rather than
simply playing the public. But we need more details here. Dems need to make it clear
what would they like the public to do at this point – come in by millions on the road to
protest Bush’s policy? Or raise millions? (For what?) Or accept mass resignations of
Democratic Congress members? Okay, the last one is unthinkable. American system is
not a Parliamentary system and in a responsible, mature polity you do not run away from
the problem by resignation. However, it is not clear how American system will extricate
itself from this war quagmire apart from the end of Bush’s term; which will nothing but
demonstrate the inability of American system to resolve the intractable problem of Iraq
war.
Meanwhile, it is quite understandable that the whole case of Daily Kos is to argue against
195
any ‘beltway style’ political posturing and Daily Kos regards Klein type of commentator as
one the useless establishment kind. As a result Daily Kos may be insisting not to
compromise as far as a strict time limit on war funding goes. But how can one then ignore
the political reality of getting more Senators on the board for the ‘veto proof’ majority? So
this all means, what we are seeing is the intestine struggle between two factions –
moderates and ‘netroots’. While this struggle is going on, those in the general public -
who do support a limit on America’s commitment in Iraq war - get a feeling whether it is
all Political Circus which is going on with no meaningful parliamentary maneuver to stop
the war; resulting in the resounding victory of Dark Forces?
It is sad to see all this. Indeed there does not seem any capable leadership which can
halt ‘misery’ of Americans. It seems American Democracy is not working here, not
helping her people. The word ‘unity’ is not there in the dictionary of America’s progressive
political forces. One wishes at least the senior columnists like Klein had had the maturity
in not opening these wounds in public instead of making efforts to ‘bridge these gaps’ in
public. Also Daily Kos is no more an underdog fighting against Main Stream Media
(MSM). Not to understand the impact of their political positions (along with MoveOn.Org
and other netroots); is not just being ignorant about their political ‘weight’ but it borders on
being irresponsible. In 2007, in a sense, Daily Kos is MSM.
Umesh Patil
Cupertino, CA 95014
April 21, 2007.
The Sole Outstanding Cricketing Team –

Australia
This has been outstanding performance by the Australian side in this World Cup 2007.
They remained unbeaten and no side could come anywhere near to their performance.
The performance of the team in the final is phenomenal. It is total domination by
Australians in the World Cup. One has to go back into Cricket History to resurrect past
West Indies team of Clive Llyod if one wants a true opposition to this unstoppable
juggernaut.
It is not just this World Cup, for last decade or so; Australia has been able to produce
some phenomenal Cricket. Today’s win in the World Cup is the crowning glory. It shows
their professionalism, skill and athleticism.
Their main bowler McGrath is selecting a great occasion to retire from the game. One
wishes Indian players have such a sense of when to call a day. There are so many senior
players in Indian team which are past their prime, but still hanging around.
It is not just when to ‘call a day’ sense which is missing among Indian players. But
shabby attitude, lack of professionalism, no worthwhile bench strength, no systematic
grooming of players and incompetent management by BCCI; all these are the problems
of Indian Cricket. What is more, with mounting losses to advertising industry (not that
anyone would shed tear for their excesses); the medium term future of Cricket does not
196
look good. Long term, inept handling of Global Cricket (notice how badly the final of this
World Cup was run) by ICC does not look promising either. Competition from other sports
is intense, many of those are better managed.
In absence of poor Subcontinent Cricket by India and Pakistan (Bangladesh and Lanka
played great); Australians more than compensated by their scintillating performance.
Rarely a side dominates a game so thoroughly. But it seems Australians are used to this.
The question is will such great Cricket by Australia can save this game globally. Sadly it
does not look promising.
Umesh Patil
Cupertino, CA 95014
April 28, 2007.
Here Goes WaPo Again

(Washington Post publishes an editorial about McCain’s candidacy on Sunday April 29,
2007. The link is http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2007/04/28/AR2007042800761.html)
Well, quite a bit of homilies from Sen. McCain and his messenger Fred Hiatt here. It is
amazing how the Post still continues to believe that the America flock is dumb and will not
question those characters who created the Iraq mess - Bush and McCain, the main
cheerleader along with Hiatt and Border. You guys suck, are shameless and absolutely
do not deserve to get any chance to rule America.
If it was possible to kick out Pres. Bush, people would have done that. Dems do not have
2/3 majority and the next election is still away. Hence people are accepting this suffering.
Then which sane person would elect McCain and continue this torture? You all (McCain,
WaPo and Beltway Pundits) have ganged enough to destroy America. We do not need it
any more by electing McCain who can not think - if he says America should not go to the
war unless all 'those' conditions are ensured; then what was he doing in the Senate while
precisely all those things were missed when Bush conducted the Iraq war? Was he
sleeping in Senate? If he says getting elected is not important but to get the national
security right; then why did he not pursue the 'crusade' against Bush policies which
continue to tramp all those benchmarks he so eloquently formulates in his speech? And
you shameless editorial board sings praise for that! How pathetic!
By uttering what is good or how to repair the damage done; McCain or Bush Party does
not get another chance. Even if what they are saying may have truth; it does not make
sense for Americans to mortgage their future with types of McCains. If Turkish people can
get 1 million protestors on road with the mere possibility of Islamist AK Party potentially
'showing their colors' when AK party president is elected; we Americans will not be dumb
to put another drunken monkey in the White House knowing that these monkeys have
proven their ‘damage inflicting’ capabilities beyond doubt.
Bottom line - once you break the pottery, you do not get chance to 'fix it' no matter how
smartly you try to 'talk' the repair. Americans got to get someone else to repair it.
197
Umesh Patil
Cupertino, CA 95014
April 29, 2007.
Classic Parliamentary Dynamics at Works in

Congress
Sen. Lott has provided the answer to the question ‘till when the unconditional funding of
this war should go’ – till this fall. Sen. Lott says, by fall of 2007; results better be start
coming from Bush’s Iraq policy.
Sen. Lott is known critic of Pres. Bush. He is not of the category of Sen. Hagel, but
nevertheless there is no love lost between Bush and him. How unceremoniously Sen.
Lott was sacked from his Senate Leadership position is for all to know (not that any right
minded person would shed any tears for that). Ever since Sen. Lott has been definitely
not in Bush camp of GOP.
Along with Lott, already on board Sen. Hagel; there are other GOP senators as Warner,
Specter and Snow; who could form the nucleus for the bi-partisan policy of war funding.
Democratic leadership in Congress must take advantage of this opening. Do we say Lott
is giving here helping hand? Whatever is the case, there are still few Republicans who
want to think out of the box on this matter and not be fools like Sen. McCain who is
throwing all his political responsibility while blindly backing this incompetent President.
This is how parliamentary political dynamics works and finally there seems to be that
possibility in American Congress. Good for American Democracy and people’s will.
Umesh Patil
Cupertino, CA 9504
May 7, 2007
Offshoring Debate on Daniel Drezner Site

(This blog pertains to a post onhttp://www.danieldrezner.com/blog/namely ‘DO I HAVE
BLINDERS ABOUT BLINDER?’)
I have been programmer ever since my post graduation in 1989; started making living by
exporting ‘software services’ from India when the offshoring wave was yet to catch in
India; then folded my business in India because I could not afford any programmers for
my business; came to USA in 1997 and rode the DotCom boom and have survived that
bust; all in Silicon Valley. I am quite content to be a USA citizen and still work
competitively in Valley along with so many coworkers in India.
So it is sad to say so much misinformation and lack of understanding is going on here. I

198
will not be able to put forward a coherent theory about all this in short space as like a
competent Economist might do; but I will simply list the points in this regard.
1. I am not alone in Valley who is able to make living here despite the cut throat
competition of engineers from India. In fact so many of them are successful even not
being entrepreneur – plain vanilla engineers. The reason is skill set acquired by these
engineers is simply not available outside USA in many cases. How are you going to get
programmers who have worked with all versions of Java and JBoss with all the latest
technology quite well understood? Those are in short supply in India as well as here. So
companies simply pay for the competence wherever it is available. Companies are not
averse to spend that money at a high cost location if the value addition is justified.
2. Have you read quarterly reports of Indian IT biggies (Infosys, TCS, Wipro and
Satyam)? The single most important aspect what a Bombay Stock Exchange Broker
looks at it is the footnote of quarterly employee turnover (say apart from the Rupee Dollar
exchange rate). What it indicates is these businesses are operating under tremendous
shortages of skilled engineers and managers. For many of those people salaries are
comparable to what you may pay to such skill set in Valley. In short it is true global
market for skill sets. Not for nothing Mathematicians from French topnotch institute would
command premium anywhere in the world – despite French economy not doing that well.
3. Why are these economists losing their sleeps about Programmers and Accountants?
Do you know stories of Nuclear Physicists? That was boom profession when Cold War
was in full force, Defense funding was high and Nuclear Industry was not totally a bad
word in America. After 1989, these Nuclear Physicist and Physics Ph.D. technologists
started to loose lot of jobs. The first company I joined in USA in 1997 had shortage of
web programmers so much so that it had 3 Physics Ph.D. holders happily working as
programmers. And now that America cranked out its first new Nuclear Power Plant after
almost 30 years, do you think we are going to have enough engineers in that field? Of
course not.
4. Next, how do you produce all these Alternative Energy industries in ‘offshore’ manner?
Who is that fool who is saying those Billions in India and China will provide these
Alternative Energies to USA and rest of the world? How on Earth are you going to have
that industry without having qualified Physicists and Chemists and Electrical Engineers;
all 100% working within America? Go and read public papers published by Indian
Government which keeps on hopelessly watching perennial decrease in number of
university students in Physics and Mathematics; leave alone the quality issue. Every one
over there wants to go Engineering – because they will do the offshore jobs – but then
there is no competent talent to develop and execute this Alternative Energy industry. You
Economists and Media people keep on missing the virtuous possibilities of this industry
and just get engaged in creating noise about irrelevant issues. Check Germany and
Japan for their competitive edge in Solar Technology over Americans. Engineer / Labor
costs are higher than USA and USA does not have any less competent technologists.
Still these countries are excelling in these technologies along with respectable
employment generation.
5. One Valley engineer lost his job in the DotCom bust and he simply started the
business of contracting to install solar panels in Valley. His is company called ‘Akeena
Solar’ employing hundreds of people now.
6. Agreed, not all may be in the position of acquiring sophisticated skills all the time. But
is it not the topic for policy makers about how to continuously educate / train people?
USA is still having tremendous shortage of Nursing personnel and all Nursing Colleges
are bursting at seams by the students who are scrambling for that profession. The word
is out that there is shortage and jobs are plenty and hence people are going there. Some
Doctor professions will come under offshoring pressure. But the biggest reason will be
199
the mess of American Health Care System, part of which is forcing Doctors to pay for
higher education for around 12 years before earning a dime where as rest of the world
does that in 6 years. If the costs do not come down, ‘medical travel’ will get boost and
people will start getting preplanned surgeries from India and Global Insurances and
Corporations will buy those services. Lawyers will work out the deals. The point is there
are so many policy battles which need to be worked out for employment generation;
harping on ‘offshoring’ is misplaced.
7. Look at Sarkozy election in France – he did not sale any rosy stories to French people.
But people still voted him knowing that the way forward is hard work. I do not think we
Americans are any dumber than French. Which means, when rightly and honestly
explained; Americans will understand the benefits of offshoring and all the adjustments
one has to do due to Globalization. Fear mongering is not the way. For Economists to
worry that ‘oh, how these bad politicians and gullible public will face this crisis’ is simply
arrogant.
8. Concrete suggestion for workers displaced by offshoring or by any loss of job is – offer
basic medical insurance for that worker and her family for a year or so. We only give 6
months of Unemployment allowance. In addition there should be 12 months of some
basic medical coverage. That will be a big help for these displaced workers to
concentrate on new opportunities. I am speaking this because, I have personally gone
through that ordeal.
Umesh Patil
May 9, 2007
America’s Military – Grounded by Bush not by Al

Qeda
Time after time Congress with bipartisan support pleaded Rumsfeld to increase the
military strength during 2002 to 2006. But no avail – Rumsfeld and Cheney thought they
were smart in not increasing the recruitment so as to undercut any possibility of Vietnam
era style resentment getting generated due to higher enlistment or draft. Rumsfeld’s
belief in so called ‘lean and mean military’ might have played a role; but no doubt he and
Cheney thought they would not give any opening to the war opposition by way of draft or
higher recruitment. But alas, Rumsfeld and Cheney’s incompetence and mismanagement
of the war have been so thorough and tragically devastating that there are not many
coming forward to serve the military.
In Iraq, army general after general is now asking for more American bodies to fight the
war. Army recruiters are undertaking all sorts of gimmicks to increase the enlistment.
Why did all these Generals with all their bravery ‘stars’ and high leadership credentials
keep quite when the Iraq war started? How come collectively they withstood the non-
sense of Bush & Co. and did not demand resources they would need to wage the war?
Where was their integrity in accepting the Rumsfeldian non-sense of ‘you fight the war
with the army you have’? Why did Pentagon in essence allow this degradation of its
Army?
And now Pentagon is lamenting that it is ‘parents’ who are the main obstacle in recruiting
200
GI Joe. How shameless all this military brass can be? They want Americans to come
forward and sacrifice their children for their incompetence and the hubris of Bush.
Politicians of this country do not have guts to control guns strictly and as a result
essentially let loose killers on college campuses. Americans land up sacrificing their
children on college campuses to psychotic people. And now they have to endure laments
from the military brass that American parents are not ready for the sacrifice. How bizarre
Bush world has become.
In the end Bush era will go down in the history of America as the one when Army top
brass failed as well as colossal degradation of America’s military preparedness occurred.
Given this vulnerable situation, hundreds of Billions spent on F22 Raptors and other
hypothetically superior weapon systems do not necessarily bring any sense of security.
For some crummy jobs retained by these weapons programs in their electoral districts;
many in Congress also join this farce of ‘securitization’ of America, completing the loop of
Rumsfled’s logic – ‘fighting wars with the army at hand’.
May be the eloquence of contestants in the American Idol competition - I mean aspirants
in the presidential campaign of 2008 - could open this vital debate for America. And may
be Media also connect ‘the dots’ and be vigilant in exposing all these complexities.
Umesh Patil
Cupertino, CA 95014
May 11, 2007.
Immigration Bill 2007

Thursday, May 17, 2007
Congress and White House have reached a tentative agreement on Immigration Bill 2007
sponsored by Sen. Edward Kennedy. It is ‘tentative’ as some Republicans would
emphasize and indeed it will be premature to celebrate the bill. One only has to look at
Indo-USA Nuclear deal to understand how things can derail in politics even after a
promising start.
All said and done, it is a good milestone. Not often one would get chance to praise this
President. But if he indeed delivers those 70 votes which Speaker Pelosi is asking,
presumably from GOP House members, that will be the reason to praise and salute this
President, notwithstanding all round failure of his administration in many other important
matters.
If this bill becomes the law, it will be a fitting achievement for the old liberal lion Sen.
Kennedy. As like any good Liberal, he is spending all his energies in persuading extreme
Left while constantly negotiating with moderate GOP members. Sen. Kennedy and Sen.
Feinstein are right when they say ‘it is not a perfect bill, but good enough to move on’.
Constructive contributions from GOP side are from likes of Sen. Kyl, Sen. Martinez and
Sen. Lindsey Graham. There will not be any sane American who will want Immigration bill 201
without bipartisan support. Immigration is that core issue which affects people’s daily life,
it resonates with so many immigrants who have traveled along that path, as Sen. Graham
puts it – it defines America and going forward it is the key in the Global Economy. Hence
it got to be a bipartisan bill, no matter what. This means if Dems have to compromise and
give up many of their Immigration policy goals due to insistence of GOP lawmakers; so
be the case. Gains from bipartisan support are far more important than many
compromises Dems and Liberals would have to accept at this stage.
Legalization of current 1.2 million illegal residents, guest worker program of 400,000
immigrants per year (primarily geared towards agricultural and other jobs), focus on
migration of skilled and highly educated workers (point based system), restrictions on
migration of extended family members and increased border security; these are the main
aspects of this bill.
It is expected that this will not have any impact on the 65,000 per year H1B program and
proposed increase in that quota will be independent of this bill. The only impact on H1B
based migrants will be how they can become citizens. It may become harder than what it
is now. But this in itself is not a sufficient reason for Editors at Times of India to get
worked up and indirectly take a divisive tack at all of this debate.
(http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Opinion/TODAYS_EDITORIAL_Visa_Power/articlesho
w/2058215.cms)
There is no bias against Indians in this Immigration Bill or in general immigration policy.
Mexico is indeed a special country to America compared to India. One has to keep in
mind that so many states in American Union have come from Mexico – either by force or
by purchase. Historical linkages and obligations, political interdependence; all these
things are in play along with the security considerations. So it is childish to ignore this
valid reality and complain about why America does not treat Indian at par with Hispanics
when it comes to Immigration. As for the future, skilled and highly educated migrants from
any corners of the world are important to USA, or for that matter to any advanced
economy. If more Indians happened to take advantage of that and come in large
numbers to USA, that is welcome.
To each sovereign country, every other country measures in different respects. Mexico is
critical to USA when it comes to Immigration. Canada is critical to USA when it comes to
Energy supply. One has to note that it is not Mexico with which USA wants any kind of
Nuclear Deal. It is India. One can not forget the geopolitical motivations for America to
engage into any kind of Nuclear deal with India. To engage on geopolitical considerations
with each country is the whole essence of sovereignty.
It is all fair for Indian Trade Minister to enquire about questioning undertaken by two
Senators regarding H1B visa practices of Indian IT companies. Trade negotiations are all
about that. But just because two Senators questioned Indian IT companies about some
American laws it is no reason to get ‘red face’ for Indian officials. American Senators are
elected to pursue matters related to implementation of American laws. It is in the
Constitution. Otherwise why are there public Senate hearings where American AG also
has to appear or American CEOs also have to appear? Just because Indian Parliament
Members did not bother about MNCs (as like in Dhabol Enron mess or Union Carbide in
Bhopal tragedy); it does not mean American Senators also abdicate their responsibility.
Asking questions, seeking information and being vigilant, even with political motivation; it
is all part of the job for elected representatives. Elected representatives got to have the
political motivations, else how would they act? We should be happy that there are at least
few lawmakers in the world who want to do their job (at least occasionally) and not all of
202
them slump into a lumber!
It will be much useful for Indian elite to get used to work within International System and
not just throw around ‘their political weight’ everywhere. There are so many avenues of
international economic policy matters where India can use her newly gained economic
power in much more productive manner.
Meanwhile, all Americans hope that Congress keeps on doing its good work about the
Immigration bill, passes necessary laws and executes on those policies.
Umesh Patil
Cupertino, CA 95014
May 17, 2007.
Family Based Visa – Reality Check

Sunday, May 20, 2007
It is wrong for NYT to lament that new Immigration bill wants to break from the existing
practice of family based immigration.
( http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/20/opinion/20sun1.html?hp )
The bill of course preserves immigration of immediate family members (spouse and
dependent children) but opposes immigration of extended family members (brothers and
sisters). The reason is NYT and Liberals unnecessarily assume deeper family roots than
what is the reality in rest of the world. One almost feels this is one more instance where
Liberals are simply more romantic than what reality warrants.
Take the case of India. More than half of India’s population is living in ‘nuclear families’
meaning parents and children only. The percentage of joint families where two brothers
share the same kitchen along with their family is reducing fast. Most of the urban areas in
India have nuclear families and in additional cases parents staying with grown up children
rather than married children sharing a same household. Even there, the trend is retired
parents staying separately than their kids.
This means it is bit hypocritical or ‘reality denying’ argument by these liberals to insist that
family based immigration should continue – where one’s grown up brothers or sisters with
their independent families should be immigrated to USA just because someone in the
family came here. The case with parents is also same – retired parents are staying away
from married kids in increasing number even in India.
As urbanization increases and agriculture dependent population decreases; percentage

of nuclear family increases all over the world – India, China and other countries are no
exception. This means insistence on bringing extended family members is misplaced.
The only case that can be made for is for the grown up children who are yet to marry. By
and large grown up children of the age 18 to 25 should get preference since they still
depend on their parents. In today’s world where years in acquiring qualifications or
apprenticeship are extended; kids do not become self supporting until late in their
twenties. There too, if a young adult is already married, then one can make the argument
that he or she has grown up so as to treat as an independent adult. If you are grown up
enough to marry and take responsibility of a family; then sure you do not need cattails of 203
your parents.
Given this background, then what is wrong with the rational demand that as a country
USA should give preference to those adults who can participate in American Economy
directly, regardless of at what level – low paying jobs or high paying? The key is you want
someone who contributes to nation’s economy and is in position to raise his or her family.
One wonders whether there is a pure political motive behind insisting visas for extended
family – it increases potential future vote bank for Dems. But liberal media like NYT need
not succumb to such thinking.
As compensation to such a restricted family based immigration, Liberals should demand

higher political asylum based immigration. America must be the nation which embraces
people who are persecuted for political reason. It is a right case to make. For example,
take the case of Iraqi’s who sided with ill fated American adventure in last few years? In
1991 Gulf war Saddam slaughtered 10,000 Shiites in Southern Iraq who attempted a
revolt when the first President Bush exhorted them to throw the Saddam regime (but
America did not support them). In the current Iraq war, regardless of follies of President
Bush, so many Iraqis sided with America while risking everything in their life. What we
need is America supporting these people and making it easy for them to come to
America. Republicans are shameless – they are the ones who so enthusiastically
supported Bush’s Iraq war policy and but do not want to come forward in accepting these
Iraqis in American life when eventual painful withdrawal happens. Dems are keeping
quite on this topic because it advertises what would happen when America eventually
withdraws from Iraq and that part Dems do not want to share with America. American
forces of course need to get out of the active combat in Iraq, but Dems cannot ignore the
humanitarian need of Iraqi’s who supported America for political reasons. It is these types
of situations and other political persecutions (like it is happening to so many in Russia)
where America needs to open her immigration doors.
There are many other items in the proposed immigration bill (like requiring year long gap
for a guest worker between renewal of his or her visa) which Liberals and Dems may
want to correct. But misplaced emphasis on ‘extended family based’ visa (arguing as if it
is only Liberals who understand the ‘family based’ life of Asians) is no good for America.
‘Free rider’ immigration does not help to create the value of freedom whereas
employment based immigration helps to inculcate the sense of ‘contribution and earning’
within the ‘self help’ American story, quintessentially American dream. Further, it is the
political asylum which nurtures America’s freedom with every addition of people
strengthening her sense of liberty. Also as a result America as a nation, build on
immigrants, carries within her society piece of history reminding failures of other societies
and America’s positive contribution in those far away struggles whenever America
absorbs political refugees. Needless to say, these immigrants help America to immunize
herself from tyrannies which are so common in rest of the world.
Umesh Patil
Cupertino, CA 95014
May 20, 2007.
204
Bush Victory
Thursday, May 24, 2007
Bush and victory, these two words do not go together often. Apart from his two
presidential victories, there is not much for him to show. And now this victory over
Democrats in getting his war funding till September without withdrawal timeline.
It is a sad day for America because her President’s political victory is at the cost of
interest of this nation. All said and done, President Bush would have been wise to rise
above the fray and should have followed a path different than his ‘blank check’ policy.
Surely it need not have been timeline; but a sense that time is up and America will alter
the course to address her security needs in a different manner – the mechanism which
does not involve committing American lives for Iraqi civil war. No doubt President Bush
could have asked for this sacrifice of American lives not for Iraq war but for the real cause
– the real cause for which the GOP leader John Boehner shed tears while voting on this
war funding bill. The GOP leader knows the real war – fighting the terrorists who waged
9/11 on America.
And we all know who are those terrorists and how they are not in Iraq. President Bush
lives on a different planet and we mortal on Earth pay the price.
This tragedy will have to be continued unfortunately till September 2007. What were
Dems going to do when this adamant President continued to veto all measures with
some timeline? How were they going to pass these bills without veto proof majorities in
Congress?
Now, that does not mean one is required to follow the GOP line that Dems should not
have brought a bill with timeline component in the first place. Congress is required to
bring those bills to express people’s will. Just because this President in the end is going
to ‘kill’ people’s will does not mean we should not have it on record too.
There will be time when even this misguided President will have to bow to America’s will.
It will be October 2007 when this funding expires and at that time Congress and public
will not be any mood to accept ‘blank checks’ to the commander in chief.
Conservative politicians will gloat and will laugh for a while saying how naïve and foolish
Dems have been. But one has to take their fun in stride and do what is good – wait till
September and then bring the closure.
The Bush saga is on the final leg and there is no need to be impatient here.
Constitutional arrangement as well as ‘people’s will’ will catch with this charade and will
soon bring a curtain on it.
Umesh Patil
May 24, 2007.
Cupertino, CA 95014
205
Dems or GOP – Who is Bad for Global Warming?
New York Times publishes very disturbing news about how some Democrats are pushing
c o a l b a c k e d f u e l g e n e r a t i o n s c h e m e s .
(http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/29/business/29coal.html?hp) While GOP was running
the Congress it was easy for Dems to blame GOP for being the anti-environment party.
But it seems Dems are no different.
What is worse is while such back to ‘dark ages’ schemes are getting promoted in hush-
hush manner; Dems and Speaker Pelosi are asking for people’s ideas about ‘green bills’!
Please give us break. Americans have enough of one White House which has been
constantly cheating. We do not want Congress to join this cheating.
There are so many problems with the proposed ‘coal to fuel’ schemes. First, the end
product is diesel which is harmful and contributes strongly to Global Warming. Next, the
process of making this diesel produces huge amount of carbon dioxide which Coal
Industry is claiming that they would trap and store underground. The concept of carbon
sequestering is sold before any such thing is done on larger scale. Carbon storage is still
a theory and is not implemented widely on commercial basis. Of course storing Carbon is
essentially like nuclear waste – necessary evil with no sure, clean solution to deal with in
the end.
Further, Coal Industry is saying that they need guarantees for higher oil price. If oil goes
below $40 per barrel, they want taxpayers to foot the bill. Leaving aside the question of
government subsidies and guarantees (those will be needed to develop any new energy
source); the real question is why should public favor only one energy technology? What
about so many other competing technologies? Say Solar and Wind become lot profitable
when oil is expensive. What we need is competition among multitude of alternative
energy technologies so that market in the end determines which energy route to take. As
Tom Friedman has been shouting all along, if Federal Government guarantees oil prices
at sufficient high level (in the form of financial guarantees if the oil price drops below
certain number or variable oil tax so that end oil price remains constant and sufficiently
high); so many alternative energy proposals will start making sense; so many of those will
compete and the market will decide in the end. Coal Industry will be one of the
beneficiary industries which will compete with other technologies.
As far as addressing carbon dioxide emission part goes, taxing universally carbon dioxide
equivalent emission – from an individual running gasoline car to big industry and utilities,
all of them – is the only right way. LA Times rightly points out that in its editorial.
(http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-carbontax28may28,0,2888366.story?coll=la-
opinion-leftrail)
Finally the part of guaranteeing demand for the energy generated by these alternative
sources – Coal Industry is demanding that USA Air Force should buy the produced diesel
for the next 25 years. Now, many states are mandating utility companies to source 15%
of their generation from alternative energy sources. So Coal Industry demand is along
those lines and there is some sense here. However, what is needed is a general
framework so that underwriting by taxpayers in terms of committed consumption is
energy source neutral. That is one missing piece and we need a rational solution for that.
206
All in all, demands Coal Industry is making are not the real ways to address America’s
energy problem. It is shame that Democrats are party to such thinking. That looser
Democrat – Dick Gephardt – is helping Coal Industry in this sinister scheme as if all the
looses he brought to Dems are not sufficient and now he is contributing to bring whole of
USA down when it comes to finding a greener solutions to our energy needs.
What Democrats need to do is bring an overall framework of governmental guarantees,

subsidies and taxation of carbon emission which is neutral to technology and effectively
let loose the competition among alternative energy industries. Taking side of any one
technology is politically senseless as well as a wrong economic policy.
It is disappointing that so-called enlightened Senator like Obama is not rising above the
parochial thinking and is party to Coal Industry backed misguided efforts. And Obama
dares to ask our votes for offering progressive policies! What an audacious demand from
not so dumb public.
Umesh Patil
Cupertino, CA 95014
May 28, 2007.
Immigration Bill Impasse

Saturday, June 09, 2007
Sen. Kyle says he wants to allow GOP Senators to bring amendments to the bill and he
wants to give them time to debate these amendments. He voted against the cloture of the
bill and then Sen. Reid decided to withdraw the comprehensive Immigration Bill. When
the main GOP backer Sen. Kyle voted for the debate means others followed and
effectively the bill was killed at that point.
There may be some merit in the contention that it is better for these GOP amendments to
be discussed rather than attempting to ram the bill through. However, it also opens the
floodgates for ‘deal killer’ amendments. So it is not clear how the bill would have
sustained those attacks. This means the decision of Sen. Kyle to oppose the ‘cloture’
essentially meant he backed out at the last minute.
Of course the larger question is even if the bill would have passed the Senate, will the
House have backed it? With Dems in clear majority and no sign of loosing that majority in
2008 (rather higher potential to increase it); Dems in House might not have liked this bill.
There is some talk of reviving this bill again in Senate. May be only when President Bush
convinces his GOP Senators, there is some possibility. But Senate Majority leader Reid is
not very enthusiastic backer and it is questionable how much GOP Senators will listen to
President Bush, the lame duck President who is political albatross to them. Does it mean
the bill will not come back in this Congress? More possibility is of that than any sensible
revival.
That makes the whole ‘immigration policy’ exposed to brutal attacks by extremists on
both sides; especially on the GOP side. ‘Amnesty’ crowd will make it almost impossible to
have any sensible discussion on this topic in Presidential debates. Types of Rudy Giuliani
contenders will fall over each other to secure favors from these racists, white male 207
chauvinists backers in GOP who howl as ‘amnesty’.
It does not matter how many tears Peggy Noonan from East Coast in Wall Street Journal
to Debra Sounders on West Coast in San Francisco Chronicle shed for President Bush –
he was right in calling the bluffs of GOP base on Immigration Policy. GOP is totally
hijacked by racist people on this issue. Granted Noonan and Sounders like sensible
Conservatives are not racists. But how many such sensible Conservatives are coming
forward and standing with Sen. McCain and President Bush in this matter? Not many.
Look at the show in Senate – all these GOP Senators are falling like rats when it comes
to any sensible immigration reforms. GOP has shown its disgusting side to public. GOP
lost its way in the case of Civil Rights movements and same is the case now.
Tragedy is high decibel levels of GOP contenders opposing to any sensible Immigration
Policy will make it impossible for Dems to take any realistic position on this issue. Best
bet for Dems and Progressive forces will be to be quite, let GOP unfold their Immigration
Policy Circus and when Dems win both Congress and Presidential elections in 2008;
work on to pass sensible reforms then.
At this point, unless leaders in GOP come forward wanting to do right things, Dems
should just be patient.
Umesh Patil
Cupertino, CA 95014
June 9, 2007.
Pathetic Suckers of Pakistan

Wednesday, June 20, 2007
British Queen decides to confer knighthood on Salman Rushdie and Pakistan boils over
it. How pathetic! It is one more demonstration of intellectual bankruptcy of that country
and shame to the legacy of secular founder Jinha.
Quite apart the core issue of intolerance of these Muslim fanatics, it is a basic decency in
today’s world - not to meddle in affairs of other countries. Pakistani extremists have no
business to dictate how others live. Rushdie is not conspiring against Pakistani state nor
is he undermining Islam. His has been an open debate. Of course, you would not expect
any intellectual abilities off of these Mullahs to understand such progressive views.
The really disgusting, pavlovian undercurrent exposed by this hypocrisy is how these
Pakistanis want some kind approval from British Queen and yet want it in the fashion in
which it would justify their irrational views. In any other society, who gives damn to what
that old Queen says. British public itself is on the verge of abolishing monarchy and here
these suckers in Pakistan still cling to vestiges of colonial era.
Ultimate opportunistic political leaders like Imran Khan will now come forward to take
advantage of this incorrect unrest in Pakistani society. He may organize riots and in the
process more common, poorer Pakistanis would die who actually do not bother about
Rushdie. True Islam believers do not need any kind words from others in praying for
208 Allah.
Well not for nothing, major institutions like Foreign Policy regard Pakistan as a failed
state. Uproar over Rushdie’s knighthood manifests vulnerabilities of that state.
Umesh Patil
Cupertino, CA 95014
June 20, 2007.
On Board, Sen. Lugar

With Frank Rich (NYT) ripping off the inevitable attempts by this White House to ‘spin’
surge strategy in September 07; it is becoming imperative that more elected GOP leaders
come on the board to question is open ended engagement in Iraq. Frank Rich thinks Sen.
John Warner is the key and that is true.
But with Sen. Lugar’s speech on Senate floor criticizing Bush Iraq War policy; we have
one more GOP Senator on board. It should make that much easier for Sen. Warner to
easy out from this ridiculous political quagmire.
Congressional Democrats needs to start the work now to blunt the coming lies of Gen.
Petraeus and spins from White House. The confrontation is must and it must succeed this
time.
Any presidential candidate who is not fully engaged in this looming mother of all political
debates is not worth his or her vote. The campaign for 2008 presidential elections is
meaningless at this time and only true measure of a leader is how he or she is engaged
to force this administration to change its policy. All other is side drama.
For GOP presidential hopefuls, they would want to engage in a campaign which will
divert the attention from Iraq War debate. But that is because they want to run away and
they know that with it they are running away from their any scant possibility of victory. But
that need not be the case with Congressional GOP members. They better follow the
example of Sen. Lugar and be ready to part with Pres. Bush’s disastrous Iraq War policy.
Umesh Patil
Cupertino, CA 95014
June 25, 2007.
Shining Great Britain and its Parliamentary

Democracy
With a smooth transfer of power to the next leader and popular handling of floods and
terror plots by the new PM, these are the times for UK to feel giddy. Commentaries are
pouring about pervasive ‘feel good’ sentiment in UK. Shining Sterling Pound rising to 26
years high against Dollar and generally sound economy add to benign economy
209
backdrop. Outgoing PM Blair secured reasonable concessions against expanding EU
bureaucracy and he is back in the lime light as the global Middle East Envoy; it is hard to
miss the presence of UK in global affairs.
This is a remarkable turn of events for the country. Thriving Global Financial Market in
London is essentially carrying forward the entire UK. If this market caused party
continues for few more years, which is quite likely, London Olympics in 2012 will be the
‘graduation’ of these good times.
One can argue these are the fruits of Labor rule over the last decade. With the Iraq
involvement reasonably contained, Blair gone, it is the problem essentially of USA only.
In a way UK is off the hook. Good for the country and very right for the subjects of the
crown.
While UK is getting solidly entrenched back in the global political and economical
discourse; there are some questionable political policies PM Brown is intending to
pursue. One of these policies is devolving power of declaring war from PM to Parliament.
In British Parliamentary system, it is the Union Cabinet which has the prerogative to
declare the war. Since Cabinet members are from Parliament, Union Cabinet is expected
to represent the will of the parliament faithfully. Since PM’s office is never separate from
the Parliament, it is much less use to emulate the American System. Since American
President is directly elected and is never a part of Congress, oversight of the Congress
on the war policy is a perennial vexing issue. With Parlimentary system, executive branch
is never far away from the Parliament itself (note how Parliamentary system could have
dumped a leader like President Bush long ago) and hence the question of devolving the
power of declaring war to Parliament is redundant. One wonders whether that would
compromise UK’s ability to undertake crucial decisions like initiating military retaliation in
crisis times since bodies like Parliament are never meant for executive actions like
declaring a war.
Such policy proclivity seems more due to European style Left thinking as well as political
need of PM Brown to set the differentiating tone on Iraq war compared to his
predecessor. The outgoing PM Blair literally dragged the parliament in the Iraq war.
Further it needs to be kept in mind that just because more persons are involved; it does
not mean better political decision making. American Senate sheepishly followed Iraq war
resolution and failed to do its duty of being critical about the Iraq war policy. So by
devolving war declaration policy to Parliament, problems are unlikely to go away.
Next, PM Brown’s another of proposals - confirmation of important government post

nominations by the Parliament – simply seems a copy of American system. When you
have parliamentary majority, PM’s nominations are anyway going to get confirmed. One
only needs to recall how GOP dominated Congress approved ‘heck of job Brownie’ for
the FEMA position!
Parliament is for a serious political discourse and the beauty and strength of the
parliamentary system is the total involvement of PM and Union Cabinet in the regular
brawl of parliamentary politics. As is PM has less political room, copying American
system will not help. The constant struggle between the Congress and the President is as
old as the Old Glory. That is part and parcel of the American System. None of those
measures are unlikely to help in the Parlimentary System.
Finally, we have two major variants of Democratic Systems on this planet – American
210
Style and British Style. For the health of political systems on this planet, we need this
diversity to be retained. Indian Republic at the age of 60 years is doing some fine
innovations to the British Style (by and large dominance of large states of the republic,
influence of regional satraps, indispensability of regional parties; all quite useful for the
Indian situation). Contemporary Russian System started with some innovations, though
lately it is all dictatorial Putin style police state. And of course, French have been busy in
fine tuning their political systems for over two centuries (sometimes peacefully and
sometimes violently). It is the genetic pool – for the longer survival of a species, genetic
variety is needed. Same for political forms of organization for humans – we need variety.
American System may be great, but we want rest of the world to be more innovative and
come up with more true to the soil, stronger democratic institutions. British Parlimentary
System is one such beautiful, strong and deeply respectable institution. Transplanting
aspects of Jefferson’s political thought may not be necessary improvements for this
institution.
Umesh Patil
July 4, 2007
Monday, July 09, 2007

Iraq War – Set to Pull the Plug?
With blistering, timely and kind of historic editorial of NYT finally asking to start withdrawal
of American forces from Iraq, the stage is slowly but surely getting set for pulling the plug.
( ‘ T h e R o a d H o m e ’ ,
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/08/opinion/08sun1.html?n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials
%20and%20Op%2dEd%2fEditorials )
We have Sen. Reid rightly realizing that it is ‘his’ moral responsibility to help bring curtain
on this Iraq war show. He is right and he is not any late to this realization. We also have
increasing number of GOP Senators clamoring for ‘drawing down’ American forces form
Iraq. Cindy Sheehan is threatening to put a symbolic electoral fight with Speaker Pelosi if
she does not become more active in bringing back the forces. So all in all, politics is
getting aligned for the final pulling of the plug on this misguided, mismanaged and lost
war of America.
NYT Editorial is right in pointing out the moral responsibility of the Congress in outlining
the negative impacts of American pull out from Iraq. The simple reasons for the pull out
are:
- for a while American sacrifices in Iraq are not making any difference on the ground and
- despite Iraqi political class owning the substantial part of the problem, it is proven
beyond doubt that Iraqi political class does not want or is incapable of fulfilling it’s political
obligations for a while now.
There is no sugar coating to the turn of events – all said and done, it is the defeat of
America in this war. Pres. Bush is singularly responsible for this ignominy of America.
The hard question America must need to address is – keep on blaming Pres. Bush but
not take any action or to move on. It is imperative that American Congress rises to the 211
occasion, shows the courage to move on and starts the onerous duty of repairing tattered
image and shattered interests of America. Time has come to walk past Pres. Bush,
unfortunately 18 months earlier than his official term end.
Umesh Patil
Cupertino, CA 95014
July 8, 2007.
GOP – The War Party

Greenwald in Salon has rightly characterized GOP as the Iraq War Party and how each
of the GOP presidential candidates (with the exception of Paul Ron maybe) is in effect
the backer of Bush’s Iraq war policy. Mayerson in WaPo also characterized correctly how
so called ‘paragon of GOP’s sane voice on Iraq’ (Senators Lugar, Warner, Vinovich, etc.)
is also spineless. One could see that in the latest Senate vote on the troop pull out bill.
Only Hagel, Smith, Snowe and Collins had the guts to side with the ‘right side of the
history’.
For Dems there is no other option than keep coming back with such bills and every time
keep demonstrating how GOP is backing Bush’s failed Iraq policy with total disregard to
American lives, tax money, America’s international leverage and in the end American
security. This is despite all of Dem bills containing the provision of keeping appropriate
number of American soldiers in Iraq after the pull out. By bringing back these bills again
and again, it needs to be hammered with American people how GOP is totally wrong and
discredited on this issue.
GOP has made the call of sinking with Bush. Well, then so be the case.
It becomes task of every ‘war pull out backer’ to participate in ‘grass root’ movement to
defeat each and every GOP Senator and Representative who back this reckless war.
American citizens owe to our Democracy to defeat every Sen. Lindsay Graham of this
world. (Watch his foolish and irresponsible arguments with Sen. Webb in the Meet the
Press program of Tim Russert.)
Why are we contributing to Dem Presidential candidates? We should rather start

contributing, now, to defeat / unseat / recall all these GOP war backing Senators. That
should be the real campaign of Dems. Impeaching Bush is not feasible and not required.
Attack these GOP Congress people who back wrong Iraq War and who allow dropping
the guard on National Security at home while Al Queda gets free hand.
While Bush is in White House, the focus will be on his wrong policy and it will expose
each Congress member who gives short hand to his or her responsibility whenever he or
she backs Iraq War.
We now know what is the real political fight progressive forces need to undertake.
Obsessing with Obama or Hilliary while neglecting the need of mobilizing opinions among
our fellow Americans in GOP district is as irresponsible on our part as these GOP
Senators. Conservative political pundits (for example RealClearPolitics) have every
212 incentive to focus on Obamas and Hilliarys of this world. It serves two purposes for them:
- to rally GOP base for Giulianis and McCains of this world and
- to push issues of Bush’s Iraq war under the carpet. Meanwhile these GOP Senators get
away with their hideous acts.
If Obama and Hilliary want to join this progressive struggle, well and good. Else we have
to do those things on our own.
Umesh Patil
Cupertino, CA 95014
July 18, 2007.
National Elections of Turkey

Incumbent Turkish PM Erdogan was all elegance and magnanimous in his thumping
victory – saying that he respects votes to his opposition, he respects their choices and he
vows himself to work to maintain this political plurality. Part of it is a standard boilerplate
for the victor in contemporary national elections. Even so, Erdogan has the political
capital as well as the track record to believe his words in some sense.
The turn is now of Turkish Secular Establishment to ‘shut up’. Those million marches with
fancy, beautiful red Turkish flags on the breath taking scenery of sea shores were all
nice, enjoyable while the party lasted. But now people have spoken and Secularists got
to work with AKP’s choice of President and AKP’s economic agenda. Secularists and
Ataturk’s legacy – ar Turkish Military – can at least extend the qualified support saying
that they will give chance to AKP and will raise their voices (or actions) as and when AKP
President and Policies transcendent the lines drawn by the Secular State. If some
Turkish ladies want to have ‘burka’; so be the case and no pointing now beating your
head on that.
The interesting consequence will be how EU establishment (read Merkel, Sarkozy,

Brown, Prodi and EU bureaucracy in Brussels) must work with AKP now to resolve the
issue of Turkish membership of EU. There is Poland which made deal breaking noises
when the last EU accord was done – claiming that it was all because of Nazi
extermination of Jews that Poland has less population and hence less votes in EU
decision making! How audacious. As if all that abdicates responsibilities of Polish state in
avoiding decrease in their population. This issue is important because, apart from Islamic
population of Turkey and authentic representation of that in AKP victory causing
apprehensions; the differential population growth rates will result in more Political weight
for Turkey. (One answer is to look at American Senate – how Californians put with up 2
Senators from tiny states like Vermont and Delaware!)
But after the proven demonstration of impeccable Democratic credentials by AKP in this
election; time has come for rest of the EU to ‘walk the talk’ and give Turkey the EU
membership. EU can before hand say that, after Turkey and few more pending
applications from Eastern Europe; the door is closed for some foreseeable future for any
other new applications. EU experiment can not turn into 21st century version of past
European Empires. It needs to declare geographical limits before hand. But after the
adimission of Turkey.
213
The positive movement along EU membership of Turkey can be further hedged on
Turkey adopting non-extremists stance against Kurds and not undertaking any invasion
of Kurd territory in Iraq. Since elections are past, AKP will be under less pressure to
ratchet of the tension against Kurds. Turkish Military, however, may be tempted to play
even more strident role. As long as admission to EU works to control these aggressive
tendencies (and there is such real soothing potential in this EU business); that is one
more welcome impact and one more reason why Turkey should be admitted to EU.
Umesh Patil
Cupertino, CA 95014
July 22, 2007.
Naked Uncle Sam

Friday, August 10, 2007
Economic Nobel laureate (1999) Mundell effectively said that Dollar reign will last for
another 100 years because of the sophistication of American Financial System. Mortals
and layperson like me are expected not to challenge these high priests unless we want to
exhibit our foolishness again. But the turn of events in last two weeks in Global Finance
make one wonder whether Prof. Mundell was indeed wrong.
It all started when Fed absolved itself from the responsibility of controlling what type of
‘mortgage loans’ were issued in the first place. Why in the world Fed could not see that
with record low interest rates and extremely lenient qualification norms (no equity, no tax
returns, etc.); the problem was brewing in the first place? Further, the past Fed Chief on
top of it exhorted Americans to go for ARM type loans. Wow! One can judge the
cluelessness of the Fed when it sirens all is well but on the second day an European
Bank blows the whistle because of failure to ‘price’ CDOs.
Next, Congress got busy itself in reducing taxes for rich people. Congress has been so
immoral that it would tax hard earned wages of poor people at higher percentage than
the Capital Gains of rich people. May be, America is truly Capitalist country… While busy
in crafting these tax cuts and preserving these tax cuts; Congress forgot to put any
legislation to control non-bank mortgage players when these players were at their
creative peak in creating CDOs out of these low quality mortgage loans.
Finally, we have the ‘toll collectors’ of Finance – Wall Street Investment bankers. These
investment bankers and brokers put all sorts of fancy wrappers on these low quality
CDOs and sold those CDOs all over the world at fat fees. Rating agencies (S&P and
Moodys of the world) as usual played the dubious key role in blessing these loans with
higher status than warranted. The collective ‘greed’ prevented Wall Street in correctly
characterizing these shoddy papers and these Wall Street firms failed once again in
applying any standards while selling these sub quality merchandise to everyone.
Given all this collective failure who in the world can call American Financial System as
the ‘sophisticated one’? The system results in cheating of those who bought these CDOs.
It generates contempt and loss of credibility for all instruments denominated in Dollars
which are not directly backed by Treasury or Uncle Sam. The goal of a sophisticated
financial system is non-governmental players are also observing rules and standards
214 which produce a creditable, uniform, honest and above all ‘liquid’ market for transacting
various financial instruments. American Financial System failed those criteria here.
As if it is not enough to destroy America’s political credibility and national security

(otherwise which fool will fight Iraq war when Bin Laden in free?); Bush Administration
does not show any leadership in preserving America’s financial credibility. The
Administration, for example, could take initiative in making special arrangements in
assisting home owners who can repay the loan over an extended period. For example,
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac can offer special loans for these distressed home owners.
The Administration can work with Wall Street Firms in creating a fund which will help to
generate market for these frozen instruments. Reduction in interest rates may help, but
one will have to be careful there otherwise the ‘inflation’ monster would arise as well as
asset bubble can get re-ignited in a different manner.
The goal is collectively American Financial System honors the implicit commitments
behind CDOs bought by rest of the world. Otherwise, no amount of reforms can restore
the ‘financial leadership’ for Wall Street in already intense Global competition for financial
markets. Dollar would also come under renewed attack when the perception gets settled
that Wall Street sells ‘cheap papers’ and Uncle Sam does not honor it in the end.
(Chinese ‘Nuke Attack’ of selling Trillion dollar reserves?) Any solution for this credibility
challenge will have to involve those very home owners from where the whole charade
started. One can not have Conservative instinct in restricting participation of these
original players. Being vindictive for those players (did they not have sense while taking
those loans in the first place?) will not solve the problem, but rather will help to bring the
whole ‘financial house’ down. Unfortunately, all that this Administration is doing is
precisely following such vindictive route, not showing courage in persuading Wall Street
rich guys in owning their responsibilities and in general wasting all the political capital in
preserving those ‘damn tax cuts’ for rich even while the carnage is spreading. What a
shame. Looks like America needs episodes like Great Depression from time to time to
live on. But this time America very likely will loose the leadership in Financial Industry
unless it corrects itself or Congress wakes up.
Umesh Patil
Cupertino, CA 95014
August 10, 2007.
India at Sixty
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
There is understandable pride in India about her 60th birthday. The mood is upbeat
because of uplifting economy, overall relative social peace, containment of security
issues and India’s growing international clout.
If one has to be very explicit, the achievements of this nation are quite impressive and
those can be listed as follows.
1. Except for 18 months when Indira Gandhi usurped fundamental rights during the
Emergency Rule; the polity has been fundamentally Democratic through thick and thin.
The electoral mechanism gave political power at the federal and state levels to various
political formations from Left to Right in the ideological spectrum. In fact ‘stint in power’ by
most of the political formations has been a singularly impressive achievement. It 215
fundamentally helped to bring some of kind of basic understanding among political forces
that elections can make you the ruler as well as make you sit in the opposition. As a
result, the bitterness which results when only one political party rules for a prolonged
period of time; is avoided.
2. To a large extent territorial integrity of the nation has been maintained. Considering the
challenges of absorbing literally hundreds of titular kingdoms and sovereign principalities
in early days; the integration of all these political sub parts and pre-modern stately
components into the modern day federal state has laid down the solid foundations for
India to build upon. The good thing is India has quite successfully enjoyed the benefits of
these solid political foundations. Further, the way challenges posed by Punjab Terrorism
were eventually dealt with; it is a glittering example of the might and power of Indian
state.
3. One of the saddest parts in the entire history of the sub-continent has been the social
chaos and the genocide which took place at the time of Partition in 1947. No doubt that
was politically colossal failure of the British Empire, M. K. Gandhi, Congress Party and
Muslim League leadership. However the nation, over the years, has ‘healed’ that deep
seated wound in a fair manner; if not perfectly. There were subsequent occasions when
the social fabric again came under the intense pressure along Hindu – Muslim lines. But
apart from those sad episodes, Indian society is evolving towards non-violent coexistence
of Hindu – Muslim religious divide.
4. The crowning strategic achievement of this nation has been how India contributed to
the independence of Bangladesh. Not only India happened to be on the right side of the
history in those times, she also achieved strategic equilibrium in her favor.
5. Another strategic fulfillment has been overall independence in pursuing nuclear

weapons by not signing NPT. Western non-proliferation hawks would always frown upon
India’s this policy. But the path has been in India’s proper interest. The recent conclusion
of Dr. Singh – Pres. Bush accord of nuclear co-operation is also the right logical
termination point of India’s historical policy in this matter.
6. Over the period of 6 decades, the problem of stark starvation, wide spread diseases
and recurrent epidemics have been tackled at least up to a tolerable level. Considering
the vast population of the nation, this is indeed an achievement to be proud of; especially
when one compares the abysmally low level from where the nation started in 1947.
7. In recent years, economic advances have been impressive. Vibrant economy, along
with the remarkable entrepreneurial spirit, has become the core engine of social
transformation. Industrial and technological advances are giving the nation a chance to
compete with other industrial societies on equal footing. In recent years, India is one of
the rare countries which have ensured that she is on the ‘winning’ side of Globalization.
8. Finally, though not very consistently; Indian society has retained the necessary
intellectual vigor and has demonstrated willingness to create and sustain autonomous
‘cultural space’ when the temptation to follow paradigms of other countries have been
great. Bollywood and Cricket have been two prime examples where indigenous efforts to
carve out cultural discourse are exemplary. Literary tradition is not totally lost too. Same
for many other cultural traditions of India, those are retained in some form or the other.
Where independent India has failed to address some of the challenges are; those are as
216
follows.
1. Pervasive influence of caste system. Electoral politics have complicated the ‘affirmative
action policy’, originally formulated as a solution for this caste system. Caste based vote
banks have taken life in themselves and the vicious grip of those vote banks on Indian
elections does show any sign of weakening.
2. Some lingering and some new challenges to the territorial integrity are still open –
Kashmir and the unrest in North East.
3. Maoist insurgency and other violent challenges to the State are still not fully resolved.
In fact, in absence of resolute dealing with these divisive forces; dramatics cracks in the
foundations of Indian state still may appear.
4. Along with these internal challenges to the stability; relations with neighboring South
Asia are still far from harmonious and cohesive. Pakistan’s pursuit of militant policy is
sure one factor which constrains India in developing more peaceful South Asia. But
considering the political and economical weight of India in this region, India’s leadership
role is still lacking and policy conduct is still narrow minded. Lot more imaginative and
generous approaches are needed to run the foreign policy gamut with Nepal, Bangladesh
and Sri Lanka. There are no such signs at present.
5. Absence of uniform Land Reforms across the entire nation, lack of transparency in
formulation and execution of land use policies and endemic corruption in real estate
dealings; all these vices have resulted in deeply entrenched system which does not cater
to ‘haves not’. Logjams in Judicial system do not provide any justice to poor. (Criminal
Justice System is on little better footing due to Media pressure.) In fact, entire
contemporary electoral politics – especially at city and state level - is in effect revolving
around the corrupt means which are made available to politicians and rich to grab more
wealth by wrong ways. With quite a limited availability of land in the first pace and
continued population pressure; it is of paramount importance that land and real estate
dealings are free of corruption so that it becomes an equitable system for common
people. Instead of that, real estate dealings are becoming a prominent source by which
rich – poor gap is sustained and increased.
6. As Indian economy grows and her population grows; infrastructure needs are vastly
increasing. Water, road and electricity are needed in gigantic scale. Despite all the
impressive economic growth numbers in recent years, lack of these infrastructure
resources is proving to be a bottleneck of further economic prosperity. The way
‘regulation raj’ works in India; there does not seem to be any light at the end of the tunnel
in this matter.
7. No doubt, India is enjoying the demographic sweet spot where are % of young people
is very high. However, in years to come; this demographic picture will not remain that
favorable; at which point India would wish she had planner for those inevitable increases
in older population. There is no long term vision, no long term state sponsored
mechanisms which provide uniform health services to the larger population, to older
people. Even of for the current young population, negligence in providing top notch
education results in criminal wastage of India’s talent.
8. Finally, cultural and social strains (assault on family structure, addiction problems and
overall basic law and order issues) resulting from rapid economic activities and
217
Globalization are not fully understood; nor there are any mechanisms in place to contain
these social strains.
Umesh Patil
Cupertino, CA 95014
August 15, 2007.
America’s Primary Problem

NYT laments, rightly, about the farce what the American presidential primary system has
become.
(http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/19/opinion/19sun3.html?n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorial
s%20and%20Op%2dEd%2fEditorials; Deck the Halls With Politicos’ Folly )
The editorial suggests that voters should go for regional, rotating primaries by 2012. Very
well suggested. The question is, which voters will effect this change? And how? Each
state is simply following their state laws and their narrow interests. To assume that
American State Leaders collectively have the wisdom to come together and to address
this problem; is to expect too much. Let us face it – we have got all third rate State
leaders. Who in right mind would think that Iowa and New Hampshire folks are ready to
trade their ‘inflated’ sense of politics? These states will not. They are all quite eager to
dump some wrong candidates on America, elections after elections.
Will these presidential candidates themselves talk about such a reform? Nay, no fat
chance. They are all busy raising money and running in the rat race. If it means setting
aside some national interests, well so be the case for these candidates.
One body which can address this problem is Congress. The other possibility will be then
slew of Third Party Candidates who will make life miserable to Dem and GOP candidates
who will be vulnerable all year long with the political mud playing. That will be at least
some fun.
Umesh Patil
Cupertino, CA 95014
August 19, 2007.
The Deal Gone Sour: Indo-USA Nuclear Accord

Latest global financial crisis originated because investment bankers who sold mortgage
backed securities ran ahead of the implicit ‘backing’ of these securities. Looks like same
is happening with Indian Prime Minister Dr. Singh – he ran ahead / oversold the Indo-
USA Nuclear Accord when in reality he did not have enough political backing for the
same in the Indian parliament.
218
If there is one single cardinal mistake that is to be avoided by a leader, then it is to over
sell a political policy without having the basic political consensus for the policy in the first
place. It is obvious that Left Parties and BJP are not heeding to India’s national interests
and are wrongly opposing the deal. But why the bluster by Dr. Singh that he will conclude
the accord even if Left backs out of the government? If Left backs out of the government
and BJP moves a ‘no-confidence’ motion with Left abstaining from that voting; how will
Dr. Singh’s government survive? It will not.
All said and done, the deal is not worth collapsing Dr. Singh’s government. Any mid-term
elections are unlikely to change the political arithmetic in the Parliament. Indian voters
are not going to back Congress and Dr. Singh in droves just because of his principled
stand in this deal. So Congress can at best improve it’s tally marginally. There are
unlikely any other political formations who can replace Left in the numerical strength and
back Dr. Singh. Mayawati and her BSP is one such capable force, but their pound of
flesh may be far higher than the price Congress pays to Left. Even if BSP does not court
the Muslim constituency in a misguided manner by opposing this Indo-USA Nuclear
Accord; BSP’s support to the deal and overall sanity in their foreign policy are no
guarantees. This means fresh elections are hardly going to alter the political reality in any
substantial manner. On the contrary, it will inflict lot of pain on India’s booming economy
and for sure the Bombay Stock Exchange will ‘tank’ further. India needs Dr. Singh to
complete his current term as well as to have one more full term to change the economical
balance decisively and permanently. Hence, this nuclear accord is not worth sacrificing
Dr. Singh’s government.
What was required by Dr. Singh was to realize the perils of running ahead with the
Nuclear Deal. May be he risked politically everything with the view that in the end Left
and BJP will see national interests and will back the deal. But parochial considerations
are far more important to Indians politicians than the common good. Such a blatant
inability by Indian Political Class to overcome domestic considerations while supporting
an international deal and fulfilling the global leadership role will surely haunt India for long
time to come. What it says to rest of the world (as C Uday Bhaskar articulated very well in
Rediff - http://www.rediff.com/news/2007/aug/19guest.htm ) is that India is not ready to
play her ‘international role’ and does not want rest of the world to bother her from her
domestic pre-occupations.
The core idea behind the deal has been to go past one more irritant for India in dealing
with International Power Structure – nuclear weapons, their legitimacy and the legal
participation in global nuclear power bazaar. As is India is hobbled with Kashmir –
Pakistan problem, border dispute with China is still unsolved, her ambition of participating
in UN Security Council as a permanent member is not backed by the reality and has
many challenges when global trade issues come up. So by removing this nuclear mess,
the deal was clearing a path for India with more freedom in International Relations.
Implicit to the deal is an opportunity to play the moral high grounds - that India is a
reluctant nuclear power and is hanging on with a limited set of weapons (between 60 to
100 warheads) only because of her neighbors. The point is what do Indians want India to
be – more like Germany and Japan who are fulfilling their global responsibilities without
hanging on with nukes or desperate attempts to be like China, France and UK who have
unrestricted nuke weaponry; all legalized. Indian mindset should not be to rework the
historically missed opportunities of being ‘victors’ of WWII or the sole Asian stalwart as in
China’s case of 50s and 60s so that India gets unrestricted nuclear weaponry. Indian
ethos is of ‘non-violence’ and ‘reluctant warrior’ who is extremely prudent in carrying
219
civilization destroying means. By refusing to adopt the path opened by this deal, which
may look restricted through the traditional prism, India is loosing a great opportunity.
Leadership is in creating situations which will shine on India’s strength in the 21st
century. It is not clinging to older models of 20th century power. All such emancipated
vision is totally lost amidst the medieval, foolish calculations of Muslim votes in the
domestic politics; as if wiser Muslims do not see the benefits of aligning India’s interests
with USA and West.
No doubt, the accord also places India more near to USA and as a result India will play a
valuable role in shaping the strategic partnerships with West while fulfilling the
concomitant responsibilities. Left does not want those responsibilities and is still misty
eyed for the Sino-Russian Indian Strategic Triangle within the global power structure.
How ludicrous is that. China and India will be direct competitors of each other for many,
many years to come, say it in global trade or strategic influence. With Russia, it is only oil
which is making Putin’s state as a belligerent one. When the importance of oil goes down
in decades to come, how useful that friendship with Russia will be. Also, for the close
relations with China and Russia to flourish; there is no natural constituency which is
addressed. With USA, immigrants, future migration and solid constituency of outsourcing
industry; all these are real, now & here components which can be served better. Indo-
USA Nuclear Accord and attendant deeper strategic relationship would serve this natural
constituency. Also at the end of the day, which countries the largest democracy in the
world should side with? Chinese and Russian dictatorships or the oldest Democracy of
America? The answer is no brainier. So opposition by Left and BJP is indeed counter
intuitive and detrimental to India’s long term interests. One hoped that Dr. Singh had
done all this home work of cajoling these fighting cocks within the Parliament before
baiting America for this deal. As a result it is quite understandable that rest of the world
will be lot more circumspect in days to come while dealing with India. That is the real set
back.
Umesh Patil
Cupertino, CA 95014
August 19, 2007.
Democracy Farce by DNC

Saturday, August 25, 2007
It may very well be the case that GOP Governor and GOP dominated Florida legislature
intended to create this chaos for Democrats by forcing Florida to hold their presidential
primary early. But still the fact remains that DNC is making a mess of organizing the
presidential primaries.
It was a good start then to have Nevada and S. Carolina as two additional states in the
first lot. But lot of water has gone down the Potmac and political reality in times of
YouTube and Internet is very different. Presidential primaries need to be even more
democratic and representative; not some rigid system. Why Iowa and New Hampshire
should be the first states all the time? Why did DNC not show the courage of having
rotating primaries in four regions of the nation? The way democracy needs to work is not
having primary presidential politics beholden to Iowa and New Hampshire all the time.
220 The current process is disaster for American Democracy and DNC has not been enough
progressive in this matter. It is no consolation that GOP is not doing anything either. But
that is their problem.
Electoral College System of electing a president (but not the popular vote count) is a bad
enough system in the first place. DNC and Americans need to work to go away from this
system. (How about supporting http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/index.php ?) Leave
aside that, within primaries too, DNC is not showing any vision. The only spine gets
reflected when DNC wants to punish Florida.
May be Florida and Michigan should go ahead with their primaries regardless of ruling
from DNC. Delegates or not delegates; it will at least demonstrate the uselessness of the
current primary system. Unless the current system is completely thrown away, nothing
new worthwhile is going to emerge. All these DNCs and party establishments are
beholden to Iowa, New Hampshire and some non-democratic system. That must change.
Umesh Paitl
Cupertino, CA 95014
August 25, 2007.
A Movie Star?
Saturday, August 25, 2007
AFP Photo
(http://news.yahoo.com/photo/070825/phot
os_wl_afp/c88d0b76ea35bf4f621ae5d8eb4
ca2d7;_ylt=Ahr0FhTJV7eGBkeQTP9wYPa
ROrgF )
Well, he is that handsome Spanish PM. He
is from Left Party, quite intelligent and with
high political integrity. Here he is speaking
for all parties to come together to fight the
Spanish separatist terrorist outfit ETA. How
right! Can we have someone telling those same things to our political friends in India?
India got at least 40 dead bodies in the latest Hyderabad bomb attacks and political
games among Indian parties have started immediately. How sad and sickening.
Umesh Patil
Cupertino, CA 95014
August 25, 2007.
Osaka 2007
Latest edition of World Championship in Athletics concluded in Osaka. Video clips are
enthralling. Pole vault is great to watch as well as the relay races.
http://osaka2007.iaaf.org/index.html 221
Americans did well and topped as expected (winning 14 out of 47 Gold Medals at stake).
Surprisingly it generates much less news in America. The news making rounds in
American media is about the ongoing Basketball championship of Americas in Las
Vegas. American basketball team is trying to recover from losses in last few Olympics. In
this championship in Las Vegas, they have beaten everyone with more than double digit
point difference and have qualified for Beijing 08.
Back in Osaka, the real news of significance is about smaller countries like Kenya,
Jamaica and Ethiopia. The former two countries winning more than 10 medals in this
World Championship! These are the only other two countries apart from USA and Russia
with medal count in double digits. Even the power house of united Germany could not win
more than 7 medals. These championships are always bit of 'insider professional' affair
than for 'public all' affairs of Olympics and hence are most competitive. The singular focus
on one sport, compared to more than 14 or 15 sports at Olympics, help to attain higher
standards too.
Performance from Russian Team has been good too. There is a talk of resurgence of old
Cold War rivalry. One of the Russian Gold Medallists in Osaka commented that depth
and intense competition among Russian athletics team is so high that, she is not even
sure whether she would qualify for Beijing 08 even after Osaka Gold Medal! Indeed 2
decades after the fall of Soviet Union, Russia is back on the world sporting stage (or
political stage too?).
Chinese Athlete Xiang Liu, carrying the weight of Billion plus country’s expectations, won
the 110 meters men’s hurdle race. That is their only gold and overall count of 3 medals.
Though the medal count is low for China, their total placing table count is quite high – 51.
For Americans it is 249, Russia 191, Kenya 123 and Jamaica 98. When an athlete
finishes 8th in the final race or competition, he or she gets 1 point. 8th position still
matters since you compete in the final only after winning qualifying rounds. For the 7th
placed athlete it is 2 points, all the way up to 8 points for the Gold Medallist. Higher
placing table count indicates the dominance of a country team. By that account China is
getting quite ready to have a block buster performance in Beijing 2008.
Overall 45 countries got at least one medal, vast majority being 1 or 2 medals. Sri Lanka,
Japan, Switzerland, Netherlands, Greece could manage 1 Bronze medal each. It has
been a disappointing tournament for the host Japan. Some 19 countries managed to get
at least some points on the placing table even if no medal. Some of the notable countries
in this group are Romania, Mexico, S. Africa, Egypt, Israel, Iran and Saudi Arabia.
Notably absent from this entire list of 64 countries (medals or at least placing points) are
India (very disappointing), Pakistan, Indonesia, Vietnam, S. Korea, Argentina and Chile.
By and large the pattern of omission and winners in Beijing 2008 be along the lines
developed here. Except that American Olympic Committee is already trying to set the
expectations low considering that the Chinese contingent will be the most favored to loot
the highest medals overall in their home stadiums.
The question will be to what an extent older Cold War rivalry will start to be replayed back
with the 3 way tussle among USA, China and Russia. Will those will be the poles of
International Politics in years to come? Well, life is never that straight and clean. It is quite
complex than that. But in any case sports rivalries are fun to watch and to perpetuate.
Without that drama, games will be dull. Looking at just concluded Osaka competition, it is
222
clear that excitement and rivalry will not be in short supply in Beijing 2008.
Umesh Patil
Cupertino, CA 95014
September 2, 2007.
Demented AB Bardhan
Thursday, September 06, 2007
If one wants to see an example of how some people in rest of the world hate USA for it’s
own sake, one should look at AB Bardhan - the crazy old man, the General Secretary of
Communist Party of India.
Basically, CPI and its big brother CPIM along with their motley crew of communist allies
oppose Indo-USA Nuclear Accord. Now if they oppose the accord because if they think it
is not a good deal for India, then that is their prerogative. However, their larger opposition
is based on perceived strategic alliance of India with USA. Faire enough – if these
Communist parties do not see value in such an alliance, again it is the internal matter of
India. But why the inability to see these things in professional manner and land up in
rising heckles against USA? Bardhan claims that ‘how can USA be friend of anyone’ as if
it is the hell on earth and root cause of all evils on earth. How malicious and wrong.
Bardhan needs to refresh knowledge of his history. I guess America’s little contribution in
past World Wars, contribution in the Korean War, liberation of Kuwait in 1992; all these
are nothing. For these America haters, blood of Americans is cheap. Nobody is claiming
that America is free of mistakes, but from that to jump to a conclusion where there is no
friend for America is total ignorance. How sad that Indians have to put with such political
garbage all the time. For people like Bardhan, America’s financial helpful gestures,
scientific contributions (Green Revolution in India?), technological hand of help and
security blanket to many in the world do not matter. It is totally ungrateful.
It is understandable the intense hate of America as displayed by Al Qeda type of

terrorists as was evident when some such terrorists were caught in Germany this week.
But why Bardhan wants to join that party in hating America? It is very well that Indian
Politicians do not want to sign the Nuclear Pact. Rest of the world will move on but will try
again in future to work with India. India is too big of a country for rest of the world to
ignore. Fortunately, that much sense is there in American political system as well as with
other capitals of the world. But all of these national interest calculations should not
degenerate into digging ‘who has how many friends’ where definition of friendship is all
subjective.
Foreign policy matters are dealt on the basis of cold national interest calculations.
America is no exception to that neither anyone is expecting India to be different. But such
a discourse of foreign policy can not be conducted with cheap talks like:
- ‘divorce’ between Congress and Communists,
- gates of heaven will not be opened and
- ‘how can anyone be friend of USA’?
These are all the ‘enlightened’ utterances from AB Bardhan, the demented comrade from
India.
223
Do Messer Bardhan and Comrades ask questions like how friendly India has been with
rest of the world? How many times India been good and helpful to rest of the world?
Where Indians died while liberating Bangladesh, even that country does not want to have
friendly relationship with India. These Indian politicians should just look around
themselves and figure out how pathetic India’s contributions are to the overall well being
and good of South Asian population and to rest of the world.
Forget about this Nuclear Accord, if this is the talk Indian politicians want to engage into,
diplomatic manners will be kept aside and American diplomats will be tempted to seat
these demented Indians in their places. In the end one single accord can not be at the
cost of insults to any single nation as well as further down fall of India’s political
discourse.
Umesh Patil
Cupertino, CA 95014
September 6, 2007.
Zero Leadership
From the Congressional testimony of General Petraeus, it is clear that tactically and
militarily the surge may have produced some positive effects, but the political objectives
have not been achieved. No sane person(except probably Pres. Bush whose sanity can
be questioned) in today’s world will give damn to military victories if political objectives
have not been met. So it is besides the points whether Petraeus’s smartness and skills
have indeed brought some success to American military. Well, give him some more
medals and stars on his already crowded chest and shoulders.
Once again Bush Administration has ‘swift boated’ Americans and have painted the
picture that ‘surge’ has worked. There are so many questions regarding the selective
mechanism used by the General to report this progress. But let us finally agree that, for
better or worse, America has no choice but accept his assessment on the face value .
The General is not a politician so that one engages in a political debate with him. If he is
not doing his job (honestly reporting the status to Congress), he should be removed from
the job. Granted, by then damage is done; but what choice do Americans have? None.
So coming back to the question what does this surge success mean to America, it raises
some fundamental questions:
- Does America still need to believe that political goals are attainable in Iraq? Both the
General and the Ambassador did not sound any promising on this front. There is nothing
in their report that any self respecting elected representative can depend to assume that
political goals in Iraq may come by in some future.
- So then what does the extending of ‘surge’ achieve?
- In place of the united Iraq, what are the political alternatives; likes of loosely fragmented
Iraq or a loose republic? What does the ‘soft partition of Iraq’ mean in terms of America’s
military commitments?
What is clear is that neither the General has the honesty in asking America’s political
leaders to think beyond non-attainable ‘united Iraq’ (in terms of partition and the military
224 commitments for the same); nor the Congress has guts to visualize this possibility – the
possibility which is looking more and more realistic.
There is no honesty in America’s military leadership as well as Congressional leadership

to realize that America does not have boots and dollars to sustain the surge for longer
period while chasing the chimera of united Iraq. Worst, Congress is going by the pure
expediency - if the public is not ‘vocal’ enough in demanding a change of course in the
Iraq policy, then why spend the political capital? These Congress members think that
there may be a possibility that surge may calm down the violence, so why risk of run
against it? But they do not understand that tactical success of surge has nothing to do
with the long term political and security goals of America.
So there is Zero Leadership. Six years after 9/11, America is still in dark as far as
correcting her course is concerned. Sad, sad day.
Umesh Patil
Cupertino, CA 95014
September 10, 2007.
Alan Greenspan – Epic Mismanagement

James Cramer nails down the colossal ‘cheating’ and ‘incompetence’ by Alan Greenspan
in his short article in New York Magazine.
(http://nymag.com/news/businessfinance/bottomline/37988/ )
Whichever way one looks at it, Greenspan essentially mismanaged American Economy
so that he could keep his legacy intact. Robert Novak also wonders how ‘sucker’
Greenspan had been that he could essentially take all Presidents on ride.
(http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/09/the_maestros_false_notes.html )
Failure to control ‘margin rates’ which propped up Dot Com boom and eventual burst;
and failure to control ‘teaser mortgage’ rates (in fact he actively exhorted public to take 1
and 3 year ARM loans!) resulted in total mismanagement of American Economy. So
when he claims in his book that eventually increasing global inflation in next 1 to 2
decades will result in higher interest rates and American economy can grow at the most
2.5% annually (0.5% due to population increase and 2.0% at the most by productivity
increase); it is hard to take these opinions at face value however those are well
reasoned. Well, one just wonders that indeed American Economy will falter if
mismanagement of epic proportion is undertaken by like of Greenspan and Bush.
Umesh Patil
Cupertino CA, 95014
September 24, 2007.
225
Tale of Two Chess Champions
V. Anand from India celebrates his authentic victory in World Chess Champion, his long
journey finally resulting in a true championship. V. Anand’s victory is authentic because
this time all warring factions of World Chess bodies are together and his win in Mexico
City was against the best minds of the game. Such a unified title was eluding him so far
and one can say that he has achieved the pinnacle of glory in the game of chess.
Meanwhile the ultimate player of the game, Gary Kasparov, has long moved away from
the game of chess. Since the game no longer retains its status as the final frontier of
human intelligence but becomes the test ground for Artificial Intelligence Technology
Prowess; there is logic in Gary’s ‘moving on’ attitude towards chess.
What Gary Kasparov finds challenging these days is the autocratic rule of Vladimir Putin
and he deems it necessary to challenge Putin style dictatorship to restore democracy in
Russia. His struggle got more focused when Russian Opposition parties united in
nominating Gary Kasparov as the unified presidential candidate against Putin’s heir.
There can not be more ‘drama’ in this game than what Gary has brought so far. This is a
fantastic narrative in the perennial human struggle for freedom. Humanity needs ‘great
minds’ like Gary Kasparov to undertake the political struggle against the thuggish rule of
Putin. Kasparov has rightly judged that political fight is the true game which he has to
undertake.
Meanwhile V. Anand is ‘blessed’ to be in a country which enjoys such a broad array of

liberty and freedom.
Umesh Patil
Cupertino, CA 95014
September 30, 2007.
Types of Roger Cohen and Fred Hiatt

Intellectual honesty demands that Roger Cohen answers tough questions raised by Ezra
Klein on his blog (http://ezraklein.typepad.com/ "Liberal Hawks and The Last Kiss").
Yes, Roger, you are sham. At least Tom Friedman had the honesty to admit that he
missed on the Iraq war. Not you, shame on you.
You clearly represent one of the many things what is so wrong with today's America. You
are same as like that fool at Washington Post - Fred Hiatt. No guts, no sense of history
and totally clueless about the world around you and worst of all still want to 'preach' rest
of the society. You all are corrupt intellectuals.
Why not some honesty and humility? How long on earth will you keep on clinging to the
argument that ‘…but was it not right to remove Saddam Hussain in itself considering all of
his human rights violations?’. By that token America should be in the business of ‘regime
226 change’ in half of the world.
Of course, that is not the reason America should stop when American can undertake a
‘regime change’. But the question is how would America undertake that ‘regime change’?
Take Cohen’s beloved example of Kosovo – unless there is international consensus or at
least some globally accepted mandate; it is not right for America to undertake such
endeavor of ‘regime change’. Instead of getting around UN with America, Bush sent his
Secretary of State to lie in front of the world and simply snubbed UN.
Further, how can you ignore the fact that it has been totally irresponsible of Bush to get
engaged in ‘regime change’ (let us say on the basis of Cohen’s noble cause – stopping
the dictator) when America’s national security demanded that strategically and tactically
America focused on Osma Bin Laden and immediate danger of Al Qeda? And then why
are Cohen’s of the world blaming people for not understanding nuances of the position in
backing the Iraq war? Does that subtlety matter when in the first place America should
not have gone that road in 2003?
Common sense would have told people back then to understand the folly of Iraq war (and
oh yes, I did not loose my common sense then too and opposed the war from start). But
People like Cohen and Hiatt have failed America.
Umesh Patil
Cupertino, CA 95014
October 7, 2007.
Israel Palestein Conflict and Tourism

On Drezner blog (http://www.danieldrezner.com/blog/) Daniel Drezner quotes an
interview about a political scientist Bruce Bueno de Mesquita referred as BDM. The
discussion is about the BDM formula for Israel – Palestine conflict and theory of rational
actors. BDM proposes that:
- ‘land for peace’ policy would not work and
- things like shared income from Tourism could be an answer to solve the conflict.
I am not sure Tourism based formula as advocated by BDM would work.
We have on record Hamas behavior in last few years - knowing fully that their actions
would stop revenue stream, they still went ahead and did those actions. What BDM
presumes here is rationally Hamas would not do those actions. But Hamas 'rationality' is
to base actions on perceived help from Arab and their other money bags. Those helping
hands do not realize on time is a different matter, but Hamas is not that convinced 'not to
base' their actions on those presumed helping hands.
Also what about the line of thinking from Hamas where the goal is to ‘weaken’ Israel
regardless of what pain comes to them? They have visceral belief in their own surviving
abilities but quite shallow, negative opinion of Israel’s ability to sustain the financial blows
(or terrorist acts). Again the irrationality is well evident – despite the proven fact of 6
decades of continued existence of Israel; Hamas like groups continue to fall for the
thinking that their terrorists and financially ruinous acts can break Israel. So where is the
basis of rationality on Hamas side? 227
Only when events finally drive the point to Hamas that negotiating with Israel is the only
viable choice; then some real progress may happen.
The key is not to overrule the possibility of Hamas exaggeration of their international help
as well as irrationality in their behavior. Individuals, groups and societies do have
'irrational' premises / way of behavior on which they base their actions. And this
irrationality can go on for quite long. (Variant of Keynes quote – markets / actors can be
irrational far longer than you can be solvent...) In way that is the notion of ‘free actor’ – in
a fixed set of actors who we can regard as ‘free actors’; that freedom would essentially
get manifested when we notice at least few ‘irrational’ actors.
Umesh Patil
Cupertino, CA 95014
October 14, 2007.
Burial of Singh - Bush Nuclear Accord

At some point, it were Americans who were thought to stop the deal. In the end it is
Indian Government which chickened out and did not walk the last miles in converting the
Singh-Bush Accord into a signed treaty. It is official now that India’s ruling party,
Congress, would bow to the pressure from Left parties and will not pursue this accord
any more.
Bush is deprived from one of his core foreign policy achievements. He has been a leader
on this front and has been right to take the initiative in pursuing this deal. But again in the
characteristics manner of his presidency, he believed lot in others, in the case in Dr.
Singh’s government. Another President and it is quite unlikely he or she would be so bold
(and diplomatically quite ‘exposed’) in pursuing this deal. It is sad and Bush Presidency is
progressing along the well known pattern – failures after failures. With failed Rice Gates
visits to Moscow and dimmed prospectus of any progress in Israel-Palestine conflict, this
week has been bad for Bush as far as foreign policy goes. (And well, Gore Nobel price
did not make life easy too….)
But probably more damage is on India’s side. First and foremost, it shows the political
immaturity of Dr. Singh and Congress. Without procuring the buy in from all parties in the
first place, Indian government should not have gone so far ahead. Further, threatening
political allies with threats which Congress can not execute is very bad politically. Finally,
internationally countries will be more circumspect in negotiating such complex deals with
India in any bilateral manner. Rest of the world will continue to deal with India, but more
as a part of multi-lateral forum and not as a leader country.
Chinese government got their bonus of continued stalling of Indian nuclear policy. I guess
it compensates their recent losses in foreign policy with regards to Myanmar. And it is not
a small victory for Pakistan too.
228 If Dr. Singh, Sonia and Congress think of facing early elections without the commitment
of this nuclear accord deal and hence depriving the opposition from their potent
campaign theme and then come back to power to sign this deal; then it is a risky
endeavor and too iffy. It is highly unlikely now that the current term of Bush Presidency
would present an opportunity to revisit this deal again. Clearly after 2008, with stronger
Democrats in Congress and new president (quite likely Democratic President); the deal is
unlikely to get moved as is.
It is hard to term this foreign policy failure of Dr. Singh’s government as anything apart
from disaster. The only solace is thriving Indian economy will continue to keep interests
of other countries in related trade deals in future too. America will not be an exception
too. Nevertheless that process will be uncertain and bumpy.
Umesh Patil
Cupertino, CA 95014
October 14, 2007.
America’s Trillions
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Here are the numbers:
- Iraq Afghanistan war on terror: 2+ trillions

(when 0.7 trillion interest cost of borrowed money is included)
- Housing market mortgage losses: 1+ trillion

(for 7 million defaults out of 14 million ‘exotic’ loans in 2004-6 at an average price of
$200K per home)
- China’s foreign currency reserves in dollars: 1+ trillion

(build by years of trade deficits with America)
So it seems that suddenly in Bush era, America has decided to talk in terms of ‘trillions’
only; ‘helicopter’ Barnankee feels no problem in continuing ‘easy Al printing press’
policies and American Congress feels no need to fulfill its basic responsibility of
managing the public money well.
Americans understand that Dollar has collapsed and hence some of these numbers are
inflated due to the debasing of the ‘greenback’. They are not ‘that’ dumb’. They also
understand that some of this currency dilution would help America in overcoming some of
their economic ills:
- with high import content in housing construction, the basic construction cost of a single
house itself is going up and that in itself will work as the single most strong market force
to put a bottom in declining housing prices at some point in future;
- Chinese dollar reserves quite likely look like ‘Weimar Republic wheelbarrow of currency
notes to buy bread’ circ 1932 (reduction of America’s debt in real terms); and
- finally falling dollar will help America in reducing it’s trade deficits by increasing export of
cheaper American ‘iPods, iPhones and Boeing Dreamliners’. 229
But Americans also see the flip side of the falling dollar – crude oil at $90 per barrel and
slowly creeping ‘inflation’.
So the question is what Congress wants to do. King George – the ill fated President of
America – will vehemently protect his only legacy: wrongly conceived and long term
damaging Tax Cuts of GOP Congress era. So are Democrats ready for the political fight
to ensure that:
- there comes ‘accountability’ in financing the war on terror by the borrowed money and
- wealthy Americans start paying more for financing of these wars by way of increased
taxes.
Will Democrats be ready to understand that this is not 2004 or 2006 when King George
‘tricked’ them by blaming ‘soft on security’? Will they boldly tell Americans that the whole
‘supply side economics of perennial tax cuts’ as perpetrated by GOP is a sham when
rabbit GOP attacks of ‘soft on terror mantra’ hurled against Democrats? (‘Tax Evasion’ by
James Surowiecki, New Yorker,
http://www.newyorker.com/online/2007/10/29/071029on_onlineonly_surowiecki)
The whole American Public Economic Policy debate has gone to such a pathetic level
that when ‘trillions’ are talked, elected representatives yawn and do not feel like taking a
stand and doing their duty. The question is why Nancy Pelosi is wasting her time in
condemning Ottoman Empire of past for their Armenian genocide when she and her
majority in house need to take a stand to ‘slash’ war funding? It is good politics to keep
on juxtaposing under funding of SCHIPS by King George while he burns trillions in his
wars; but it is all that only – some political theatre. Of course SCHIPS should get money,
but why are Democrats abducting their responsibility in controlling war financing? If
Pelosi and her majority do not sign these trillion dollar checks, King George is going
nowhere regardless of how much he attempts to berate Congress. That is what is needed
now – Congressional Democrats to make a stand on war funding and be fearless in the
GOP on slaughter off ‘soft on terror’ mantra. Democrats can withstand such propaganda
this time because American Public has moved beyond the Fox Channel type ’24 Hours’
sitcoms and Anna Coutler of the world. Americans have had enough of those.
Umesh Patil
Cupertino, CA 95014
October 25, 2007.
Letter to Tom Bevan of RCP

(Open letter to Tom Bevan ofwww.realclearpolitics.comin response to his comment -
Krugman's Fear)
Dear Tom,
230
Naturally you are entitled to have opinions about Paul Krugman. Krugman is my favorite,
but he is not some small time political columnists. So I can very well see the kind of
sophisticated arguments he advocates in his columns. Hence it is quite acceptable that
you engage tough with him about punditry.
But having said all that, his fear and apparently malicious writing do resonate with me -
that GOP is inherently 'racists'. Keep in mind that he was one of the few guys who had
the guts to criticize Iraq war when even most Democrats could not think the folly of the
war and went with the 'wind'. So I can very well expect Krugman to have guts to say this -
that large number of GOP members are racists in disguise; especially the current
Presidential candidate crop and in particular Guliani (except may be Ron Paul or
McCain).
I am a brown skin myself, naturalized in this country and love this place. I do consider
myself fortunate to be in USA and Silicon Valley in particular (that does not necessarily
mean I have less love or respect for my country of birth and upbringing). I have come
across so many 'white skin' persons over here about who I have respect as humans with
strong integrity streak. I am sure quite a few of them must be Republican.
But it is so sad that the same GOP and it's establishment have become so 'racists and
red neck' after 9/11. How on earth you could explain the way GOP played games with
'immigration' reform? Don't tell me it is about 'legality and law'. Of course you could have
had right solution for that part without discarding the whole 'immigration' deal.
Chinese capital market may be in bubble. But still it is noteworthy that out of the 10 most
capitalized companies in the world, today 5 are Chinese and 3 Americans; while America
ruled the roost all along. It may change in future. But what is the message - unless the
Union founded by Washington finds way to grow 'demographically', America will quite
likely yield her economic top slot to China and India. So then why not adopt more
'inclusive' attitude towards immigration? Of course, the moral argument still applies and is
inherently superior too.
If it is not this country in the world who would unabashedly back immigration and
welcome people of the world by open hands, then which country would? As Regan used
to say - 'if not we, then who? if not now, then when?'.
I like Peggy Noonan. I can fully understand why she termed Bush Era as 'battered wife
syndrome' for the GOP base. But I have to tell – even that hated President, King George,
got it right when he dared to call the under belly of GOP - racism.
Tom, personal request - we can keep aside so many of GOP’s ideologically driven but
wrong policies - infinite tax cuts, perennial favors to rich, disregard to global warming and
so on. But please do not contribute to GOP's dark side - racism and ‘rapture of American
social fabric’. You have your pen, you have your web blog, you have clout, you are
smarter than mortals like us; please do us favor, really to all of us - stand firmly against
Racism and be strong supporter of Immigrants.
Thanks,
Umesh Patil.
231
India Commentary
Monday, November 05, 2007
Indian social and political issues have been studied for quite long by outside intellectuals.
In last few years, there seems to be more such interest in Indian issues; especially policy
debates in mainstream media by outside India intellectual. Here are 3 such examples:
- “Communism is Dead” by Anothny Giddens in Times of India

(http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Opinion/LEADER_ARTICLE_Communism_Is_Dead/art
icleshow/2517507.cms )
- “No, No, No, Don’t Follow Us” Tom Fridman in New York Times (as he is traveling India)
(http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/04/opinion/04friedman.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin )
- “Of job hunting and Indian Caste System” news item by Suman Guha Mozumdar in
Rediff (http://www.rediff.com/money/2007/nov/02hire.htm )
Anthony Giddens articulates quite well in that article – yet another persuasive argument
for Indian Commies to change. Giddens is a professional intellectual with tremendous
ease in writing intellectual essays (shall we say in the mould of Bertrand Russell?) as
manifested in his vast output of Sociology literature. But he is not just a prolific writer, his
contributions to Sociology are of immense value too.
Basically, it is a UK Labor Party Policy position and Giddens is saying Indian Commies to
turn into Indian equivalent of Blair-Brown Labor Party. Giddens does not comment in
terms of advocating ‘loop sided’ America tilting of Blair’s policies. Quite likely he himself
would not have approved that, especially in regards to Iraq War. In any case Brown is
surely trying to distance from Blair’s Iraq Policy and consequent foreign policy of ‘lap dog’
of America. In this article Giddens does not talk about any of such heated topics. Indian
Commie’s are making precisely their ‘last stand’ on such perceived pro-America policy of
Dr. Singh’s government. So the thrust of Gidden’s article is quite right and applicable to
India Commies.
But alas, there is no hope that Indian Leftist will ever take such a transformation. There
are too many ‘low hanging’ fruits to be snatched by simple ‘America bashing’ and in the
process it is perfectly acceptable to regurgitate same old useless Leftwing policies. If
common Indians loose, who cares. As long Commies are able to maintain their political
pocket burrows, life is quite fine with America bashing and why risk the applecart? So
note withstanding a very useful advice from Giddens, Indian Commies will not change
and India will continue to have ancient Leftwing arguments.
Meanwhile, Tom Friedman is continuing his ‘wide eyed’ journey of India. Except that this
time it is not about ‘how flat is the world’ but problems of India in the Global Economy and
possible policy outlets to address the existing and new challenges. Again, his outlets and
policy prescriptions (in this case specifically about public transport) without analysis and
‘whys’ of political compulsion; are too naïve and quite unlikely to have any impact in any
sense even though his approach of highlighting positive aspects of ‘changing India’ is
quite constructive. The absence of understanding of ‘political reality’ of India system
makes all these prescriptions far away from reality with no chance of getting enacted.
232 Finally, the news item by Suman Guha in Rediff talks about built in discrimination against
low caste candidates for jobs in big private firms. It is about one such study done by
Katherine Newman, Professor of Sociology at Princeton University. The contention of the
study is right – indeed there is discrimination based on caste when any private employer
puts emphasis on ‘family background’. It is all valid and true. The only question is has
Newman taken into consideration ‘the process’ of firing low caste employees when they
do not perform? The nightmare for the employer is all about the political ruckus
generated by ‘caste based harassment’ in such a situation. If anyone is aware of how
difficult or almost impossible to ‘fire’ low caste employee for the performance reasons in
India; then one can understand why employers are hesitant in this regard. The key issue
is, it must be politically possible for employers to fire employees for their poor job
performance regardless of caste background. Unless that happens, exhortations of Prof.
Newman are incomplete and one sided.
Umesh Patil
Cupertino, CA 95014
November 05, 2007.
Regan’s Ghost
2007 Halloween may be past but for GOP Regan’s Ghost refuses to go away. Markos
Moulitsas (DailyKos founder, lion of New Left in early 21st century) in his inaugural article
on Newsweek web site makes a sensible case for Democrats to make Bush Record as
the campaign theme. His recounting of Bush’s failures is familiar. But the real force of the
article is couple of references to Regan – the implicit point is Regan has been the GOP
patron saint and how his philosophy is going to ground GOP in coming electoral battles.
Meanwhile Paul Krugman is relentless in his attacks on the resident Regan Theology
within GOP. Time and again he is coming to back to hit at Regan hubris and the larger
point of how that Regan world view is contributing to the downfall of GOP, aside of Bush’s
own monumental failures in Iraq.
Peggy Noonans of the world must be having hard time coming to terms with this
destruction of Regan legacy. Noonan has already given up on the incumbent Bush, but it
seems that Regan Temple is under renewed attacks by these liberals or infidels. Oh my,
what hard times and how ungrateful these fellow Americans are under the influence of
feeble ideology of Cultural Left!
Newsweek is learning some tricks in making money out of America’s recent history. It
publishes an issue with the cover story of 1968, the year which planted the contemporary
progressive era. Any rudimentary reader of History would realize that Regan era was the
perfect reaction to what started in 1968. And now here comes the systematic
deconstruction of Regan era itself by an upstart Liberal ‘infant terrible’ as well as a heavy
weight Princeton intellectual. As like any long running philosophy school, American
political discourse has strongly become an exercise in hermeneutics of past politicians.
Well, it was coming for sure. Far too long William Buckley, George Will, William Safire
(fortunately he is retired), Victor Hansen and the hit man Fred Barnes ruled Washington
wisdom; long after Conservatism left the town of American Reality and neo-conservative 233
follies brought disasters of Bush Presidency.
Umesh Patil
Cupertino, CA 95014
November 18, 2007.
Technological Competence
It is a tale of two media stories. One is the front page article in San Jose Mercury News –
‘Silicon Valley’s edge: How globalization strengthens the tech economy’ and the other is
Andy Mukherjee’s yet another solid opinion piece in Bloomberg online – ‘U.S. Patents
Show Asia Decoupling Will Be Slow’.
(San Jose Mercury News, November 25, 2007

http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_7554207?nclick_check= 1 )
(Bloomberg. Com, November 26, 2007

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&sid=abIekWwn1dNY&refer=home
)
The first article is essentially follow up soft news item on how Valley is doing after Tom
Friedman published his popular book ‘The World is Flat’. The conclusion of the article is
that Valley is doing good and may be even thriving. To substantiate, the articles touts the
ever larger outside USA sales of Valley companies, pouring of VC investment in Valley
startups and how so many outside USA technological companies are trying to have their
presence in the Valley to gain new technologies. Nothing is wrong with these arguments.
But is it not the old news? It is one thing to point out that how Valley is back to it’s groves
but quite another to have splash on the front page with a celebratory tone article about
that. One wonders how can the article ignores the solid foundation of American
Capitalism which makes it possible in the first place to have Silicon Valley’s of the world?
How can one ignore the ready access to the American Market, still largest in the world?
This means the real news will be about how Valley fares with other centers within USA
itself and some other places from developed countries (To it’s credit, some time back
Mercury News did ran a study of competitiveness of various American urban centers,
compared with Silicon Valley) All other centers in rest of the world still loose on account
of these obvious advantages – truly entrenched institutions of Capitalism, basic legal
framework, access to a large home market and competitive infrastructure. In that sense it
is the still unfair comparison with all those outside USA centers like Beijing, Taipei, Seoul,
Shanghai, Bangalore and so on.
The question of ‘flattening of the world’ came into the picture for the simple reason of
‘wage arbitrage’ and to some extent availability of manpower; at least to start with. Hence
Valley lost some of the 200,000 jobs in the Dot Com burst due to outsourcing. But in itself
these outside USA centers never started as true challengers to Valley’s Tech dominance.
And hence to compare now with those centers and then triumphantly (or gloatingly)
declare that Valley is doing good does not do ‘any value’ addition to true challenges
Valley faces, does not do true justice to Valley’s strengths and does not shed any light at
234 all what the future holds for Valley. The San Jose Mercury News article is a case in point
of useless journalism. At worst, it would instill a sense of complacency in Valley folks.
(The worst kind of failure, the paper rightly recognized in case of Bangalore – how
Bangalore is sleeping while many other Asian cities are stealing it’s march on outsourcing
business as well as technological prowess.)
The real (and obvious) news is how ‘weak dollar’ is the shot in arms for the Valley. Not
only it increases overseas sales, it makes Valley products more competitive and
importantly make the Valley cost base not that expensive. However, the question is how
long Valley economy can be in isolation from rest of the USA when larger American
economy could be facing some serious challenges.
Andy Mukherjee’s online article attempts to answer that question and it does a good job
of getting a handle on the subject. The basic point is not just Silicon Valley, but rest of the
world itself cannot very easily decouple from the larger American Economy. Andy argues
that such decoupling is difficult since in the end most parts of Asian economies (which
are new, eager buyers of Valley gears and services) are dependent on consumption by
Americans. Home grown consumption within Asia still lags the overall GDP growth in
those economies. When domestic consumption of these economies would increase and
those economies would create entirely new product lines and markets for those products
based on technological innovations (think of Apple’s iPhone and Google’s search based
ad revenue); then really those economies would cross the Rubicon of decoupling from
America. (Nouriel Roubini – www. rgemonitor.com - has been arguing against such
‘decoupling’ for a long time. Andy Mukherjee’s online article is another take on the same
thesis.)
When one looks at the patent data, Andy argues, it is clear that ‘prior art’ still refers to
work done in America in so many cases. When ‘prior art’ in a patent application refers to
the work done by teams in your local economy; you get the case of true manifestation of
undeniable, sustainable building of competence in that area. That is a true evaluation of
an economy in ascertaining whether it has acquired leadership position in a particular
industry or technology. That is the ‘holly grail’ and hence Andy’s article explains what
might be going right in larger American Economy as well as Silicon Valley Economy in
specific. Mercury News article somehow misses that point and lands up as a superficial,
useless media effort.
Umesh Patil
Cupertino, CA 95014
November 25, 2007
Nuclear Iran
Saturday, December 01, 2007
Daniel Drezner talks about possible ‘end game’ of Russia and China in regards to nuclear
Iran. (http://www.danieldrezner.com/blog/ ‘What are Russian and China’s End Game on
Iran?’) But USA may have reached a stage when it will have to act regardless of what
Russia and China want to do in the end.
Nuclear Iran has two problems:

- the nuclear proliferation it will result when Iran goes nuclear (Saudi, Egyptian and
Turkey nuclear bombs?) and 235
- the real danger of undertaking irreversible damage to Israel, resulting in strategic victory
to Iranian Islamic fanaticism (which is different than Al-Qaeda’s Sunni fanaticism).
One is tempted to think that Russia and China will not be irresponsible to the extent of not
recognizing ultimate threats emerging out of above mentioned two dangers. Chinese will
be fools to keep on repeating ‘harmonious society and peaceful rise of China’ if they do
not see dangers of multiple nuclear states around it’s borders and Russians are
eventually unlikely to get back their cherished ‘mantle’ of world super power if they
become ‘too smart for their own good nation’ sitting on fence so that only USA does the
dirty work.
Though the focus of Daniel Drezner's blog article is what Russia and China ultimately
want in regards to nuclear ambitions of Iran, I would rather prefer to ask a naïve question
keeping aside this focus – can USA afford to leave this grave threat to the cynicism of
Russia and China? Forget about dangers to Russia and China, why nuclear Iran which
has ‘wiped out’ Israel will not be the ultimate threat to USA itself? What basis do we have
to assume that no other Iranian leader would like to follow the path laid by Ahmadinejad
in destroying Israel and wielding enormous hegemony if the current Iranian president
does not succeed in setting the Middle East tinder box on fire?
Ultimately uncontrolled nuclear Iran is and should be ‘unacceptable’ to USA. Europe

should be a natural partner in this endeavor. Notwithstanding favorable noise made by
Sarkozy along these lines, one can not count much on the European ‘muscle’ if there is
any such entity. Saudis may be more useful than Europe in this matter.
All this does not mean I want to suggest that tomorrow USA declares yet another war in
Middle East to wage a campaign against Iran. Granted, North Korea turn around came
only when USA worked in tandem with China and other countries. But all these issues
with Iran do mean USA has to have a policy to deal with Iran in isolation when multilateral
strategy is coming to a dead end. There is no point in clinging to North Korean model for
the sake of ‘policy insistence’. Each problem demands its own distinctive approach. With
Iran it looks more and more unilateral American approach along with some nations
possibly on board (France, Saudi Arabia?).
Abolish CIA
Christopher Hitchens comes from the embarrassment which the latest NIE report about
Iran causes to Pres. Bush, but he has the point when he says CIA should be abolished.
(‘It’s time to abolish CIA’, http://www.slate.com/id/2179593/pagenum/2/)
His partisan instincts do not blind him to see the utter irresponsible way in which CIA
destroys the tapes of certain interrogation. Hitchens is right, the time has indeed come to
abolish CIA. CIA did not get intelligence about Iraq right and there is no reason to believe
that they could be right about Iran. And of course as Hitchens have pointed out, the
illustrious history of CIA in exaggerating Soviet might is way too obvious to ignore. If CIA
were a private company, it would have been forced into bankruptcy long back with this
kind of record.
236 But in the end really the larger point is – how else CIA can account for all the moral
transgressions it has done over the years in the name of American security? The
numerous attempts to kill Castros of the world, the multitude of early year efforts in
undermining and at times simply toppling democratically elected foreign regimes which
were not suitable to the prevailing political wisdom of America and let us not even talk
about the ‘interrogations’ (which by the way Cheney would approve of) it might have
taken; all that is too much to ignore.
Times of India recently laments in it’s editorial about how just elections are not enough in
a democracy, but we need accountability of public institutions beyond elections. (Rites of
D e m o c r a c y ,
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Opinion/Rites_of_Democracy/articleshow/2612619.cms
) Along those lines, CIA also needs to be accountable and this means simply abolishing
it.
The real question is will Democrats now or in 2008 (when presumably they are likely to
have majority in Congress and quite likely occupy White House too) will be ready to drop
the short term political dividend of the CIA which can openly embarrass Bush? If Speaker
Pelosi was party to CIA’s ‘interrogations’ and in a way failed to raise the issue of
destroying of these tapes; then one thinks that Dems will not have certitude in demanding
abolition of CIA.
Will Dems allow for a bipartisan commission to decide how best to close down the CIA
shop, what charter the replacing agency or agencies would have and how that set up
should be done? The interesting thing to watch will be – what do you do with the political
hot potatoes which will surely surface when CIA’s skeleton needs to be buried once for
all. That will be hell of a spectacle. Who in American Political Establishment have the
gumption and political purity to come forward to give a peaceful burial to CIA? Obama?
Or any one from GOP?
So alas Hitchens’s cry to shut down CIA shop will not be heard. So sad.
Missing the Point

Wednesday, December 19, 2007
Ed Koch in RealClearPolitics chastises Al Gore for
expressing views critical of the current American
Administration in the Bali conference.
(http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/12/us_l
eads_world_to_solving_clim.html)
But Ed Koch misses the point. Until he has concrete

information why the Americans made the ‘U turn’ in
their policy at the last minute, there is every reason
for a rational person to assume that:
- only the ridicule heaped by rest of the world forced

Bush Administration in changing it’s policy about
addressing the Global Warming and
- presence of Al Gore and articulation by so many other Americans (including Sen. Kerry) 237
that their government is not on the right side of the policy; only helped rest of the world to
clearly understand that many more Americans are willing to work with rest of the world in
making real changes.
Ed Koch and critics like him are totally wrong in placing ‘public manners of not criticizing
one’s country in international forum’ higher than the need of the hour – forcing America to
change her policy.
The same RealClearPolitics site has a link to an article in Boston Globe by HDS
Greenway and the article talks about disastrous consequences of certitude and non-
flexibility in policies of ‘Bush the decider’.
(http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/12/18/the_ghost
_following_bush/)
Bush’s argument, as quoted by Robert Draper in Bush’s biography, is that in the end
what matters is ‘ultimately whether the world is better off or not due to your actions’.
Barring any immoral and illegal acts, as long as your actions contribute to the betterment
of the world, those are welcome. So what, if it means hurting preposterous sensibilities of
likes of Ed Koch?
Also Ed Koch is a cry baby when he keeps on pointing to global warming caused by
China and India. Economic development in these countries is surely adding to the global
warming and such development pattern definitely needs to change. But the honest way in
arriving estimates of culpability of the Western World is not to look at today’s annual CO2
emission numbers on country basis, but to look at the cumulative contributions over the
last century by the Western World. Based on data compiled by World Resource Institute
(WRI) in it’s Climate Analysis Indicator Tool (CAIT), the cumulative CO2 emission figures
for 1850 – 2002 are as follows:
(http://pdf.wri.org/navigating_numbers_chapter6.pdf and http://earthtrends.wri.org/)
Clearly Ed Koch’s argument is completely misplaced and wrong.

Pakistani Mess
Considering the realistic possibility of Benazir Bhutto would have been elected as the PM
of Pakistan, Pakistani future would have still unfolded along the lines of a faltering
democracy. I say faltering because Musharraf would still be the president, Pakistani
Military would be still hogging the prime resources of Pakistani nation and ISI still would
be continuing devil schemes. Further, we have the history of Benazir’s past two
premierships to indicate clearly that she would not have necessarily put Pakistan on the
‘irreversible’ path of Democracy.
With her assassination that path towards to ‘irreversible democracy’ or ‘faltering

democracy’ is far too distant now. However flawed leader Benazir was; she would have
been better than unstable Pakistan on the brink of ceasing to exist as a united nation with
real possibility of splintering into fanatics ruled mini states throwing entire South Asia into
the vortex of instability and bringing down Bush’s Global War on Terrorism further.
Whichever way one cuts it, Benazir’s assassination is a victory for Al Qeda and Jihadhi
forces opposing to America and Western Liberalism. It is sad that Benazir did not
238 understand the importance of her presence and in a way gave up the caution. As a
vanguard of Liberal Democracy she should have understood the dangers of her absence
from the future of Pakistan. Without her, liberal cause in Pakistan has suffered the
irreparable damage.
So with Benazir’s demise Pakistan is back to its predictable course – perpetually on the
brink of disaster. It is a mute point in absence of Benazir how much stability another
leader of Pakistan People’s Party can bring to the table.
Rest of the world needs to have interest in Pakistan and its stability. But apart from
America and its known allies, few others are likely to come forward and offer anything
constructive. Other than America, India has maximum stakes in the stability of Pakistan,
but it can only be a passive partner here – not to meddle in the affairs and not to take
advantage of the situation (a la separating East Pakistan like 1971). That may not be
good enough, but not adding to the problems will be a big positive from the perspective of
rest of the world.
For America, three things are very clear:

- Musharraf must go (primarily because Pakistani public will view Musharraf as the
reason for Benazir’s death) and he must be succeeded by a non-fanatic leader vested
enough in the territorial integrity of Pakistan as well as in it’s stability;
- elections do take place for the federal elected body as planned (even if delayed) with
the participation of another flawed but essential leader Nawaz Sharif and
- finally movement away from the ‘personality based foreign policy towards Pakistan’ as
followed by most of the American Administration.
There are two other countries which have stakes in Pakistan’s stability – China and Saudi
Arabia. But for obvious reasons, those will not be on the side of America and India when
the goal is to institutionalize ‘irreversible democracy’ in Pakistan. However, these
countries would not want any Jihadist element to take root in their next door country and
to that extent will be partners in bringing stability. America must work with them wherever
it makes sense and applicable. These countries need to be parties to the solution of
‘Pakistani Mess’.
Can President Bush do all these things in his final year? He can and evaluation of his
legacy will be based on that. Meanwhile, if any presidential candidate wants to run a
meaningful campaign for 2008 election; that candidate would better address how he or
she will attain these goals if he or she were in the Oval Office.
China Ascendance
Friday, December 28, 2007
Farid Zakeria has declared that 2008 will be the year of firmly establishing China’s
ascendance on the global stage with the successful completion of Beijing Olympics. John
Ikenberry argues in Foreign Affairs that as long as America makes efforts to preserve and
improve ‘open’ global governance systems (UN, WTOs of the world), China will find that it
is easy to prosper and grow ‘with in the existing international system’ instead of working
for any violent transformation. But his assumption is that China’s rise to the peak of global
power system is inevitable.
The real question here is not to ‘marvel’ or get impressed by China ascendance. Those 239
days are gone. The question is here is how this rise would ‘sustain’ in days to come, in
the 21st century. Clearly there are 3 challenges China needs to address if it intends to
complete its transition towards the ultimate global leadership position:
- One can only go so far with sever curtailment of ‘freedom and basic rights’ of your own
people. Unless China brings in Democracy, it is hard to accept its leadership for rest of
the world in any non-violent ways. Further, how long any society be a peaceful and stable
society when basic ‘human rights’ are not respected? China has not addressed this
question so far nor does seem to be on a path to address it in any meaningful way.
- The second aspect is a consequence of the first one. There will be a day when all the
prosperity what China can get out of being ‘world’s factory’ is fully exploited. At that point,
the ‘manufacturing miracle’ of China will only start to bring in diminishing returns. Besides
many other countries will start climbing the ladder of low wage manufacturing industries
for global markets. So the key is at that point will China be able to make the transition to
Knowledge based Economy? S. Korea, Taiwan, Japan and Singapore have made that
transition to a certain extent (and that did bring in the much needed political reforms).
Smaller size helped these countries in certain ways. For China, it will have to find how the
bigger size would be an advantage in a different sense. Without an open society, which
nation can build the sustainable Knowledge Economy? Only David Brooks in New York
Times rightly judged how weak real Chinese social structure is when it comes to
prosperity. With the current Chinese social setup, it is unlikely in the first place
Knowledge base Economy would ignite and even if it ignites it is unlikely to thrive without
resulting in deeper class based social structure which would be detrimental.
- Finally, it matters how China deals with its environmental problems, created as collateral
damage in its growth path adopted so far. Though there are attempts by the Chinese
government to tackle this issue, the very power structure of Chinese growth pattern –
local and state governments get to set up their ‘growth goals’ and those goals are
pursued and awarded at the cost of everything else – makes it harder to deal with this
issue in any systematic manner. Stated simply, Chinese growth and protection of their
environment appear to be in a contradictory dead lock – both can not be attained without
the core reforms of how ‘growth incentives’ are played out. Again it goes back to unique
‘corpocracy’ which David Brooks talk about.
So when all these erudite articles about China rise do not talk about these challenges
and sing all paeans only; they really miss on some critical points leading to one sided
analysis and faulty prognosis.
Pakistan – American Failure in Nurturing Long

Term Strategy
It is quite clear that Pakistani society is hanging off a cliff so far as turning into a
‘theocratic’ society. There are broader constituents which are secular and quite grounded
in Western way of life. Benazir and her PPP represent many of those elements. However,
the real deal is the ‘poison’ of Jihadism which is slowly percolating in the entire society in
various forms.
240
Apart from the British, who allowed Pakistan to get founded on the misguide principle of
‘the sole guardian nation of Muslims in the sub-continent’ (conveniently ignoring the fact
that there are equal number of Muslim living in India with better freedom and security
except some occasional lapses); the original sin was committed by Soviets in invading
and occupying Afghanistan. For smart heads in West, what better way than to push
forward religious people to fight Communism? No one fights Communism as vehemently
as religious people. So what if in that process this religion based political ideology gives
rise to Jihadism, Al Qaeda style? So far as it was serving the purpose of driving Soviets
out (which they did), CIAs of the world and American Administration ignored the
spreading poison of Jihadism. Further, Saudi encouragement to fanatic Wahabism in
these countries was ignored. All these petro dollars which have been, till today, financing
religious schools in Pakistan are still ignored by America.
Then came 9/11 and only when American blood was shed, Americans woke up for the
real dangers of Jihadism. But in the wake of Bush’s epiphany that God spoke him to
remove Saddam Husain; bright lights of American establishment poured all active military
assets in Iraq. That left Bush with nothing to fight the simmering Jihadism in Pakistan.
Humiliation of Tora Bora, as brought by General Tommy Franks in ‘outsourcing’ the job of
capturing Osama, did not teach any lessons to Bush and Americans. No wonder Bush is
beholden to Musharraf. The theory of Cheney, Powell and Rice is that let us keep on
‘talking democracy’ only; but in reality let us bet on a dictator to get the defeat of Jihadis
on ‘cheap’.
That is no more working. Musharraf is not working for America and he is not serving any
American purposes. Sadly he is not serving any purpose for Pakistan too and is unable to
stop spreading poison of Islamic Fundamentalism ideology. But by continuing to bet on
him, American credibility in the eyes of Pakistani public is getting shattered. How different
this situation is when Carter Administration was drinking cool aid from Iran’s Shah while
revolution was baking in Iran?
Granted, Musharraf or any other ruler (may be Benazir would have been to a lesser
extent only) would put ‘political survival’ at higher priority than uprooting Islamic
Fundamentalism. If a ruler is elected, he or she would be more prone to make back room
deals with Jihadi elements for the political survival. By now Americans should know that
Lincoln comes only once in a century and when elections happen in Middle East, Hamas
or Hezbollah do get elected emphatically.
But the right solution for this dilemma is to be patient and invest in the Pakistani society
on larger scale so that legitimate political forces participating in democracy and election
are reasonably independent of Jihadism. Otherwise, what else in the end the darling of
Neocons – General Petreous – has landed up doing in Iraq? Nation building, plain and
simple. So then why this disastrous tendency of American Political Establishment in trying
to get victory over Jihadism at cheap in Pakistan?
Nukes in Pakistan limit the option of any active military adventure for America. Besides,
Paki Army is a standing Army of over a million and it is no push over like Saddam’s
Republican Guard. Which means that the real strategy for America and West has to be
keep on engaging Gen. Kayanis of the world on one hand and keep on investing long
term, unabashedly, in Pakistani Society and Democracy. The reason one supports
Democracy in Pakistan is as more participation in political process by common public
happens, the political cost of tolerating Islamic Fundamentalism keeps on increasing for
241
these elected representatives. That should be the goal for America and not simply blindly
backing Musharraf.
Destruction of Test Cricket

`Australia defeated India in the Sydney Test. But as chronicled so extensively in media, it
was defeat brought by third rate umpires of this test match and not by true game by
Australians.
By and large Australians are the top team in Cricketing World. But they are never known
to be a sporting team. The kind of ‘out right’ cheating they did in this test match is total
disgrace to the game as well as to their rich tradition.
What needs to happen next? BCCI owns World Cricket. If tomorrow, India and her
sponsors get out of the world of Cricket and Test Cricket, the whole edifice of ICC will
come down in few years. Arrogant Rick Pointing, who so wrongly thinks he can decide
which journalist can seat in the post match press conference, will see financial losses if it
is not for the generosity of India public and their sponsorships in the world of Cricket.
Where is Sharad Pawar when we need most? What is happening to his sense of justice?
Why is he not threatening ICC to get these things corrected and throw the whole set of
umpires who administered this ‘infamous Sydney Test’? Why do Test Cricket has to be in
19th century when it comes to umpiring while whole lot of other games are using latest
technology to minimize or eliminate umpiring errors altogether? It is hoped that Sharad
Pawar does not consider his political calculations in wining ICC chair to remain mallow
against Australians. It is high time, world and India ‘teach’ a lesson to these arrogant and
at times racist Australians Cricket Players.
If Australians do not behave well, Indians should walk away from this Test Series. It
should be understood that Indians are the one who bring ‘beacon’ at the end of the day
for world of Cricket. BCCI is the one who rules the financial world of the Cricket and it
needs to flex its muscle. Why BCCI should not even demand ‘annulling’ of the Sydney
Test?
All these measures may sound extreme. But unless this malice in Test Cricket is
addressed, Test Cricket will be destructed and game patrons will go away from the game
in droves. That is a sure shot recipe to bring down the edifice of Test Cricket in just few
years. Time is now to act. Sharad Pawar, it is your moment now.
As far as the other problem of this test goes – racial comments by Harbhajan Singh –
truth must come out. If Harbhajan is guilty, Indians must accept his punishment. Just
because Indian Sub-continent was subjugated to racism in history, does not mean any
racist act by Indian player is justified. If any ‘cultural differences’ give rise to comments
which can be interpreted as racists; then again Indian Team needs to adopt all ‘politically
correct’ conduct on the field.
If Gorge Allen looses Virginia Senate race to James Webb when Allen called an Indian
origin teenager as ‘Macaka’ (variant of Monkey); the word ‘monkey’ can be legitimated
242 interpreted as racist. Hence no Indian can justify that use of word ‘monkey’. The other
party can legitimately regard that as a racist comment. On the other hand, if Australian
players are playing ‘politics’ here and raising ruckus where there none exist; it is they who
will need to pay the price. The point is, truth in this case must come out and appropriate
action must be taken. Again, BCCI and Sharad Pawar need to take leadership in this
regard. Otherwise not only bad umpire decisions, far more complex and fundamental
issue of ‘racism’ would engulf Test Cricket and its destruction will simply become fast
paced then.
Kerry’s Right Decision

Sen. Kerry made many political moves in his long political career as well as in his fight
against Pres. Bush. Many of those moves did not work out politically or did not have full
sense of righteousness.
But today, his endorsement of Barack Obama for President in 2008, is an excellent
political move. Sen. Kerry is so right in doing so. A year earlier or so, he rightly judged
that it will not be feasible for him to make one more run at Presidency. He will not be
President ever. However, he is wise enough to realize that endorsing Obama is right for
America and Sen. Kerry got it correct. Oh, in the process Sen. Kerry retained his honor
and dignity too or should I dare to say he even enhanced it?
Thank you Sen. Kerry and here we go on with Obama’s march. This blog endorses
Barack Obama for Presidency in 2008.
America’s Worst Choices for Presidency

Saturday, January 19, 2008
As is becoming clear that America’s party establishment and early voters in primaries and
caucuses would coalesce around Hilliary Clinton and Mitt Romney, the bizarre spectacle
of having both bad choices on the ballot is becoming a realistic possibility.
The case with Mitt Romney is very obvious. The guy spends enormous political capital in
defending his Mormon origins when in the first place he should not have talked about the
religion. It is amazing that in the year of 2008, a presidential candidate is talking about his
religion and trying to bring the issue of religion in the political discourse. The founders
intention of keeping American political discourse ‘secular’ goes to wind and Mitt Romeny,
does not matter while defending his religion, is the party to that.
Then there is the question of his whole political style – pandering to special interests and
what his pollsters tell Americans want to listen. It is totally a broken leadership with no
spine and hence no ability to take consistent and tough decisions which are good for
America in the long term.
The case with Hillary is bit complicated. She is clearly now claiming the votes on the
gender basis and for the first feminist candidate; it is natural that such an advantage
should accrue. However, she is not the natural leader who has risen from the ‘ranks’ on 243
her own. No amount of argument can deny the fact that in the end, legacy of Bill Clinton
is essentially providing foundation for her candidacy. Next, what about the all pervading
sense of ‘entitlement’ with Clintons? That is amazing and essentially it is boiling down to
feudal ‘Bush Clinton’ family run affairs of American Politics. American politics looks more
like sub-continental (South Asia) politics. That is disgrace for America’s high political
history and it is shame.
This brings then the question of her political judgment. She was wrong about Iraq and
she refuses to concede her mistake. Beyond that, then what is the use of her
experience? As far as her other political execution goes, she is a sister of Mitt Romney –
pandering to interests group and triangulation based on ‘polling’ samples provided by
Mark Penn. Bill Clinton is adding his ‘divisive politics’ to it. He used African Americans as
captive vote banks for his eight years of tenure and now that a viable African American is
on the screen, he is has dished out this African American constituency in favor of his new
politically astute choice of Hispanics constituency. How opportunistic a former president
can be. He should have left out of this race allowing primary politics to run it’s course.
Instead, here he is with all of his tantrums dividing Democrats.
So here is the sad American spectacle now – we are likely to see two major candidates,
potentially the only choice for Americans, who essentially would tell Americans what they
‘like to hear’ instead of what is good for them. With America’s challenges and problems, it
is like as if drug dealers are in charge of reformation of a group of ‘drug addicts’. How sad
and discouraging.
Coming Soon - Swiftboating of Journalism

Studies?
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
A study undertaken by ‘Center for Public Integrity’ (http://www.tfij.org/) and ‘Fund for
Independence in Journalism’ (http://www.publicintegrity.org/) reasonably proves that
George Bush along with his administration people lied to America. Unfortunately unlike
his predecessor, those lies were not about his sexual practices or preferences; but those
were about life and death of Americans and Iraqis.
Instead of American Public trying to censure or impeach George Bush and Dick Cheney
(not that I support any of those things); we are quite likely to see a different spectacle –
‘swiftboating’ of these studies. Bush and his cronies will go in earnest to tarnish the
credibility of folks who would have conducted these studies. And for sure, Fred Barnes
will write one more column mocking people behind these studies no less than in New
York Times! And of course Fred Hiatt in Washington Post will ensure that there is one
more editorial chiding Democrats about why they are not condemning these studies!
Indeed American discourse has changed dramatically. Who says George Bush has not
altered political discourse of this country? He has, unfortunately for worse.
Will there be any wise people in this country who sense the inherent ‘good / useful’ about
these studies and prod Americans to internalize all the right lessons of that?
244
Solution to Economic Crisis
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Doug Kass of Seabreez Partners outlines solution to the current problem.
(http://www.thestreet.com/s/kass-two-solutions-to-what-ails-the-
market/newsanalysis/investing/10399946.html?puc= _tsccom)
Kass is the professional whose diagnosis of the market and economy has turned out to
be true. Oh ya, he has paid his dues for the same – look for all the deriding comments by
‘greatest story never told fame’ Larry Kudlow over the years.
The question is why we voters, whose tax money will be spend and quite likely wasted by
these politicians, should not demand that Congress moves along the lines what Kass
folks suggest and not be beholden to debunked ideology of Messers Hank Paulson and
George Bush? When will Main Stream Media fulfill its duty and keep on hammering on
right proposals along the lines of Kass rather than ‘dolling’ out tax rebates? Will MSM
fulfill its duty or once again it will be party to lying by this Administration and fail to
‘connect the dots’?
The world is watching.

NYT for Hillary

Saturday, January 26, 2008
New York Times endorses Hillary for Dem Primary. It is not a surprise. It is just sad. One
can understand NYT may hesitate to endorse Obama, but they could have waited or
even let go folks to decide what is right without endorsing anyone.
One particular point in this endorsement is how casually NYT brushes aside her Iraq
vote, saying that it is behind now and what is important is what to do next in the Iraq war.
It is very convenient for NYT to say so because NYT is naked in this matter! They got
their Iraq call wrong and no wonder then they would not mind the colossal mistake by
Hillary in this regard. People fail to understand, in many respects Iraq call is the ‘litmus
test’ of our era. Many got wrong including John Kerry and still he was backed then. But
that need not be the case now.
Further, parochial consideration of Hillary being popular Senator of New York is just one
more reason for the NYT endorsement.
One can read Bill Colbert in Washington Post when he rips thoroughly the Clinton
machine. The need of the hour for America is to break the ‘Clinton Machine’; the one
which in most hideous manner introducing ‘race’ in minds of Democratic voters and is
effectively wrecking the Democratic party. It is sad that NYT failed to recognize this
importance. Fortunately, all these newspaper endorsements are so pompous and so like
from the past that they do not carry much weight in today’s world.
245
Fed – Finally Some Action
With two back to back deep interest rate cuts, Fed has reduced the cost of borrowing for
all Americans. Regardless of what many say, in short term this is the right and good thing
for both the overall economy and to the average consumer.
It may be the case that in itself it may not avoid the recession, but it will at least help to
reduce the impact. Fed correctly diagnosed that the benefits of lower interest rates are
(fundamentally attacking the market credit crisis, subprime crisis, higher exports and
lower imports) larger than the cost of inevitably increased inflation at some point in future.
The time passed will help to ‘heal’ the financial challenges and will give room for Fed to
fight the inflation battle tomorrow.
The real test for Fed is how does it administratively control the ‘credit bubble’ which gets
fueled by these lower interest rates. Greenspan refused for any such meaningful and
possible controls. Will Ben Bernanke be wiser than that? It is okay for Ben Bernanke to
miss some ‘time windows’ to cut the interest rates, but it will not be okay for Ben
Bernanke and Fed to be lenient in various credit controlling and supervising mechanisms.
After all banking and credit regulation is the key administrative mandate for the Fed. If
Fed thinks that recent credit bubbles were caused by new types financial units beyond
banks (hedge funds, private capital pools, Countrywide Financial type financial
companies and mortgage brokers cum mortgage sourcing organizations) where it does
not have authority; then it needs to implore Congress to initiate actions in that regard.
Fed, SEC or any other new organization as needed; are the entities which will need teeth
to manage today’s ballooned global economy which impacts financial well being of every
country.
Meanwhile, lawmakers will continue their game of ‘stimuli. It is more of a political stunt
than of any real use. Of course, all those eligible will love the proposed rebates. Now that
politicians have dangled the carrot, it will be impossible for lawmakers to stop this
largesse. For those who over qualify for the rebates, the other provision of increasing
‘conforming loan limit’ will be the windfall. There is something for everyone in the stimulus
package. The only question is how much useful and effective it will be.
But when would lawmakers start addressing the long term economic challenges - tax
reforms, reforms to regulate new financial entities, controlling budgetary expenses,
reducing war expenses, reducing federal debt and policies with incentives towards
‘saving’ rather than credit funded consumption? Looks like it will be only after the
Presidential election. Too bad, until then it takes more than $150 Billion to sustain the
sense of ‘relevance’ for these lawmakers.
No Dynasties
Neither in Football nor Politics, we like dynasties. New England Patriot dream of the
prefect season crashed. Now let Hillary’s dream of Clinton Dynasty crash. Fantastic win
by New York Giants.
246 Posted by Umesh Patil at 07:08PM (-08:00)
McCain winner?
A s J o h n J u d i s w r i t e s i n N e w R e p u b l i c
(http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/02/06/who-won-super-
tuesday.aspx) containment of Obama momentum by Hillary is actually making an
opening for McCain and GOP. With Hillary, it is clear that it is all back to Coastal Blue
States strategy of Kerry. If Obama does not get nomination, Missouri, Colorado and other
Midwest states will not become Blue. The only scenario, Hillary will edge in the general
election will be of souring of economy. If Iraq stabilizes, it is fine for Hillary because that
would hide her ‘flip-flops’ in this matter. If violence erupts again in Iraq, it will be
marginally better to her too since it is very unlikely that Americans will buy the McCain
line of ‘staying for 100 years’. We will be in the sixth year of Iraq war by November and
the fatigue of that war has already settled in. But if the economy holds and Iraq stabilizes
bit, GOP will be ‘on march’ too.
In a sense, it is not a strong opening for Dems via Hillary in the current state. With
Obama, since he did not knock out her and got bad bruises in California; his case is still
not proven fully. If Dems are looking for a victory via Obama, he would need to defeat
Hillary politically – by popular votes in a big state. Otherwise, he will be a weak contender
against GOP. One of the basic objectives of Super Tuesday for Dems was whether
Obama would take Dems beyond Coastal Blue States strategy by winning Midwest,
South and still carrying some of the coastal states. He did the first two but could not
deliver on the last one. It is also perplexing that Obama ignored California and
Massachusetts quite early in the game. There never was any serious attempt by Obama
campaign to get entrenched there. Probably it was thought, there would not be sufficient
money to go after California in a meaningful manner. Considering the money raked in by
Obama campaign that seems to be the miscalculations. To label less interest in California
as a strategic move based on the assumption that Hispanics and Asians will not come on
the board anyway seems bit cynical. And as far as Massachusetts goes, probably it was
thought that Ted Kennedy and John Kerry could at least help to reduce the double digit
gap. But that gamble clearly did not work.
However, Obama does not need to throw in the towel. He still has a chance to notch
some convincing victories – especially in Ohio and Texas. The later is tough, but that is
what is needed.
All in all true winner after Super Tuesday could be John McCain.
Queen Maker – LA Mayor

Antonio Villaraigosa, is the new queen maker of Clinton Camp. When it came the time to
deliver, he delivered Hispanic votes to Hillary in her California landslide victory in Dem
primary. Remarkable feat considering how Opahra and other ladies band tried at the last
minute to sway the public for Obama. One can see how he could very easily eclipse
Richardson of New Mexico and take his position in the possible Clinton Administration as
the head of Hispanic voice; especially after the fall of New Mexico to the Obama camp.
247
Oh, and personally with all sorts of marriage problems; Villaraigosa is more near to
Clintons than Obama. What is with these mayors? They all have problems in their
married lives and then they back Clintons. Past San Jose Mayor Ron Gonzales and
current San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom; both fit the same pattern.
All in all, these mayors are turning out to be keys in this national election. Daily Kos made
that point quite early on and how rightly. LA Mayor is the king of this pack and it is quite
clear that Hillary will pay his dues when times come. Some obligation to carry to on.
Irresponsible Doris Lessing

This blog entry would not be there if Doris Lessing had not won the Nobel Prize for
Literature in 2007. With that prize, it brings some legitimacy, expectation of righteousness
and the moral bully pulpit. So it becomes imperative when that bully pulpit is used
wrongly.
Doris Lessing is reported to say that Obama will not last long as a President because he
will be murdered. As if such demeaning of America is not enough, she adds that Hillary
will be a good choice because it will be calmer.
Where were Doris Lessings of the world when that same Hillary and many of her Senate
colleagues joined George Bush in rushing to the Iraq war? How come the violence
coming out of Iraq war is acceptable? In what world is that ‘calmer’?
Do we dare to say, Doris is ‘racist in disguise’ here? What is wrong with these so called
wise Europeans and journalists around the World? We have Gabor Steingart in Der
Spiegel insinuating at no ends why Obama campaign is all ‘hot air’ and Clinton campaign
is all rooted. Then we have Paul Kelly in The Australian implying Obama is all ‘sex
appeal’ and no substance; in otherwise good analysis.
One can only speculate why so many enlightened people from around the world root for
Hillary and then fail to recognize why Americans root for Obama.
- Bill Clinton’s regime is considered as the one with no foreign policy adventures and
hence Hillary regime will be calmer too. Obama looks a risk since no one knows more
about his potential administration.
- Many in the world, and especially Europeans, fail to understand what was wrong with
Monica Lewinsky affair. They all think it was just ‘Right wing Conspiracy and Distraction’.
Sure it was, but to fail to see how Slick Willie destroyed the trust of Americans in White
House is nothing but to be blind. Well, considering travails of Sarkozy’s private life;
Europeans may find Rudy Giuliani’s private life as a model life too!
- And indeed many in rest of the world are hypocrites. On one hand they want to oppose
America’s tendency to rush to a war, but on the other hand want to ignore when one of
their beloved Liberals continues such warmonger policy. Rest of the world sees
warmongers in GOP Americans only.
248 - Finally, most in rest of the world do not think average American voters are wise enough
or enlightened enough to be ‘color blind’ while selecting their Presidential candidate. It is
consistent with the ‘demeaning’ view of America. Americans – they all are crass third
class people who only take ‘home equity loans’ to float in unending consumerism without
any sense of what is right in the world. It is very convenient for rest of the world to regard
Americans are as ‘Romans in decline’ who are engaged in never ending orgies and
narcissism. They are gullible to the sex appeal of their candidates and do not have any
ability to understand or analyze serious matters of state policies.
Shame on rest of the world who do not see brighter side of America. This failure to
understand average Americans is what compels many in rest of the world to fall for
Hillary’s candidacy. Even a Nobel laureate can not muster the wisdom to see through
this.
Feminism and Hillary

Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Maureen Down makes an excellent case in New York Times why potentially Hillary’s
failure in Democratic Primary is not a failure of Feminist movement. Hardly there is any
other more capable and suitable person to do this job than Maureen Dowd. In a sense
this particular column by Dowd is ‘vintage’ and ‘classic’.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/13/opinion/13dowd.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
NYT – Buyer’s Remorse?

Thursday, February 14, 2008
(Editorial - Show Us the Money, February 15, 2008
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/15/opinion/15fri1.html?hp )
Wow! This is fantastic. NYT Editorial Board did not mix its endorsement of Mrs. Clinton
with the journalistic duties in demanding transparency. Excellent and timely editorial. Very
impressive and many thanks to the board in serving interests of common voters.
Or is the board making room for a possible reversal of the endorsement to Mr. Obama?
Anyways, this humble reader does not have any political acumen like this board in
reading nuances of political weather. He just wishes Mrs. Clinton and Mr. McCain follow
the advice of this editorial.
249
Cold War – Is it not over?
Monday, February 18, 2008
Indian Blog The Acorn argues that it is a bad idea to recognize Kosovo’s independence. (
http://acorn.nationalinterest.in/2008/02/18/recognising-kosovo-is-a-bad-idea/ )
Very poorly argued blog entry. Instead of shedding any light on what is the current and
future dynamics of an independent Kosovo, all it does is ‘rehash’ old mind set of Cold
War.
Of course Serbia has long forfeited its right to have Kosovo as it’s part. Kosovo
population or the rest of the world do not own to Serbia to continue their ‘millennium’ long
efforts to establish a secular society. When centuries after centuries Serbia was taking
revenge and raping hapless population of Kosovo; where were these ‘concerned’ people
of secular state? Well, it turns out they were basking in the glow of those atrocities under
the disguise of Soviet and Chinese Real Politick. What a shame. Sad part is even West
woke up so late and why only Kosovo? What about Darfur? West needs to be more
vigilant and active in many other parts of the world. But at least something is better than
nothing.
Clearly Putin’s Russia and China are in no way going to be pleased by this. The side
show fun is of Taiwan recognizing Kosovo. That made Chinese Red (well, real red in their
face too)! Just watch the fun. Taiwan will continue establishing relationship with Kosovo
and in the end Chinese may be compelled to recognize Kosovo least they allow Taiwan’s
independence to flourish.
What about Putin’s Russia – who fears them? Is it not that West survived Cold World?
Who cares Russian Bear? They have been playing such games for centuries and West &
Rest of the World still have lived good life.
The question is whether India wants to follow such useless mindset of being a supplicant
state of Russia and China. India should not and needs to be bolder here to help a
peaceful transition. That doesn’t have to mean full blown ‘political recognition’, though
that is good. Nobody is holding their breath for India’s recognition. Kosovo people know,
when they were getting slaughtered there was no Indian Beret saving them from Serbia.
So where is the ‘locus standi’ for India to get involved in this matter? India should rather
go for a low key, quiet diplomacy of having relations on practical matters. Being a day old
nation, Kosovo needs help. India has shown how she can help young nations like
Afghanistan. India could do same and that will be immensely valuable. Not this
regurgitation of Cold War mentality as revealed by this blog.
Shameless Journalism
No, I am not talking about NYT’s shenanigans regarding McCain’s so-called affair with
some lobbyist in distant past. Enough of credible people are pounding on that.
250 I want to refer shameless reporting by one Gabor Steingart, the Der Spiegel reporter in
Washington DC. It looks like he wants Hillary more than most Americans! His reporting of
American Primary elections has become a joke.
First, he started with Obama’s Iowa victory as hog wash, wait for few more races and
Americans will wake up from the dream. But apparently according to Gabor, Americans
prefer to have Obama dream and they continued to vote him more than Hillary. Now that
Obama may clinch the nomination, Gabor is saying that Obama is nothing but Dot Com
Boom of 2000!
There seems to be a competition among these so called realists to describe Obama’s

campaign in more derogatory and hyperbolic terms. Gabor would win that.
Problem for Gabor is he thinks Obama campaign is empty. He is not experienced

enough, qualified enough to be the commander in chief. But he does not explain whether
he thinks Hillary fulfills those or McCain fulfills those. In absence of that, his misguided
criticism amounts to throwing mud because he did not have probably good night sleep.
There is no analysis of Obama’s policy details, no attempt to compare policies of three
candidates and there is quite a lot misreading of Obama’s policy. In short ‘shameless’
journalism. At times Gabor sounds as if only when he sees a candidate as dour and as
gray like an East German Communist Party member or a vintage Soviet era politburo
member; he will regard that candidate as the serious one. I mean the guy simply refuses
to take Obama seriously and feel that Americans are voting him because collectively they
all are on some kind of drug or so. What lunacy!
NAFTA – Deception by Obama and Hillary

Washington Post writes an excellent editorial criticizing Obama and Hillary the way both
of them are wanting to re-negotiate a settled treaty.
Let us keep aside Hillary, her campaign was never about talking ‘truthfully’. She will
drown anyways with the weight of all her contradictions and deceiving of her voters. But
what is with Obama? Where is his talk of ‘his campaign is not about telling people what is
nice to hear but about telling unpleasant things at times too’? Why is he not walking his
talk? Just for votes from Ohio?
This is because, reality is America can not reopen NAFTA. That will be disaster.
Afterwards no country in the world would like to come ahead for any kind of trade treaty
with America. Trying to enforce unfulfilled conditions of the NAFTA agreement is one
thing and putting the entire treaty back on the table for renegotiation is another.
What any new President needs to do is to indicate that:

- He (or she) can not falsely promise people to reopen NAFTA and dangerously raise
wrong hopes for people.
- What he would do when he president is to enforce all conditions of the original treaty.
To that extent it may bring some benefits to America, though that is doubtful because
both Mexico and Canada also will find promises unfulfilled by America.
- Rather he should declare a new business investment program so that jobs come back 251
to states like Ohio.
- He should help develop legal and business environment so that whatever jobs are left
or will be created in future are not hostage to ‘militant’ labor unions. Of course, the flip
side of that is to create legal business environment where we do not get ‘Benedict Arnold’
CEOs.
- One way is for the government to offer / strengthen health benefits for unemployed
person and her family for one year. Lack of health insurance is the single most
devastating impact of unemployment. When will our politicians understand that? As long
as there is Capitalism, job losses and unemployment is part and parcel of the system. It is
acceptable because the same Capitalism creates new jobs too. It is the transition from
one job to another, where we need help from the state; especially for health insurance
since it is tightly related to employment.
- Also, the new president needs to ensure that his policies help increase longer
unemployment benefits as well as genuine retraining avenues / options.
In absence of such concrete proposals, pounding on NAFTA is like deceiving voters.

Thoughts on Looming Obama Losses

Tuesday, March 04, 2008
When professional pollsters have bite dust in this election cycle, this humble blogger can
not pretend to predict results of Tuesday’s Dem Primary. However, signs are clear; Hillary
in all probability will win big time in Ohio, possibly decent enough in Texas and strong in
Rohde Island.
Politics is never linear and never about simple arithmetic that Obama lead in delegate
count. With looming victory in Ohio and possibly Texas; it is clear that Hillary as the come
back kid story will be played to the hilt. Press will be obliged to play the tune. Even after
out playing Hillary many times in resources, Obama could reduce her lead only so much
nor could he defeat her.
With Hillary’s wins in popular votes in two big states, it will be apparent that Obama can
not finish Hillary in political manner. Bill Clinton put his credibility on the line and looks like
he will be honoring his stakes. Super delegates may want to parade along with Obama,
but Obama has already pre-empted that route by saying these super delegates should
align with their congressional district votes in the primary. So the narrative has become
quite complicated and definitely negative for Obama.
The question is what do Obama wants to do from here? With NAFTA argument, it is clear
that taking a short cut does not work. If Ohio was to be lost anyways, why did Obama did
the ‘hara-kiri’ on NAFTA? Canadian embassy in Washington DC coming back to support
Obama does not help much when the damage is already done. So taking ‘high road’ is
the only way out for Obama.
Hillary never played as the ‘good girl’. Her core thesis is that you need to be a ‘bad girl /
pushy girl’ in this world when all these men are out to deny you your legitimate rights. Of
course she and Bill along with many Feminists are wrong in saying that Hillary has a
claim on presidency because of her gender. First of all, the job of Presidency (as Ezra
Klein rightly pointed out) is not ‘a run of the mill stand in the queue’ kind of the job. It is a
252 unique leadership position where pure political competency and judgment should apply.
Next, all said and done Hillary’s purported qualifications are all due to the fact that she
married Bill Clinton (ask Maureen Dowd of NYT). She is no Margaret Thatcher or Angela
Merkel (Peggy Noonan, where are you?) who earned her political spot without any
spouse or family relations. The flip side of this argument is Obama no doubt has
advantage of his race. But all rest of his achievements are at least on his own. So all in all
Obama candidacy is much less on any coattails.
All this means, it is perfectly okay for Hillary to play the ‘smear card’ or ‘fear mongering’ a
la Karl Rove style. Rather you expect from her. In any case that 3 am ad in itself was not
very negative. But it was perfectly out of the play book of fear politics of Bush Era. And
that is the deal – win or lose Obama must continue his fight to destroy or damage as
much as possible this ‘fear politics’. He needs to be ‘straight and clean’ for every issue
including NAFTA. Remember, it is he who is campaigning on for a swanky clean
campaign. So there can not be any compromises for him regardless of what kind of
politics the opponent plays.
American people and media must grant Obama the chance to compete in the remaining
states. If Hillary gets chance after loosing streak of 11 contests, her possible 3 wins on
this Tuesday should not deny Obama to complete the democratic process.
For better or worse, Dems have designed this primary system. Both Hillary and Obama
have wins in Red states, Blue states, in caucuses and in primaries. So let us hear
choices of all states and complete the process. If at all these super delegates want to
play the role of party guardians and want to ensure good future for the party, they should
do one of the two things:
- convince one of these two to concede the race or
- propone the remaining state elections so that the primary process completes early
(including new primaries in Michigan and Florida).
Chances are if the process is complete, Obama could be still on the top. But that is
stepping too much into the future. Let Hillary enjoy the Tuesday night and then let us get
back to our regular scheduled programming – completing the Dem primary process.
Politicians and Lust

Monday, March 10, 2008
One more Dem star bites the dust and joins the growing list of Dem politicians who can
not control their sexual cravings:
- Ron Gonzales, Mayor San Jose

- Gavin Newsom, Mayor San Francisco
- Antonio Villaraigosa, Mayor Los Angles
- James McGreevey, Governor New Jersey
- Elliot Spitzer, Governor New York.
What do they have in common? Probably all of them are inspired by Bill Clinton.
Of course, GOP would not allow Dems to have monopoly in matters of ‘sexual double’
talk. They have their stars like Sen. Vitter, Sen. Larry Craig who are following in footsteps
of their past greats like Speaker Newt Gingrich. So all in all there is no dearth of hubris. 253
You get varieties, Dem style or GOP style; there is no partiality here. You can have
whichever flavor you want.
Every few years we always come across such cartoons. It will be so in future too. Just
that Elliot Spitzer is today’s cartoon. What a shame.
Bush’s Parting Shot – Recession of 2008

There are legitimate questions raised in American Media about the competence of
American Policy Makers and Politicians when it comes to manage once mighty American
Economy. Here is the list of failures:
1. Colossal mismanagement of Iraq war has landed America paying trillions of dollars of
tax payer money. Those who argued that it was all about Oil, by now should know the
total aimlessness of Bush’s war by looking at Oil over $110 per barrel. (It used to be
around $10 to $20 per barrel in Bill Clinton’s time, one simple reason why those were
good times.) Further, all these trillions have neither reduced the danger to American
national security nor have achieved any political goals in Middle East. On the contrary
America’s national interests have suffered lot at the cost of Trillions of dollars. Talk about
the bargain for American voters.
2. When high oil prices are extracting ransom from Americans, Congress thinks about an
alternative energy policy. The smart minds of Congress can not go past the lobby efforts
of Agriculture industry (or is it Iowa’s preeminence in political primaries?) and succumb to
ethanol ‘fairy tale’. Bright lights of Congress want America to use more corn to produce
ethanol. However the problems of ethanol are well known:
- in the first place core energy intake in corn production is more than energy produced by
ethanol;
- burning and producing ethanol adds to green house gases and
- finally, the most important, diverting corn to lucrative ethanol increases food prices. It is
like igniting food inflation in vengeance when one understands corn’s position in the food
chain of agriculture industry.
3. While America needs to shell out humongous amount of wealth for wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan, Bush and GOP ideologues refuse to increase the Federal taxes for wealthy.
They continue to give tax benefits to rich Americans and as a result increasing America’s
debt and making American dollar worthless.
4. While contours of mortgage crisis were unfolding, Fed Chief Bernanke drew cold feet
and refused to reduce the rate early on. That missed the opportunity to save American
financial system.
5. Not only timely reductions in Fed interest rates, many other possible solutions are
missed on purpose. For example, instead of allowing Friedi Mac and Fanny Mai to take
on more mortgages by Congress by higher borrowing limits; Bush Administration prefers
under writing of private banks to take on more CDOs. Ideological blindness is making
Bush and GOP to throw good money at private banks rather than to public sector banks.
254
6. Finally, what do American politicians think to do when recession looms? The solution
seems standard – ‘bribe’ Americans by taking tax write downs of the tune of $150 Billions
dollars. At Fed level the cost may be high, but for an individual family, the rebate is paltry
and it hardly addresses the root cause of falling home prices. Instead it would have been
better to use that money in ‘beefing’ up insurance companies which underwrite CDOs.
But no, it is politically convenient to waste $150 Billion dollars instead of using tax payer
money to alleviate the root causes.
So what can American people expect when almost another great depression may be on
the way? Who will come to rescue when the ‘fence is eating the farm’ – these politicians
are refusing to face reality and execute right solutions instead of some misguided
measures? Removing Fed Chief Bernanke sometime next year is one step, but hardly it
is a comprehensive resolution.
What about Presidential Campaigns of Obama, Hillary and McCain? The case with
McCain Campaign is hopeless – Obama is right to characterize McCain presidency as
nothing other than Bush Third Term. But why not Obama and Hillary Campaign come up
with right solutions and keep on using their stump speeches to high light these issues?
Or is it the case like many in rest of the world says – American presidential campaigns
are nothing but political beauty contexts. What a waste of opportunity if that is true.
Tibet – Some Thoughts

Nancy Pelosi is doing good politics in visiting Dharmshala and high lighting the issue of
Chinese oppression in Tibet. It is really impressive of her in willing to go out of way to
continue to pursue her Tibet advocacy. In the core boiler room of American National
politics which she presides, she has hardly any benefits to draw from such Tibet
advocacy. But her desire to continue to respond to the moral underpinnings of Tibet issue
is sterling and very right.
It also highlights a very responsible policy followed by India over the years – to continue
to shelter Dalai Lama in India along with his notional government. Most of the political
parties in India (except pro China Leftist parties) have broad support to this cause and
intend to continue it. Many may expect more forceful advocacy by India in this matter, but
India’s international interests in not perturbing China more than certain limits are
understandable. As long as India continues the current low key, but substantial on
ground, support to Tibetan exile community; it is a big contribution to a moral cause.
Moral weight – that is the only real strength Dalai Lama has in this, kind of one sided,
political struggle. Otherwise it is Beijing which controls all cards. One can not expect
anything but total control by Beijing communists and they will continue to be ruthless in
destroying native Tibetan culture by force.
If some reports are to be believed (one in Washington Post) the real cause for the current
protests by Tibetan population in Tibet is the Beijing planted economic boom which is
systematically and totally eclipsing natives in garnering any opportunities. So it seems
people in Tibet are fighting for getting a chance in new economy which is essentially
leaving them behind; the new economy which is coming at the cost of their traditional way
of life. 255
Beijing is smart enough to rectify this situation and it is possible that indeed some locals
will be brought in the boom. If nothing else, world pressure will move Beijing in that
direction. Otherwise as NYT reports, some militant efforts on younger generation of Tibet
would arise; which unfortunately mean more blood shed.
Bringing in locals in the economic boom - will that be a long lasting solution? Doesn’t
seem like. Cultural autonomy and some sort of political space for native Tibetan way of
life is the eventual solution. But the way contemporary Chinese nation state is getting
build, maniac control of Communists in greater China is unlikely to cede any political
space to alternative political forces like Dalai Lama and Tibetan nation.
Boycotting opening ceremony of Beijing Olympics or boycotting Olympics altogether, may

ratchet up the issue; but it is unclear how that would help to resolve this conflict in any
meaningful manner. On the other hand, such a measure would compel Communist China
to adopt more antagonistic policy with current World Powers and we will see the repeat
drama of Olympic boycotts as seen during waning days of Cold war. Nothing else, it will
alleviate China to the stature of Soviet Union formally.
The path to Tibet resolution is patience. Consistent moral arguments and politics along
the lines of Pelosi (and background policy measures of India government) are the paths
available. Many nations have survived centuries of oppression. There is no reason to
believe that Tibetan nation would not survive Chinese State aggression. It can and duty
for rest of the world is to support this struggle; the Pelosi way.
(It seems presence of so many Buddhists in and around San Francisco Bay Area is
making some difference in making it ‘good local’ politics for the House Speaker to take up
Tibetan cause. In any case, it is encouraging.)
Psycho Path Naipaul

What is with these Nobel Laureates? First it was American Dr. Watson who tried to be
over smart in his racist comments. Then British Laureate Doris Lessing opens her bright
mind talking about Obama and American Politics. And now we have Sir VS Naipaul
admitting in a new book about his brothel going ways and harassment of his wife. Or is it
a publicity stunt?
But it seems what Naipaul is claiming in the book (biography by another person) is true.
What a lousy, gutter person Naipaul seems. Shame on his Nobel Prize and his Literature.
256
Missing the Point
Law Professors Ackerman and Hathaway argue in WaPo that Bush Administration is ‘out
of legal sanction’ to continue the Iraq war any further than end of this year and hence will
need new legal mandate. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2008/04/04/AR2008040402581.html?hpid= opinionsbox1 )
Professors mention that Bush Administration is planning to overcome this handicap by

entering a bilateral ‘force’ agreement with the Iraqi government to continue the presence
of American forces in Iraq. Argument by these professors is such an attempt is legally
inadequate and Congress will need to step up in extending the legal sanction of the war.
This is typical academic lunacy of laughable proportions.
Why would Bush Administration listen to Congress and abandon its plan to enter into an
agreement which will effectively make it impossible for the next Administration to extricate
sensible from Bush’s Iraq war? Professors argue ‘force agreement’ is not a legal way out.
As Cheney would say, ‘so’? What is the point? Yah! Bush Administration is doing illegal
things. But that is exactly not news.
The question is what Democrats and war opposing political forces can do. The fight
against proposed ‘force agreement’ between Bush Administration and Maliki’s
government is a political fight. Notwithstanding the big roar by Sen. Edward Kennedy,
there is still not enough political uproar for Bush to back down. Not only Bush
Administration is content by destroying America’s security and economy in last 7 years, it
is hell bend in tying down America further into this quagmire for ever.
Any other Administration would have opted for simple a temporary arrangement of 6
months till say June 2009 and would have let the next Administration to decide this issue
based on their fresh political mandate. But that is not so with this Administration. Bush
knows that he does not have any legacy. His Administration in all probability will go down
as one of the worst Administrations in American History. He has so much contempt and
total disregard with people’s will (81% saying America on wrong path?) that all he wants
to do is to ensure that the next administration is equally wedded to the ill fated Iraq war.
He will argue that recent happening in Basra (not quite so victory for Maliki forces)
indicate that American forces need to be there for longer period. Again, if few months
back it was not possible for Democrats to stop money for soldiers on the ground in Iraq,
why would it be so in coming months?
Stopping ‘Iraq war funding checks’ is just about the only leverage Congress has. But
sadly that is unlikely to be used in waning months of Bush Presidency. So what is the
political fight left to wage against impeding disaster of ‘force agreement’ with Iraq?
This may not be fully applicable, but can the campaigns of Obama and Hillary be one
answer? Reality of American Politics today is such that, there are no traditional political
forces left which can make ‘change’ in Bush’s Iraq war until next presidency. This brings
us to the non-traditional strengths – presidential campaigns of Obama and Hillary. It will
be kind of odd that you raise half Billion dollars in campaign dollars and still do not repay
that by trying to address today’s burning issue.
257
Both campaigns need to make it ‘politically impossible’ for Sen. McCain to back proposed
‘force agreement’ between Maliki government and Bush Administration. That is the
political fight, which can have some tangential impact as well as good electioneering.
Definitely arguments by lawyers and law professors are not going to stop Bush
Administration in continuing ‘harakari’ of America’s interests well beyond the legal term of
Bush.
Quota Raj – Prosperity Delayed

With Indian Supreme Court upholding Arjun Singh’s cynical politics of reserving
admission seats to OBCs in IIT and IIMS, the stage is set for Quota Raj to spread to all
the remaining spheres of Indian economy.
It is pointless for Supreme Court to pretend some sanity by commenting that economic
criteria should be included in determining backwardness and being erudite about that; but
when the push comes to shove giving carte blanch to the Dr. Manmohan Singh’s
Government. The Court knows that the Government with people like Arjun Singh and
political leaders like Mayawati watching intently in wings; Indian politicians will interpret
the ruling in most cynical manner and will exploit it as a basis for their chauvinistic
political instincts. The court may have explicitly talked about ‘excluding’ creamy layer
from the OBC quota; but it is to be seen how scrupulously the government will follow on
that.
This so called nuanced judgment from the Court is ineffective. If creamy layer exclusion
is okay for OBS quota, then why is it not okay for the original reservation of SC/ST? The
argument is that the Constitution does not specify that. Not a very convincing argument.
With this verdict, essentially the genie is out. Next is reserving of total 50% seats in
Private education institutes and ultimately reservations in Private companies. These two
things are not far away. It does not take a genius among Indian politicians to come up
with such competitive, cynical political policies.
We have seen how smart minds of IMF are usually wrong. As like American Fed officials,
IMF folks were clueless about the impeding global slow down. These same IMF folks are
coming out and saying that the foundations of Indian economy are sound and it will
realize the dream of ‘prosperity to all’ in near term, say by 2025. But only fool can ignore
the longer term impact of ‘quota raj’ running amok on Indian economy; especially when
the reservation hits Private Sector. The way Indian politics work, it is simply a matter of
time before this tsunami will hit.
Quota Raj will end when those who benefit from such policies no longer benefit –
meaning education competence required to get an admission in general category and
reserved category is same; there are no private sector jobs to avail and so on. Whichever
way one looks at this Quota Raj Politics, ‘India Prosperity to All’ will be needlessly
delayed for sure because the entrenched ‘haves’ of Quota Raj will perpetuate the skewed
system for long time to come.
258
Swatting Flies?
Stephen Hadley, National Security Adviser, on Sunday talk shows –
"The whole issue of opening ceremonies is a nonissue. I think it is a way of dodging what
really needs to happen if you're concerned about [Tibet].”
The question here to Mr. Hadley and his boss George Bush is what have they been doing
so far about Tibet now that they think they have the bully pulpit to lecture rest of the
world? Apart from sharing the dais with Speaker Pelosi while presenting Congressional
Medal to Dalai Lama, what has Bush done so far? The guy never dares to talk about
Darfur with Chinese Communist Party Thugs and never ever moved any high profile UN
resolution about Tibet but wants rest of the world to believe his ‘quite diplomacy’. In any
case ‘diplomacy and George Bush’ is oxymoron. Apart from Libya joining NPT regime,
where has Bush’s Diplomacy worked? North Korea has effectively given Americans shaft
while Bush has been doing this thing called ‘diplomacy’. Which diplomatic imaginative
measure Bush has used to push the cause of Tibet? Snubbing rest of the world with her
Stanford elitism is what his Secretary of State Rice has been doing all these four years.
All that Rice did in her role as National Security Adviser in the first term was to ‘carry
waters’ for lies of Bush and when he promoted her as Secretary of State in the second
term, sure he was not expecting any results. What a waste, all these years have been.
You do not agree for boycotting Olympic opening ceremony because it is not any useful
measure, then it is a different matter. However, the countries which are boycotting the
opening ceremony are not necessarily looking for any concrete ‘results’ about Tibet. Of
course, those countries know that different diplomacy and other measures are needed.
Still they undertake such measure is to make ‘statement’ about ‘themselves’. Many sane
leaders do not want to be ‘party’ to Chinese gala which is in any case different than the
actual Olympic games.
If Bush does want to prescribe those sensibilities, that is his call and his style of politics.
No one will criticize him on the basis of whether it is more ‘righteous or moral’ to prescribe
such sensibilities because it is wrong to make such judgments and it is quite subjective
too. But from that he does not get opportunity to ‘lecture’ others. That right will be earned
if he had had done something concretely about Tibet. He has not done anything such and
he is far from that.
It would have been much better if Mr. Hadley had been bit humble about all these
pronunciations. But of course, humility and Bush Administration are like ‘oil and water’;
never mix.
Pope Visits USA

One simply wonders whether Bush was trying to use the Pope visit to ‘redeem’ himself
and his presidency from the colossal failures of his regimen. Pope celebrates his birthday
at White House, Pope makes major public gesture to heal wounds of ‘clergy sexual
abuse of children’, visits American Synagogue, speaks at UN to distribute world power
more, Pope prays at Ground Zero in NY and then leads a spectacular mass at Yankee 259
Stadium. Each occasion superseding the other by Vatican color riots, those are some
amazing drapes and prop setting. Pope also selected a very appropriate season to visit
USA – spring time.
But regardless whether Pope’s visit redeems Bush Presidency or not, the political
message from Pope was one of ‘healing’ and building bridges. He was right to face clergy
sexual abuse scandals head on and he was bowing to the reality of multi-racial multi
lingual flock of USA.
This visit has been soothing, calm and healing for Americans in otherwise their daily life
struggle of high gas prices, Iraq war and mortgage crisis. Quite a positive contribution
from papacy. If that means some credit to Bush in extending the red carpet to Pope and
pulling strings behind the screen, so be the case.
Failures of American Media

Elizabeth Edwards writes a damning critic of American Media in NYT – ‘Bowling 1, Health
Care 0’.
(http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/27/opinion/27edwards.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin#)
It is an excellent article about what is wrong with American Media. NYT redeems itself to
some extent by publishing it.
What is the answer for this problem of American Democracy (not that other democracies
in the world do not have this problem) which is unlikely to get solved by Media? May be
Internet and blogging are the answers. Yes, it is self serving for any blogger to say so.
But at least the ‘complimentary role’ of such bloggnig can not be ignored. Only when the
stranglehold of Media is reduced by Democratization brought by Internet, citizenry can
hope not to get ‘bowled.
Drama in Balkan
Sunday, May 11, 2008
There is something with Balkans, for centuries those small nations in that area managed
to hold European political stability in balance. Not just WWI, but even now those nations
straddle European stability.
Conventional Wisdom was that Radicals would win the election in Serbia by igniting so-
called Serbian anger for Kosovo independence. But as the early results are coming,
President Tadic’s pro-European party is the largest vote getter and seems like a surprise
winner. The win may not be sufficient to form a government or a stable government; but it
indicates clearly people’s fatigue with Ultra Nationalistic politics as well as limits of how
260 far Kosovo can be exploited in Serbia. Also looks like nifty ‘political carrots’ (and some
serious actual concessions to Serbia) by EU bureaucrats were sufficient enough to
seduce larger Serbian population. In any case, aligning with EU is where Serbian future
is. There is only so much one can run day to day life by past glories – as the wont of Ultra
Nationalists is. More people understand that, the world be a better place. Serbian voters
are showing this desire and ready to question the ‘sale’ by Ultra Nationalists. That is
welcome.
Oil Shock
As per the ‘super spike’ price speculated by Goldman Sachs Oil Analyst Murti, we are
only little past half the distance in terms of a barrel of crude oil costing $200. Today we
are around $130, still $70 to go at which point the sticker shock at the pump will be
around $6 per gallon.
Will that be a strong enough shock for Americans to start going away from their ‘oil
addiction’ and SUVs? Well, Americans are gullible but not that fool. If any recent reports
of auto sales and gasoline sales are to be believed, slowly ‘oil demand’ is morphing from
an ‘inelastic demand’ to an ‘elastic demand’ – people are reducing their oil consumption.
Part of the vindication of Zakaria’s ‘post-American’ world is despite oil demand weakness
in America, high global demand (read China and India) will not dampen the oil price that
much. Meaning, during earlier Oil Shock, Americans went into the hole and the whole
price edifice came down; there were no other prolific oil consumers than Americans then.
Today it is different. This means reduction in American demand is unlikely to have
immediate, meaningful drag on Oil price. Decreasing demand / consumption will not
necessarily make life easy for Americans in short term.
Rest of the world will consume less oil eventually unless Chinese and India economies
withstand the loss of American market due to weakening economy by increasing
domestic demand. Despite assertions by Zakaria and other folks about the strength of
emerging markets, it is not clear whether those economies will be fully decoupled from
the American slow down.
Case in point is Dollar Rupee ratio. Indian Rupee is one of the few currencies which still
do not appreciate against Dollar despite the beating Dollar has received against other
currencies. Deprecating Dollar increases dollar denominated oil price and with the weak
Rupee, Indians land up in importing solid ‘oil inflation’.
But then is slowing down of emerging markets the only solution to control Oil price? Why
not, as the Goldman Sachs Analyst Murti hopes; we humans migrate to alternative
energy sources? Of course, many economies are making that change (including
American), but what is needed is the help from their respective governments. Alas, the
idea for American Congress in addressing this ‘oil shock’ is to ‘sue OPEC’! As if that
organization is subject to American laws and Americans are fool enough in not
understanding the uselessness of such politically gimmickry.
Oil shock is one thing which is making people’s life measurable (and by the way most are
not farmers to qualify for largesse of Agriculture Bill passed by the Congress). But
inaction and lack of vision by Congress is exasperating this challenge. (President Bush – 261
nah, he does not have anything to do with lives of Americans)
What Congress needs to do is ‘rein’ in the speculation, if any, in oil markets instead of
drama of suing OPEC. It also needs to actively promote alternative energy sources. We
are missing those actions and it is business as usual.
David Brooks – Cool Cultural Commentator

“Barack Obama has become the Prince Caspian of the iPhone hordes.” This is what
David Brooks writes in NYT.
(http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/23/opinion/23brooks.html?hp)
David Brook is cool and if this blogger had the power of ‘the Force’; he would grant the
‘Order of Merit of the Geekdom’ to Brooks.
It is not often that the culture of blogs and Geekdom is covered in favorable terms in Main
Stream Media. So folks, while the sun shines for us in the Conservative land of David
Brooks; enjoy it.
Clearly, David Brooks is in not writing in an academic journal where he has to put test his
argument to a rigorous analysis based on in-depth study. He is writing in MSM Gray lady
– NYT – which is in for profit pursuit; though that pursuit is challenged by Googles of the
world is a different story. Hence, this light touch and rare praise for geekdom.
Brooks is right to chronicle the ascend of ‘geeks’ in American culture. There is obviously
some truth in how ‘iPod’ generation overwhelmingly supports Obama. It is the flip side of
how ‘Harley Davidson’ riding Rock Star sipping white male, well past his sexual prime, is
a supporter of Hillary.
So if one keeps aside the strict yardstick of science and facts; Brooks writing does offer
some insights in what is going on. Portraying ‘geeks’ in positive manner is one such
manifestation.
Clinton and Feminism

There is quite a bit raucous going on about this issue. The meme is Clinton lost because
basically Americans are not ready to see a woman as President and many liberals are in
the end male chauvinistic pigs that look, contrary to their liberal responsibilities, to other
side when MSM attacks on Clinton are sexist attacks.
Post-Global liberalism of Zakaria variety has out grown Feminism. Every enlightened
individual is fighting differing political struggles for variety of oppressed types. Today’s
262 liberal politics cannot be simply tied to one single fight – fight of gender equality. It is one
of the many struggles and it so happens that a member of ‘post-global’ world would
identify one or some such struggles; quite probably not all at the same time. This means
those we are working or whose world view is predominantly defined by Feminism would
take the responsibility of fighting sexist attacks in MSM. Media coverage of Clinton
campaign could be one such manifestation, but in general such things are only marginal
factors while winnowing down political leadership of Democratic Party.
Hence, the arrogance of Geraldine Ferraro to define every liberal political discourse
exclusively in terms of Feminism is outdated and useless. Obama and his campaign have
been wise enough in not making racism as the single most defining issue of the
campaign. We got to understand that the totality of political discourse is far larger than
narrow minded definitions of feminism or racism. Let us face it, if tomorrow racism goes
away, will there be peace in the world? That does not address the hideous violence
against immigrants in South Africa. Will it reduce gas price below $4 per gallon? Will it
address America’s health care crisis? Nope. Similarly, the fight with Bin Laden is
completely orthogonal to racism and feminism. In short, the canvass for leadership is far
broader and deeper than one dimensional issues like feminism or racism and the
leadership of Democratic Party needs to take ownership of this vast political canvass with
all it’s multidimensional scope.
This has been the problem with traditional feminists. It is like how Rev. Wright is wrong to
define all American struggles through the prism of racism; Ferraro and Malcolm of Emily
List are wrong to ignore the true failures of Hillary and to back her simply for the reasons
of gender. How on earth any thinking person can ignore the callousness Hillary showed
in backing Iraq war to start with and total hubris in ignoring calls to revisit that political
decision? Yes, all of those male Senators and female Senators like Feinstein who backed
the war were wrong too. But there were female Senators like Boxer who opposed the war
and there were male Senators like Edwards who had sanity to regret that vote and
apologize for the same. Hillary had none of these.
Her claims about her involvement in Balkan peace process were exaggerated and wrong.
For weeks, even after frequent prompting to correct her story, she continued lying on
stump. It does not matter to argue that this is how politics run; but who would believe in
the sanity of Ferraros and Malcolms of this world when they ignore such colossal failures
of Hillary? Who cares for what the gender is? Just get the basics right and Hillary failed
miserably in that; she lies with impunity.
I am from a country where frequently women have been, and still today are, in power –
Indira Gandhi, Sonia Gandhi, Pratibha Patil, Vasundhara Raje, and the true star of them,
Mayawati. American Feminists need to go and understand why routinely otherwise male
chauvinistic Indian society easily accepts female leaders. Female losers in Indian
elections do not cry for the sexist attitude. For too long Malcolms of the world have been
focused on abortion rights. No wonder Conservatives have visceral reactions towards
such monochromatic feminists as murders of fetuses.
Also it is so convenient for feminists to forget American female leaders like Nancy Pelosi,
Janet Napolitano, Kathleen Sebelius, Jennifer Granholm, top female officials like
Condoleezza Rice and Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. There will be female American
President; just that it is not Hillary in 2009. In the end Hillary Clinton is the case of ‘failed
leadership’. Not to recognize this reality is political blindness. To claim sexism is as the
reason for Hillary’s defeat is hypocrisy. Those who claim so will go and sit along with Rev.
Wright.
263
History Made
Many in America and quite a few in rest of the world would think, humanity’s political
progression has attained one important mile post – Barack Obama became the
presidential nominee of Democrats.
Try saying the name slowly and loudly – BARACK HUSSIEN OBAMA – and then slowly
the reality will start sinking home what has happened. The uncommonness starts from
the name, the skin color sets it apart and then the intellect and the person’s morality
uplifts you. This is what happened in American Democracy on Tuesday.
Stunning and quite uplifting.
There is nothing to hide about it, but large portion of voters feel the satisfaction of ‘doing
right’ when they back Barack Obama’s campaign, it is not just electing someone who
delivers you some favors. That is a sure sign of a leadership. Substantial social and
policy changes have occurred when people at large are ready to make necessary
changes, howsoever hard, when they feel they belong to a larger cause. The leadership
which articulates and carries this larger cause does not get narcissistic but rather
concentrates on helping and shaping this mass movement to the desired goal.
Barack Obama campaign has opened that possibility for many Americans.
Now the next question – whether majority of Americans feel the same way or not, comes
on November. That is the journey which will be travelled in coming days and for many
such a voyage with similar minded people will be the privilege and experience of life time.
Oil Crisis
When oil price rises from the high base of $128 by around $11 in one single day along
with dire predictions of $5 per gallon at the gas station; it will be foolish not to
characterize this as ‘Oil Crisis’. If Israeli minster’s comment about inevitability of an attack
on Iranian nuclear installation is the reason for this oil price spike, may be the USA
presidential election should be all about how to deal with Iran. Unfortunately, instead of
addressing this grave situation we have America’s newly minted political rock star –
Barack Obama – making way too presumptuous statements about possible 2016
Chicago Olympics. Our Congress is no better too – all hot air about global warming, but
total inaction for gas prices. The problem with the Congress is it is always preoccupied
with issues quite late and in essence at wrong time. Besides, the Congress relegates
both prudence and future maneuverability to revert a policy gone hay wire (e.g. ethanol
for fuel!) while crafting any policy responses to emerging challenges. But the Congress
and the incoming president (oh yes, Americans have given up long back to count the
incumbent president to help them in any practical ways) can ill afford the neglect of high
264 gas prices. Already it is looking like another Katrina – rulers are at sleep when a
challenge is developing making common people to suffer due to the inaction of these
rulers. There is enormous disconnect between ‘reality of people’s daily life’ and highly
dramatized politics of VP stakes which is unfolding in American Media. The polity which is
supposed to represent ‘people’s will’ should not be so insensitive to grave consequences
of high oil prices and concomitant inflation. So the question is what can Congress and
incoming president do? It turns out it can do quite a lot:
1. First and foremost we need clarity regarding what all these Congressional
investigations about speculation in oil prices find. We hear lot about these hearings and
usual show of hauling CEOs of oil companies on Capitol Hill; but then what is the policy
response? How about President or top leadership of Congress ‘certify’ the Congressional
investigation report that categorically says that indeed there is no ‘oil price manipulation
and speculation’ by participants of oil futures markets? Such investigation and
certification should be continued as long as oil prices are detrimental to our economy (till
either oil dependency is removed or the actual price is quite low). It is imperative and
extremely important to know what action, if any is applicable, Congress has taken to the
Congressional hearings by Mike Masters of Masters Capital and issues raised by Daniel
Dicker in TheStreet.com. The essential point of these investigations is - indeed the way
oil trade goes, structurally it has a great scope for speculation. What is needed is
accountability in this regard by our rulers. We want to know whether Congress is doing all
that is possible by way regulations via CFTC and is not engaged in the gimmicks of
passing bills against OPEC. There is a strong suspicion that Congress is not doing what
it can but farcically going after things which it has no business to venture. Oh, by the way
why not have a ‘web site’ where Congress and White House congregate all of their
responses and their investigations together so that citizenry has one single point to know
how our rulers are responding to ‘hostage to oil price’ situation?
2. Next, what is the rationale for continuing any kind of tax breaks for oil companies when
these companies are part of the coalition (other partners are crude oil producing
countries) which is holding the entire economy at ransom? Not only should these tax
breaks need to go immediately, oil companies be subjected to ‘windfall taxes’ too.
Democrats and progressives must overcome the oilman – President Bush and pro oil
cartel GOP.
3. What things can be done ‘now’ to address price pressure faced by common people?
Wherever possible, employers should be required to allow employees to work from home
for at least one day in a week. That will reduce commuting for employed ones. Federal
dollars could be applied to ‘donate’ gas saving buses to public transport organizations all
over the country, in proportion to population in a designated area. At $200K for a top of
the line green bus, a Billion dollars can buy 5,000 such buses; around 15+ per 1 million
population. If Congress intends, it can solicit hundreds of such suggestions from people
all over the country. The goal should be to address needs of common Joe on day to day
basis NOW. Spending around $50 to $100 Billion to address high oil prices in meaningful
manners will go a long way rather than bribes of ‘tax refunds’.
4. Beyond short term measures, we need Federal Government to increase the budgetary
outlay for public transport infrastructure all over the country. It was ‘war bonds’ in past,
now it could be ‘oil freedom bonds’ to raise necessary cash to augment public transport
infrastructure in coming five years.
5. Finally, as a long term measure; we need the Federal Government to pump money into
alternative energy sources and distribution. America’s portion of the sum of $45 Trillion
265
(as estimated by IEA to half green house gases by 2050) is too high even for the $13
Trillion Economy over decades. Hence the need for a multi decade spanning concrete
plan to move from fossil based economy (civilization?) to renewable energy based
economy.
Hillary – Leaving in Grace

Fundamental lesson of power politics is ‘sacrifice’. Today, Hillary sacrificed her ambition
and the personal end goal of decade’s worth of politics. Needless to say, this one single
act can in essence ‘wipe out’ all misgivings about her. Hillary is now the ‘towering’ figure
of Progressive forces at large; in some sense in the league of Al Gore because the fact is
Obama could never electorally defeat her totally. In a way, indeed she is the back up
leader of Democrats - the leader who has shown that she does not hold power for
personal sake; the leader who has the capacity to make sacrifices and the leader who will
work hard in the end for the party and common goal. In our hearts Democrats will know
that, it is she who we can fall back in our times of need.
Hats off to Hillary, long live Hillary and Democrats.
To many in India it can be pleasant to know that Sonia’s political act of sacrificing PM
post for the good of party and country is ‘trend setter’. First it was the neighboring
Pakistan where Asif Zardari openly desired to emulate her. Now, that political innovation
has landed in the oldest Democracy of the world. Exactly, that is how we want the 21st
century politics – constellation of democracies sharing and exchanging political ideas,
innovations and set pieces.
While America has been facing tremendous challenges to her leadership in most fields;
there is one human discourse where Americans have shown enormous amount of vitality
and dynamism - that is electoral politics. Democratic primary has been the hot bed of
these political innovations and at the core of today’s political advances. With Hillary
bowing out gracefully, Democrats have done their part in quite superlative manner. It is
so pleasing and fulfilling to see a leader like Hillary on the right side of these mass efforts.
She got tremendous response and backing in the primaries and today she is ready to
offer that to Obama campaign. Obama campaign and their supporters now owe to her,
her supporters and the party to bring unity and win the general election. With morally
uplifting electoral performance by Obama and the party unity based on the bed rock of
Hillary’s sacrifices; foundation for Democratic victory to turn a page on the regressive
politics of Bush era is all set.
Today, the Democratic Party of America looks like one of the most potent and righteous
political forces on planet earth.
266
Emerging Markets
Tom Friedman mentions Egyptian government pays $11 Billion per year as oil fuel
subsidy compared to $3 Billion on health and $6 Billion on education. The ‘death’ trap for
these emerging markets is clear. In ideal world, the emerging market states would have
effective means to distribute more funds for health and education. These two sectors are
better compared to oil fuel subsidy because those are much more targeted to needy than
well off classes crowding subsidies as like in oil subsidy. But entrenched corruption,
skewed development models never make it feasible to have more money channeled to
health and education sector.
Chinese oil fuel subsidy is at $27 Billion, at 4% of the central budget. Even though China
sits on trillion dollar reserve, from a central government point of view; it is hardly
sustainable. As and when government decides to reduce subsidy, it will unleash one
more wave of inflation in China. But Chinese story is less draconian because the state
has been investing in health and education.
With India things are complicated because Indian government on one hand taxes soaring
import bill of oil and refined products; on the other hand continues to provide subsidies of
the order of $10 to $15 Billion per year. The muddled picture however cannot hide the
trap of ‘oil subsidies’ and with it’s ultra populist polity; there is hardly any chance of going
away from this death trap.
The problem of oil and oil subsidies is going drag down emerging markets and global
economic stability.
Classic Move by Bush Administration?

Surprise, surprise of all – Bush Administration is talking about having some diplomatic
presence in Tehran. Iran has such a presence in DC and hence it is quite feasible if that
is what USA Administration wants.
Such a diplomatic move is intriguing, but not impossible to understand. In classic manner
of keeping larger USA interests in mind (at least at the fag end of the term), Bush
Administration must have realized that the next Administration is quite likely to have
some relationship with Iranians. If the next Administration is Obama Administration, which
looks quite possible today; then instead of giving it the political leverage of breaking
radically from past; Bush Administration wants to make it look like – progression. Well,
whatever is the motive, this is a good policy.
Is this something which Bush meant when he said in Europe that he wants to ‘leave
behind a framework’ to deal with Iran knowing that time has run out on his watch to deal
with that problem? It seems so and indeed it is a good step. Obama or McCain, any of
that Administration would welcome Iranian relations on mending rather than doing
everything from scratch.
267
American Economy at Crossroads

1. Bernanke Fed was late last year to reduce interest rates and as a result a potential
chance to decrease the pain of credit crisis was lost. It seems same hesitancy is playing
this time in increasing interest rates. Unless interest rates go up, there is no hope for
Dollar and consequently oil price. Oil price increase has ignited overall inflation and the
only text book answer to that is high interest rate. ‘No wage pressure’ is not the solace
this time. Or arguments like ‘oil price is not a monetary phenomenon’ are not applicable
for the simple reason that the oil trade is denominated in dollar terms and with low
interest income for dollar; world has less reason to value the dollar any better. This
trashing of Dollar is showing up in ever increasing oil prices.
2. Daniel Dicker makes a solid case in RealMoney

(http://www.thestreet.com/p/rmoney/oil/10423562.html) about why ‘liquidation-only’ rules
are needed in oil futures market to control the spiraling price of oil. He makes it very clear
how many of the other proposed regulations to control ‘speculation’ in oil trade are of less
utility. His point is ‘liquidation-only’ will determine once and for all what component is
‘speculation’ in the oil price and that will be knocked off. The oil price increase may not be
entirely due to speculation and fundamentals are sure to play the role. But removal of
speculative premium from the oil price will be welcome in itself.
3. Even if reduced oil prices may give breathing room for consumers; the mess in
American financial system and housing market will not go away quickly. Falling house
values, tighter credit norms and higher interests rates; all these things will make any
recovery hard and long. This means unless there are meaningful stimuli from Congress
(like the bill to provide $300 billion for distressed borrowers); we are not going to get out
of this hole.
4. Finally, we all know reduction in oil price is only a temporary and partial solution. The
real solution is to go away from carbon fossil energy sources to alternative, renewable
energy sources. It is no more long term solution, but the solution which needs actions
now.
Essentially relevance of American political and financial establishment will be measured

along what action these actors take in next few months. Fed, regulatory institutions and
Congress – all eyes will be on these players and unless these players take appropriate
actions along above lines; America’s current downturn will turn into potentially permanent
down turn. That could be true end of America’s Global Economic (and consequently
Political) Leadership.
268
Useless Adherence to Ideology Terms
Doug Saunders writes in Globe and Mail that if Obama wins American election, quite
likely he will be the only left leaning leader in a block traditionally referred as West.
(http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080705.wreckoning0405/BNSt
ory/International/home?cid=al_gam_mostview)
So what? What is the point? This whole article is one more useless exercise of
attempting to use so called academic terms to describe political realities without any
value addition. Starting with Neo-Con Bush and Labor Blair, post world war America-
Europe relations are full of examples where leaders have co-operated despite coming
from competing ideologies.
In today’s complex world, most of the world leaders are aware that pragmatic foreign
policy instead of ideology driven world views is order of the day. Bush has been one of
the rare breed of politicians who is much more ideology driven than the norm. With the
end of Bush term, such extreme politics will be gone. By that comparison mainstream
European leaders across the political spectrum are quite Centrists and hence well
disposed to co-operation with new American President. And what about compulsions of
contemporary world where China, Russia, Brazil, India and Oil Exporting countries are
dominating world affairs? Barack or McCain, Europeans of all hues will work that
president, unless the European leader is Neo-Nazi, extreme Right wing nut case.
And what of Post-Partisan Politics of Obama, Schwarzenegger and many other leaders
attempting to move beyond Left and Right divide? Views expressed by Saunders are
quite narrow and ignore the emerging reality where many leaders all across world are
trying to go beyond divisive way of politics. Seems like that observation is lost on
Saunders.
Speculating Oil Price Speculation

Starting from Bush’s Chief Economic Cheer Leader Treasury Secretary Paulson, laud
mouth on Web - JJ Crammer, of course Oil Company Executives and any sundry Neo-
Con; we have all of these voices getting down us telling that there is ‘no speculation’ in oil
prices and it is all about fundamentals. Even Paul Krugman chastises those are who are
searching speculation in oil prices. Now we have Economists saying that too.
But what about Congressional testimonials by Mike Masters and expert commentary by
Daniel Dicker? (http://www.thestreet.com/p/rmoney/oil/10423562.html) Why does any
one not want to give at least some serious try to drain out any speculation which might be
there? If some honest efforts are done and if it is demonstrated that it still does not have
any impact on oil price; then the issue will resolve once for all. If it needs co-ordination
across multiple futures markets in many countries; so be the case. It is worth a try. And
which country in the world would not like to see low oil prices, except Oil Powers?
Meaning, it should be easier to forge any co-ordination needed to adopt measures to
control speculation simultaneously across many futures markets. 269
Congressional leaders and those politicians who want to do something positive about
high oil prices (say why not Presidential candidates?) should come out and disregard this
‘cacophony of no speculation’. It is the question of credibility of the political class –
whether it wants to do anything or whether it can do anything for this man-made crisis.
Once these actions are attempted and if it still does not reduce oil price in any sensible
way; then these politicians should come forward and tell public about other ways to move
beyond ‘fossil energy sources’ way of life.
We need political leadership which throws away pressures by ‘oil lobby’. It is bad enough
that American Congress and Obama are ‘in pockets’ of Iowa ethanol boondoggle. World
Bank is out with it’s study of how diverting corn to ethanol is contributing to 75% of global
food price increase and it is not more eating mouths in India or China neither draught in
Australia which contribute so much to food price increase. Of course, credibility of World
Bank is no better; but such a study does point that – conventional economic wisdom is
not sufficient in getting to the root cause of many economic problems. So why do people
buy the conventional wisdom of ‘no speculation’ in oil prices?
Economists as professionals have done poor job too. There is no high degree of
coherence among economists in nailing down ‘speculative’ component in oil price. It
reminds one of IPCC and their heroic efforts in getting high degree of intellectual
agreement among 2000+ leading scientists about global warming and causes of the
same. No such unanimity or high degree of collective confidence among Economists.
What good are those Nobel Prizes in Economics, if common public on street does not get
answers to simple questions like – how much speculation is there in oil prices and if there
is, what can be done to stop it?
Wall-E
No doubt, very impressive movie. Long, long time I saw anything like this one.
Exceptional. It is amazing with essentially just two stages or story places (Wall-E's home /
desolate planet as shown somewhere near New York and the space ship Axiom) and the
first hour or so without any human dialog; so much can be created and so much
meaningful can be said.
In the summer of 2008 in America, intellectual taste and social sensitivity of a person are
brandished by writing a review or critique of this movie. On couple of occasions I was
tempted to write one review, but then with a rare bout of 'holding a mirror to oneself' I
realized my limitations and decided to spare occasional readers of my blog. So, the real
critique and review I liked is by our usual ultra-caustic, uber-commentator Frank Rich of
NYT. Here is his review, as usual very incisive, sharp and pointed:
http://www.nytimes. com/2008/ 07/06/opinion/ 06rich.html? hp
Andrew Sullivan at The Atlantic says - any civilization which can make a movie
technically and aesthetically as sublime as Wall-E is NOT doomed for failure or
extinction. I guess it is quite a strong statement. But Andrew Sullivan is not known for any
restrained reactions.
270 My daughter liked 'Kungfu Panda' more than 'Wall-E'. She found the latter bit serious. In a
way the movie is more for adults than for kids. May be where it grows it is not consumed -
in California many kids may be like my daughter (age 6+) finding Wall-E so so; whereas
those kids in New York who watched along with Frank Rich seem more receptive to the
political message of the movie.
Or may be I have more work to do on 'parenting front'!
Spaniards on Tear
First it was European Championship. Now Nadal win over Federer at Wimbledon in epic
battle. Nadal win is follow up to French Championship. So one can understand Spaniards
would be on moon.
Oil Prices – Speculation Cause?

One more research paper examines the issue of Oil Price and various reasons for the
same. ( http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1154686 ) The paper is by
Stevans and Sessions and it contains refutation of Paul Krugman’s argument.
In short the paper contends that eliminating six month futures contract would help reduce
impact of speculation on oil prices. Contention is that is one possible remedy for policy
makers.
Any takers?
Capitalism – Are we at the end?

E J Dionne writes an excellent article about how foundation of American Economic Story
– Wall Street led Capitalism – is facing serious challenges.
(http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/07/ailing_capitalism.html)
Also Mark Gilbert writes an apocalyptic version of end of Capitalism.

(http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&sid=a11PeBn6TV8A&refer=hom
e)
These are not some kind of academically argued papers, but for sure these are
newspaper columns. Nevertheless, these are thought provoking columns and essentially
capturing the zeitgeist.
Sure enough, tomorrow or over week end we will get Wall Street Journal running articles
singing paeans of Capitalism. Well, WSJ did so when some criticized starting of Iraq war
271
too… But I am digressing. Point is we all know this now - all that was to be unfolded from
Regan era Economy orthodoxy, it is unfolded including misery and there is nothing left.
When a simple non-politico upstages presidential candidates by way of offering Pickens

Energy Plan ( http://www.pickensplan.com/ ); we know that both party candidates are
missing any intellectual capacity to address the tsunami of economic bad news unfolding.
One just has to compare how Obama campaign seemed to suck all oxygen from Media
when it was engaged in extremely competitive primaries. Now that primary elections are
over and both candidates have their tables full by daunting challenges of today’s
America; both these candidates and their billion dollar campaigns look ‘pygmy’ -
incapable to provide any leadership or ability to lay a path to navigate America through
difficult times. Worse, both seem at times clueless and criminally engaged in celebrating
their nomination success (how big should be the crowd at my coronation or which is the
most sexy European place to give my next speech). May be we should not confuse
winning the election and solving our problems. These two candidates will do what it takes
to win the election – any problem solving of America is just incidental!
Which means, somewhere deep down, Americans need to come together on their own to
find ‘light’ from today’s pitch darkness. Our politicians – well, not a good stock; it sinks
and stinks.
What if Cramer is Right?

Monday, July 14, 2008
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bailout is old news. Not that those financial institutes will
not burn again, but there is more urgent fire now. The question is after Indy Mac which is
the next bank. Washington Mutual? National City? Who else? FDIC’s own report says
around 150 out of 7000 or plus American banks are at risk. It may not be lot compared to
Savings & Loan crisis of 1989 when Congress bailed out few hundred thrift banks at the
cost of around $190 Billion at inflation adjusted today’s price. But if for Indy Mac only
FDIC has to put minimum $4 Billion at works out of it’s corpus of $53 Billion; one wonders
how long FDIC money can last. This is because Congress is already on hook to spend
around hundreds of billions for these two GSEs.
If one reads or hears James Cramer (JJC) of TheStreet.com; it is clear that FDIC will not
have sufficient money to bail out, leave alone 150, but even 50 banks at this rate. Now,
try figuring out consequences and experience your own shiver down the spine.
No doubt, mouths of JJC like commentators are loud, shrill. But unfortunately for so long
these are the precise ‘doomsday’ scenarios which are coming to fruition in today’s
America.
American Media, Congress and political punditry; all are behind curves. Just imagine who
will care even for Iraq; when banks are falling like rats in plague while Messers Bernanke,
Paulson, Bush and Congress have no idea what has struck American Financial System.
In any case, Americans are ‘done’ with Iraq. It hardly matters whether ‘surge’ has worked
or not or Bush has proved to be right when we have monumental failure on hand with
American Financial System.
272 It is laughable to read all these passionate debates about Iraq or still incomplete Housing
Bill (for which WSJ ran an excellent article explaining how it may not really solve the
problem of housing delinquencies) or standard political topics; when these experts have
no idea whatsoever about what devastation in American Economy is unfolding.
So what happens if JJC is right? Will we have a day after?

America’s Iraq War – Where we are

Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Michael Yon is right America is done with Iraq war. It may not be exactly a win for USA in
very clear terms, but at least it is not a defeat.
( h t t p : / / w w w . m i c h a e l y o n -
online.com/index.php?option= com_content&view= article&id= 1690:success-in-
iraq&catid= 34:dispatches&Itemid= 55)
Bush’s surge policy worked. But let us go back in time when the ‘surge plan’ was born. At
that time with earlier five years of disastrous war management by Bush, no sane person
in the world would have backed for one more ‘gamble’ by Bush. In 2006 mid-term
election when GOP lost control of both chambers of Congress, clearly the mandate from
American people was to wind down the war. Hence, there was opposition from liberals
and Democrats at that time to the plan of ‘surge’. In a sense, it was right to oppose to the
‘surge’ even if people who opposed turned out to be wrong.
So the question is what Bush did – in spite of tremendous public and political opposition
he literally pulled America in the ‘surge’ – was it prescient call and hall mark of heroic
leadership? Well, neither History nor American public will mind George Bush to have his
day in sun while being mindful that there are still lingering issues in completing objectives
of ‘surge’. Democrats and war critic like Obama turned out to be ‘wrong’ about the surge
– so what? Big deal.
The reality is Bush played his last ‘double down gamble’ and it worked in this case. That
does not erase the history of ‘the whole series of gambling’ and ‘from gut’ style policies
he has followed in last eight years. Surge success or not, the question is do America
wants such ‘instinctive’ politics? One positive result out of such gambling does not
change America’s current predicament and it’s disposition towards going away from
‘gung ho’, Neo-conservative, guts based (my ‘balls’ are bigger than yours) politics as
practiced by Bush.
Of course, McCain does not get any ground to tom-tom his leadership instincts here – he
was disastrously wrong to back Iraq war in the first place and worst of all kept on
advocating ‘all high staked’ war strategy all along. He kept on criticizing Bush from Right
– why not more forces; without any credible political solution to the whole gamut of Iraq
occupation problems. He is even more ‘war monger’ than Bush; surely not the kind of
leader what America needs now.
We have to go back to the July of 1945, when Britain went away from the war winning
leadership of Winston Churchill with full realization that his job was done, his utility was
over. Same with Neo-conservative foreign policy of America in 2008 – notwithstanding
recent success (it better come since already it is too late); time has come for America to 273
move on.
McCain is not offering that choice to move on but rather to perpetuate the same
outlandish Bush Foreign policy. He is still in 2002. Obama is the choice to ‘move on’ with,
even if there is sufficient reason to fault his (and his supporters like me who were not
enthusiastic about surge too) judgment in this regard. But what do we want – a leader
who is right in the first place to oppose unwarranted war but missed one tactical (sure
Obama and Dems did have their tactical alternatives to ‘surge’ too) step subsequently in
cleaning up the mess which he for sure would not have created; or the guy who got one
tactical call correct in the ‘clean up’ but who is all belligerent with long laundry list of
missed judgments? A rational person would argue – it depends on what is the extent of
‘clean up’ job left. If the state of Iraq war is such that more such ‘tactical clean up’ calls
are to be made; then sure McCain candidacy will be of interest to America. But we are
past 2004 when John Kerry paid precisely that price – ‘let us not change the horse
midway in the river’ even if that meant re-electing moronic George Bush again in order for
him to clean up the mess. However, today we are in 2008 and the clue is listening to the
music played by Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki – Iraq does not want American forces any
more. Yes, that is right; folks we are done in Iraq and that is the perfect evaluation of
McCain victorious judgment – America does not need John McCain when all he is looking
for is to have hundreds of thousands of American forces stationed in Iraq for decades to
come.
Obama, beyond the Iraq war, offers a compelling vision of sound Foreign Policy.
(http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/07/a_new_strategy_for_a_new_world.html)
That is more than a reason to make him President than a clueless alternative. One
tactically not so perfect call – America can surely live with that deficiency in her leader.
That deficiency does not offer prizes to GOP when for all eight years they have been
overdrawing credit of American public’s stretched support. If they have got something
now in the end (surge success), may be Americans can decide to move on without
vendetta against GOP. But in lieu of that success to ask for Bush’s Third Term as
consolation prize, that one is beyond America’s stomach for war monger policies of
McCain Republican party.
Obama’s Iraq War Contribution

Charles Krauthammer in Washington Post laments that Obama has not contributed
anything to advance America’s foreign policy interest and hence it is way too arrogant for
him to ask for the Brandenburg speech. Well, I guess Kruthammer will have to get used
to ‘burn by jealousy’ for many more years regardless of whether Obama becomes
president or not. Democratic party has coalesced around Obama not for nothing. Obama
will carry the ‘cross’ for Dems and he is doing good. Sure, the fun will be how these Neo-
Cons get frustrated over the years and surely will understand then what happened to
those who were advocating progressive or even centrist agenda under Bush regime.
Soon it will be Neo-Cons turn to suffer.
274 The basic contribution Obama doing here is to stick to his policy theme of reasonably
rapid return of American forces from Iraq. What that has made it possible is for Iraqi’s
openly side with that idea – look for Iraqi PM’s latest statement in Der Spiegel that he
agrees with Obama’s idea of quicker time line for returning forces. Not only that,
effectively that has forced Bush to agree for the timeline business now, after resisting for
so long. Obama kept the pressure here. Relative calm brought by ‘surge’ made the
political space for Iraqi’s to think about life after Bush. Obama on their side along with
such a tremendous grass root support all across America made Iraqi’s to nudge Bush
falling in the line. This is Obama’s contribution and no matter how much Kruthammers of
this world berate him for missing the surge judgment; here is the real value.
Obama Campaign may ponder over how to ‘cash’ this. That is their electioneering
problem; essentially made quite easy by the misguided and ‘out of phase with Iraqis’
policy of John McCain. One of finest commentaries about how politically untenable
McCain has been on Iraq is from Daniel Larison in ‘The American Conservative’ .
(http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/07/19/who-cares-what-the-iraqis-think/ )
Meanwhile for Americans, we want Obama to continue his realistic positions on Iraq
without any hesitations.
Ezra Klein – Crate and Barrel Theory of Iraq war

It is worth echoing what Ezra Klein says here after Iraqi PM’s statement to concur with
timely withdrawal of American forces from Iraq:
“The long-standing moral blackmail of “we broke it, now we have to fix it” just dissipated.
The Crate-Barrel theory is finished: The proprietors just told us to leave the store.”
(http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezraklein_archive?month=07&year=2008&base_nam
e=maliki_and_public_opinion)
So right on. Can we move on to next topics which concern America and the world?
Dr. Singh’s Victory

With the crucial trust vote win under his belt, Indian PM Dr. Singh has got badly needed
political tonic. It will benefit Congress politically. More importantly, chances of Indo – USA
Nuclear Accord going forward increase.
The key question is whether India will be able to get IAEA and NSG accords in time for
the final approval by American Congress before it becomes ‘lame Congress’ (post
election). It is doubtful whether the lame Congress would pass this bill. Somewhere it
indicates lack of democratic principles if it requires the lame Congress to pass this
accord. This means the best bet is to get it passed before American elections.
Considering that around mid September the Congress would adjourn, we are talking only
a month effectively for Dr. Singh’s Government to get approval from the two international
institutes. With the vigor of today’s win and earlier ground work by his able old hand
Foreign Minister Pranab Mukharjee, there are realistic chances of those approvals falling 275
in places by August end. Sticky points are still ‘aggressive and ambiguous’ wordings by
India in this proposal. But again, with today’s win Sr. Singh will more have wiggle room to
adjust the text.
The other sticking point is the requirement of American Congress needing to be in

session for continuous 40 days or so; before the Congressional approval is possible. This
is what Sen. Joe Biden pointed out recently. But he was quick enough to point that the
Congress may find some way out to approve if India has completed formalities of IAEA
and NSG. In fact with the aura of staking his government for this Accord and then by
winning it; it now becomes imperative for American leaders to make all the necessary
arrangements to pass this bill.
This win by Dr. Singh is of far more strategic importance to India. He has effectively
sealed his legacy here. Whichever way one cuts it, Economic Liberalization in the first
term under Premiership of Narasinha Rao and strategic nuclear accord with USA in his
second term as PM; Dr. Singh has made fundamental, lasting and colossal contributions
to Indian Republic. He is wise enough to ignore if many Indians may not recognize his
service. It is noteworthy that it is BJP which bursts Nukes, but it is the Congress which
makes the peace. Hard choices of war (the way Indira Gandhi won Bangladesh war) or
the peacemaker Dr. Singh; it seems there are no political forces as competent as Indian
National Congress party to deliver lasting foreign policy contributions. This is big deal.
Congratulations to Dr. Singh and Indian Democracy to withstand narrow minded and
misguided political postures and working hard for true national interests. Dr. Singh and
Congress Party are entitled to reap political advantages of ‘tremendous aura and good
will’ generated among electorates by this win. Congress party may even opt for early
elections and hope to improve it’s strength in Parliament, if not big but at least by few
extra seats. Mulayam Singh’s SP will be firmly in the ‘lap’ of Congress. This bodes well
for UPA coalition with the Congress party as the anchor. All in all it is a positive political
development for the Congress party and India with prodigious potential to improve Indo-
USA relations further.
Drug Lord Karzai?

Thomas Schweich, an American anti-drug official, writes a blistering article in NYT
detailing complacence and protection offered by Afghan President Karzai to drug lords in
Southern Afghanistan, the vote bank of Karzai. It is a classic example of how votes distort
the ability of a state to undertake long term beneficial policies.
(http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/27/magazine/27AFGHAN-t.html?hp )
The article is detailed and quite impressive. Will anything change? Looks like until both
America and Afghanistan get their presidents elected again; this war on drug (really the
flip side of war on terror in the context of Afghanistan) will have to wait. Sadly Democrats
in Congress are not particularly helping the matter too.
276
Spanish Winning Streak
Carlos Sastre continues the golden summer of Spanish sports – after Euro Soccer and
Wimbledon; here is another Spanish athlete with the win of Tour de France under belt
(third Spaniard in row). Spain has always been a power house of cycling, so this is all
fitting in their great tradition.
Question is will they have now equally scintillating Beijing Olympics. As of now host
China is expected to overcome American dominance. Some speculations are China
winning around 42 gold medals to 39 of Americans and overall medal count at 86 to 85 in
favor of China. Dominance of USA, Russia, China, Germany and Australia is not
expected to change; just the ranking within top 5 nations. All nations nowadays go with
specialty. There in lies glory for nations like Spain in focusing on specialties like cycling.
Can not wait any longer for the most expensive sports extravaganza starting in next two
weeks.
What worth a CDO is?

Collateralized Debt Obligations (CDOs), the securities backed by mortgages in America
which are the root cause of the current financial crisis on Wall Street, posed an acute
problem of valuation so far. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collateralized_debt_obligation )
JJ Cramer and many market analysts have been lamenting that unless there is a credible
number attached to what is a worth of these CDOs we are unlikely to get out of this mess.
That reasoning is correct. As Fed increased interest rates starting in mid-July of 2006 and
American Economy failed to hold steady / increased income for inflation battered
Americans; everybody started to realize that Americans will start defaulting on their
mortgages. Very soon, indeed. So naturally CDOs which are backed by these mortgages
started to loose their values. The problem has been to determine the extent of value loss
– 10 cents per dollar or 20 or 30? Initially folks started to say reduction in CDO valuation
will be proportional to the underlying mortgage default rates. Even though mortgage
defaults started to spike; the traditional number of less than 5% defaults would go at the
most less than 15% or 20%. But the financial wizardry of behind these CDOs is so
ingenious that these CDOs loose value much more than the underlying mortgage default
rate. This means market realized that CDO loss will be for surely more than 15% to 20%.
But how much? And that was the literally multi-billion dollar question on the Wall Street till
today.
With Merrill Lynch selling its CDO portfolio of $30.6 Billion CDOs for paltry $6.7 Billion;
the whole world has got the answer to this valuation question, seemingly the basic key to
move beyond the current mortgage crisis. The answer is these CDOs are worth 22% of
their original face value! Incredible destruction of value peddled by these so called
Masters of Universe. When will we gullible public realize that Wall Street is nothing but a
giant casino created to enrich CEOs and CDO creators but to dupe pennies and houses
from all other common Americans? Will we have a righteous sermon from the high priest
of Capitalism - Wall Street Journal - admonishing mandarins of Wall Street and
articulating a system which is not so value destructive? Probably not. That is not in the
tradition of these ‘self-help style American’ custodian of Capitalism. It is symptomatic of 277
so many Conservatives, pro Capitalist folk who on most occasion calls GOP as their
home. Can one dare to say ‘Wall Street and American Capitalist System gone wild’ here?
Barack, do you have any solutions here? Anyone stepping forward to articulate a clean
and right solution of supervision / regulation to avoid such mess in future? The parade of
culprits in this supply chain of ‘CDO crack drug’ includes:
- Realtors and property appraiser who in the first place brought the froth to residencial
market along with the high flying home builders.
- Next we got banks offering millions of dollars to NINA (no income no assets) mortgages.
- Then comes the ever eager class of Wall Street Investment Banks – Bern Stern, Merrill
Lynch, Citibank of the world who bundled these mortgages into CDOs.
- Finally rating agencies like S&P, Moody played their crucial part of this great endeavor:
offering ratings of high credit worthiness to these CDOs even though the mono-line
insurance cover offered by likes of Ambiac, PMI have way too inadequate for these
financial papers.
It has been total collusion and abdication of responsibility by all these players. Of course,
while this has been unfolding SEC, CTFC, Fed and Treasury Department and even
Congress; were all busy in ‘serving’ Americans. Folks, we have got one heck of a
regulatory system in our country.
Meanwhile, we will start seeing balance sheets of CDO holders destroyed with reduced
valuation ranging from 15% to 30% of the original CDO face value. This means so far
$400 Billion write downs which have come on Wall Street will not be enough. In short,
more misery and more grinding of all retirement portfolios of common people.
As they say in finance, the only silver line here is finally we are likely to see some handle
on how toxic these CDOs are and that is always the first step – to know exactly how deep
we are in the hole. As a trader on ‘TheStreet.com’ Robert Marcin writes:
“Cramer can rant all he wants, but it's futile. Uncle Ben can't stop the Great Unwind,
neither can Hank. Nor can Comrade Obama if elected president. The delivering [sic] of
the global economy is a powerful force that most underappreciate [sic], including the 30
x's levered bozos running brokerages. Stay liquid.”
That seems to be only truth with which we commoners have to live with. Everything else
is Mirage on Wall Street and misery in the reign of King George Bush continues
unabated.
America’s Energy Responses

Wednesday, August 06, 2008
As they say, it is pitch dark before the dawn. Seems like that is the case with America’s
Energy Crisis.
The heartening developments are:

- both Presidential candidates are bowing to the increasing public pressure to come up
with good policy responses;
- Obama puts forward a reasonable 3 point plan (electric cars, increased electricity from
alternative resources and funds for research / roll over to newer technologies) along with
a respectable response to bridge this transition using new oil drilling as needed;
278 - Pickens plan of using Wind energy and Natural gas for transportation and the traction
that plan is getting.
Do we see reduced oil prices as response to these early game changing responses by
America? Of course, we are past peak Summer Driving season which is developing as
the ‘summer when demand destruction started’ and that is reducing the price.
But if one wants to read some bare nickel raw response of a money guy; one needs to
read JJ Cramer’s article pointing out the significance of Natural Gas and Wind.
( http://www.thestreet.com/p/rmoney/jimcramerblog/10432123.html ) That is the classical
American way – only when one sees the potential to make money, Americans start to
change. Money talks for Americans and I like what I see here.
John Edwards
Thank lord, we never had too much of space (or none at all) devoted to this politician on
this blog. It was hard to reconcile wealth garnered by a trial lawyer by milking wrong
doings of corporations with his quite narrow political platform in primaries – eradicating
poverty. It was hard to understand how you would eradicate poverty when your policies
were in effect all ‘anti-employment generation’. His incessant references to his humble
roots were tiresome.
He did, however, contribute to American Politics by forcing Democratic candidates to

come up with credible Health Care Plan. He effectively set that agenda. But there too
frustrations of folks like Ezra Klein is understandable -
http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezraklein_archive?month=08&year=2008&base_nam
e=edwards
As is said, he literally risked Democrats in this presidential cycle. Good riddance. Who is
the next Dem in this year’s crop of Elliot Spitzer, John Edwards and the gang?
John’s wife Elizabeth has been the moral force in setting the tone for John’s campaign in
primaries. Her article in NYT about health care and media’s ignorance of this important
issue has been a classic. However, unfortunately this development kind of raises some
hard questions to Elizabeth too – how come knowing John’s affair she backed him his
pursuit of presidency? Especially, without coming clean in the first place? Something is
missing here.
More and more it is clear that so many of our politicians find it hard to keep their political
promises and postures credible. May be it is a tough business to be in. Is it rally? Or it is
just a question of being ‘honest’?
279
Bush’s Dangerous Legacy
Every time we feel that Americans have got hold on what are their public liabilities and
commitments, Bush Administration surprises them by making open one more public
commitment. That is the case with what the recent Georgia Russia war reveals to
Americans.
Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili openly played the game of ‘baiting’ America in his
foolish instigation with Russia. Saakashvili’s Army got decimated and Georgian people
suffered umpteenth times. But those are collateral damages; what is worrisome is it
unveiled security expectations from America in that region.
One would think failure of America in not fulfilling exaggerated expectations of Georgians
would make countries from former Soviet Union to rethink their relations with Russia and
not to depend on unreliable America (‘talk is cheap with these chest thumping
Americans’). But the effect of this war seems to be the opposite – all these former Soviet
Union countries are clinging to NATO and USA at faster rate. Poland signs the missile
deal with USA and Ukraine says it wants to participate in that deal too and is ready to
deny Russians any access to its Black Sea port Sevastopol.
VP Cheney’s office tried all his two terms to convince these former Soviet Union countries
to fall for his jingoistic missile plan; but he did not have much success. But one defeat
with Russia (fortunately without any American causality) and all these countries are
falling in line! VP Cheney would not have imagined such success too.
But alas, what is Cheney’s success is generally America’s loss and it is no different in this
case. Bush Administration never made any public case to Americans what are the
benefits of this proposed missile defense shield in these former Soviet Union countries
and what could be the potential consequences. It for sure rattled Putin’s Russia and set it
on the Stalinist course of foreign policy and here we are effectively on the brink of repeat
of Cold War in 21st century. Russian Generals openly claim that Poland is now on ‘radar’
for Russian missile attacks as well as potentially other European cities. Russia wants to
equip its Kaliningrad fleet in Baltic Sea with nuclear weapons and is actively thinking
about stationing Russian or Russian backed advance forces in Cuba. All this for some
missile shield in Eastern Europe, allegedly to stop Iranian missiles as if there are no
better ways to stop Iran.
This is what we get when Bush ‘sees soul of someone’ – the soul of his former pal
Vladimir Putin. What a judgment and what hubris! It was hilarious to see American
President sweating with exotic Beach Volleyball players at the start of Beijing Olympics
and at the same time frantically trying to work ‘geopolitics’ with the prince from Russia;
what a rat hole he got us into.
The problem is not the foolishness of Bush and his Administration but effectively again
and again American Public and next administration has to stand holding the bag. It
started with Iraq, with Iran there is no progress and with N. Korea Americans are where
Clinton left them while all along the problem of Terrorism is not even half addressed.
Everywhere it is the same pattern – nothing is solved completely, everything is half
finished. Presidents in a mature democracy are expected to leave their country in better
280 security scenario than they start at their terms. Here with George Bush, on every front
America is in a deeper hole than where he started. That is Bush’s legacy.
German Chancellor visits Georgia and backs Saakashvili’s goal of getting into NATO (no,
we do not see any politics where a Christian Democratic Union German leader backs
Christian Caucasian President!). This means it is a matter of time before Georgia and
Ukraine will be in NATO. As per the treaty there is no way America can avoid not being
into the war anytime any of these European nations are attacked by Russia regardless of
whether these European nations on purpose ‘baited’ America or genuinely face Russian
challenge. This means in the next European war theatre, American blood will be spilled
for sure. As these foolish NeoCon policies are pursued, the danger of such armed
clashes has suddenly increased.
Bush’s wise Defense Secretary may say that for more than four decades American
Foreign Policy made all efforts to avoid clashes with Soviet Union; but NeoCon folly is to
negate this valuable lesson. German population is decreasing and Germany is in any
case reluctant to commit any of its forces anywhere else (has anyone heard enthusiastic
participation by Germans in NATO’s Afghan campaign?). This means when actual firing
would start in Eastern Europe; it will be the American GI who will on the front.
McCain, Robert Kagan, Weekly Standard and the whole NeoCon cavalcade will be
simply thrilled to resurrect the Cold War. McCain’s of this world are in the politics only to
relive ‘Churchillian’ life again and again; as many times as possible. For them it is always
‘scrapping all the blood and treasury’ for the next glory. Time and again Conservative
forces can only run up to the vision of ‘Churchill’; nothing more as if the world has not
moved beyond 1940s. Their vision of ‘heroism’ is so anarchic and out of place for today’s
challenges.
But what needs to happen is ‘to expose’ and let Americans know what Bush and his
accolades are ‘underwriting’ in Eastern Europe. American Media failed in Iraq and the
danger is Americans will miss again to know what commitments they are tied too. Having
a sane discussion of whether these commitments make sense for America or not is the
next step; but the first step is to put all these commitments on table so Americans know
what we are getting into. We have incomplete wars in Iraq (at least for next 4 to 5 years)
and Afghanistan (next 8 to 10 years); war on terror is no way concluded and now we are
talking about another draw down on American blood in Eastern Europe.
Fareed Zakaria may very well make an erudite case that the next administration does not
fall into the trap as how Bush Administration set to reverse Clinton Foreign Policies only
to pay higher price in coming the full circle; but here is the case for the next
administration to undertake complete evaluation of what is going on Eastern Europe, to
be realistic about what America can under write, follow ‘hot & cold’ relationship with
Russia and if needed reverse the course Bush has set for us. Everyone knows that it is
the price of Oil which is propelling Russian aggressions. As America invests in alternative
energy and moves away from her oil addiction; America will reduce the dangerous
dependence on hydro-carbons. But even if America reduces its dependence on
hydrocarbons; China and India of the world will continue to depend for long on oil;
consequently Russian spigot of Oil Money will be a long way from drying. Hence,
America and West will need a calibrated policy in dealing with Russia. Bush messed up
that and McCain does not seem to get it. It will be imperative for Obama and Democrats
to offer clearer vision here.
281
Beijing Olympics 2008
Chinese teams were able to achieve their goals more or less. Except for the failure of 110
meter hurdle king Liu Xiang, they did not have any big failures. Most of the performances
were as expected. Sweep in Diving (except for a lone Australian, gay, winner) and Table
Tennis were complete and emphatic.
Americans have to deal with their spectacular failures in Track and Field. At least 3 gold
medals were literally thrown (4 x 100 relay for both men and women and women’s 110
meter hurdle champion Lolo Jones) along with some other failures. In Gymnastics, body
blows were incurred before the start of the tournament when Hamm brothers pulled out.
Alicia Sacramone’s failure cost America their Women’s Team Gold Medal in Gymnastics
too.
However, all of that would not have helped America to catch with China in Gold Medals.
Count for Americans might have improved to 40plus something at the most, but that is it.
But American contingent is always large and certain failures are always built in. For last 3
Olympics USA has got exactly 36 Gold Medals.
(Courtesy fantastic graphics by NYT -
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2008/08/04/sports/olympics/20080804_MEDALCOUN
T_MAP.html)
So one can not argue that Gold Medal performance was bad in Beijing. In fact the total
medal count has been steadily increasing for last 3 summer games – 91, 102 and now
110. Even in Atlanta Olympics of 1996, Americans could only win 101 total medals with
only higher gold count of 44. One can speculate that home team advantage results in
higher Gold Medals and that helped China to make the great haul of 51 Gold Medals. Of
course, no one is undermining what China has achieved here. Any country winning more
than 50 Gold Medals in today’s highly competitive Olympics must be recognized as
singularly dominant Sports Power. Last time it was Soviet Union (just before the break
up) in 1998 Seoul Olympics when it won 55 Gold Medals. Americans were again 36 Gold
and 94 total medals then. However compared to Seoul, Olympics games have become
even more competitive and hence Chinese triumph is remarkable. It will be unlikely any
country could surpass this bar for some time to come including home team except of
course China repeating this feat.
But that may not be so simple going forward. For 2008 Olympics, USOC encouraged
many programs apart from Swimming and Track & Field to set medal goals and some
succeeded too (Fencing comes prominently to the mind). Peter Ueberroth, the outgoing
USOC Chairman, has already indicated that USA will rather have more focus in ‘targeting
medals’ in uncommon events too. With Great Britain’s phenomenal success in this
Olympics (primarily guided by 8 Gold medals in Cycling, 4 in Sailing and 2 in Rowing;
total medal haul of 47); it is clear many countries will try to emulate the Chinese formula.
The countries to watch will be Russia, flush with Oil money it will try to build on their
traditionally strong sports tradition; Germany and Australia, both of which did not have
that much success in Beijing. This means all major sporting countries will be adopting the
Chinese formula for success and hence Chinese mark of 50+ Olympic Gold Medals will
282 be the high water mark for long time to come.
It is possible that the countries will lobby with IOC to count multiple Gold, Silver and
Bronze Medals for team sports. Americans have started to set that tone. Of course it is
beneficial for Americans to argue that because of the spectacular performance of
Americans in Team Games. Here are the numbers:
Games considered are (men and women): Baseball, Basketball, Beach Volleyball, Field
Hockey, Handball, Soccer, Softball, Volleyball and Water polo. Except for Men’s field
Hockey and both Handballs, American teams qualified in all of the 13 team games. China
being the host competed in all of these 16 team games.
There in lines America’s redemption at Beijing Olympics – apart from the pinnacle of
individual performance by Michael Phelps, it is the team games where Americans shined.
These team results and the overall highest medal count (as if to tease China) kind of
makes American performance reasonably at par with China.
There have been many other notable successes at this Olympics like Jamaica,
Afghanistan and even India. In short, more and more countries are winning medals at
Olympics and overall competitiveness is increasing. With that context, it is clear that
success of China and America is remarkable.
Politically, these games delivered for Chinese Communist Party. When you have some
regional Communist Party leaders arguing that ‘you need stranglehold of the Party to get
results’; it is clear that the Party got what it was looking for. Investment of over $40 Billion
Dollars and 6 years of relentless nationwide efforts have paid of for China. Long live the
Communist Party rule!
American Media
Quandary of American Media and credible defense of good journalism by Joe Klein –
http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/09/angry_amateurs.html
Otherwise the ‘silly season’ of American Politics is in full swing. This ‘Palin Freak Show’ is
quite an entertainment but in the end all disgusting and nauseating. We are all waiting for
November 4 to get over this circus.
Elephant in Sara’s Glass House

(This blog first appeared on my Barack Obama blog. Reproducing here.)
May be Americans need to visit India and understand opinions of reasonably literate
voters when those voters come across a politician who is having his or her latest baby
with the difference of few months from his or her newly born grandson or granddaughter.
The difference between Palin’s youngest son and coming baby of her teenage daughter 283
will be few months (8 months in case of Sara Palin).
Yes, Sara Palin is ‘great’ because despite testing his latest baby for ‘down syndrome’ she
signed for the moral duty of tending her child. Yes, Sara Palin is ‘great’ because even
when her teenage daughter is conceiving baby before marriage; Sara signs herself to the
duty of taking care of her daughter and her coming baby. She is ‘carrying this cross’ all
for principles and her sense of moral duty. Absolutely great, that is the true ‘light’ of
morality and may be after Jesus it is Sara only.
The problem with this is that she is ‘not’ running for ‘papacy’ where ‘morality’ and
‘bonding with God’ are the exclusive criteria. Unfortunately she is running for American
Presidency (VP position in specific). George Washington did not fight with the British
Crown to found a theocratic state nor Jefferson took the troubles to establish a state
where government ‘set ups’ her citizenry for high human price when we mortals fails. We
are aware of Sara Palin’s inadequacy of Constitutional understanding (pledge of
allegiance was created by Founding Fathers!); but it will be wise and quite useful for her
to read American Constitution again. Reading Bible again and again can not be a
substitute to read American Constitution.
Question is what do Americans want - the government headed by McCain – Palin would
make their already tough life by demanding further moral purity or Americans want the
government which does not unnecessarily complicate their life by intruding in how they
should conduct their private lives? What is happening with GOP’s infatuation with Sara
Palin is her policy of ‘strident anti-abortion and abstinence only’ is getting imposed on
Americans regardless of consequences to their lives. What government do we want – the
one which imposes ‘high moral bar’, failing of which results in dramatic human costs
because that government refuses to adopt less intrusive policies or the government
which refrains from meddling in people’s private life? As others have pointed, Sara Palin
is all over Terri Schiavo again. Sara Palin’s family is the exhibit A of what happens to your
family if insistence on moral high standards comes at total disregard to possible failings
by ordinary folks. Sara may have the ‘moral fiber or strength’ to bare consequences of
these private choices (as McCain loves to point); but what right American government
has to increase such punishing price for others? Actually it is Sara Palin’s GOP which is
Big Brother – they are forcing morality on people’s life and pursuing a policy which
essentially makes people to pay high price for their failings. Again, American Constitution
is not Bible. It is laughable that with such policies America wants to compete with China
and India in coming century! What travesty!
So contrary to Obama – can we talk about Sara’s family and direction of her ‘family
policy’? If it is going to make my daughter’s life miserable; then it is NOT off limits.
But alas, under the grab of political correctness, cowardliness and narcissism (media
discussing whether media has been fair to Sara); we are unlikely to hear this elephant in
Sara’s glass house. However, may be people’s ballot box would speak. Just a hope.
284
Singh – Bush Nuclear Accord
Finally the president who may not exactly pronounce ‘nuclear’ correctly would preside on
a lasting foreign policy success of Singh Bush Nuclear Accord. The accord is in the final
leg after the approval of NSG – passing by USA Congress. It will be a surprise if it does
not pass the Congress in a month or so.
Hawks on both aisles can have legitimate concerns about the accord and how it would
further dilute Nuclear Non-proliferation regime. These hawks may not have any high
opinion of India’s records so far in terms generally not proliferating dual use technology or
nuclear material outside India. But Congress and these hawks need to understand that
precisely India’s this history, India’s need of energy (whatever energy benefits of this
accord are) and India’s geopolitical challenges in her neighborhood; all make passing of
this accord imperative. It is obvious that geopolitical benefits of passing this accord to
USA are well beyond specifics. First and for most, fundamentally Indians would regard
American leadership on this front in their ‘right books’. As a result, large swath in India’s
political constituency will be favorably disposed towards USA. In coming multi-polar world
with the need to balance Chinese sphere of influence in Asia and world at large; this one
will go as positive to America. Going forward it will be much easier for Indian political
class to understand ‘geopolitical concerns of USA’ in more sensitive manner and
undertake policy positions which sit well with American and global order. This will not be
a mean achievement for USA (all credit to President Bush).
In short, it is far more advantageous for American Congress to pass this accord by
overcoming any lingering concerns. At the end of the day, there is always some risk; but
it is worth undertaking in this case. India has sufficient political depth and maturity to carry
responsibilities in this case and in the end it is win – win for all.
Bible Talk
Gerard Baker, The Times Columnist from London, some time back wrote an article in
‘Bible Talk’ making fun of Obama – how he claims to part oceans and bring peace and
prosperity to America. Baker is well known Conservative, pro Republican in the current
American election cycle. His article was classic from literary point of view and instantly
became the article of faith among GOP folks. As they say in Media world, it set the
‘meme’ for Obama as the ‘savior’ celebrity.
Today we get the reply article by Roger Cohen in NYT.

(http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/11/opinion/11Cohen.html?hp)
There have been occasions, Cohen has set the fire among Liberals for some of his
views. Yours truly has been not a particular fan of him too. But that aside, this article is
rebuttal of what Baker said earlier; graphic description of what Bush has brought to this
land. Solid, worthy rebuttal.
Sad part is what EJ Dionne said in Washington Post - ‘Does the Truth Matter Anymore?’ 285
in contemporary American Politics. The way things are going, it seems none and stage is
getting slowly set for GOP lies to triumph one more time in American politics.
America’s Possible Train Wreck

No, I am not talking about the train wreck in LA which killed 18 or so people. Southern
Californian’s will take right lessons out of that – how to get back quickly into their SUVs
(that is called ‘flight to safety’) now that gas prices are coming from stratosphere to near
ground.
The train wreck I want to talk about is the new driver in McCain’s Straight Talk Express –
one named Sarah Palin. It is really not about her lack of knowledge about Bush Doctrine
as exposed during the interviews with Charlie Gibson on ABC. But when asked in the
same interview what did she think of Russia’s foreign policy in recent weeks; her answers
were beyond acceptable naivety in foreign affairs. Palin said, Russia is her next door
neighbor and implied ‘hence she understands how they conduct their foreign affairs’. First
of all, this is laughably insane and irresponsible depiction of her geopolitical
understanding of Russia. You may very well be able to ‘see’ Czar’s land from Alaska; but
it is barren and hardly anyone lives there. Proximity of Russian border does not bring the
experience of ‘dealing with substantial body of Russian population and leaders’ to
Alaskan people. It is not as if Austria is bordering with Hungarian population centers in
Europe and hence those Austrians know how ‘Hungarians’ think. Russia’s political center
– Moscow – is continent apart from Alaska–Russia border; the center which essentially
makes the consequential geopolitical decisions. Cultural understanding of population of
Moscow may be accessible to other centers like Kiev or Riga or Minsk. But there is no
way one is going to understand how Vladimir Putin thinks just because Alaska is
bordering with some remote corner of Russia. Charlie Gibson kept on asking Sarah what
‘geopolitical insight’ such border proximity gives her into the Russian conduct. Sarah
could not answer anything.
Sarah talks as if she is living in a cul-de-sac and geopolitical considerations are nothing
but issues like over grown plum tree dumping over ripe fruits in you backyard and making
a mess of it. And Americans are expected to give the nuclear codes in Sarah’s hands!
The problem with base GOP voters is they are forgetting that Sarah may be proud and
competent mother of five. But that has nothing to do with the basic competence required
to handle duties of VP position. Just as a successful political career does not make you
qualified in raising families reverse is true too. Ask Bill Clinton who missed few steps or
try talking family life with Condoleezza Rice who fortunately is wise and humble not to
trade into those spheres. Such is the political irresponsibility GOP folks are showing that
they are insisting Sarah to become VP just because she raised five children.
Actually it is beyond that. A co-worker shared a joke with us: A man wakes up in the
morning in his clean and pitch perfect bedroom with a glass of water and aspirin tablets
on the table. A note written by his wife on the table said – ‘Honey, breakfast is ready and I
am out to get groceries; will be back soon.’ Indeed the man finds his breakfast ready and
then he asks his son who is eating breakfast – ‘Son what happened yesterday night?’ His
286 son says ‘You came late night, completely drunk and made raucous in the house. Mother
took you to the bedroom and she started to undress you. You said - Lady, leave me
alone; I am a married man.’ Priceless.
What is terrible with the joke is first it assumes that ladies are dumb enough to believe
words of a rascal who misbehaves so much. But the joke is revealing because – GOP is
like the man in the joke and American voters are like that wife!
Sometime back Peggy Noonan raised hailstorm when she labeled GOP as ‘battered wife
syndrome’ at the hands of President Bush. But really it is GOP which is ‘abusing’ America
and American voters election after election are electing presidents and vice presidents
which are really there to destroy America. Who in the world would think that Sarah Palins
of the world are competent and qualified to be Vice Presidents of USA? Then, what honor
did McCain see in nominating her? Heck of a job, Senator McCain! Is this the way
McCain’s GOP wants to serve ‘country first’? It is all a farce as if there is a competition
among GOP power brokers to get ‘dumb’ and ‘dumber’ in offices.
Yup, not just America but potentially the world will be paying quite a heavy price for such
disastrous politicians in White House. We have seen that in last eight years. It is a train
wreck. America’s enemies do not have to do anything – America is fast at that job. These
are sad and tragic developments.
American Bailout – Unanswered Questions

As Hank Paulson makes the case that ‘tax payer dollars have to be at works’ in
Resolution Trust manner circa 1988; there are still few questions unanswered for an
a v e r a g e A m e r i c a n .
(http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/09/secretary_of_treasury_henry.html)
1. The initial number put in by Politico for the bailout size is around One Trillion. When it
comes to losses and expenses, America’s rulers use a new measure – trillions. Whether
it is Iraq war cost over the years or total of all bailouts in 2008; Bush Administration wants
to talk only in terms of Trillions of dollars. Unfortunately, for common folks we can not
even find a billion here and there as a help from this government. Well, that is GOP
philosophy in any case. So the first question is - how in the world proposed or existing
Bush Tax Cuts are possible when Fed needs all these Trillions? With what ‘straight face’
Obama and McCain claim that both of them would continue tax cuts during this calamity?
2. The only way any of these tax cuts, full or partial, can be sustained is by increasing
Fed Deficit; bring back that ‘Al Prints-a-Lot Greenspan’ to run those extra shifts in Ben’s
Dollar Printing Press. So the second question Washington needs to explain is ‘why
deficits don’t matter’? When I try to balance my monthly expenses and income; deficits
matter to me. For long, Cheney’s of this world have maintained that deficits don’t matter.
Ben and Greenspan have argued over the years that in global markets these deficits
don’t matter. After what has happened in the last week, do we expect common voters to
‘believe’ any of these gospels? Do we assume that rest of the world will continue
financing our deficits always as they have been doing for last 2 decades? So we need the
answer from Washington; no more taking on ride for voters. Any one of these wise men/
women is fine to answer this question – Ben, Paulson, Cox, Bush, Harry Reid, Nancy 287
Pelosi, Obama, McCain or any other person worth his or her salt.
3. Third, we all know when average, poor, tax payers money is all going to be used to bail
out ‘house of cards’ created by the Wall Street; how in the world Americans would allow
‘$17K per hour’ compensation like Lehman Brother’s CEO in this world? Where is
America’s shame? Or are we still talking free market, private enterprise, business of
private company boards to set compensation? If Wall Street and America’s Businesses
do not adopt ‘hard’ compensation guides immediately; why Congress is hesitating in this
manner? Is it too late here? How about, until all the RTC type bailouts are working their
ways over the next decade or so; America’s CEOs come forward and say that they will
stick to moderate compensation?
4. Finally, while in dosing the fire of Wall Street House of Cards Trillions are poured; are
we going to get any ‘nickel and dime’ for we commoners who still have to struggle for
increased gas prices, expensive health care costs and decreasing employment
opportunities? Or are we a different, lower ‘class’?
Why shouldn’t ‘have-nots’ of America start understanding this whole farce as nothing but
‘class struggle’? Does that wake up those who are sleeping in the Capital of Free World
and Mecca of Capitalism? Because America’s ruling class is resembling more and more
like those Monarchies from past – let us take America on brink as like Iraq war or Wall
Street fiasco; spend Trillions of tax payers money to come back from the brink and then
claim credit for ‘how I saved’ you. Washington sucks; it is brutal not only for folks outside
USA but to its own citizens too.
Sounds Familiar?
Hank Paulson making rounds of Sunday TV Talk shows to sale his rescue plan on behalf
of Bush Administration while Law makers - both Dem and GOP - not showing any spine;
does it sound familiar? It reminds one how years back Rumsfeld, Rice and the Gang
made rounds of TV talk shows to sale ‘Saddam’s mushroom clouds’ before embarking on
the Iraq war. We all know what happened then. Most law makers failed the test of
leadership then and things do not seem encouraging now. Looks like these guys and gals
will give that ‘blank check’ to Hank Paulson.
How much arrogance Hank Paulson show when he demands ‘clean bill’ from Congress?
Why? Is it not responsibility of Congress to cater to needs of common folks when trillions
are given to banks? For God’s sake, these law makers are elected representatives
whereas Paulson is there to ‘carry waters’ for Bush; howsoever brilliant he may be.
Here is the thing: Paul Krugman was one of the few folks who called the bluff in regards
to Iraq war and he is sounding alarmists about the proposed bail out.
(http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/ ) Why is Congress not asking Paul Krugman to
negotiate the deal with Paulson’s Treasury Department? He has been co-worker to Ben
Bernanke; not so stranger. So the criteria should be ‘no deal’ until Krugman’s doubts are
answered.
There are two more folks / critics who need to be on-board in this respect – one is Prof.
288 Robert Shiller who is Economics professor at Yale (the Shiller Home Index fame, the S&P
index about home prices, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Shiller ). He has been one of
few folks who were able to call ‘the top’ and impeding down turn in home prices correctly.
Finally, the last one is Prof. Nouriel Roubini (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nouriel_Roubini ,

http://www.rgemonitor.com/ ), the godfather of modern day doomsday prognostic. He has
been pounding the table for coming Armageddon ever since ridiculing him was the
stepping stone to any serious economic punditry. But alas, it seems he is turning out to
be more correct than many other guys who were too flamboyant and politically correct.
As they say, more things look different, they remain same. America is simply circling
wagons here.
America at Nadir
Every country faces such points in its life from time to time. In 1989 with Tiananmen
Square Massacre raging, China saw a lowest point in her recent history. The short lived
ugly coupe by remnants of former Soviet Communist Party in 1991 saw Russia’s nadir
before Boris Yeltsin heroically founded the new republic. For Indians, 1984 when Indira
Gandhi was killed or in 1992 when assault on Babri Masjid happened; those were the
darkest periods.
With fracas of Bush’s White House meeting to avert an already embarrassing situation of
belly up Wall Street in full public view; America has reached her ‘nadir’ in recent times.
Whichever way one cuts it, this was very bad week for America. Paul Krugman aptly
described, as the original Congressional bailout plan fizzled, America has become the
‘banana republic with nukes’. Damning indictment.
It is not just Paul Krugman’s of the world of who describe America’s descend into hell. If
one hears or read Nauriel Roubini; that is not a surprise. In normal times, utterances of
Iranian President Ahmadinejad against America will be wore as ‘badge of honor’; but
during this week when he declared America’s demise atop UN General Assembly; it
sounded like ‘even he would kick the can of America’. Meanwhile Europeans are getting
it too – German Finance Minister claiming in parliament that 2008 would be regarded as
the year when America lost its financial super power status. Granted, the finance minister
is from Social Democratic Party; the party who puts the Russian hack Gerhard Schroder
as its supreme leader in past. But still it is hard to ignore the sense of demise of an era
when Wall Street Investment Bank sharks roamed the oceans of money and dominated
the world finance.
We have Niall Fergusson promptly arguing in Washington Post that Pax American may
be over. We have EJ Dionne arguing in Washington Post how the American Capital has
looks of a ‘war time capital’; unfortunately not necessarily the winning side. He has been
the only journalist pointing to the possibility of why Congress is in total fearful mood – the
fear of China pulling the rug under America’s financial edifice using the leverage of
Trillion Dollar trade surplus it has acquired over years. The immediate provocateur was
Chinese directive to Chinese banks to stop lending money to American Banks. America
is on the borrowed time in that world view and hence the scrambling of Congress to give
the blank check of $700 Billion to Treasury with the hope, possibly a vain hope, to battle
out these foreign financial challenges while mopping up ‘subprimes’ at home. 289
The classic sign of a state’s fall is when her top leaders engage in fratricidal politics.
There is no other way than to describe the stupidity and brazenness of America’s leading
Senator (John McCain) in sabotaging the bailout deal – the deal which is expected to
save the last vestige of America’s financial façade. Granted, rank and file Congress
members were not on the board (and still not); but the failure of Congressional GOP
Leadership, ‘my presidential campaign first’ attitude of McCain and blatant manifestation
of America’s President as the sitting lame duck unable to control a simple meeting; it all
resembles the beginning of decline of an empire. All shameful and disgrace.
The question is where does America go from here? Like UK in stabilizing her ‘reduced
status’ in world affairs or once again redeems herself from the brink of irrelevance it has
brought herself or yet another tragic possibility where it compounds her problems, a la
Bush Iraq war style? North Korea is on the verge of getting nukes as well as Iran. Wall
Street has crumbled and bridges on America’s highway are crashing too. Tsunami of
Federal deficit with the possibility of worthless Dollar is on way. There does not seem to
be any end in sight for Iraq and Afghan wars. And meanwhile the Rovian divide of ‘Blue
and Red America’ continues apace. There is no more ‘morning in America’ left.
Global Money – Road Ahead

With Europeans not particularly on the same page as far as a united response to
European Financial Bailout, the treacherous road ahead is becoming more apparent.
Here are some signs about how hard the road of recovery will be:
- Even though finally American Congress and Administration moved to pour $700 Billion
to shore up finances of banks in USA (American or foreign; both included); there is
already a talk about how either this may not be sufficient or will still not stop the looming
severe recession.
- As ‘decoupling’ theory quietly recedes in background; other financial centers like Dubai,
Shanghai, Hong Kong, Moscow; all are under pressure. Europeans are already in bailout
mode and are aware that more money will have to be sunk in mopping up the mess on
the old continent.
- Since American consumer would not have any more juice available in her ATM (home
equity loan financed via CDOs bought by rest of the world), export to America will slow;
slowing China and rest of the export based economies. This means, at least for 2009
slow global economic growth is unavoidable making any recovery that much difficult.
But in any case these are simply short term challenges. Long term, some of the
challenges are:
- How do you regulate around 60 Trillion dollars of credit swap trades so that it does not
pose a threat to global financial stability?
- Since CDO route of financing mortgages will be less available in future, how soon
governments will bring Shiller fame ‘continuous mortgages’ in the market as banks start
to retain these loans on their books?
290 - Rating agencies share a fundamental blame for this fiasco since these agencies blithely
rated CDOs. How will more transparency, accountability and competition be brought to
‘rating’ business?
- Can dollar continue it’s ‘reserve currency status’? If not, what is the alternative?
- Finally, as the noted currency trader Mark Chandeller points in RealMoney.com; can we
start stipulating that ‘financial recession’ will be as recurring a phenomenon as ‘business
recession’? Modern financial structures have been evolving to address the later type of
recession (Fed fights inflation primarily but lubricates the economy by lower interest rates
in times of business led recession). But global money system does not have any
mechanisms to address ‘bank runs / financial meltdowns’ in any systematic manner. Any
solutions there? Permanent ‘bailout corpus’ contributed by all nations? Equivalent of
FDIC at global level? What can be that solution?
Politics of this will get started slowly in respective countries. For USA, within a month it
will be clear what kind of ‘mandate’ is available to address these challenges. As elections
take place in other countries, things will be clearer too. (China is the exception.) The
question is about ‘beyond politics’ what are the measures to get out of this mess and will
there be necessary international co-operation to undertake these complex tasks.
Singh Bush Nuclear Accord - Now Proud Legacy

With President Bush signing the bill passed by the Congress, the accord has finally
become a law. As Senator John Kerry noted in his Op-Ed in Wall Street Journal, this is a
big step forward for long term and strong Indo-USA relations.
How will we overcome 1800 points drop?

Saturday, October 11, 2008
(Dow Jones Industrial Index dropped 1800 points during this week – its worst ever –
along with most markets all around the world. It is truly a global shock triggered by Wall
Street. Financial fear is unprecedented and like most folks, my friends expressed the
anxiety too. During an email exchange about this calamity some questions were raised –
is it just one more disaster perpetuated by Bush Administration and will Indian economy
be insulated? Below is my response to these questions.)
Blaming Bush is easy, that does not make our 401K any better. Culpability of Democrats
is not zero too. However, mainly it is a disaster brought by the 'ideological blindness' - the
market theocracy of Neo-Conservatives; market is always right and 'starve the beast
called Government' by cutting taxes so that it will not have wherewithal to intervene in
Market. Obama is unlikely to be able to solve these problems well, at least in short term.
It is only that McCain has potential to continue the same 'market theocracy' or create
more mess. (So guys vote Obama!). Now that the politics of this crisis is behind; let us
have a look at these problems as adults.
First two quick reactions:
1. No, I do not believe India (and even China for that matter) is in better shape. There are
at least 2 reasons for that. The first is books of banks in these countries are not that 291
transparent so it is more of an issue what they are hiding. Already ICICI is blaming why
only they are signaled out. Remember the earlier 'loan waver' by Congress government
of the tune of $16 Billion (quite a big number for India) for farmers. Even though the
Central Gov. is expected to reimburse banks for that, it is hard to believe that process will
work through well. For example, most Co-operative banks in Maharashtra are totally
bogus (the infamous 'topiwale' sugar factory politics). Point is I am very skeptical that
bank books are good. In China, in last few years obscene amount of lending has
happened - to construction projects, steel mill, car factories and so on. Can you think of
hundreds of Car companies surviving in any economy at any given time? That is the
lending reality in China. That is the second issue - equally indiscriminate lending in those
countries.
Sure, it is not politically correct to say that Western Banks are bit more transparent than
rest of the world; but unfortunately that is the reality. Most countries in the world are
hiding this problem. Can you imagine Russian Bank books are any transparent?
Question is will those countries open those problems or will be able to ride out problems
due to high intervention of their governments. To the extent banking system of those
countries is linked to Western Banks; those problems will come in open and that may not
be necessarily a pretty picture even if it will be a partial view only.
2. Economically, finally the 'de-coupling' theory is debunked. Many in America (especially

the pervert Conservatives) take the pleasure in validation of saying that 'when America
sneezes, rest of the world catches the cold'. Asian economies are fundamentally
dependent on American and European market for their export and that captive market for
sure has dried. Hence precipitous drop in Asian markets. Unlike die hard Conservative, I
am not that sanguine about 'agenda setting' power of Western Economies. Because this
means to ignore the dependency on debt financing in American made possible by Asia.
As a consequence, there will be no more CDOs financed by Japan, China and S. Korea
etc.; meaning the ATM of 'home equity' has stopped working for Joe-Six-Pack on Main
street. But as mentioned earlier, Asian Main street will be also coming down because of
all this.
In short, it is all global and very, very unlikely that any country will be left without any
impact.
What does it mean in medium to long term?
At first, I also got the reaction that this is 'end of the world'. But as I think more of it, here
is where I am:
- Still it is bit of 'financial issue' rather than complete reflection on real economy. As one
currency expert pointed out (Mark Chandler on RealMoney.com); it is 'financial recession'
rather than 'business recession'. In business recession, first it is the excess supply and
then drop in demand. Here, it is drop in finance which otherwise would have supported
the real demand. Housing prices would not have collapsed so much when there are so
many genuine buyers with real needs if only normal mortgages were available in regular
ways.
- But Real Economy will not be that far. It will or already started to get impacted. The
saving grace is there is a time lag between Financial Market and Real Economy and that
is the window for policy makers to make the eventual impact less severe i.e. to make it
into a recession instead of depression.
- So then the question is - are 'policy makers' awake? Until Hank Paulson was saying
292
Economy is fine (and McCain babbling 'fundamentals of economy are strong'); these
policy makers were at sleep. Now they have woken up. Congress eventually passed
$700 Billion bill and many more measures are taken. Even Paulson has started to talk
about 'equity in banks' rather than simply buying toxic loans at premium. Britain and
Gordon Brown are showing true leadership here. May be being Chancellor of Exchequer
for a decade has helped British PM to understand the true nature of the crisis here.
Besides, Britain is aware how perilously they are dependent on saving Banking Industry
in London since that being the only competitive ticket left for Britain in today’s world.
Further, Gordon Brown has a unique chance to blunt the political challenge of the young
rookie called David Cameron in their coming electoral battle. And on and on; I digressed
from the main point - British recovery and bailout plans are superior.
- Assuming policy makers continue on this path of surgery and the new Administration in
White House does not screw it up further; America and rest of the world can avoid the
'depression' - 25% of unemployment. Recession - that is for sure.
- Beyond that, we all know it is the end of 'gilded age' of Post-Modern High Finance when
six Investment Bankers from Wall Street roamed around the globe as White Knights.
There will be more regulations (for example 60 Trillion market of Credit Swaps, the
insurance of credits to each other); banks will start keeping loans on their books and
S&P, Moody and Fitch of the world getting more regulated and have more competition to
their rating business.
- It is fairly clear that American Supremacy of Financial World will go away. Rest of the
world will not take American word at face value. Meaning, political ground work is created
for the world to start working on a global structure. So far Trade and Global Warming
were the only two issues which propelled more global co-operation; but now wide spread
realization of need to strengthen global financial security will also make countries to come
together more.
We will see how it develops. Interesting times indeed.
Paul Krugman
The respected Prof. I refer regularly in my blogs - Paul Krugman - won the Nobel Prize in
Economics! (Larry Summers is still waiting…)
Krugman is having tremendous influence on American intelligentsia in times of Obama

ascendancy. Apart from his Economics work, his historically important duty has been
taking all the 'brick brats' for opposing Iraq war from the start. He defines what is
'intellectual' in today’s' times - not the person who puts finger in the 'air' and decide what
is his intellectual opinion depending upon which way wind blows. When the whole
America was cowed by Bush's stratospherically approval rating after initial good news in
War on Terror; he was one of the few people to call the bluff of ensuing Iraq war and
Mushroom Cloud. He continued his strident criticism of 'Conservatism gone wild' all along
when there were no petals for such pariahs. His analysis of folly of Republican Health
Care Policy has been incisive and unmatched. Beyond all the wisdom, he is solid
communicator and excellent blogger. He started to write for NYT after 911 and has taken
no-nonsensical policy positions all along.
In the current 'bailout' efforts I said on my blog that Congress should accept Bush 293
Administration Bailout proposals until Krugman, Shiller (Yale Econ. Prof.) and Roubini
('Doctor Doom' of Fortune magazine and Econ. Prof. in New York) concur and promptly
ensured that Congressional Representatives and Senate offices get this opinion. Many
other folks lobbied with their elected representatives and Krugman started to play the
subtle role in shaping the Congressional response. Eventually, he contributed his bit in
'goading' Bush Administration again from the road of 'ideological lunacy'.
As usual there are political reasons why Krugman is the choice now. I am not
undermining his intellectual capacity, nor achievements. I am sure that he is worthy of the
prize and of course I am not the one who has any qualifications to judge this. But as
usual Nobel Prize committee ensures that there is 'bang for money' in awarding these
prizes. In this case with potential of Obama Administration reality which can be quite 'anti-
trade'; committee wants to ensure that 'pro-trade' message is not lost. Who better than
one of the Left side impeccable intellectual? Next, it makes sense to give weight-age to
the guy who is talking sense in the 'current bailout' business since it is still unfolding. By
giving prominence, Krugman's achievement of 'standing pat' about Iraq war stands good
too. All in all quite a smart choice by the committee.
So we look forward for equally distinguished work from Krugman in years to come and
above all his 'judgment'; indeed that is the shining light in the 'fog of thought' where so
many of us get lost.
And now look forward for the possibility of Krugman to serve as Treasury Secretary in
Obama Administration if Obama wins the election.
Corrupt Politicians
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
They all same. Just read a fantastic report filled by WaPo’s indomitable reporter Dana
Millbank about Alaska Senator Ted Stevens (R.). All hubris that senile man. How pathetic
and we are supposed to call these as leaders of free world. These corrupt politicians,
they are all same over the world; whether it is America or Japan or India. Democracies
will always have to deal with this locust from time to time.
Charles Krauthammer – A Senior Fool

Naturally Charles Krauthammer is not a fool because he does not want to vote Barack
Obama. Hey, this is Democracy and everyone has to respect political choices of
everyone else.
Charles is ‘fool’ because he is stupid enough not to ask straight forward simple,
commonsensical questions and give sensible answers to those questions. He
conveniently forgets why lots of Americans are reluctant to vote for John McCain:
- first of all, why is Regonomics, the traditional laissez-faire policy of Conservatism, not
responsible for the financial mess America is in and has brought in rest of the world too?
294 - next, how Hoover like policies of John McCain are of any use to address this mess?
- And finally if John McCain has taken pains to articulate an economic policy antidote for
the current economic crisis, then what is that? Remember John McCain is self admitted
person to not know much about Economics.
It is height of ‘tone deafness’ to write the column what Charles has written on a day when
‘Sir Prints-a-lot Greenspan’ puts forward his mea culpa. Indeed this gang of ‘old white
alpha males’ – starting with John McCain himself, followed by Charles Krauthammer, Bill
Kristol and Victor Hansen – is pretty useless for America. McCain – American will soon
decide whether he becomes the President or not. But for rest of the gang, they will still
have their jobs to continue punditry. And that is where the rub is – in Obama
Administration (if he gets elected) such a low level of criticism and shallow political
analysis will not serve American people. Just because Washington Post is gracious
enough to pay Charles to write such crap does not mean such useless columns would
serve American people. Lack of ‘good criticism’ is the starting point of failed democracy
and America has enough of such failed democracy in last eight years.
American needs good critics. Old hat Krauthammer is not one of them, regardless of
whom he votes.
Need for a strong GOP

With the ‘rally cry’ of Progressives in Newsweek and an excellent essay in his Daily Kos
diary; Kos is on roll. In his essay he talks about how GOP will resurrect itself in coming
days and who will be the personalities to watch. May be West Coast Progressive’s think
similarly; but when Kos talked about Mike Huckabee in his essay, he exactly crystallized
what so many of these West Coast Progressives have been mulling.
See, we all know how Democrats at State level have screwed up California. When prison
guards make $150k+ annually, when shipping clerks at Newport Beach makes $130K+
annually and when Police unions have insolence to keep on asking more money in times
of great destitute in State of California (proposition on ballot to ask more than $900
millions for additional cops); we know that we are in a deep hole. Gray Davis deserved
the boot from Arnold, but California is still not free from the excesses of Democrats at
State level. There are many states like California in the union. Not for nothing in the end
Tomothy Egan writes in NYT that how a strong GOP would help reduce the stranglehold
of Dems in Seattle.
There is another reason why we need strong Conservative force to check Progressives.
Tom Friedman in his latest NYT column provokes his readers to imagine difficulties faced
by a hypothetical Silicon Valley Bank when it has to justify a bank loan to a risky startup
in front of a Congressional Committee lorded by Barney Franks of the world. Friedman
rightly wondered how ‘socialism’ of recent bailout and instincts of Democrats in coming
days to adopt ‘Big government’ will make America not to take entrepreneurial risks in
coming years. That for sure will be the real danger along with Protectionist agenda of so
many Dems.
Big Government policies create conducive environment to cultivate Labor Militancy. One
just has to look at the Boeing Strike by Union folks there. Boeing is the only
manufacturing part of American Economy which is really working, their order book is full 295
and in general Boeing is on the right trajectory compared to tail spins of Automobile
industry. The workers at Boeing are for sure paid well. In this economy having a job is
great in itself! And yet those workers have entered into 48th day of the strike. In process
what has happened is workers at Boeing Suppliers have lost the job as Boeing stopped
deliveries from it’s suppliers! Yes, this is that classic ‘labor cannibalism’ at work; the
movie we have seen so many times in past. Just for few incremental demands at Boeing,
workers over there have pushed other marginal workers over the cliff.
We know that this is how devastatingly Labor Militancy works and this is how ‘socialism
gone wild’ looks like. Exactly that is the responsibility of Obama and Progressive
Politicians of today’s era:
- to categorically say that they would not pander labor; and
- would not meddle with labor and companies to stifle entrepreneurship and growth.
Well, never mind; to expect Obama to talk this on the stump and Congressional Dems to
come forward to be prudent on this front is to expect Bush and Cheney to say publicly
that they were wrong about Iraq war. That is not going to happen.
Solution is to have strong, coherent GOP to do this job; the GOP which is not beholden to
lunacy of Kristols and Neo-cons. That is what Kos talks in his essay.
However, this does not mean to vote for McCain. The only thing in America’s interest that
can happen is to defeat McCain because he has failed to (and has never been interested
in) articulating how to address problems of today’s broken economy and conduct foreign
relations without resorting to shenanigans of Bush. His campaign has been like Hillary in
early days – these Washington honcho’s are entitled for White House. In case of McCain,
that is because he is ‘mavericks’. What a baloney. As Krugman says in his NYT column,
he has never been serious in this campaign.
Best is GOP of McCain is defeated. What we need is a coherent GOP of post-Bush, post-
McCain era.
Job of a Politician
The problem with contemporary GOP is its blind following of Regan. Regan cut taxes and
hence it must be good to cut taxes no matter what. Regan ‘deregulated’ industries and
hence deregulation must be good no matter what. Regan sought to reduce government
intervention in public life; it must be good no matter what.
Regan was right for the context in which he became the President. When he started his
term, the excess of intrusive, overly regulated, high taxation policy had crossed limits
what Americans could take and his job was to bring that pendulum back.
Today, America needs a President who understands that ultra Right policies have been
ruling America far too long for the good of America. Any time we have a President who
has allegiance to an ideology rather than welfare of folks; we have a failed politician on
hand.
296
The job for a politician is to utilize a particular governing policy as a tool to resolve the
core problem on hand – security and welfare of people. Everything else is incidental. A
politician’s job is ‘communicating’ a policy as a means to resolve the current public
problem on hand. The genius of a politician is to define, to demarcate - at times expand
the scope and at other times to contract the scope - what is a public problem. Refusal to
be open minded in caricaturing a public problem and its solution is not being a politician.
There are names for that and those are ‘ideologues’ and ‘fanatics’.
That is what GOP has been. Simply stated, GOP ceased to be a political party.
Classic Narration
If you want to know what a classic political historical narration looks like, you only need to
read Sidney Blumenthal’s article in The Guardian. The tone is impeccable, facts are right
and the flow is very impressive. The biggest thing with this article is - so often it is hard to
come above from the ‘little game changer things’ which all pundits try to chase; but this
article has avoided such cheap temptations. Sidney does not hesitate to look at the big
picture and call a spade as spade.
Granted he is a Democrat and the paper The Guardian is Lefty and facts picked for the
article can be selective. But still the power of excellent narration is clear, text is crisp and
in a short space the whole ethos is well traveled and brilliantly articulated.
The other article is by Adam Nagourney in NYT where he explains the impact of 2008
Presidential Election in terms of advancement of political process machinations and leap
jump in ‘technology and financing’ of presidential campaigning. Again, while most learned
observers are engrossed in ‘trenches of competitive politics’; Adam takes an elevated
view to state and underscore what has just happened. It is a very revealing piece.
Yes, we can!
It is one of the most fulfilling days of my life. I feel happy, lucky and glad to see this
happening.
It reminds me a beautiful, bright Tuesday morning early this spring; way back when
Hillary was the force to reckon with; before the primary results. Our old lion - Ted
Kennedy - came out that day and cast his lot with Barack. Victory was far long then. The
limelight in that endorsement was still not with the man Barack. It was with the old guy -
Ted Kennedy. Why I remember it is because Ted has been the living, classic symbol of
American Liberalism; the one battered and hammered by Bush & Rove company all
these years. When Ted endorsed Obama; we dreamy eyed, perennial losers thought
“yes, we can have some safe hands” to which the torch of American Liberalism can be
passed.
Today Barack Obama fulfilled his promise and potential. 297

Now on to the hard part – listening to those who harbor suspicion about liberalism and
making honest efforts to work with them.
298
299
Non-customer created content (c) SharedBook and its licensors.
0100505879 SharedBook and Connect and Remember are trademarks of
SharedBook Ltd. in the US and/or other countries. All rights
reserved by their respective parties. Patents pending for the
SharedBook technology. NOT FOR RESALE. For personal, non-
commercial use only. LIABILITY LIMITED TO COST OF PRODUCT.
og blog blog blog blogBlog
Blog Blog
blog Blog
blog blo
blog blog
BLOG
blog
BLOG
blog
blogblog
BLOG
Blog
blog
Blog
BLOG
blogBLOG

21st Century Politics

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

21st Century Politics

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

21st Century Politics

Challenge for BJP

American Sovereignty and Globalization

The more contentious domain of internationalism is participation in Global Economy. the

Umesh Patil, San Jose, California

The Long War of the 21st Century

August 29, 2004.

Globalization and Outsourcing

As a consequence of this new phenomenon of absence of job creations in response to

America's Blind Spot: Pakistan

December 21, 2004.

Book Review: State Of Fear by Michael Crichton,

Response: NYT Editorial "Are We Stingy? Yes"

Second Term Inauguration Speech by President

Certain specific policies, if followed by this administration, would make everyone to

N. Korean Problem and Bush Administration

Folly of Comparative Analysis

F-16 Fighter Planes to Pakistan

Umesh Patil San Jose, CA March 30, 2005.

How pleasing to read this article.

Umesh Patil April 19, 2005

Umesh Patil May 7, 2005

Feedback: 'Banglore: Hot and Hotter' by Tom

• I do not think it is the question of visit by an American President or Vice President to

Hard To Believe Mr. Advani

America’s Iraq War in June 2005

London Attacks and War on Terrorism

The point is reformation is a high road, mainly to be pursued by society or community

Time To Give Up Nuclear Orthodoxy

Given all these positive consequences of such co-operation, many in Indo-American

Mr. Osama Saeed, you are not helping

Umesh Patil San Jose, CA July 28, 2005.

Posted by Umesh Patil at 01:22AM (-07:00)

Dr. Singh, we have a dream…

Opinionated Democracy Watch - August 2005

Posted by Umesh Patil at 11:14AM (-07:00)

Inability to solve Oil Problem

**Some Numbers to think:

- USA crude oil daily consumption ..............~ 20 Million barrels

- At $10 per barrel, the cost is .....................$200 Million per day

- High price with minimal impact ................$30 to $35 per barrel

- Average “acceptable” national cost ............$225 to $262 Billion per year

- New “Bush Oil” Tax ...................................$250 Billion per year

- America’s new contribution .......................$100 Billion per year

Posted by Umesh Patil at 10:08PM (-07:00)

Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme – Yet

Katrina Relief Work – Actors on Stage

2. New Orleans Mayor Nagin

5. Army Engineering Corps

6. Oil, Dollar and Economy

8. Rest of the world

Tragedy Katrina Brought

Posted by Umesh Patil at 06:57AM (-07:00)

So performance in a particular instance should not be immediately extrapolated to

Posted by Umesh Patil at 08:38PM (-07:00)

End of Bush Era?

India Falls in the Line

When Tom Friedman is wrong

The sword of Damocles – Job Reservation in

Posted by Umesh Patil at 10:32PM (-07:00)

Parochial Politics of Banglore

Big Oil, Fat Profits and Politicians

Feedback: Prejudice Beyond Borders